Medicine, as we know it, is dying/Sponsors 'manipulate' scientists

[Guest guest]

" Zeus " <info

 

 

 

Medicine, as we know it, is dying/Sponsors 'manipulate'

scientists

 

 

Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:30:20 +0100

 

 

 

 

Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It's entering a terminal phase

 

 

Nicholas Regush

 

 

THE DEATH OF MEDICINE

 

No Cure, No Vaccine, No Treatment

 

By Nicholas Regush (1946- 2004)

 

 

There is no way to be nice about this. There is no point in raising

false hopes. There is no treatment or vaccine in sight. There is no

miracle breakthrough on the horizon.

 

Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It is entering a terminal phase.

 

What began as an acute illness reached the chronic stage about a

decade ago and progression towards death has been remarkably swift and

well beyond anything one could have predicted.

 

The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed

for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating,

invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug

industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators - all

seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odor.

 

As a journalist, it has become very plain to see how little anything

the medical Establishment does these days can be trusted or taken at

face value. Press conferences, journal articles, symposia - all are

geared to spike and obfuscate the truth, to hide red flags from the

public and to bulk up the shares of investors in the companies that

are promoting the science and the researchers.

 

Like a disease that festers to the point of no return, medicine has

reached that line and stepped over it.

 

Item: A well-known expert in prescription drugs tells me that it is no

longer possible for him to fight the system. His wife has made it

clear to him that she is losing out on the good times and wealth that

" all the other wives " are enjoying. So he has thrown in the towel and

now expects to get the perks that all the other guys are getting: free

trips to conferences, invitations to give speeches at luncheons,

research funding without having to beg for it, and so on. He is sad

about this - but hey what can you do?

 

Item: Dr. David Healy, a well-known Welsh expert in psychiatric drugs

is approached by an agency representing an antidepressant

manufacturer. He is invited to speak at a symposium. The deal is that

he will write a paper for a supplement based on his talk. The agency

tells him that their ghostwriters will actually produce the paper,

based on his previous work. He says no. He writes his own paper but

the agency also wants the ghostwritten paper to appear in the

supplement because it had some " commercially important points. " The

agency finds another " expert " who will lend his name to its " paper. "

 

Item: There is more noise being made these days about who pays for

research published in journals. But what about research published in

books? And who actually reviews these " books? "

 

Do we have any idea of how many medical books are actually financed by

industry? No, we don't because most people don't tell who their

backers are. This has been a non-issue.

 

Item: Whose agendas are fueling medical research? A case in point:

Should Cancer researcher John Mendelsohn, who is president of the

University of Texas MD Anderson Center in Houston, sit on the

corporate board of ImClone? This is a biotech company that has been

developing a new anticancer drug. Forget for a moment that ImClone is

being investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Did

the company mislead investors about the cancer drug?) Does it make

make any sense for John Mendelsohn to have ties to ImClone? Can we

trust that MD Anderson is looking out for its patients first?

 

Item: A scientist with ties to research at the National Cancer

Institute managed to convince an editor of an obscure cancer journal

to publish a paper that had been previously rejected. The journal's

editor, a buddy, had also been involved in the research that was

featured in the paper.

 

You're right. This is all very depressing. It goes on and on. Any

enterprising reporter could put a list together of thousands of

examples like these of how both the giants and the pipsqueaks of

modern medicine have sold out and can no longer be trusted.

 

I feel bad for the physicians who do care about their patients- and

yes, there are still many of those around. Day in and day out, they

turn up at their community or hospital offices and meet with people

who need help. And they mend wounds and take the time to do careful

histories. They usually are not the type who go to big conferences and

give speeches.

 

The problem, unfortunately, is that the foot soldiers rely on the

information from the monster pack that has ripped away the heart of

medicine and now they will also watch it die, as they have known it.

_____________

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4379457.stm

 

Sponsors 'manipulate' scientists

 

By Melissa Jackson

BBC News education reporter

 

Women are under greatest pressure

 

One in 10 research scientists is under pressure to tailor findings to

suit the work's sponsor, a survey suggests.

 

Women are more likely to be targeted than men, according to the poll

of 358 scientists carried out by two unions.

 

Unions say the findings were " extremely worrying " and called for

research to be properly financed, and for an end to fixed-term

contracts for scientists.

 

The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, is drawing up

guidelines to combat the problem.

 

More than 10% of scientists have been asked by their commercial backer

to tailor their research conclusions to meet the sponsor's

requirements, according to the survey of university and government

laboratories.

 

Research, carried out jointly by the Association of University

Teachers (AUT) and the public service union Prospect, found that women

were under even greater pressure.

 

However, most (84.5%) of the 358 respondents (58% male and 38% female)

said they had never been asked by a sponsor to skew their research.

 

A total of 7.9% of those who took part in the online poll said they

had been asked in general terms to tailor their conclusions to the

funder's preferred outcome.

 

A further 1.2% of the total said they were asked to tailor their

results so that they might obtain further contracts, and another 1.7%

said they had been discouraged from publishing their findings by their

backer.

 

When the figures were broken down, 11.5% of women (compared to 6% of

men) said they had been asked to tailor conclusions to suit their

sponsor's preferred outcome; 1.5% of women (compared to 1% of men)

were asked to do so to obtain further contracts and 2.3% of women

(compared to 1.5% of men) had been discouraged from publishing their

findings.

 

Contract culture

 

Prospect Head of Research and Specialist Services Sue Ferns says the

findings reinforced union concerns.

 

" Given that all the survey's respondents considered that their key

role was to provide impartial and objective advice, any evidence to

suggest some members feel under pressure to modify their results is

extremely worrying.

 

" Prospect has been arguing for some years that the contract culture is

a real barrier to developing a long-term strategic approach to

science, and it is disappointing that our warnings over the dangers of

commercialisation and loss of independence are still going unheeded in

some quarters.

 

" Any request to falsify results brings science into disrepute,

threatens the integrity of scientific advice to government and damages

public trust in government itself.

 

" Science, above all else, is about a pursuit for the truth. "

 

An AUT spokesman said: " These findings are worrying and indicate a

possible problem when research projects involve some commercial money.

 

" The fact that many researchers are also on fixed-term contracts and

whose continued employment also relies on the funding of the research

is not good for those staff, or for the long-term future of British

research.

 

" One message we think government and employers should take from this

is to end the practice of fixed-term contracts and properly finance

research. "

 

The Royal Society is equally concerned about the survey results.

 

Sir Patrick Bateson, chair of the Royal Society working group on best

practice in communicating research results said: " It is clear that

some researchers are influenced by their affiliations, be they to

funders, sponsors or employers, when carrying out or reporting their work.

 

" In many cases these biases are introduced unknowingly, but can be

avoided if researchers become more aware of the potential problems.

 

" There are also occasions when biases, for instance on the selection

of evidence, are deliberate, and such practices are clearly undesirable.

 

" The Royal Society will shortly be publishing recommendations to

overcome some of the problems of affiliation bias when research

results are communicated to the public. "

 

The survey looked at other issues relating to scientists' work,

including job satisfaction and volume of work.

 

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

 

All information, data and material contained, presented or provided

herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be

construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information

Service.