On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM, authfriend <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking of going AMA, Marcia Angell, the former
> longtime editor of the New England Journal of
> Medicine (one of the most prestigious in the
> world), has an article in the New York Review of
> Books about the conflicts of interest of medical
> researchers and physicians who receive funding and
> other benefits from pharmaceutical companies. She
> draws this conclusion:
>
> "It is simply no longer possible to believe much
> of the clinical research that is published, or to
> rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or
> authoritative medical guidelines."
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237

For those of us who've followed medical and neutraceutical research,
this is no surprise.  You just can't read an abstract on PubMed or
even the full research report without first figuring out who's funding
the research.  Take for example, ADM's soy protein products.  The
research evidence of the benefits of soy for men and women is just so
compelling.  Study after study performed by an independent university
lab.  The same lab.  Well, if you dig deep enough you'll find that
after you sort out the shell game you'll find that none other than
Archer Daniels Midland funds every penny that entire university lab
spends.  There's no law that says you have to publish research that
failed to show anything or even indicated that things were remiss.

I have a different conflict of interest problem with my doctor.  My
doctor looks into the pantry to see what's on stock.  If her favorite
drug isn't on stock she'll tell the nurse to tell the drug detail man
(or woman) to drop off some more of her favorite drug.  She'll take
her third or second best choice out of the pantry because it's there
and she can hand it to me.  She tells me to try it out.  She also
writes a script for it.  Now when I come back and complain of a side
effect, she'll pull out her PDA and go through the online PDR.  If she
doesn't find the side effect I'm complaining of, she'll tell me it
must be something else or my imagination.  I counter that the PDR
lists what was reported in the clinical trials.  I am the ultimate
clinical trial.  Her response? "What, do you want to have me sued for
malpractice?"  Yup, my doctor is terrorized by the drug companies.
Say the wrong thing about a drug, wind up in court or worse yet have
your malpractice insurance canceled.

The good news is that Canada and some other countries wait to see what
happens in the US.  If a drug is not withdrawn for nasty little side
effects like death after, say 5 years, then the other countries will
consider approving use of the drug in their country.

Reply via email to