Re: note to Sharon and Zee

In article <IFTze.3609$6%2.2110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<Hawki63@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Jason" <jason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:jason-0907050938330001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > In article <rLqdnVQVLolVrVLfRVn-iw@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Sharon Hope"
> > <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Jason and Hawki,
> >> Forgive me for chiming in here, I realize the question wasn't directed to
> >> me, but I have an opinion here.
> >>
> >> Both JAMA and BJM have stated in editorials that they have, in the past,
> >> discriminated against articles showing adverse effects, and for articles
> >> funded by the pharmco industry.
> >>
> >> Each of these two distinguished journals ran a full edition on the bias
> >> they, themselves, found in their own articles.
> >>
> >> Think about it. For Lipitor alone, there are between 6 and 10 BILLION
> >> DOLLARS PER YEAR at stake. That company needs to answer to its
> >> stockholders, as do all the others.
> >>
> >> If the rules of the game permit:
> >> - direct to the consumer advertising
> >> - bribing doctors with goods, services, cash and travel
> >> - creating studies that showcase the product
> >> - 'packing' the peer juries with reviewers who are favorable to their
> >> product
> >> - ensuring favorable editorial viewpoints with massive journal
> >> advertising
> >> budgets
> >> - 'packing' the influential association boards with doctors who are
> >> favorable to their product or on their payroll
> >> - tracking every single prescription written by every single doctor
> >> - running web bots daily to identify any discussion of adverse effects
> >> - data-mining leftover findings from other studies to write up short
> >> studies
> >> with splashy headline attention-getting findings to counter-spin the
> >> issue
> >> getting attention in the web newsgroups
> >>
> >> That is exactly what they are going to do.
> >>
> >> That is EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING.
> >>
> >> That is also, ethics and morality aside, what they must do to retain
> >> favor
> >> with their stockholders.
> >>
> >> Unless and until Congress changes the rules, by:
> >>
> >> 1) Funding the FDA so that the agency is not dependent upon Pharmco user
> >> fees for over two-thirds of its budget (and making FDA answerable to the
> >> group that funds it)
> >>
> >> 2) Ensuring the NIH re-establishes its ethics policy with reporting and
> >> public view
> >>
> >> 3) Halting direct to consumer marketing
> >>
> >> 4) Halting bribing of the doctors
> >>
> >> 5) Requiring that all adverse events findings be made public once a drug
> >> is
> >> approved for marketing to the public
> >>
> >> 6) Providing a public forum for publishing non-industry funded studies
> >> (If
> >> the Public paid for the study, it is absurd that it never gets published
> >> because the journal peer reviewers don't like the findings)
> >>
> >> there will be no changes to the terrible safety record of the current
> >> crop
> >> of drugs.
> >>
> >> We need to make our preferences known to our elected officials.
> >
> > Sharon,
> > As usual, another excellent post. I visited a public library a couple of
> > weeks ago and saw some past copies of JAMA. It was obvious that they made
> > sure they screened out by their review process any articles written by
> > alternative (MD) doctors.
>
> Jason....
>
> "alternative medicine" is not recognized by conventional...mainly cuz "they"
> do not conduct scientific studies,,trials....etc...
>
> so why would you expect JAMA to publish non scientific stuff??
>
> you said yourself that the supplement etc "docs" seem to be charlatans..
>
> btw...the "alternative" bunch have their own journals..check them
>
>

Hawki,
I hope that I did not say or even imply that alternative docs seem to be
charlatans. I believe that some of them are charlatans and some of them
are outstanding and wonderful doctors. You are right, they don't usually
conduct scientific studies. However, if they did conduct scientific
studies--do you really believe that JAMA would print an article about the
study in their magazine? I don't think so. I should note that some regular
doctors are also charlatans. I was in a drug store last week and saw a
bunch of reading glasses on a special stand. I saw the picture of a well
known regular doctor on top of the special display.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: note to Sharon and Zee
    ... Jason and Hawki, ... Both JAMA and BJM have stated in editorials that they have, in the past, ... discriminated against articles showing adverse effects, ... - 'packing' the influential association boards with doctors who are ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: note to Sharon and Zee
    ... > discriminated against articles showing adverse effects, ... > - 'packing' the influential association boards with doctors who are ... > - data-mining leftover findings from other studies to write up short studies ... I wonder if Hawki is aware of the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: note to Sharon and Zee
    ... >> Jason and Hawki, ... >> discriminated against articles showing adverse effects, ... >> - 'packing' the influential association boards with doctors who are ... I wonder if Hawki is aware of the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: ot- Doctors and reform
    ... I especially like the part about polling 1,376 doctors and discovering ... Go read the complete text of the first three articles ... started there, John Boy. ... in unbiased reporting like the IBD ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: More on Klempners deceptiveness
    ... Is that the way most doctors understand it? ... so you would agree that most doctors do not understand the proper use ... textbooks and journal articles are failing in their duty to properly ... engage in the sort of mendacious semantic deceptiveness in which steere ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)