I rarely listen to what is passed off on the air waves as "news" nowadays. The screening of information off a "wire service" by editors who have trained their sights on What is Newsworthy is Not-Happening now, if it ever did.
What is happening now is that editors are hired for their marketing genius. It's all about personality, and product placement. The sly and breathless "reportage" from major public relations firms hired to flog their clients and flay their distractive dragons just cannot be "news".
Thursday, December 29, 2005
News is Extinct; the beast of marketing has simply run over it
Logging you in...
Russia has the most resources in the world, the Russians are also very smart, they also have a very good industry, so why are they still poor?
This blog was most useful and informative .We can know many information in this blog.BestBatteryPoweredLeafBlower
It is very interesting and well written. Thank you and good luck with the upcoming posts.BestCordlessLeafBlower
It is very interesting and well written. Thank you and good luck with the upcoming posts.BestCordlessLeafBlower
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PRIVATIZED CLINICAL RESEARCH. Before 1980, most medical studies were publicly funded. I remember that Merck and Bayer and others were doing studies. I was proud to see them and they were subjected to peer review. But the overwhelming majority of clinical trials were performed by academic researchers.
ReplyDeleteNow, all that has changed. According to Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Assn, THREE FOURTHS of clinical research is now commercially funded. This percentage is understated if you look carefully at what remains of the Academy laboratories. Very little independence is left.
So what if the decisions of short-termers and profiteers now drives our funding for health science research? What does it mean for science, for the consumer, for "facts"?
Writing an Opinion for the LA Times, 1/7/06, Harvard Medical School's John Abramson points out, "There is no better cautionary tale than the unwarranted success of Vioxx." Remember that Merk's representatives passed samples out like candy, claiming that it was SAFER than the older (and ten times cheaper) anti-inflammatory naproxen (sold without prescription as Aleve).
No study ever showed that Vioxx provided better pain relief than naproxen. Therefore the ONLY reason a doctor would prescribe the more expensive Vioxx would be if it was SAFER.
But according to Merck's own studies, Vioxx was more dangerous than naproxen, and of course, actually CAUSED more heart attacks, blood clots and strokes.
Why did American doctors prescribe $7 billion worth of Vioxx to their patients?
Even though Merck, and the FDA, knew that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes and was more dangerous than naproxen, the information which got published did not include the negative truth. The New England Journal report does not mention the cardiovascular danger and carefully selected data on patients who had histories of heart issues and strokes. In 2001, the Journal, without any clinical support, dismissed any "dangers" of Vioxx as reflections of "the play of chance". The authors of the articles had financial ties to Merck.
Based on Merck's own data, according to an article in the Lancet, Vioxx probably caused -- CAUSED -- between 88,000 and 144,000 cases of serious heart disease.
Abramson points out that we have reached the point that even the most prestigious journals are unable to exercise quality control. Our doctors have no where to turn for independent, accurate, audited, unfettered, complete information, free of short-term sale-oriented corporate commercial interests.
Under the veil of "free market" deregulation which goes much further than simply removing government, our Market is now run by thieves and con-artists. Our scientific academy is deluged by distortion, by false claims for unecessary products that benefit only the wealthy producers.
The journals did not atrophy for lack of funds. Science has received more "funding" than ever. However, the source of the money will influence the results, and the storm surge of "information" given to doctors trying to make health care decisions for patients is completely -- not somewhat or partially, completely -- corrupted by a very focussed, intelligent, deliberate and unrelenting desire to sell things. Most of these things -- particularly mass manufactured drugs -- are unecessary to anyone, and most of the drugs are unecessary to good health. It's a trillion-dollar truth.
And yes, it is wrong. The "privatization" of our health is wrong because a guy trying to sell drugs is INCAPABLE of making a decision that is good for YOU. He is trying to get rich, and he knows and he himself believes that he is not going to get rich making you live longer. Corporations are run by old men who are about to retire. They are not making decisions that will help you live longer. The issue is not even on the table.
Vioxx cost 10 times more than the drug we already had that did the same thing.
MSNBC - 8 hours ago
ReplyDeleteCHICAGO - Despite the billions of dollars spent every year in this country on over-the-counter cough syrups, most such medicines do little if anything to relieve coughs, the nation’s chest physicians say. ...
Over-the-counter cough suppressants ineffective, physicians say Monterey County Herald
Doctors warn against using cough syrups CTV.ca
FOX News - Scripps Howard News Service - Reuters.uk - Consumer Affairs - all 219 related »