Image

Follow the money?

IMG_0774

Posted on May 8, 2015 44 Comments

This entry was posted in Health and Medicine, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 responses to “Follow the money?”

  1. greenbuzzer | May 8, 2015 at 9:24 am |

    Another meaningless piece of propaganda without the comparison of the turnover of Big Pharma compared to Natural Health products.

    Like

  2. Trevor Crosbie | May 8, 2015 at 10:02 am |

    Ken – your contribution is confusing.
    I have had high cholesterol and was prescribed statins which had unwelcome side effects. I am now using a natural health product and my cholesterol level is down, my GP is delighted and amazed. Obviously if a natural health product works it should be encouraged, given that it could save the taxpayer money on treating high cholesterol related health problems. You fixation with the naturals people is not healthy.

    Like

  3. Richard Christie | May 8, 2015 at 10:09 am |

    Hi Greenbuzzer,

    If natural health products exist do unnatural health products exist too?

    If so, are unnatural health products intended to make people unnaturally healthy? They are still health products, right?

    How does a person know they are unnaturally healthy as opposed to naturally healthy?

    If given health products in a blind test how does a subject tell if if they have been benefited by unnatural products or by natural health products?

    Perhaps you could clear this all up for us.

    Like

  4. Ken | May 8, 2015 at 10:23 am |

    Trev, you will notice that when I use the term “natural” it is in quote marks to acknowledge the silliness around the term. I do not have a fixation about the word – just want a bit of honesty about the commercial interests promoting conventional and “natural” medicines and the degree of evidence supporting them.

    If you have found a material effective in limiting cholesterol and your anecdotal experience is backed up by credible evidence on a range of people then it should be treated as a pharmaceutical and available to everyone. Evidence based medicine is what we want irrespective of whether the material is a natural product or synthetic one. Tell Pharmac about your product so they can check out what evidence is behind it and it’s real cost.

    My own anecdotal experience is that I have now used two different cholesterol lowering products on the Pharmac list and prescribed by my GO. Both have been very effective with no side effects and my lipids profile is extremely good for a heart patient. I do not know if either of these products were synthetic or naturally derived – and I don’t care.

    What matters is evidence, not ideology.

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  5. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 12:00 pm |

    “If you have found a material effective in limiting cholesterol and your anecdotal experience is backed up by credible evidence on a range of people then it should be treated as a pharmaceutical and available to everyone.”

    “Should be.” There can be more money to follow if a patent is possible, then a fee can be added for the intellectual property in addition to the mark up cost of the healing substance.

    Who will go through the immense cost of clinical trials if there is less money to follow for the outcome? For example pH adjustment with cider vinegar or baking soda?

    Brian Sandle

    Like

  6. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 12:06 pm |

    Natural products can make a profit, but not so much for a large company who can apply a patent and stop other companies selling.

    Like

  7. Ken | May 8, 2015 at 12:35 pm |

    And yet, Brian, one of the pharmaceuticals I and other heart patients take which is approved by Pharmac is a natural product, aspirin, which is also out of patent.

    But you seem to want to expose patients to untested and possibly dangerous products for ideological purposes.

    Our institutions, like Pharmac, have a responsibility to ensure the products they approve (whether synthetic or natural products), are established within reason as safe and are cost effective.

    This is not the case with the snake oil peddlers.

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  8. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 1:35 pm |

    Ken some countries patented aspirin.

    It is not ideological what I say. And I don’t think it is a danger to cook with a bit of vinegar or baking soda. But I think some people don’t know the effects of foods, and it pays no business to tell them.

    Like

  9. Ken | May 8, 2015 at 2:07 pm |

    You are off rambling again, Brian. I repeat:

    “Our institutions, like Pharmac, have a responsibility to ensure the products they approve (whether synthetic or natural products), are established within reason as safe and are cost effective.

    This is not the case with the snake oil peddlers.”

    It is the snake peddlers who are dissing evidence-based health.

    The reason you support the snake peddlers is ideological – not scientific. Hence you diversion into cooking. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  10. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 2:25 pm |

    Now organic milk gets a premium there is an impetus to do some testing.

    This from 2008, shows not too much difference between the organic management and conventional, more perhaps at mid season. http://orgprints.org/11559/1/Thatcher_11559_ed.doc
    Cider vinegar used.

    Click to access 544eefe70cf2bca5ce90c111.pdf

    It remains to be seen the effects of loss of potency of conventional antibiotic treatments. Do you think it is wrong to try to avoid them?

    Brian Sandle

    Like

  12. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 3:10 pm |

    Ken, that one was about iodine.

    You will notice that in the Massey study both herds were having their udders washed with iodine compound.

    The cessation of washing milk treatment plants with iodophors has been one reason for a lessening of iodine in diets. Especially since salt has been thought to be bad, and it has been used to carry dietary iodine.

    I mentioned cider vinegar and you spoke of danger. So I gave you tests in which it is being used.

    Are you saying that naturopaths entirely shun testing?

    I suppose maybe come of them are not allowed to prescribe a test on the health system. That is where we are behind USA where doctors of ostepoathic medicine can prescribe tests and antiobitics and environmental/nutritional advice or do operations in an integrated manner. NZ osteoopaths may not do ops or prescription drugs. But they have to be trained enough to know when to refer a patient on to a conventional doctor.

    Brian Sandle

    Like

  13. Gold | May 8, 2015 at 3:10 pm |

    I fail to see what the current food related thread has to do with the OP. Continuing to respond to Brian(soundhill1) is pointless. It’s clear he’s totally missed the point and the thread this conversation is taking is not going to fix that.

    Like

  14. Ken | May 8, 2015 at 5:14 pm |

    Yes, I thought the iodine study for organic milk was interesting as another dietary factor Peckham ignored in his hypothyroidism study. 🙂

    I have made no statements on naturopaths and their attitude towards testing. But tell me Brian, do you consider theirs is an evidence-based approach. And if so, how does this differ from the accepted science-based health approach?

    Like

  15. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 5:47 pm |

    “I have made no statements on naturopaths and their attitude towards testing.”

    Ken on the 6th you put naturopaths in your bad list.

    Maybe there is trial and error in what naturopaths do. But I remember in one of my doctors’ waiting rooms, there were also patients for another doctor, and visits to him were very rapid. I tend to think trial and error could have been involved there, too.

    I have pointed out before that some conventional medicines hardly shift the symptom distribution more than placebo, with some exceptions like steroids.

    Gold: typical comment when someone argues against facets of a proposition.

    Brian Sandle

    Like

  16. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 5:58 pm |

    Gold, you acknowledge that conventional medicine is also concerned with diet, and you think they have it totally sown up?

    Like

  17. Ken | May 8, 2015 at 6:48 pm |

    I did nothing if the sort, Brian. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

    The article I wrote contained extensive quotes from other articles, including that of Michael Foley. He produced that list of links to dental offices endorsing alternative health approaches.

    Funnily enough the naturopath link contained this text:

    “Our Naturopath, Kathleen McFarlane is passionate about evidence based natural medicine.”

    So how the hell did you get from that to putting the words in my mouth that “naturopaths entirely shun testing.

    You should read things more carefully and be aware that you biases get in the way of horizon comprehension. Life is far more complex that you flights of fancy indicate.

    >

    Like

  18. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 7:12 pm |

    Ken on the 6th you followed up a list Homeopathy, Naturopathy, …, with “But alternative health practices like this do have a market – and for some people their appeal lies with their distrust of science.” Now you say Naturopathy for anyone clicking on the link, is evidence based.

    So what is the significance of “distrust of science,” and the slant of your cartoon?

    Brian Sandle

    Like

  19. Ken | May 8, 2015 at 7:28 pm |

    Brian, you are shockingly dishonest and disrespectful. I can only repeat:

    “You should read things more carefully and be aware that you biases get in the way of horizon comprehension. Life is far more complex that you flights of fancy indicate.”

    I have not said that naturopathy is evidence based. Don’t be so dishonest – that was a statement from a naturopath, not me.

    Again you are proving to be a disgustingly bad discussion partner.

    >

    Like

  20. soundhill1 | May 8, 2015 at 11:08 pm |

    Ken that is my manner of asking what a person is saying when I am searching. Note I use question marks, are you saying this or that? Each time you deny we get closer to the meaning.

    Your cartoon talks about paying for naturopathic service. Isn’t it right to pay for a service unless it is bad?

    Brian Sandle

    Like

  21. Ken | May 9, 2015 at 8:27 am |

    Brian, you clearly have a comprehension problem with cartoons too.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Richard Christie | May 9, 2015 at 11:40 am |

    Brian wrote Gold: typical comment when someone argues against facets of a proposition

    The irony is that Brian’s input is entirely proposition and supposition.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. soundhill1 | May 9, 2015 at 11:42 am |

    Ken there are some things we have to have. Put them free in the water and I am very suspicious they will be tainted with adware, bloatware &c.

    Like

  24. soundhill1 | May 9, 2015 at 11:57 am |

    Richard Christie, I used to have some music sessions with a very enthusiastic player whose proposition was get louder and faster through the piece. And maybe not in such a controlled fashion as Ravel’s Bolero.

    Contrast that with the great cellist Pablo Casals’ proposition, “Diminuendo is the life of music.”

    I don’t know how some people tolerate some commercial radio stations which are very compressed in volume, loud and very loud for the ads.

    My proposition is that some alternative health providers know how to whisper certain messages and the body finds it very interesting and takes the hint. But my message won’t be heard by the masses, thumping it.

    Like

  25. Trevor Crosbie | May 9, 2015 at 3:14 pm |

    Hi Ken – given your heart condition and your fracturing teeth I suggest you avoid fluoridated water. I submit the following which pertains to the subject under discussion and also to the fluoride issue:
    “In Britain last month, three medical experts went public in an editorial for the British Journal of Sports Medicine to explode the “myth” that obesity is caused by lack of exercise and a failure to maintain a balanced diet.

    “This false perception is rooted in the food industry’s public relations machinery, which uses tactics chillingly similar to those of big tobacco,” which stalled government action by denying the links between smoking and lung cancer for 50 years, the experts wrote.

    Like

  26. Ken | May 9, 2015 at 3:18 pm |

    Gee Trev, you managed to get fluoridated water, fracturing teeth, obesity, smoking, lung cancer, and the journal of Sports Medicine isn’t one brief comment with no sign of any logical connection.

    Still up to form, I guess?

    And Brian, I am sure your whispering proposition for the efficacy of alternative health practice will get all the support it deserves. And there must be money in there somewhere.

    >

    Like

  27. soundhill1 | May 9, 2015 at 4:02 pm |

    Yes Ken sometimes we may get our nutrients, herbs free from a garden or the river or sea. There needs to be management for the masses. We can pay for them. And maybe our parents taught us how to use them.

    But sometimes there may be trouble since people are different. Then we may go to someone else to be taught.

    Maybe I have sinusitis and it hurts to move my eyes. I can go to a regular doctor and get several antibiotics and maybe an operation. Or maybe for a similar fee I may find someone who can tell me how some people can improve by removing dairy products from their diet, and a few things to do. Maybe a doctor sometimes tells patients to avoid certain foods, as in diabetes, or when they prescribe MAO inhibitors &c.

    Like

  28. Richard Christie | May 9, 2015 at 4:17 pm |

    You could look at chicken entrails too.
    No maybe about that.

    Like

  29. soundhill1 | May 9, 2015 at 4:47 pm |

    Richard, which one on Ken’s list was that?

    Like

  30. Richard Christie | May 9, 2015 at 7:10 pm |

    Dunno, but he could have been thinking of it so it’s a valid point.

    Like

  31. soundhill1 | May 9, 2015 at 7:30 pm |

    “Dunno, but he could have been thinking of it so it’s a valid point.”

    And so that is a reason to put that whole list into the bad books and praise conventional doctors?

    Like

  32. Richard Christie | May 9, 2015 at 11:01 pm |

    It’s close minded not to consider the possibility. When I go to the doctor he could be thinking the same thing.
    As a child I contracted measles and mumps. Perhaps my doctor listened to Pablo Casals playing Bach partitas.

    Like

  33. soundhill1 | May 9, 2015 at 11:35 pm |

    I was listening to some jazz on Concert FM today and it was very fine with expression, gradations of loudness. My point was partly aimed at medical treatments or environmental influences which hit hard and have effects, like MMR, and antibiotics or steroids, not being as subtle as a change of environment, nutrition. Changing environment and nutrition may hit less hard, but have effects, and stop the hard hitters losing their effectiveness for when they are needed. For some the softer stuff may even work better since it may not destroy useful microorganisms.

    I find analogies a help, but some people in a debating situation say it is side-tracking, when they know it is actually winning the debate.

    Another is how a nuclear pile in a power plant will not work if the neutrons are too fast, and so cannot be captured to react with other nuclear particles.. They need to be slowed.

    Like

  34. Richard Christie | May 10, 2015 at 10:29 am |

    It is perfectly relevant, if keeping an open mind.

    The ancients thought of the cosmos in terms of music of the spheres. Neutrons move in analogous ways so may also be influenced by music of varying dynamic. It is possible some nuclear physicists recognise this possibility, particularly if they never received the MMR vaccination. Research could be done, nay, should be done, on the effects of JS Bach on nuclear piles.

    Like

  35. soundhill1 | May 10, 2015 at 2:01 pm |

    Sure a celestial body may be captured and start to orbit our solar system. Too slow and will fall into the sun. Too fast and it will fly by.

    We need to learn to think not just “either or,” but “how much.”

    Too little iodine and we get goitre, too much as in Chile where they eat lots of seaweed also gives trouble. The correct dose, “talks” nicely to our metabolism.

    That logic seems simple but two-valued thinking is strongly drummed into us.

    It is easy to understand some categories, young-old, sex, pregnant or not. But albino &c may be outcast.

    Like

  36. Richard Christie | May 10, 2015 at 2:22 pm |

    We need to learn to think not just “either or,” but “how much.”

    Indeed. How much Bach? that is the question.

    Brian you and I are getting on fine now.

    Like

  37. soundhill1 | May 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm |

    Richard it depends on time in several respects, time of day, time of life, musical interests of the time for both the performer and listeners.

    And other demands on time, though it may be healing and help.

    Click to access Reiser_Modern-Science-and-Non-Aristotelian-Logic.pdf

    Like

  38. Marco | May 11, 2015 at 4:23 am |

    It may be relevant for Trevor Crosbie to know that that article was briefly withdrawn, because the authors failed to report some rather relevant CoI’s:

    Widely covered editorial extolling importance of diet over exercise “temporarily removed”

    Like

  39. soundhill1 | May 11, 2015 at 10:04 am |

    Thanks Marco, I have commented there on sloppiness in stating percentage.

    I also noted a while back that a funder for Retraction Watch has on its board a person who is also on a board of a large drug company associate. Just keep a watch on whether they are biased in which retractions they highlight.

    Like

  40. Ken | May 11, 2015 at 10:13 am |

    Brian, care to provide details and links for you claim about the funding of Retraction Watch? Something of substance?

    >

    Like

  41. Trevor Crosbie | May 11, 2015 at 10:48 am |

    Thanks for the heads up Marco – That doesn’t invalidate the message the article conveyed and it should be noted it was a CoI issue not a contents one.
    Correction notice This article has been amended from the original published on 29th April 2015. The body of the text was slightly edited and a reference removed. Competing interests have been added.
    “It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet,” Still stands.

    Like

  42. soundhill1 | May 11, 2015 at 11:57 am |

    Ken, though I see Paul Klingenstein, one of MacArthur Foundation directors ended his 12 year period with ANACOR last September.

    Retraction Watch got a major grant from MacArthur.

    Retraction Watch is growing, thanks to a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation

    http://www.macarthur.org/about/people/board-directors/

    ANACOR has been collaborating with Merck on an antifungal.

    (very interesting: boron back to the old days)

    “We are conducting a comprehensive and rigorous prioritization of our newly
    combined pipeline. This process has required us to make some challenging
    decisions,” said David Nicholson, Senior Vice President and Head of Worldwide
    Licensing and Knowledge Management at Merck. “We’ve enjoyed our productive
    collaboration with our Anacor colleagues and look forward to identifying other
    opportunities to work together in the future.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXD2W6mrvCDc

    He [Paul Klingenstein] served as a Director of Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from 2002 to September 2014.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=67232&privcapId=102785&previousCapId=21937&previousTitle=MPM%20Capital

    Like

  43. Ken | May 11, 2015 at 12:31 pm |

    So, Brian, extremely tenuous, isn’t it? Certainly nothing to support a claim of bias.

    Nothing like the Mercola funding of Connett’s crowd, is it?

    >

    Like

  44. soundhill1 | May 12, 2015 at 1:52 pm |

    Ken if we are following the money ANACOR I think has about 3000 times as much as Mercola. I note MacArthur Foundation does fund public good stuff. And it seems to be after Klingenstein left Anacor that MacArthur funded Retraction Watch. Wonder if it would have been in the pipeline.

    New post on Marco’s link from Yoni Freedhoff and its link asks why a study several weeks earlier on weight and exercise in the BMJ was not challenged by anyone though the authors did not declare books they have have written. (Though funding from Coca Cola was declared.)

    Brian Sandle

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.