Evidence-based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation and commercialisation of academia, which act to suppress negative trial results, conceal adverse events and withhold raw data from the academic research community, according to a peer-reviewed article in the British Medical Journal by Jon Jureidini of the University of Adelaide and Leemon B. McHenry of California State University.
Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.
The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products. When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.
The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians. KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.”
I suspect the authors’ confidence in Government and public funding to free medicine from predetermined agendas is misplaced, as the Government propaganda during the pandemic (and on numerous other issues) has shown. But the points about the corruptions that the dominance of big pharmaceutical companies bring to the development and testing of medicine deserve to be taken seriously.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
One of many side effects of politicising health issues, perhaps. Ignorance and misunderstanding being root causes.
Yes, it’s true. More countries are heading in the right direction, both figuratively and politically;
”Hungary has built a fence and does not allow social (welfare) tourists to enter Europe unchecked. Hungary protects Germany and Austria from further chaos. So, what does the conglomerate of mentally ill lawbreakers in Brussels do in response? It obliges Hungary to pay a massive fine. These previous sentences were delivered by Austrian politician and commentator Gerald Grosz in a statement, but they describe the EU’s mishandling of the problem of illegal immigration so succinctly and accurately that any sane patriot could have said them. Today, the situation has become so much better that more and more people dare to take on their attitude in public, agreeing with the Hungarian position all over Europe.
It is no coincidence that the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) won a historic victory on Sunday in the election whose central theme was illegal migration. Our neighbor has seen unbearable conditions develop in the big cities, for example, more than half of the students in Viennese schools do not know the German language. Whoever forms a government must radically change the current migrant policy, otherwise serious social conflicts may break out, the consequences of which are unforeseeable.
The situation is similar in several EU member states. In the Czech Republic, Andrej Babiš’s party, ANO, won the Senate election by a landslide. Although their strengthening does not bring an immediate change in the Czech migrant policy, it is still a very important development. It is no coincidence that Viktor Orbán concluded his congratulations by saying, “They can tremble in Brussels, the Patriots are coming.”
https://rmx.news/article/patriots-are-advancing-across-europe/
The narrative of the global elite, with its promotion of multiculturalism, wokism, leftism will hopefully trigger a self-preservation defense mechanism in the population.
I remember Vienna from the 80’s. It was a chocolate-box image of affluence, peace and safety. Apparently it’s not like that any more. I suppose some Austrians have started asking the question why.
Killed in a car crash in 2008? That’s a really cute way to word it. Crashed his car against an obstacle on the way back from a Cocaine-fuelled orgy at a certain Gay club is more realistic description. Not quite the kind of political leader we ought to be looking forward (or back) to.
The FPÖ has been part of Austrian governments from 1983 – 1987, 2000 – 2007 and 2017 – 2019. It’s absolutely nothing but another Austrian establishment party.
Is it the cocaine, the gay, or the orgy you object to in a leader?
Get yourself a Haider-T-Shirt if you like. It’s not illegal.
I don’t want a Haider t-shirt (I know nothing about him and don’t want to know) but I am interested in an answer to Arum’s question.
That’s not a question but an attempt to put words in my mouth which differ from the statement I made. Haider (and the FPÖ in general) has a track record of accomplishing exactly nothing when in office and the FPÖ is – in Austria – rightfully regarded as nothing but another corrupt establishment party. Further, he also wasn’t “killed in a car crash” but killed himself (and luckily, no one else) when he lost control of his car while driving under influence. Considering why he was driving under influence, one can also conjecture that he – like Geert Wilders, BTW – mainly objected to Muslim immigration because he didn’t believe this would be beneficial to certain spare-time activities which were very dear to him.
If you think being sex-obsessed and a reckless and irresponsible law breaker who effected his own untimely demise because of this is just the kind of material our political leaders should be made of, then, I suggest to vote for such types whenever the opportunity arises. I must, however, caution you against expecting anything from that save saddling yourself with their lifestyle bills I certainly don’t want to pay.
What political leaders do in their spare time is very low on my list of priorities
What people do in their so-called spare time is a function of what kind of person they are and I absolutely wouldn’t be surprised if the claim that’s implied in your statement, namely, character doesn’t exist, just inherently featureless people who turn into whatever they’re dressing up at the moment once they did this, is also a Marxist ‘intellectual innovation’.
But there’s really no issue here:Vote Keir. And be grateful for whatever befalls you.
I tend to think most people attracted to politics are probably somewhat questionable
There is no “Right wing” only “Far Right”. Populism – what the people want and vote for has replaced democracy which is what the Establishment want for which the people are required to vote.
In next door Germany, the AfD (Far Right) is being blocked from Parliamentary committees (like Reform) despite its high level of electoral support, and harassed in other ways as ‘a threat to democracy’.
The problem with the headline, Centrism (aka Statism rooted in Socialism/Fascism hybrid) holds all the levers of power and has the monopoly on violence.
Death throes of a mortally wounded beast is when it is at its most dangerous… and has nothing to lose.
I don’t suppose those ‘unclean’ unvaccinated persons from 2021/2022 will have forgotten their treatment by the Austrian State at that time. Time for payback hopefully.
You can always tell an article is propaganda as soon as the terms “Far right” and “Populism” appear.
The global wave of Right-wing populism … Whether consciously or unconsciously, Right-wing populists from Trump to Farage have been following in Haider’s footsteps …
Populism simply means doing something that a majority appreciate: is there something wrong with that and is it not something every politician hopes to achieve?
And the terms right-wing or far right are just a short step away from Nazi, or a step beyond for some people.
I would refer to German AfD politics (my knowledge of Austrian politics is scant) as being centrist, or what would have been called conservative a few decades ago. Today’s European politics are all what I would term “Far left”, adhering to rather extreme ideological viewpoints, including publishing such propaganda pieces as this one!