Latest Drugwonks' Blog
I find the hypocrisy on the Victoria Hampshire case amusing, predictable and disgusting. But it's just symptomatic of a larger trend fueled largely by hypocrisy.
Let's grant that Dr. Hampshire did find a serious problem with Pro-Heart and that Wyeth responded not by addressing the facts of the matter instead challenged Dr. Hampshire because she received $160 for prescribing a competitor's products through a website that gave her a cut of the drug sales.
Once the supposed "conflict" was identified, all the alarms went off at the FDA. Senator Grassley and the media depicted this as some sort of intimidation of a whistleblower.
How is Wyeth's behavior and the hell that Dr. Hampshire went through any different than when the roles reversed on any well meaning physician or researcher who follows the data but then is undercut by the COI canard? Is it only a COI when a drug company is involved?
How about this...recently the Josiah Macy Foundation released a report demanding that industry funded CME must end and that any academic who receives industry funding should be barred from participating in CME events because of this COI stuff.
Turns out that the report, was prepared as thecarlatblog.com notes by the brightest minds in medicine "The report was the product of a conference attended by many of the brightest minds in medicine", including Catherine DeAngelis, editor-in-chief of JAMA, David Blumenthal of Mass General and head of the Soros funded Institute on Medicine as a Profession which is leading the purge of academics who deign to work with industry; Harvey Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine, and David Leach, recent executive director of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Dan Duffy a senior adviser to the ABIM Foundation is a spin-off of the American Board of Internal Medicine, which profits from compulsory certification by internists and internal medicine subspecialists. As of 2005, the ABIM Foundation had over $60 million in its reserves, and its leadership has declared “professionalism,†as it defines it, as its mission.It was chaired by Suzanne Fletcher, emeritus primary care professor at Harvard Medical School
The conference was held in lovely Bermuda not in downtown Baltimore.
Next month, the IOM is holding a meeting on the issue of COI in CME as part of a study funded in part by...the Josiah Macy Foundation and the ABIM Foundation.
Last year the IOM held a meeting, also paid for, in part, by Macy and ABIM. Here were some of the participants:
Suzanne Fletcher
Dan Duffy
David Korn, VP for Research, AAMC and colleague of David A. Davis
Eric Campbell, Phd who works under David Blumenthal at the Massachusetts General Hospital -- and is also associated with the Soros funded IMAP -- where he regularly compiles based on surveys what physicians have what financial connections with industry. These surveys are also paid for by IMAP. High profile medical journals publish the data. The New England Journal of Medicine appropriately prevents him from interpreting the results, but in response to press inquiries he clearly imparts that these relationships are dangerous and was quoted comparing company gifts to physicians to baseball umpires being wined and dined by team management. The JAMA let him conclude that
“financial relationships are prevalent and therefore must be disclosed and managed.â€
Who is on the IOM Conflict of Interest Committee?
Eric Campbell for one.
Here is the sampling of the orientation of others on this supposedly objective panel:
Bernard Lo, MD, Chair. He is an ethicist from UCSF who participated in the 1990s Clinton health plan. He has not published extensively on FCOI, although he published a survey of FCOI policies in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 (“Conflict of interest policies for investigators in clinical trials†volume 343, pp 1617-1620). In that publication he states:
“We suggest that university-based investigators and research staff be prohibited from holding stock, stock options, or decision-making positions in a company that may reasonably appear to be affected by the results of their clinical research.â€
Robert P Kelch, MD, Executive VP, University of Michigan Health System whose last publication listed on Pub Med is entitled: “Maintaining the public trust in clinical research,†a summary in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 of the AAMC COI guidelines. Its conclusion states:
“One cannot work simultaneously as an inventor-entrepreneur and a physician or other health care provider and maintain the trust of patients and the public.â€
And my favorite:
George Lowenstein, PhD, Professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University and in the vanguard of the “social science research†that concludes physicians, contrary to their beliefs, do not know when they are being manipulated by sales techniques. At the AAMC symposium on “The scientific basis of influence and reciprocity†Loewenstein “stressed the following conclusions (pp. 23-24):â€
“Conflicts of interest will inevitably bias physician behavior, however honorable and well-intentioned specific physicians may be. Bias may distort their choices, or they may look for and unconsciously emphasize data that support their personal interests.
The only viable remedy is to eliminate COIs whenever possible – e.g. eliminate gifts from pharmaceutical companies to physicians. This should include gifts of any size, because even small gifts can result in unconscious bias."
So perhaps Dr. Hampshire was likewise suffering from unconscious bias or false consciousness. Or more generally, does that transcendent property only adhere to cash from drug firms and not trips to Bermuda from the same Foundation that is underwriting both the study designed to influence the IOM study and the IOM study itself?
As I have written before, the issue of COI is largely a red herring. COI is all about the Left's discomfort with perceived corporate influence in medicine. The giveaway of course is this absurd idea that doctors don't know when a pen will corrupt them psychobabble that is the scaffolding of this purge.
The compiling of gift and speaking registries, the movement to centralize all commercial support of research and education, conduiting it through central AHC administrations instead of to individual faculty members, ban all corporate samples and gifts to physicians and prohibit company sales representatives from visiting AHC faculty are all assaults on the free exchange of information and a threat to very canons of science. This assault on the free speech of academics -- which as I will show is nothing more than a thinly veiled and funded effort by trial attorneys to make it easier to sue doctors and overturn the FDA pre-emption doctrine with respect to what is on a drug label -- will not stand.
The Academic Senate of the University of California System, recently rejected such proposals (“Proposed Guidelines Regarding Vendor Relationsâ€), declaring them “vague, overbroad, addressing perceived rather than real concerns and in violation of academic freedom†(reported in Nature 448: 394, 2007). So to did the University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ.
This is just the beginning of a fight to take back medicine from the ideologues and tort lawyers.
Ambrose Bierce defined hypocrisy as "prejudice with a halo." Exactly. Time to knock that halo off.
Let's grant that Dr. Hampshire did find a serious problem with Pro-Heart and that Wyeth responded not by addressing the facts of the matter instead challenged Dr. Hampshire because she received $160 for prescribing a competitor's products through a website that gave her a cut of the drug sales.
Once the supposed "conflict" was identified, all the alarms went off at the FDA. Senator Grassley and the media depicted this as some sort of intimidation of a whistleblower.
How is Wyeth's behavior and the hell that Dr. Hampshire went through any different than when the roles reversed on any well meaning physician or researcher who follows the data but then is undercut by the COI canard? Is it only a COI when a drug company is involved?
How about this...recently the Josiah Macy Foundation released a report demanding that industry funded CME must end and that any academic who receives industry funding should be barred from participating in CME events because of this COI stuff.
Turns out that the report, was prepared as thecarlatblog.com notes by the brightest minds in medicine "The report was the product of a conference attended by many of the brightest minds in medicine", including Catherine DeAngelis, editor-in-chief of JAMA, David Blumenthal of Mass General and head of the Soros funded Institute on Medicine as a Profession which is leading the purge of academics who deign to work with industry; Harvey Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine, and David Leach, recent executive director of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Dan Duffy a senior adviser to the ABIM Foundation is a spin-off of the American Board of Internal Medicine, which profits from compulsory certification by internists and internal medicine subspecialists. As of 2005, the ABIM Foundation had over $60 million in its reserves, and its leadership has declared “professionalism,†as it defines it, as its mission.It was chaired by Suzanne Fletcher, emeritus primary care professor at Harvard Medical School
The conference was held in lovely Bermuda not in downtown Baltimore.
Next month, the IOM is holding a meeting on the issue of COI in CME as part of a study funded in part by...the Josiah Macy Foundation and the ABIM Foundation.
Last year the IOM held a meeting, also paid for, in part, by Macy and ABIM. Here were some of the participants:
Suzanne Fletcher
Dan Duffy
David Korn, VP for Research, AAMC and colleague of David A. Davis
Eric Campbell, Phd who works under David Blumenthal at the Massachusetts General Hospital -- and is also associated with the Soros funded IMAP -- where he regularly compiles based on surveys what physicians have what financial connections with industry. These surveys are also paid for by IMAP. High profile medical journals publish the data. The New England Journal of Medicine appropriately prevents him from interpreting the results, but in response to press inquiries he clearly imparts that these relationships are dangerous and was quoted comparing company gifts to physicians to baseball umpires being wined and dined by team management. The JAMA let him conclude that
“financial relationships are prevalent and therefore must be disclosed and managed.â€
Who is on the IOM Conflict of Interest Committee?
Eric Campbell for one.
Here is the sampling of the orientation of others on this supposedly objective panel:
Bernard Lo, MD, Chair. He is an ethicist from UCSF who participated in the 1990s Clinton health plan. He has not published extensively on FCOI, although he published a survey of FCOI policies in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 (“Conflict of interest policies for investigators in clinical trials†volume 343, pp 1617-1620). In that publication he states:
“We suggest that university-based investigators and research staff be prohibited from holding stock, stock options, or decision-making positions in a company that may reasonably appear to be affected by the results of their clinical research.â€
Robert P Kelch, MD, Executive VP, University of Michigan Health System whose last publication listed on Pub Med is entitled: “Maintaining the public trust in clinical research,†a summary in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 of the AAMC COI guidelines. Its conclusion states:
“One cannot work simultaneously as an inventor-entrepreneur and a physician or other health care provider and maintain the trust of patients and the public.â€
And my favorite:
George Lowenstein, PhD, Professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University and in the vanguard of the “social science research†that concludes physicians, contrary to their beliefs, do not know when they are being manipulated by sales techniques. At the AAMC symposium on “The scientific basis of influence and reciprocity†Loewenstein “stressed the following conclusions (pp. 23-24):â€
“Conflicts of interest will inevitably bias physician behavior, however honorable and well-intentioned specific physicians may be. Bias may distort their choices, or they may look for and unconsciously emphasize data that support their personal interests.
The only viable remedy is to eliminate COIs whenever possible – e.g. eliminate gifts from pharmaceutical companies to physicians. This should include gifts of any size, because even small gifts can result in unconscious bias."
So perhaps Dr. Hampshire was likewise suffering from unconscious bias or false consciousness. Or more generally, does that transcendent property only adhere to cash from drug firms and not trips to Bermuda from the same Foundation that is underwriting both the study designed to influence the IOM study and the IOM study itself?
As I have written before, the issue of COI is largely a red herring. COI is all about the Left's discomfort with perceived corporate influence in medicine. The giveaway of course is this absurd idea that doctors don't know when a pen will corrupt them psychobabble that is the scaffolding of this purge.
The compiling of gift and speaking registries, the movement to centralize all commercial support of research and education, conduiting it through central AHC administrations instead of to individual faculty members, ban all corporate samples and gifts to physicians and prohibit company sales representatives from visiting AHC faculty are all assaults on the free exchange of information and a threat to very canons of science. This assault on the free speech of academics -- which as I will show is nothing more than a thinly veiled and funded effort by trial attorneys to make it easier to sue doctors and overturn the FDA pre-emption doctrine with respect to what is on a drug label -- will not stand.
The Academic Senate of the University of California System, recently rejected such proposals (“Proposed Guidelines Regarding Vendor Relationsâ€), declaring them “vague, overbroad, addressing perceived rather than real concerns and in violation of academic freedom†(reported in Nature 448: 394, 2007). So to did the University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ.
This is just the beginning of a fight to take back medicine from the ideologues and tort lawyers.
Ambrose Bierce defined hypocrisy as "prejudice with a halo." Exactly. Time to knock that halo off.
In what one hopes will be the death knell for bloated one-size fits population approaches to designing individual treatment, the ACCORD study tried to see if getting everyone down to A1C level of 6 is better than a 7 when most diabetics have a tough time getting their A1C under control. Most people achieved the limit but in the process many high risk people who in the process of reducing their glucose levels suddenly died. The control group had fewer but more fatal heart attacks . That came with great effort on their part.
Some thoughts and observations:
1. After going through the 100 page protocol of the study and the ten year time frame you get the sense that if THIS is what comparative effectiveness research will look like, good luck. It will be a waste of time, money and effort compared to investing in research that attempts to figure out what is the best way to control or prevent disease in individuals.
2. Avandia is redeemed once again in a real world setting, such as it is. As the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute noted: Because of the recent concerns with rosiglitazone (Avandia), which is one of several medications used in ACCORD, researchers specifically reviewed data to determine whether there was any link between this particular medication and the increased deaths. To date, no link has been found. (For more on this issue, see http://public.nhlbi.nih.gov/newsroom/home/GetPressRelease.aspx?id=287 .)
3. But don't expect a mea culpa from Steven Nissen, the media or anyone else involved in this sorry story.
4. The Vice Chair of the Accord Steering committee? John Buse, the very same Buse that Senator Grassley and Rosa DeLauro are 'defending' against Dr. Yamada decade old criticism that Buse was way off base about the cardiovascular risks of....Avandia. Who owes who an apology?
5. Oh, The ACCORD trialists adjusted the protocols to ensure the trials met the endpoints. That is, it change how the trial was run to hit the A1C targets. Imagine if a drug company tried to do that!
Some thoughts and observations:
1. After going through the 100 page protocol of the study and the ten year time frame you get the sense that if THIS is what comparative effectiveness research will look like, good luck. It will be a waste of time, money and effort compared to investing in research that attempts to figure out what is the best way to control or prevent disease in individuals.
2. Avandia is redeemed once again in a real world setting, such as it is. As the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute noted: Because of the recent concerns with rosiglitazone (Avandia), which is one of several medications used in ACCORD, researchers specifically reviewed data to determine whether there was any link between this particular medication and the increased deaths. To date, no link has been found. (For more on this issue, see http://public.nhlbi.nih.gov/newsroom/home/GetPressRelease.aspx?id=287 .)
3. But don't expect a mea culpa from Steven Nissen, the media or anyone else involved in this sorry story.
4. The Vice Chair of the Accord Steering committee? John Buse, the very same Buse that Senator Grassley and Rosa DeLauro are 'defending' against Dr. Yamada decade old criticism that Buse was way off base about the cardiovascular risks of....Avandia. Who owes who an apology?
5. Oh, The ACCORD trialists adjusted the protocols to ensure the trials met the endpoints. That is, it change how the trial was run to hit the A1C targets. Imagine if a drug company tried to do that!
Check out today’s house editorial in the Washington Times, “Get out of the FDA's way.â€
Some tidbits to tantalize your interest …
In respect to the FDA’s Critical Path program and the Reagan/Udall Foundation:
“A program to establish guidelines on how to use genetic tests called biomarkers to predict who responds best to cancer drugs could be delayed for months as the foundation scrounges for money. Worse, Rosa DeLauro is on record as claiming biomarkers are weak measures of a drug's effectiveness even as the director of the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute, Dr. Francis Collins, hails them as the next revolution in medicine.â€
And as to where public opinion falls on this matter:
“Most Americans agree with Dr. Collins. A recent survey released by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest found that nearly 90 percent of all Americans support the Critical Path Initiative and the development of biomarkers. But the congresswoman's attack on the FDA reflects poorly on both her political and scientific judgment. The FDA cannot meet its responsibilities if it has to protect itself from politicians like Rep. Rosa DeLauro.â€
Here’s a link to the complete editorial:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080207/EDITORIAL/47442621/1013/editorial
It's worth a look.
Some tidbits to tantalize your interest …
In respect to the FDA’s Critical Path program and the Reagan/Udall Foundation:
“A program to establish guidelines on how to use genetic tests called biomarkers to predict who responds best to cancer drugs could be delayed for months as the foundation scrounges for money. Worse, Rosa DeLauro is on record as claiming biomarkers are weak measures of a drug's effectiveness even as the director of the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute, Dr. Francis Collins, hails them as the next revolution in medicine.â€
And as to where public opinion falls on this matter:
“Most Americans agree with Dr. Collins. A recent survey released by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest found that nearly 90 percent of all Americans support the Critical Path Initiative and the development of biomarkers. But the congresswoman's attack on the FDA reflects poorly on both her political and scientific judgment. The FDA cannot meet its responsibilities if it has to protect itself from politicians like Rep. Rosa DeLauro.â€
Here’s a link to the complete editorial:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080207/EDITORIAL/47442621/1013/editorial
It's worth a look.
Page One story in today's New York Times on the continuing saga on Dr. Robert Jarvik and whether or not he can scull.
According to the story, "A newsletter published by the Lake Washington Rowing Club in Seattle describes how one of its rowers was a stunt double in the ad for Dr. Jarvik. The sculler, a professional photographer and rowing enthusiast named Dennis Williams, was picked partly for his size and partly because, like Dr. Jarvik, he has a receding hairline, according to the newsletter, which said a crew filmed the commercial for three days at Lake Crescent, near Port Angeles, Wash.
In the ad, Mr. Williams was shown as a solitary sculler navigating an unspoiled lake. Through deft editing, he appeared to be Dr. Jarvik. But, in fact, the frames that actually included Dr. Jarvik were shot in a rowing apparatus on a platform, according to the newsletter."
Yes, friends, it's "CrewGate."
Here's a link to the complete story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/business/media/07jarvik.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
And here's what Dr. Jarvik had to say for himself, "I accepted the role of spokesman for Lipitor because I am dedicated to the battle against heart disease, which killed my father at age 62 and motivated me to become a medical doctor,†it said. “I believe the process of educating the public is beneficial to many patients, and I am pleased to be part of an effort to reach them.â€
Yes, he's a real medical hero -- but he can't scull.
As to why the ad chose to make it look at though he could may be of interest to some -- but is it relevant? Obviously DDMAC didn't seem to think so.
And as far as "All the news that's fit to print," the article didn't point out that DTC advertising drives patients to ask their doctors about important health questions -- like high cholesterol, one of our nation's most under-diagnosed chronic diseases.
Also absent from the article is FDA research that disproves the myth that physicians prescribe a medicine just because a patient saw an ad on television. They don't. And of patients who visited their doctors because of an ad they saw and who asked about that prescription drug by brand name, 88 percent actually had the condition treated by the drug.
According to that same study, in 6 percent of DTC-generated office visits, a previously undiagnosed condition was discovered. Why is this so important? Because earlier detection combined with appropriate treatment means that more people will live longer, healthier, more productive lives without having to confront riskier, more costly medical interventions later on.
Coincidentally, the one word that links both hyperlipidaemia and sculling is ... stroke!
According to the story, "A newsletter published by the Lake Washington Rowing Club in Seattle describes how one of its rowers was a stunt double in the ad for Dr. Jarvik. The sculler, a professional photographer and rowing enthusiast named Dennis Williams, was picked partly for his size and partly because, like Dr. Jarvik, he has a receding hairline, according to the newsletter, which said a crew filmed the commercial for three days at Lake Crescent, near Port Angeles, Wash.
In the ad, Mr. Williams was shown as a solitary sculler navigating an unspoiled lake. Through deft editing, he appeared to be Dr. Jarvik. But, in fact, the frames that actually included Dr. Jarvik were shot in a rowing apparatus on a platform, according to the newsletter."
Yes, friends, it's "CrewGate."
Here's a link to the complete story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/business/media/07jarvik.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
And here's what Dr. Jarvik had to say for himself, "I accepted the role of spokesman for Lipitor because I am dedicated to the battle against heart disease, which killed my father at age 62 and motivated me to become a medical doctor,†it said. “I believe the process of educating the public is beneficial to many patients, and I am pleased to be part of an effort to reach them.â€
Yes, he's a real medical hero -- but he can't scull.
As to why the ad chose to make it look at though he could may be of interest to some -- but is it relevant? Obviously DDMAC didn't seem to think so.
And as far as "All the news that's fit to print," the article didn't point out that DTC advertising drives patients to ask their doctors about important health questions -- like high cholesterol, one of our nation's most under-diagnosed chronic diseases.
Also absent from the article is FDA research that disproves the myth that physicians prescribe a medicine just because a patient saw an ad on television. They don't. And of patients who visited their doctors because of an ad they saw and who asked about that prescription drug by brand name, 88 percent actually had the condition treated by the drug.
According to that same study, in 6 percent of DTC-generated office visits, a previously undiagnosed condition was discovered. Why is this so important? Because earlier detection combined with appropriate treatment means that more people will live longer, healthier, more productive lives without having to confront riskier, more costly medical interventions later on.
Coincidentally, the one word that links both hyperlipidaemia and sculling is ... stroke!
Think the latest study showing no connection between vaccines and autism will drive a stake through the heart through a sometimes vicious and violent movement that sought to replace science with emotional assertions?
Think again:
First this (and note the skeptical tone of the lamebrain reporter:
"A University of Kentucky chemist still thinks that a mercury-containing preservative in children's vaccines is behind rising rates of autism in youngsters, despite a recent California report that seems to dismiss the theory.
The California Department of Public Health reported that rates of autism have continued to rise in California, even though the mercury-based preservative thimerosal ostensibly was removed from most child vaccines by about 2001. Some scientists and medical groups are citing the report as disproving the theory that mercury in vaccines causes autism."
But UK's Boyd Haley, a mercury researcher and leading proponent of the mercury-autism connection, maintains that the California study proves nothing because it is based on a "false premise" that children in California haven't been getting any mercury from vaccines over the past several years.
...."They say that mercury was totally out of vaccines in 2001 ... and that's absolutely false," Haley declared.
Haley contends that some child vaccines still contained mercury preservative well after 2001, and that many children might have continued to receive the vaccines because California didn't actually enact a law banning them until 2006. If children were still getting mercury in vaccines after 2001, that could explain why autism rates didn't fall, Haley contends."
Never mentioned in the article is how reclassification of many behavioral diseases have been reclassified as autism, boosting rates.. The article gives "the other side" but barely. And it finishes with this precautionary note from pediatrician Erich Maul:
"Maul says research someday might conclude that mercury in vaccines can cause autism. But he says that evidence hasn't been found yet and that, for now, immunizations are essential to protect young children from serious infectious diseases.
I will continue to respect those parents who don't want it," he said. "But as someone who has a fourth child on the way, I guarantee you that she will be immunized. I've immunized all my kids, and I continue to recommend it."
For those looking for another source of speculation, scapegoating and sensationalism, David Mandell, an epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania medical school offer fields of gold. According to a recent article, Mandell "recently surveyed the adult patients in Norristown State Hospital in Eastern Pennsylvania, nearly all of whom are labeled schizophrenic, and found that about 20 percent of them meet the behavioral criteria for being autistic.
While he believes misdiagnosis in the past explains a part of the increase in autism numbers, Dr. Mandell also believes the growth has been too great to be accounted for just by continuing genetic abnormalities.
"The increase is probably too fast to be genetics," he said, "so there probably is something that is environmental, but there is nothing to suggest it's the vaccines."
Off we go.
http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/307394.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08037/854963-114.stm
Think again:
First this (and note the skeptical tone of the lamebrain reporter:
"A University of Kentucky chemist still thinks that a mercury-containing preservative in children's vaccines is behind rising rates of autism in youngsters, despite a recent California report that seems to dismiss the theory.
The California Department of Public Health reported that rates of autism have continued to rise in California, even though the mercury-based preservative thimerosal ostensibly was removed from most child vaccines by about 2001. Some scientists and medical groups are citing the report as disproving the theory that mercury in vaccines causes autism."
But UK's Boyd Haley, a mercury researcher and leading proponent of the mercury-autism connection, maintains that the California study proves nothing because it is based on a "false premise" that children in California haven't been getting any mercury from vaccines over the past several years.
...."They say that mercury was totally out of vaccines in 2001 ... and that's absolutely false," Haley declared.
Haley contends that some child vaccines still contained mercury preservative well after 2001, and that many children might have continued to receive the vaccines because California didn't actually enact a law banning them until 2006. If children were still getting mercury in vaccines after 2001, that could explain why autism rates didn't fall, Haley contends."
Never mentioned in the article is how reclassification of many behavioral diseases have been reclassified as autism, boosting rates.. The article gives "the other side" but barely. And it finishes with this precautionary note from pediatrician Erich Maul:
"Maul says research someday might conclude that mercury in vaccines can cause autism. But he says that evidence hasn't been found yet and that, for now, immunizations are essential to protect young children from serious infectious diseases.
I will continue to respect those parents who don't want it," he said. "But as someone who has a fourth child on the way, I guarantee you that she will be immunized. I've immunized all my kids, and I continue to recommend it."
For those looking for another source of speculation, scapegoating and sensationalism, David Mandell, an epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania medical school offer fields of gold. According to a recent article, Mandell "recently surveyed the adult patients in Norristown State Hospital in Eastern Pennsylvania, nearly all of whom are labeled schizophrenic, and found that about 20 percent of them meet the behavioral criteria for being autistic.
While he believes misdiagnosis in the past explains a part of the increase in autism numbers, Dr. Mandell also believes the growth has been too great to be accounted for just by continuing genetic abnormalities.
"The increase is probably too fast to be genetics," he said, "so there probably is something that is environmental, but there is nothing to suggest it's the vaccines."
Off we go.
http://www.kentucky.com/211/story/307394.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08037/854963-114.stm
Terrific editorial in today's edition of the Wall Street Journal. And the title says it all, "The Real FDA Scandal."
It puts the FDA Science Board report into the appropriate context -- that despite all of the Congressional bloviating about the FDA "not doing its job," there's plenty of blame to go around -- much of it belonging to those same elected representatives who are the first to throw stones. And you know the proverb.
Here's a link to the complete WSJ editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120225742208745785.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
"Scienceboarding" shouldn't be used to torture the FDA and score political points, rather the Science Board report should be recognized and utilized for what it really is -- a clarion call for appropriate budgeting, smart reform, and strong support for the Critical Path program and the Reagan/Udall Foundation.
It puts the FDA Science Board report into the appropriate context -- that despite all of the Congressional bloviating about the FDA "not doing its job," there's plenty of blame to go around -- much of it belonging to those same elected representatives who are the first to throw stones. And you know the proverb.
Here's a link to the complete WSJ editorial:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120225742208745785.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
"Scienceboarding" shouldn't be used to torture the FDA and score political points, rather the Science Board report should be recognized and utilized for what it really is -- a clarion call for appropriate budgeting, smart reform, and strong support for the Critical Path program and the Reagan/Udall Foundation.
Senator McCain's chief policy advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, points out that, "The first responsibility of the next president will be to keep this country safe from an enemy that so despises us they would unleash any terror to cause us harm."
Amen.
So it remains a mystery why Senator McCain continues to support drug importation from other nations. According to a recent report from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, a global terrorist ring with ties to Hezbollah, is importing counterfeit drugs into America by way of Canada. They are doing so for profit today - but could just as easily do so for more nefarious and deadly purposes. And legalizing importation (which according to the CBO would result in a national health care savings of less than one percent) would only facilitate such actions.
It's time for Senator McCain - truly the candidate with the best national defense bona fides, to rethink his position on drug importation.
Amen.
So it remains a mystery why Senator McCain continues to support drug importation from other nations. According to a recent report from the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, a global terrorist ring with ties to Hezbollah, is importing counterfeit drugs into America by way of Canada. They are doing so for profit today - but could just as easily do so for more nefarious and deadly purposes. And legalizing importation (which according to the CBO would result in a national health care savings of less than one percent) would only facilitate such actions.
It's time for Senator McCain - truly the candidate with the best national defense bona fides, to rethink his position on drug importation.
Josh consulted extensively with biotech and drug firms. So apparently he would be barred by the likes of Daniel Carlat, Relman, Cassirer, Angell, Health Care Renewal bloggers and the Macy Foundation from any participation on FDA Adcomms or CME.
What is the difference between boycotting academics because of their affiliation with industry and boycotting academics because of their affiliation with Israel?
Is this isn't a looming crisis of academic and intellectual freedom, it will be.
What is the difference between boycotting academics because of their affiliation with industry and boycotting academics because of their affiliation with Israel?
Is this isn't a looming crisis of academic and intellectual freedom, it will be.
I met Joshua Lederberg four years ago when I was at the Manhattan Institute and was nominally the chair of the 21st Century FDA Reform Task Force. The idea for the task force was Dr. Lederberg’s and while he did not want to be chairman, he was it’s driving force. and it was conceived over lunch where I took notes as he spoke about using polymorphism and mechanistic pathways to improve not only the predictability of drug development and medicine but also the science governing reimbursement and legal proceedings shaping health care policy.
I had no clue what he was talking about. All I knew was that here was a Nobel Prize winner willing to spend time with me when he could be in his lab or lecturing. Over the next two years I met with Dr. Lederberg regularly, sometimes in his office, sometimes in his apartment where he made me lunch. Throughout he was too patient with me steep learning curve and too kind to say anything about the initial, rambling drafts of the Task Force report except “I admire your enthusiasm.â€
Dr. Lederberg will be remembered for his endless contributions to molecular biology, to public understanding of medical progress and to the medical applications of the genome. Those who had the pleasure and honor of working with him will remember his kindness, his humility and his insistence on finding concrete answers to the difficult questions he often posed to Task Force members.
He once asked Peter (who was on the Task Force and my co-author): Is innovation possible? In posing that question, Dr. Lederberg (almost everyone called him Josh) simultaneously proposed the creation of a non-profit foundation that would fund the transfer of new knowledge of drug development to academics, entrepreneurs and others to accelerate biomedical innovation.
He passed away before that proposal was implemented. The last time I visited with him at his apartment I noticed a volume of Pirkei Avot, a chapter of the Mishnah, which is a compilation of ethical teachings of the rabbis of the Mishnaic period. One particular saying comes to mind: And "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not upon you to complete the task, but you are not free to idle from it. Joshua Lederberg, son of a rabbi, took that teaching to heart. It is now up to us to follow in his footsteps. Zichron l'bracha, his memory should be a blessing for us all.
I had no clue what he was talking about. All I knew was that here was a Nobel Prize winner willing to spend time with me when he could be in his lab or lecturing. Over the next two years I met with Dr. Lederberg regularly, sometimes in his office, sometimes in his apartment where he made me lunch. Throughout he was too patient with me steep learning curve and too kind to say anything about the initial, rambling drafts of the Task Force report except “I admire your enthusiasm.â€
Dr. Lederberg will be remembered for his endless contributions to molecular biology, to public understanding of medical progress and to the medical applications of the genome. Those who had the pleasure and honor of working with him will remember his kindness, his humility and his insistence on finding concrete answers to the difficult questions he often posed to Task Force members.
He once asked Peter (who was on the Task Force and my co-author): Is innovation possible? In posing that question, Dr. Lederberg (almost everyone called him Josh) simultaneously proposed the creation of a non-profit foundation that would fund the transfer of new knowledge of drug development to academics, entrepreneurs and others to accelerate biomedical innovation.
He passed away before that proposal was implemented. The last time I visited with him at his apartment I noticed a volume of Pirkei Avot, a chapter of the Mishnah, which is a compilation of ethical teachings of the rabbis of the Mishnaic period. One particular saying comes to mind: And "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not upon you to complete the task, but you are not free to idle from it. Joshua Lederberg, son of a rabbi, took that teaching to heart. It is now up to us to follow in his footsteps. Zichron l'bracha, his memory should be a blessing for us all.
Here is HillaryCare as far as I can figure it:
You will be forced to buy health insurance that buys coverage as defined by government and the premiums for that plan will be set by government. The only services and drugs covered by that plan will be those established by a government established Best Practice Institute.
And if you don't want this health care? Your wages are garnished. If you want to set up a health savings account to buy your own health care, in your own way? You can't. HSAs will be illegal under Hillarycare. So too under Obamacare.
I guess that's change.
You will be forced to buy health insurance that buys coverage as defined by government and the premiums for that plan will be set by government. The only services and drugs covered by that plan will be those established by a government established Best Practice Institute.
And if you don't want this health care? Your wages are garnished. If you want to set up a health savings account to buy your own health care, in your own way? You can't. HSAs will be illegal under Hillarycare. So too under Obamacare.
I guess that's change.
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
