We have had more than a few threads on here that deal inherently with trusting science, trusting doctors especially, with the anti vaxxers, or with nutrition advice and so forth. Hopefully no one else posted this one yet, from the NY Times:
The upshot of this is about 50 years ago the sugar industry in effect bought off researchers to make an attempt to deflect attention from sugar, and put the blame for heart disease on dietary fat, especially saturated fat. Among other things, this had a major effect on what we eat, for example the government subsidizing the production of high fructose corn syrup, which has led to sugar being used as a filler in many things we eat, or the ‘low fat/no fat’ food craze spurred by the medical community saying that a low fat diet was the way to prevent heart disease, which included doctors recommending patients trying the ‘low fat/no fat’ food products out there, that often were loaded with sugar and salt to make them taste appealing…which we now know not only was not true, it also led people to eating things that are unhealthy.
Using this as a specific example, do we wonder why the anti vaxxers and the like exist? Do we wonder why people greet the latest study with skepticism? While I don’t agree with the Vaxxers or people who disdain science, when you read something like this, how can we wonder why people are willing to listen to some guru shouting vaccines are bad, rather than science? And more importantly, how do we find a way to make sense of the studies, that often seem to contradict each other? It has only gotten worse in this day and age of the digital news world, because studies come out and the headlines scream something that the study itself might not actually say (John Oliver had a wonderful, funny piece about this).
And while you can argue that in the last 30 years or so researchers have to indicate where their funding is coming from, does that give anyone confidence that researchers are basically often guns for hire based on who pays them?
It’s also extremely profitable for folks to have asthma and COPD and take inhalers and other Rx the rest of their lives! We want but aren’t expecting any cures for COPD and asthma as well.
“Hopefully no one else posted this one yet, from the NY Times…”
The nutritional implications of the report are already being discussed in the diet-exercise-health-wellness-support-thread. IMO, the “trust” aspect is a big thing and warrants a separate discussion.
“Still waiting for a ‘cure’ for Type 1 diabetes but will not hold my breath. It’s a profitable industry.”
It is easy to blame the lack of treatment on “profit.” Let’s start here… Biological systems are very, very complex, and even what we know so far is typically beyond the understanding for most VCs. Moreover, the money invested into a biotech venture is usually tied up for years until - maybe! - the research pans out. It is so much easier and faster (and more understandable to an average banker) to reap profits from investments into a company reselling something that others have/made/own, etc.
Yes, and stem cell research is a very fine balance. You have to figure out how to get the correct cells in the right place to live and multiply without becoming an uncontrolled cancer or mutation, and keep it alive.
With the increasing insistence on evidence-based medicine, the studies become more and more important too. Evidence-based medicine is a great thing in and of itself, unless there is a significant chilling effect on the ‘art’ of practicing medicine.
I’m not sure where the great innovations or discoveries will come from now unless there is big money on the horizon.
When you are trying to eliminate added sugar from your diet, you might be amazed at how much sugar is added to our food supply, often in “sneaky” ways. You will find sugar in almost any type of processed or prepared food. Even the fresh tuna and chicken salads at my Whole Foods store is prepared with honey.
DH and I have a favorite restaurant we go to from time to time. One day I ordered the braised cabbage. I realized immediately that it contained some kind of sugar. The waiter confirmed it was brown sugar. The next time I went, I ordered the brussels sprouts. Yep, the faint taste of sugar was detected. The waiter answered my question with “yes, it is braised with turbinado sugar!”
I think we are in a really bad place when it’s decided that it should go without saying (or warning) that we need sugar in our VEGGIES.
To think about it, added sugar is a simple carb that adds ZERO nutritional value - sucrose, fructose, etc. are ubiquitous, and our bodies can get plenty of simple carbs from whole fruits, veggies, and dairy! Compare that to fats… Not all foods have them, and not all fats are present in foods that have fats. Ditto proteins.
I posted elsewhere this week the report that effectiveness rate of the nasal flu vaccine last year was only 3%!!
And not too long ago, anesthesia wasn’t give to infant boys for circumcisions because they supposedly couldn’t feel pain. (I’ll refrain from getting into the medical “necessity” of circumcisions at all)
I could go on ad nauseam with examples…
My former internist, who has regrettably stopped practicing and is now solely teaching, wouldn’t let pharm reps pop in to visit nor give any freebies, food or otherwise, to his office and staff. To much undue influence.
I’m not very trusting when it comes to a lot of this stuff.
I really hope this doesn’t turn into a pharmaceutical bashing thread - I am limited in what I can share because it is not up to me to reveal H’s identity or what company he works for, but most people who do not work in pharmaceuticals are not aware of the research being done on third world and neglected diseases, in conjunction with major foundations. They are not all about profit. They really do want to do good and help people.
That all being said, if the company H works for were to pull a Martin Shkreli or Heather Bresch, I wouldn’t be surprised if he decided to look for another job.
Two thumbs up, Teri. To add to what Teri said, most people going into pharma or biotech research don’t do it for the mega $$ pie in the sky rewards - those rarely materialize. They do it because research is their passion.
Agree, let’s focus on the other kind of research - the nutritional kind, which is what the OP’s link is talking about.
I think it is simplistic to say that let’s say type I diabetes has not been cured because of the money to be made in test kits, insulin and other drugs to control insulin and so forth. The problem is the difficulty of the subject, you have to figure out what causes it in the first place, then come up with a way to cure it or prevent it. There are problems in research, even in the non profit sector there is a tendency to create orthodoxy, where research outside a certain path is frowned upon (think about the doctor, for example, who broke the cholesterol clogging the artery theory of heart disease when they came up with the homocystein hypothesis and the role of folic acid, the medical establishment called him a quack and a fraud for years until studies backed him up), not to mention that some problems, like Juvenile Diabetes, likely require technology and knowledge that doesn’t exist, for example knowledge of genetics/genes and how they work. Like anything else, with medical resources there are forces that slow down innovation and those that prompt it along, and money is a funny thing, as I think @BunsenBurner said, it is a lot easier to make money making a proven thing then investing in something that may or may not work, the proven is safer, even if the ROI on something new could be huge.
Getting back to the trust point, in the original article, come the question how do we know the supposed science behind something is not tainted by self interest? When we say the studies on vaccines show they are safe (and there are enough of them that I have 0 doubt), as an example, how do we know those studies were not corrupted by money? How do we know it is science, based on fact and research and evidence, rather than, to use an analogy, the expert witness being paid to testify a certain way?
It doesn’t help when we see the contradictory studies, that may be caused by design of them, or trying to statistically get a grip on a complex thing, you have to wonder why this happens all the time…too, you look in the past, where the AMA used to promote smoking long after it was known it was dangerous, and you look at the fact that the AMA used to ‘endorse’ cigarette brands for a fee, and it does make you cynical about what the 'science" really is.
My point is the hard demand for evidence-based medicine. Anecdotally it seems to me that physicians are less and less likely to deviate from the standard of care, which I understand completely given liability concerns.
But who pays for the evidence (studies) these doctors rely on?
I do not think all pharma is evil. I have loved ones who would not be alive without modern medicine.
I doubt the sugar industry bought off the three authors of the review article.
What seems more likely is that those three scientists already agreed with the sugar industry’s position. So they probably didn’t consider it unethical (considering the standards of the time) to take advantage of funding that enabled them to prepare a review that expressed ideas they wanted to express anyway (in this case, that saturated fat was the culprit and that the case against carbohydrates was flawed).
Think about it. If you were a sugar industry executive, would you go to the trouble of trying to get some scientists to change their minds about a scientific issue or to write an article that that they themselves disagreed with? Or would you go to scientists who already agree with you? Which is easier?
Two more points:
In the NY Times article, distinguished Harvard nutrition scientist Dr. Walter Willett says that this incident illustrates why research should be supported by "public funding" rather than industry funding. Public funding means government agencies. Does Dr. Willett seriously believe that government agencies don't have agendas, too?
Dr. Willett holds an endowed chair at Harvard that is named after Dr. Fredrick Stare, one of the three authors of the sugar review. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/walter-willett/
Of course there are plenty of good guys in pharma - the majority - doing the right thing, just like there are good people on Wall Street helping our financial markets run smoothly, extending capital and helping build public projects. However, its not ALL good. Wherever you have big $$ at stake, there are a few who will abuse the process and not be purely motivated by the public good, even if it doesn’t pertain to the scientist working at the bench.
I don’t think it is a conspiracy or studied effort to sabotage something. IMHO it’s just following $$$, something we all do to a certain extent.
But when we rely on evidence-based medicine to make health care decisions on a micro or macro level (public policy standpoint), I think it’s fair to ask who is paying for the evidence.
