Drug firms ‘could shape the profiles of patient organisations through heavy investment’ even if they don’t have a say in their content of campaigns or research
Big pharma poured £57m into UK patient charities which could influence NHS drug decision makers, Bath University researchers’ analysis finds, the independent reports Read University of Bath blog.
From 2012 to 2016 the drug industry donated over £57m (€65m; $73m) to UK patient organisations, with the annual sum more than doubling over the period
The funding benefited a small number of organisations and activities related to research and public involvement
The industry gave priority to commercially high profile conditions
Industry payment disclosures had limited transparency
We’ve been banging the drum about transparency of payment to doctors for years – we’ve even put a moratorium on financial conflicts of interest in the authors of any of our education articles. Not because we think that all doctors who receive money from industry are being influenced to push their agenda – but because we have no way of telling when that’s happening…
I can totally believe this!!Which is why many of the big charities don’t support our work and promote what we are doing and just sit on the fence!!! They are funded by Pharma! The best thing we ever did was REFUSING funding to continue being independent https://t.co/WYvsTSsvcY
At the same time, and rightly, patient groups are becoming more involved in setting things like research priorities, and in guideline development – and we’re campaigning to increase that involvement. but as that involvement increases, it’s also important to make sure that potential industry influence is made transparent.
Piotr Ozieranski, is an assistant professor at the Department of Social and Policy Sciences at the University of Bath and one of the authors of a new analysis which attempts to build a picture of industry funding of UK patient groups.
Drug Companies Shouldn’t Help Decide Who Is Sick, 2019
Expanding disease definitions are causing more and more previously healthy people to be labelled as diseased, contributing to the problem of overdiagnosis and related overtreatment. Often the specialist guideline panels which expand definitions have close ties to industry and do not investigate the harms of defining more people as sick. Responding to growing calls to address these problems, an international group of leading researchers and clinicians is proposing a new way to set diagnostic thresholds and mark the boundaries of condition definitions, to try to tackle a key driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The group proposes new evidence-informed principles, with new process and new people constituting new multi-disciplinary panels, free from financial conflicts of interest. Image wikimedia.
Developing a framework for this long-term reform and facilitating a global collaboration to enact it will involve proactive and reactive efforts that we hope will drive a cultural shift and a practical change in how diseases are defined. Research teams will continue to quantify estimates of overdiagnosis arising from current disease definitions, informing priorities for action. Actions include the constitution of new panels, with new processes and new people, to review and revise existing definitions. Concurrently, primary care organisations will become more reactive to expansions in definitions seen as increasing the risk of overdiagnosis, such as the controversial 2017 hypertension widening, explicitly rejected by the American Academy of Family Physicians, and other groups, and the rejection of the expanded definition of gestational diabetes by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. An international meeting to review progress on our proposal and develop more detailed strategies for change will take place at the December 2019 Preventing Overdiagnosis conference in Sydney
There are important limitations, uncertainties and caveats to note as we propose this ambitious reform of disease definitions, which will provoke opposition from those whose markets are directly threatened.
First, we write as a group working across a multitude of influential national and international organisations, but we do not in this instance represent them.
Second, our backgrounds and thinking are largely medical, and there is clearly opportunity for this initiative to be informed by evidence, experience and theories outside medicine, including, for example, from philosophy.
Third, addressing the problem of expanding disease definitions is but one of many potential solutions to overdiagnosis, and much important work is underway already to try and wind back the harms of too much medicine, safely and fairly, such as calls to action within our associations, creation of new medical curricula, scientific discussion at national and international meetings and new information materials for the public.
Fourth, given the novel nature of this proposal, there is not yet a mature evidence-base to support it.
Fifth, there is clear synergy between this proposal and the calls for reform of clinical practice guidelines, which has not been explored in this analysis.
And finally, we acknowledge moves to expand definitions, to detect and treat people earlier, are often driven by the best of intentions, and we see great merit in identifying those who will benefit from a medical label and subsequent care.
However, notwithstanding the good intentions driving a bad system, the human person can no longer be treated as an ever-expanding marketplace of diseases, benefiting professional and commercial interests while bringing great harm to those unnecessarily diagnosed.
Some more truth about the pharmaceutical companies
Do pharmaceutical companies corrupt academic research and the clinical trial process ? You bet.
Marcia Angell – long-time editor of New England Journal of Medicine: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” pic.twitter.com/PZdmFI2SsJ
Dr Marcia Angell of Harvard Medical School and the author of The Truth About the Drug Companies talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of pharmaceutical companies on academic research, clinical trials and the political process. Angell argues that the large pharmaceutical companies produce little or no innovation and use their political power to exploit consumers and taxpayers. Reference.
Has #Pharma taken over "the medical profession itself," as Dr. Marcia Angell, the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, claimed back in 2004? The answer is a resounding yes. #NEJM#1stDoNoHarmpic.twitter.com/FNPYgu37zQ
It's not just #glyphosate but the mix of chemicals in formulated #Roundup herbicides: "Monsanto admits it has never done any long term studies on these formulated products, and the EPA admits that it's never required any long term studies." @careygillamhttps://t.co/6zrhEXh4D1
À l’inverse de l’effet placebo qui soulage, l’effet nocebo provoque des symptômes désagréables. Cet effet est lié à l’image du médicament : présenté négativement ou redouté par le patient, son efficacité sera altérée et ses effets indésirables augmentés.
Référence, Mardi 15 janvier 2019par Dominique Dupagne, SANTÉ POLÉMIQUE. iTunes.
Stéphane Horel, décortique les stratégies perverses des lobbies qui mettent en péril notre démocratie
Qu’il s’agisse de notre santé ou d’alimentation, les lobbies maintiennent parfois sur le marché des produits nocifs pour nous et profitable pour leur porte-monnaie.
Stéphane Horel publie une enquête dont le titre fait froid dans le dos : “Lobbytomie” aux éditions La Découverte. Au fil de 400 pages, elle décrit comment les lobbys sont devenus des acteurs incontournables de la vie démocratique en dépit d’une quelconque légitimité électorale.