3 ms·

Patient Advocacy Groups, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest (2017)

14 points by colinprince 5y ago

swayvil 5y ago
Are we gonna draw the obvious connection? Vax mandates. Everybody everywhere crying out with a single pure unified voice of assent. (except for a few lone narcissistic racist contrarian Trumpers of course) Pharma corps are making HUGE money off that. (And if Twitter, Apple, Reddit etc really are doctoring the conversation. Well, it's their own private property and they have the right to do with it as they will...)
- reaperducer 5y ago
  contrarian Trumpers I've never understood why people conflate Trump with anti-vax. He got the vaccine. He was among the first. I'm not sure if it's compulsive tribalism, or cognitive dissonance, but it seems to affect both sides.
  - swayvil 5y ago
    Yes, it's compulsive tribalism. And the media-lords who exploit it. For example, I was called a white-supremacist for expressing anti-mask sentiment. You see how it works.
  - detaro 5y ago
    I believe it's accurate that anti-vax positions are more widespread among Trump supporters. And while it's true that Trump himself got vaccinated and has spoken for it, he also didn't put much push behind it: e.g. he got vaccinated in January and it was then only revealed two months later that he did. And regarding the attitudes of his supporters, his railing of "don't trust the new administration, don't trust authorities/"the establishment"/the media ...", claims that the pharma companies were using the release of the vaccine to hurt him politically, ... play a large part in it. Similarly if you look at what a lot of his prominent supporters are doing and saying. Associating "Trumpers" with anti-vax positions IMHO is appropriate, although I wouldn't put it as "everybody but a few Trumpers". (edit: swapped association order, this way round is better)
umvi 5y ago
> The very way we all think about disease — and the best ways to research, define, prevent, and treat it — is being subtly distorted because so many of the ostensibly independent players, including patient advocacy groups, are largely singing tunes acceptable to companies seeking to maximize markets for drugs and devices Not just medicine, but a lot of other areas of science. Covid just unveiled how science is in a trust crisis.
- pfisherman 5y ago
  A degree of collaboration is unsurprising. Pharma companies are THE entities that develop, manufacture, and market drugs. How are you going to develop, manufacture, and market medicines without them? The idea being pushed here is someone’s opinion and a pretty big jump to conclusions from the data in Vinay’s article. My experience, pharma companies play in later stages of development and marketing. The bulk of early stage R&D is done at academic institutions and funded by the NIH. When pharma companies fund academic research they are usually paying for information and ideas. Edit: I should specify that I am talking about preclinical research. For clinical trials they are paying for access to a particular patient population and the ability of the PI / study site to execute. Edit 2: Also device companies are definitely B players compared to pharmaceuticals. Something like 80% of device companies have less than 50 employees, and their market caps are a joke compared to the drug companies with the exception of the very few (Abbott, Medtronic, etc)
reaperducer 5y ago
Not surprised that pharma money influences doctors. I was in the waiting room of a doctors office in Chicago when all activity involving patients had to stop immediately for an all-hands crisis. Was it a fire? A flood? An active shooter? No. The pharma rep who buys the entire office lunch on Tuesdays was sick, and they had to find another drug company to pick up the bill. Disgusting.
AlbertCory 5y ago
Money influencing the health information available to the public? Shocking. Just as shocking should be politics influencing it. The myth of disinterested scientists bravely reporting only what the facts tell them is just that - a myth. This is for several reasons, and Propublica is only reporting one of them.

14 points by colinprince 5y ago

Are we gonna draw the obvious connection? Vax mandates. Everybody everywhere crying out with a single pure unified voice of assent. (except for a few lone narcissistic racist contrarian Trumpers of course) Pharma corps are making HUGE money off that. (And if Twitter, Apple, Reddit etc really are doctoring the conversation. Well, it's their own private property and they have the right to do with it as they will...)

reaperducer 5y ago
contrarian Trumpers I've never understood why people conflate Trump with anti-vax. He got the vaccine. He was among the first. I'm not sure if it's compulsive tribalism, or cognitive dissonance, but it seems to affect both sides.
- swayvil 5y ago
  Yes, it's compulsive tribalism. And the media-lords who exploit it. For example, I was called a white-supremacist for expressing anti-mask sentiment. You see how it works.
- detaro 5y ago
  I believe it's accurate that anti-vax positions are more widespread among Trump supporters. And while it's true that Trump himself got vaccinated and has spoken for it, he also didn't put much push behind it: e.g. he got vaccinated in January and it was then only revealed two months later that he did. And regarding the attitudes of his supporters, his railing of "don't trust the new administration, don't trust authorities/"the establishment"/the media ...", claims that the pharma companies were using the release of the vaccine to hurt him politically, ... play a large part in it. Similarly if you look at what a lot of his prominent supporters are doing and saying. Associating "Trumpers" with anti-vax positions IMHO is appropriate, although I wouldn't put it as "everybody but a few Trumpers". (edit: swapped association order, this way round is better)

umvi 5y ago

> The very way we all think about disease — and the best ways to research, define, prevent, and treat it — is being subtly distorted because so many of the ostensibly independent players, including patient advocacy groups, are largely singing tunes acceptable to companies seeking to maximize markets for drugs and devices Not just medicine, but a lot of other areas of science. Covid just unveiled how science is in a trust crisis.

pfisherman 5y ago
A degree of collaboration is unsurprising. Pharma companies are THE entities that develop, manufacture, and market drugs. How are you going to develop, manufacture, and market medicines without them? The idea being pushed here is someone’s opinion and a pretty big jump to conclusions from the data in Vinay’s article. My experience, pharma companies play in later stages of development and marketing. The bulk of early stage R&D is done at academic institutions and funded by the NIH. When pharma companies fund academic research they are usually paying for information and ideas. Edit: I should specify that I am talking about preclinical research. For clinical trials they are paying for access to a particular patient population and the ability of the PI / study site to execute. Edit 2: Also device companies are definitely B players compared to pharmaceuticals. Something like 80% of device companies have less than 50 employees, and their market caps are a joke compared to the drug companies with the exception of the very few (Abbott, Medtronic, etc)

reaperducer 5y ago

Not surprised that pharma money influences doctors. I was in the waiting room of a doctors office in Chicago when all activity involving patients had to stop immediately for an all-hands crisis. Was it a fire? A flood? An active shooter? No. The pharma rep who buys the entire office lunch on Tuesdays was sick, and they had to find another drug company to pick up the bill. Disgusting.

AlbertCory 5y ago

Money influencing the health information available to the public? Shocking. Just as shocking should be politics influencing it. The myth of disinterested scientists bravely reporting only what the facts tell them is just that - a myth. This is for several reasons, and Propublica is only reporting one of them.