Medical schools, journals fight (pharma) industry influence

[antigop]

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/a36f87cc211df6a3c4a34c5e2043e4a0.htm

Just about every segment of the medical community is piling on the pharmaceutical industry these days, accusing drugmakers of deceiving the public, manipulating doctors and putting profits before patients.

Recent articles and editorials in major medical journals blast the industry. Medical schools, teaching hospitals and physician groups are changing rules to limit the influence of pharmaceutical sales reps. And three top editors of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine last month publicly sided against the drug industry in a U.S. Supreme Court case over whether patients harmed by government-approved medicines may still sue in state courts.

As more voices have called for change, new guidelines for how drugmakers and doctors should interact are coming from both industries, and doctors say some abuses of the past have ended. But the industries' dealings remain fraught with potential conflict because the sectors depend on each other so much _ medicine on drugmakers' research dollars and drugmakers on the credibility researchers give them.

"The influence that the pharmaceutical companies, the for-profits, are having on every aspect of medicine ... is so blatant now you'd have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to see it," said Journal of the American Medical Association editor Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, a longtime industry critic. "We have just allowed them to take over, and it's our fault, the whole medical community."

In an April editorial in her journal, DeAngelis noted two studies indicated past reports about Merck & Co.'s withdrawn pain reliever Vioxx frequently were penned by ghostwriters and that reports on some Vioxx studies minimized the risk of death. Merck has denied the charges.

I guess that makes Dr. DeAngelis anti-science, huh?

[Celebration]

1. kinda reminds me of Eisenhower's warning

about the military industrial complex.

But the doctors, see, they *mostly* have a higher calling than selling out. It is a battle, though. I'm glad some of them get it.

[antigop]

2. but those that get it are "anti-science", aren't they? n/t

[Orrex]

5. Uh, no.

The ones who are anti-science are the ones who advocate nonsensical pseudoscience or who base their medical decisions on emotionalism and ancient "wisdom" rather than on verified empirical data.

[beam me up scottie]

3. .

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. poor widdle Big Pharma

it must hurt them while they drag off their bags of money to the bank.

[supernova]

6. Yay for MD reserachers!

Telling these folks where the get off.

:grr:

It makes me so mad. Pharmas put way too much pressure on researchers when doling out research grants. All kinds of unbelievable non compete and silence clauses, the right to edit final drafts before publication (to make bad results go away.) The list is endless what they have to agree to to get grant money.

[Hannah Bell]

7. sure a lot of helen keller types in these threads, though...

"The influence that the pharmaceutical companies, the for-profits, are having on every aspect of medicine ... is so blatant now you'd have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to see it," said Journal of the American Medical Association editor Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, a longtime industry critic."


whose m.o. is shouting down legitimate critique.

[beam me up scottie]

8. How liberal of you, comparing posters you dislike to "deaf, blind and dumb" Helen Keller.

"legitimate critique" indeed.

What a hypocrite.

[Hannah Bell]

10. your outrage at my helen keller remark is duly noted. as is your lack of

outrage over hypocrite, lying pharma corps.

[beam me up scottie]

12. That's not outrage, it's disgust.

Your post sickens me, as does your hypocrisy.

But coming from a poster who trivialized the deaths of 3700 women, it's not unexpected.

[Hannah Bell]

14. ditto. & for your phony accounting of my position, as well.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Right, except I didn't impugn the memory of a Medal of Freedom recipient to score points.

HELEN KELLER
Awarded by
President Lyndon B. Johnson
September 14, 1964

An example of courage to all mankind, she has devoted her life to illuminating the dark world of the blind and the handicapped.



This photograph from 1961 shows Helen visiting President John F. Kennedy in the White House. The two are seated with Helen's secretary Evelyn D. Seide; a few Presidential aides are standing nearby. Everyone is smiling, including Helen, who is explaining something to the President.


"The public must learn that the blind man is neither a genius nor a freak nor an idiot. He has a mind which can be educated, a hand which can be trained, ambitions which it is right for him to strive to realize, and it is the duty of the public to help him make the best of himself so that he can win light through work."

Way to go. :thumbsup:

[Hannah Bell]

21. oh, i "impugned" her, did i? she's dead. i daresay if she were alive, she'd be more concerned

with corporate control than with someone on a message board taking her name in vain to describe the politically deaf, dumb & blind - since she was a socialist, you know.

you're like people who obsess over flag burning - SYMBOLS - while we're busy killing people in trumped-up wars.

strain at a gnat, swallow a camel.

[beam me up scottie]

23. If Helen Keller were still alive she'd be able to see right through you.

My, my...all that outrage and concern for BigPharma victims, why, it's almost convincing.

They're very lucky you're here to protect them, I know *I* feel safer.

You really should find another way to attack the people you disagree with, you know, your agenda is showing.




:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

24. right. & i'm sure the pharmaceuticals rest easy knowing you're here

to protect their interests.

& helen keller thanks you from her mouldering socialist grave.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Yawn. Get some new material will ya? Accusing other DUers of shilling for BigPharma is pretty stale.

[Hannah Bell]

45. I should get some new material, the one-trick pony says.

[beam me up scottie]

48. "i'm sure the pharmaceuticals rest easy knowing you're here to protect their interests"

Nice ad hom. :thumbsup:

[LeftishBrit]

9. It's not a question of objecting to 'legitimate critique'

It's a question of objecting to the idea that it is better to have no medicine/ vaccinations/ drugs at all than to risk Big Pharma corruption of the system. I realize that many posters may not in fact have this idea - but they are IMO indirectly supporting it by a one-sided emphasis on only one aspect of the influence of profit on medicine.

It would be better if financial issues were totally removed from healthcare decisions. But it isn't all in one direction. It is not just an issue of Big Pharma pushing unnecessary drugs to make a profit. It is to a far GREATER extent an issue of stingy insurance companies and right-wing governments denying people access to necessary medicines - with Big Pharma contributing significantly to this injustice by over-pricing its drugs.

Our main fight should be for universal access to necessary medications! When we've won that fight - against Big Pharma and stingy insurance companies and right-wing governments - then we can start worrying about the very secondary issue of 'pushing' unnecessary medications. If we do it the other way round, we are condemning many to suffer and die from preventable and treatable diseases.

[Hannah Bell]

11. some folks may think "it is better to have no medicine/ vaccinations/ drugs at all"

others don't.

yet all who venture criticism are shut down, by the rudest means.

& sorry, without holding pharmacorps feet to the fire, universal access is going to be more corporate welfare.

[LeftishBrit]

16. You don't think that those on the other side are also

'shut down by the rudest means'?

As regards 'universal access' being just 'corporate welfare': do you think that the system in Europe or Canada is just 'corporate welfare'? How do you propose ensuring that everyone has access to necessary medical treatments? It seems to me that both Pharma and the insurance companies - and right-wing anti-tax politicians and voters - have something of a vested interest in not providing free and universal health care, or not maintaining it adequately in countries where it had been established. And the battle for universal right of access to medicines needs to be fought on all fronts, not just one.

The point is that it is INFINITELY more important to ensure that no one is denied access to a necessary medication, than to prevent Pharma from pushing unnecessary medications. In some situations, the two could be related. If Pharma pushes an unnecessary medication, and *as a result* necessary medications are not promoted or are made unaffordable, then that is indeed evil and must be fought. But if the fight is limited to, or focused on, preventing Pharma from pushing unnecessary medications, then this can just give aid and comfort to those whose financial interests are in the direction of cutting access to medical care: stingy insurance companies; right-wingers who oppose using taxpayers' money to establish or maintain universal healthcare; etc.

[Hannah Bell]

33. "You don't think that those on the other side are also shut down?"

shut down?

tell me the next time you see three or more anti-vaccine people here tag-teaming one pro-vaccine person with sarcasm, personal insults, insider jokes & pictures, then laughing about it in their private forum.

it's regular, consistent & to post something which can be viewed as anti-vaccine, even from reputable sources, is enough to merit the "treatment."

like jr. high school.


you just go back & check. most posts from the antis get this treatment; posts from the pros don't get the same. pretty clear who the instigators are.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Insults? You mean like accusing me of shilling for pharmaceutical companies?

i'm sure the pharmaceuticals rest easy knowing you're here
to protect their interests.

There's no need to go back and check, you've just proved LB right.

[LeftishBrit]

43. I am going to quote one of your own recent posts - not to single you out as the only one who says

these things, but because you are the one who just challenged me on whether your side ever says such things; and because it is forbidden to 'call out' posters with whom one is not currently engaged in discussion.

You said to a poster with whom you disagreed: "I'm sure the pharmaceuticals rest easy knowing you're here to protect their interests."

THAT sort of remark (and it's only one in a series of such accusations, and no you are not the only or even the most frequent offender in this respect) *is* an attempt to shut down legitimate debate. It is basically saying, "If you don't agree with me, then you are an uncritical supporter of Pharma companies' right to make a profit, if not actually a shill for them. There could be no other reason for disagreeing with me, other than support for the profit motive!" Given that the people who post on DU are all here because we are left/liberals, and that most of us are in favour of universal healthcare, and none of us are uncritical supporters of Pharma capitalism - that really is just as much an attempt to suppress genuine debate as people on the other side supposedly calling those on your side 'prudes' or 'anti-science'. All such arguments are basically the equivalent of "Whoever is not with us is against us". Whenenver someone on your side uses the 'Pharma-lover', 'Pharma-protector', etc. accusation, you are trying to suppress those who disagree with you. You may feel it's justified to do so; but at least please don't pretend that you are not doing so!

ETA: At the risk of 'calling out': a few months ago, someone (not a person on the present thread) posted with regard to pro-Gardasil people: 'There seem to be a lot of close-minded people on here.
Why are they here? There are plenty of places to go for close-minded people who want to echo the pharmaceutical line.'. If THAT isn't an attempt at suppression, I don't know what is!

[Hannah Bell]

47. Now please quote the posts preceding it, & the 50-odd posts preceding

those, in which i was variously labeled ignorant, fundie, anti-science, anti-vaccine, stupid, etc., with plenty of eye-rolling smilies, pictures of hippopotomi & david hasselhoff, etc.

There are 3 regulars posters here whose posts consist only of that level of snark. They don't attempt to engage anyone, they just attack. I've read their discussions in pseudoscience, so know this is deliberate & conscious - to the extent of discussing which pictures would be good to use, what kind of ridicule is the best strategy, etc.

I haven't received courtesy from these people, so I don't give it. Those folks who attempt to engage, like yourself, I'll engage.

I came to this forum as a complete outsider, I observed to see who was baiting who. The anti-vaccine people weren't typically the instigators; they responded, but didn't initiate.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Right, because your perception of others behaviour excuses your own.

i'm sure the pharmaceuticals rest easy knowing you're here
to protect their interests.

[varkam]

22. Who has said that Pharma exerts no influence on medicine?

I'll be waiting for a link.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Better order in, she'll never produce the evidence.

Probably because it doesn't exist.

[antigop]

13. So where's the outrage? Where's the condemnation? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

15. it's all for me, & my politically incorrect use of the sacred name of the famous socialist,

helen keller.

not only that, i've "trivialized" the deaths of 3700 women.

seems outrage & condemnation is reserved for thoughtcrime these days - real crime gets a pass. we're told we must tolerate it so as to have medicine at all.

but disagreement & thoughtcrime will not be tolerated.

[LeftishBrit]

17. You do realize...

that in this post, you are essentially condemning your opponents for 'disagreement and thoughtcrime'?

And I do not think that one *needs* to tolerate crime in order to have medicine at all. But I do think that people not having medicine at all is the ultimate evil that we need to fight against, and is more important than almost anything else. Can't we fight together for the best solutions to medical care, so that everyone has the right to access to the best in modern medicine, without depending on the whim of Pharma or insurance companies or right-wing tax-cutters?

[Celebration]

19. who owns the "science"?

Thankfully there are a few journals and medical schools that recognize the problem. Sure people should be getting the best medications available. But what I see happening in practice is "Overdosed America", where we are being conditioned to think there is a pill for every problem, and, the more the better.

http://tinyurl.com/3uzjde

[LeftishBrit]

20. Here's where I'm coming from..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x43646


I have no doubt that some medicines are over-prescribed, and that people are sometimes given pills as a substitute for actually taking time to work out what their real problems are. However, my point is that the 'cost-cutters' are at least as dangerous as the 'pushers'; and that one has to take - to borrow a phrase from alternative medicine - a holistic approach to reducing the influence of financial considerations on medical treatment, rather than just looking at one aspect.

[Hannah Bell]

25. NewScientist: Research funded by drug companies is 'biased'

Research funded by drug companies is more likely to produce results that favour the sponsor's product, reveals a new study.

Researchers analysed 30 previous reports examining pharmaceutical industry-backed research and found the conclusions of such research were four times more likely to be positive than research backed by other sponsors.

"What we found was that in almost all cases there was a bias - a rather heavy bias - in favour when the study was industry funded," study leader Joel Lexchin told New Scientist.

The main reasons for this, say the team, may be that positive studies are more likely to be published than negative ones.

Also, inappropriate comparison drugs may be used in these trials, skewing findings in favour of the tested product.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3781

[Hannah Bell]

26. Industry-sponsored trials more widely cited than not-for-profit studies

September 10, 2008 | Michael O'Riordan

Boston, MA - Cardiovascular clinical trials sponsored by industry are more likely to be cited in future medical publications than studies performed by not-for-profit organizations, a new study has shown <1>. Efforts should be made to ensure that important trials conducted by government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are more widely disseminated to the cardiovascular community, say investigators.

"As a researcher, my core belief is that high-quality research gets done by the NIH and by industry, and the quality of our patients' lives will improve if this information is transmitted to the medical community," senior investigator Dr Paul Ridker (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) told heartwire. "What we observed is that the translation to practice is more rapid and thorough for industry-funded studies. We hope there can be a mechanism to do a better job promoting the findings of federally funded studies as well."

http://www.theheart.org/article/903265.do

[Hannah Bell]

27. Industry-funded breast cancer trials more likely to yield positive results

CHAPEL HILL – Industry-funded studies of breast cancer therapies are more likely to report positive results than non-pharmaceutical funded studies, researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Dana Farber Cancer Institute have found. In addition, significant differences exist in the design and nature of clinical trials supported by the pharmaceutical industry compared to trials without industry involvement.

Published online Monday (Feb. 26) in CANCER, the journal of the American Cancer Society, the study explores the impact of pharmaceutical-company involvement on breast cancer clinical trial design and outcome. Drug-industry investment in research now exceeds the operating budget of the National Institutes of Health and previous studies have examined the impact on other areas of clinical medicine, but not breast cancer.

http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb07/trials022107.html

[Hannah Bell]

28. the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research...

A new study by two York University researchers estimates the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development, contrary to the industry’s claim.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

[Hannah Bell]

29. BMJ: Pharmaceutical Industry-Physician "Entanglement" Affects Research, Care

Systematic reviews in the May 30 issue conclude that there is selective reporting from industry-supported studies used to support new drug applications, and the reviews discuss the effect of industry sponsorship on research outcomes and study balance. A third report ties regular physician contact with drug company representatives to unnecessary prescribing. Finally, two commentaries discuss efforts to promote the "disentanglement" of physicians and industry.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/456554

[Hannah Bell]

30. Implications of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding on Clinical Research

This commentary explores the influence of industry funding and offers suggestions for overcoming some of the problems. First, it is difficult to obtain funding from some sources for research with limited commercial value. Second, lack of communication among researchers can impede scientific progress. Stopping research before meaningful results are available is another area of concern. Next, suppressed or delayed publication of data may bias the results of meta-analyses, resulting in incorrect risk–benefit profiles for drugs. Finally, commercially funded clinical research is more likely to yield positive results than when funding comes from other sources. Possible solutions are explored.

http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/1/194

[Hannah Bell]

31. Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles

Background

Industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition research. The purpose of this study is to characterize financial sponsorship of scientific articles addressing the health effects of three commonly consumed beverages, and to determine how sponsorship affects published conclusions...


Conclusions

Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health.


http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005&ct=1

[Hannah Bell]

32. wake up & smell the frigging coffee.

[LeftishBrit]

34. I am NOT denying that these are serious problems. I am saying that there are OTHER serious problems

Admittedly, we don't live in the same country, which may affect priorities. I live in a country where there is (still, just) universal healthcare which successive economically right-wing governments have been trying to undermine; and the denial of treatment on the grounds of expense has become a significant problem. (Note once again to lurking Freepers: this is NOT the inevitable result of 'socialized medicine' and is not nearly such a problem with most Europaean countries. It is the result of the influence of Thatcherism in Britain.) But it's clear that there are similar and often worse problems with American health insurance companies, which affect lots of people in America.

I don't disagree with general criticisms of the influence of Pharma on healthcare. I think that it is indeed a serious problem. But I *do* have a problem with looking at it only from the point of view of 'Pharma is backing this or that drug or vaccine; therefore it's likely to be unnecessary" and not looking at the other, real, and truly terrifying effect of financial influences on healthcare: the denial of access to treatment.

[LeftishBrit]

35. Some New York state HMOs restrict patient access to drugs t o increase their profits

www.newsinferno.com/archives/3136

A report just released this weekend by state Senator Jeffrey Klein (Democrat) reveals that some New York state HMOs restrict patient access to single source drugs or brand name medications for specific ailments that do not have lower cost generic versions. The report includes a survey of the 15 HMOs with drug plans in New York state, including Aetna, Oxford Health Plans, Cigna, Health Insurance Plan of New York, Group Health Associates, and HealthNet of New York and was conducted to determine how and if companies restrict prescriptions to 20 of the most common single-source drugs. The results point to HMOs setting these restrictions to increase their bottom lines and enhance profits.

The survey confirmed that a number of restrictions are placed on consumers, such as a “medical exception,” imposing quantity limits, and a “step therapy” rule. A medical exception is when a patient and physician must obtain prior permission from the insurer so that a patient can receive coverage for a prescribed medication. Medical exceptions are granted at the discretion of the insurance company. Step therapy forces patients to try one or more other medications before seeking approval for a prescribed drug. “It’s a dangerous situation,” Klein said. “Clearly, when a doctor prescribes a specific medication for a patient and they know that drugs works for a patient, they shouldn’t be forced to use a generic drug or cheaper alternative that may not work

[LeftishBrit]

36. Patients denied access to kidney cancer drugs

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Patients-denied-access-to-kidney.4365522.jp

CHARITIES expressed disappointment yesterday at a decision to deny patients access to four kidney cancer drugs that could help extend their lives.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) issued draft guidance rejecting the drugs Sutent, Avastin, Nexavar and Torisel.

Charities said the decision left patients only one treatment option – interferon – to which many do not respond.

In Scotland, three of the drugs are already not recommended for use on the NHS by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC). The makers of the other – Torisel – have never applied for a review by the SMC.

The Nice guidance, which applies to England and Wales and is considered by Scots officials, could end any hope of the treatments becoming available north of the Border.

Professor Peter Johnson, of Cancer Research UK, said he was disappointed by the move.

[LeftishBrit]

37. Doctors Accuse Insurance Companies Of Fraud, Extortion

http://www.kmbc.com/health/4429327/detail.html

Patients denied medical care because of profits, doctors say.


A Kansas man suffering from cancer can't have a bone marrow transplant because his insurance company won't allow it, KMBC's Jim Flink reported Thursday.

Some doctors said it's a scenario that happens all too often -- patients are denied critical medical care because health insurance companies care only about profits.

Extortion, Fraud And Collusion

It's rulings like these that have doctors fed up. About 2,000 local physicians have filed several class-action lawsuits charging the metro area's biggest insurance providers with extortion, fraud and collusion. Doctors said the insurance companies are putting profits above patients and are obstructing care....
Doctors said the insurance companies are focused on money, not health.

"There's never been a better time to be an insurance company than right now," Soper said.

Studies show that insurance companies have doubled profits in just four years.

Doctors are accusing insurance providers of paying out incentives to claims adjusters who deny care.

"There's just a huge reward for denying care," Gibbons said....

[LeftishBrit]

38. Patient Advocates Launch Campaign to Identify Potential Victims of HMO Drug Switching Policies

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_50115482

Recently, IPAA was made aware that a number of important medications, including arthritis, high blood pressure, depression, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's and diabetes drugs are being denied at a rapid rate...


IPAA also notes that the senior population is most vulnerable to HMO drug switching practices, because they are the least likely to fight for the correct medications. Van Pelt says they have heard stories from family members whose loved ones suffer from Alzheimer's, and senior HMOs will not allow doctors to prescribe Aricept, a breakthrough neurological drug. " Drugs like Aricept don't come in generic form and their isn't an equal substitute. They are forced to either pay out of pocket or are turned away by the pharmacist. They can't afford to pay for the drugs and they have no where to turn for help," Van Pelt stated.

IPAA believes the insurance industry's actions will prove damaging to health consumers, since there is no one drug which works for every patient. "Until drugs are considered to be equivalent, a patient should never be switched from one medication to another. The heart medications or insulin, suitable for one person could prove harmful -- even lethal -- to another. It is impossible for decision-makers at insurance companies to dictate the medical needs of all members. Individual doctors should be afforded that right and responsibility," Van Pelt concluded.

[Hannah Bell]

39. I acknowledge those other serious problems. They haAve the same root cause:

money, concentration of wealth & power.

I personally believe you could cut 1/2 the drugs out of the US formulary without ANY damage, & possibly some benefit, to the health of the nation.

Access to care is a related problem, but not the same problem.

Neither will improve without getting the influence of money out of the picture - & it's not gonna happen anytime soon, & it will NEVER happen if people don't understand the many & various UNNECESSARY ways they're being screwed.

The anti-medicine folks, in all their manifestations, are a reflection of that fundamental social fact - people are being screwed. In their pocketbooks, in access, in deteriorating & fraudulent care, to accomodate an increasingly rapacious elite that produces increasingly less value for their increasingly large cut of the national wealth.

[LeftishBrit]

44. I basically agree with you! It all DOES come from medicine being influenced by the profit motive!

I tend to doubt that 'you could cut 1/2 the drugs out of the US formulary without ANY damage, & possibly some benefit, to the health of the nation.' At any rate, this would not be true in the UK. Certainly one might be able to cut the *frequency* of prescription of certain drugs rather drastically; but cutting out their existence would probably not be possible without damage, because it is not the case that two drugs that treat the same condition are necessarily the same in all their effects. Sometimes one drug won't work or will have bad side-effects for a particular person, and another apparently similar drug *will* work with fewer side-effects. This is especially true with regard to the elderly, or people who have chronic medical problems - the very people who are most likely to need medical drugs.


I think that one has to find a way of reducing the profit motive on either side. Drugs should be chosen on the basis of need and effectiveness - not on the one hand because a Pharma company is pushing that drug over others, or on the other hand because an insurance company wants to get the cheapest so as to cut costs!

'The anti-medicine folks, in all their manifestations, are a reflection of that fundamental social fact - people are being screwed.'

That may well be. But whatever the cause, and however understandable it may be, their views are in themselves dangerous, if they become reflected in public policy. If people wish to refuse medicine for themselves, that should be their right; but I do not wish to have anti-medicine people deny me or my family or anyone else the RIGHT to access to medicine. Just as there's lots of corruption in the food industry, but it would be counterproductive for people to react to it by saying "Right, no one should eat!" or "Everyone should eat only cheap gruel, to prevent the food industry from making a profit". This is really my concern - that there are some people who seem to wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this matter.

[Hannah Bell]

46. glad we agree on something. & i agree with you, there are some people

who think modern medicine is all a crock, & faith healing or herbs will be fine.

But those people have always been there, witness christian science. They're not the ones denying access to routine care to others; that's being done by the same forces corrupting scientific research.