Conflict of interest = compounding interest for research providers Well, better late than never! It seems that someone else has finally started to wake up and take notice of the blatant conflicts of interest in biomedical research -- something I've been squawking about since Everest was an anthill. Ironically, it's the Journal of the American Medical Association -- a frequent target of mine for its pandering to the FDA -- that published an article describing the crisis in depth.
What do I mean by "conflicts of interest?" I'm talking about the more than 60% of academic institutions that have "sponsorship connections" with start-up companies -- and conduct the "unbiased research" that determines whether the "start-ups" live or die. I'm talking about the 1 in 4 "independent" investigators with biomedical industry affiliations. I'm talking about the obvious association between industry sponsorship and favorableness of results in the arena of biomedical research. But what does all this really mean? It means that much of the research that forms the basis for so many areas of modern medicine -- but especially prescription drugs -- is compromised at best, worthless and misleading at worst. Though I'd rather eat a pound of nails than do it, I must give JAMA credit for reporting the painstaking review of over 1100 original studies that yielded the hard facts about this widespread conflict of interest -- one that's been working its sinister effects on you and your health for years. It's late, but at least one of the establishment's "respected" medical journals has finally sounded the alarm. The sad fact is, it may not be enough to "reform" health care -- virtually every aspect of the mainstream medical "business" is pointed, however subtly, toward one main objective: Drug company profit. And one article in JAMA isn't going to change that. An ounce of parenting is worth a pound of pills,
William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
