Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science?
Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)?
I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve.
>Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science?
Because I studied medical science and research for many years, have family in the medical field, and write medical software for a living.
Or rather, I understand very clearly how greed and the capitalist motivation affects health care, as it's literally my life. But with a realistic understanding comes the end of emotional histrionics and petty exaggeration.
AKA: I'm basically informed on this subject, unlike most of the commenters here.
>Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)?
What is GLP?
What is GMP?
What is a NME?
How many NME's does the FDA approve per year?
>I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve.
I'm not shocked or surprised at your response, it's a classic case of Dunning Kruger where you are so ignorant regarding medical science, the intense science based regulation of the FDA, and the business of creating drugs, biologics, devices etc, that you are inherently incapable of evaluating your or mine competency here. If you think I am naive, that is a real testament to the depth of your ignorance on this subject.
If you'd like me to answer your questions honestly, I'd be more than happy to take some time to source and answer your question from the perspective of someone who has studied this subject academically and participates in it professionally. But the book linked will discuss I believe every one of your ethical concerns.
I'm sure you're well read and educated. I won't ever be as knowledgeable on the subject as you.
I have the benefit, though, of not having my entire livelihood and career dependent on my faith in the systemic health of mainstream medicine.
Maybe you're right. Honestly based on the tone of your initial comment, I have written off your impartiality, and so have little desire to learn from you. I'm sure you feel the same towards me. So here's to coming to a stalemate while putting other people down on the Internet. Maybe that's the important learning point, for me.
>Then you should be familiar with how generations were lied to and told that Fat caused heart disease and low-fat/high carb was the best way to eat.
I'm familiar enough with the FDA to know the difference of the Office of Food and Vet and the Office of Med Product and Tobacco.
Why don't you go research what CDER is, and try to determine whether or not diet guidance has anything at all to do with CDER and the actual topic of this thread.
Why on earth would you NOT assume that institutionalized greed affects the results of medical science?
Who is funding the science? What are their financial motives? Who conducts the research? What are their financial motives? Are incentives aligned to produce quality medical research with the patient's best interests in mind, or the bottom lines of medical companies (pharma, medtech, even hospitals, etc.)?
I'm shocked and surprised at your shock and surprise. I don't think your arguments are irrational. I simply think they are naïve.