Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Holy "Peer Review"

zogger (617870) writes | about 5 years ago

Medicine 6

Well, maybe it is peer review when drug company "peers" research their own products, then pay off doctors to sign off on the "results" which are then submitted.

Well, maybe it is peer review when drug company "peers" research their own products, then pay off doctors to sign off on the "results" which are then submitted.

And of course they are the first ones to jump up and down in immaculate white robes of life and death decisional authority and power and "prestige" and cry "quackery" when some treatment is out there that isn't patentable by bigdruggedco nor expensive compared to their bloated profit "peer reviewed" products.

And there you see just one of many reasons why healthcare is so expensive now. Fixing this phony alleged "scientific" mess would be along the lines of "constructive healthcare reform".

And it wouldn't cost that much either, not in the long run, compared to what it would save and how many more people would actually be helped, rather than having symptoms masked with expensive patented magic pills and potions and secret "proprietary" elixirs....

It's *good* to be a skeptic, but it is rather foolish to instantly believe and defend everything the big profit centers claim is "good for you" as well, and instantly diss any alternatives "just because".

    When there are billions, hundreds of billions really, in profits at stake (or massive political power gains or academic "prestige" based around alleged "scientific research and review and consensus"), integrity gets abandoned rather quickly in some quarters, and no profession or discipline is "immune" to this ongoing disease.

Higher IQ and developed academic and technical skills do not automagically impart higher integrity, although it can function to just create smarter crooks...

That's why I would support something like "open source medicine" as a replacement for what we have now (closed source wall street brand medicine) as just one of the better and cheaper ideas to get more affordable and more *effective* healthcare out there.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've got a Ritalin Deficiency that needs propping (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | about 5 years ago | (#29478297)

This is not news because there is nothing new about it. I remember stories like this 20 years ago (i.e. researchers getting kick-backs from drug companies, etc). I guess there is going to be yet another investigation.

and this is because... (2, Insightful)

zogger (617870) | about 5 years ago | (#29478929) is now profit centered first, instead of being medically centered first. The priorities are skewed, this is why it will always be more corrupt and expensive than not.

Now this isn't near as trivial a reality as say the market for pocket tune devices.

  Healthcare is expensive and really really really important, so we need to remove as much temptation or possibility or opportunity for criminality and corruption to occur as possible, and the only thing I can think of that might work is mandated open source/public domain when it comes to all medical knowledge.

Re:and this is because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29481317)

The "drug problem" could be solved by getting the insurance companies into the business. Since their primary motivation is reducing costs, it would be in their best interest to produce drugs that work right, work well, and don't cost $500 per dose.

If nothing else, it'd put an end to all those claims that drug companies are sitting on a cure for whatever because selling you drugs to treat it for the rest of your life is more profitable.

moof (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 5 years ago | (#29480469)

TFA sounds a bit like how the "stimulus bill" (and prolly others) was written -- unions and other Left-wing special interest groups wrote the outline and then their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress agreed to be the "authors". So after outsourcing medicine, we could next outsource the country's legislative process. No one leaves home and goes to Washington (to get out of touch with back home and be conveniently all in one place for easy one-stop shopping for lobbyists). No one quits their day job. No one runs for anything like an office, it would be just people who want to submit a change (a bill) would do so in their free time after work, and then after a public review period, any and all interested in casting a vote on it would do so, to commit or reject it. And of course then any "bill" would be subject to any number of amendments, both before and after the "bill" "passed", without there being a House or Senate majority leader to cut them off. Now *that* would be participatory democracy, and transparency. Next open source the entire federal apparatus (hmm, with the exception of the CIA, NSA, etc., as agencies who's charter it is to legitimately deal in secrets should be exempt).

So in general if open-sourcing is the answer, it can be applied to many things. Big pharma, big govt. And science is peer-reviewed and competition for grant money "causes" lots of shenanigans, so we should remove all financial incentives from science, i.e. all govt. funding. Go the open source way, and let people contribute to fund science just like they do the next bloated version of Firefox. Of course doing all this will mostly end new drug discoveries and scientific progress (i.e. big pharma, unlike M$, does actually innovate, if not too often for mundane things like penis pills), but people are prolly living too long anyways, and there's not been any real scientific advancement in a while anyways due to most of its funding being squandered on "I'm a believer too, so give me funding" studies on teh Gloomal Warbling. Look for other things to be open sourced too. It's a radical kind of change to be entertaining, but the big things that are hurting us may be too entrenched to unroot and reform via non-radical solutions. Maybe Wall St. could somehow be open sourced too.

Re:moof (1)

spun (1352) | about 5 years ago | (#29483167)

Quick question, what party was in power when the original stimulus went through?

Next question, ever watch 'I'm just a Bill, on Capitol Hill' during Saturday morning cartoons?

re: peer review (1)

visible.frylock (965768) | about 5 years ago | (#29481583)

Well, lots of problems here.

This reminds me of something I say about Sarbox, email retention, paper correspondence retention, etc. Now this article is talking about the UK, but I know this happens in the US. Considering we inherited a lot of their crappy legal system, it wouldn't surprise me if they have this too.

We have a policy of charging potential defendants with collecting, retaining, investigating, and providing potential evidence against them. Now, besides this being a braindead policy that could only come from the mind of a lawyer, it's, IMO, cleary a violation of the 5th amendment.

This, from what I know, is kind of how it works in medical studies. For example, if a local restaraunt gets a health complaint, what happens? Do they "swear" they've double checked everything and found "no violations"? And then the local health board just accepts that? Hell no, they get a visit from a health inspector. Now I'll agree that these kinds of systems are prone to abuse themselves, but any form of self-policing is just ridiculous on its face.

Yet, with a medical study, these companies certify that their drugs "pose no serious side effects". ORLY? Drugco said that? Well, then I guess Ritaxiloril must be safe right?

2nd, and this is another big obvious one that I push, abolish IP. In fact, abolish all government-granted monopolies. It has the nice side effect of abolishing all monopolies. That reduces the incentive to pull this kind of crap.

3rd, academia needs to grow a pair and throw off the journal middle men. Journals should be public domain, as well as all source data. Anything less shouldn't qualify as science, and shouldn't be treated as such.

But a world like that wouldn't leave much room for parasites, so I guess I'm just dreaming.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>