Health fads are still something of a personal fascination from the public health research years. I'd love to see the original chlorophyll studies measured against modern research standards. But it...
Health fads are still something of a personal fascination from the public health research years. I'd love to see the original chlorophyll studies measured against modern research standards.
But it hints at the same ability of business to create need and find health product applications which is now manifesting in "organic" marketing.
It would also be nice if claims for, oh, let's say Oxycontin's non-addictive properties, could have been debunked as easily as this:
The Journal of the American Medical Association probably did some of the best work on this front, by pointing out that Dr. F. Howard Westcott’s small-scale tests of his coworkers’ body odor probably didn’t pass the smell test, at least as far as the scientific method was concerned, and ripped the lid off the whole fad with a casually devastating bit of logic.
“One should consider the fact that many herbivorous animals, including the goat, consume, large quantities of chlorophyll, and some of these are noted for their pungent aroma,” the association stated in its magazine.
I dunno, to me it seems like an educated person, such as a doctor, would not be swayed by cheap marketing tactics and poor study design. But then again I don't know how much time was spent on...
I dunno, to me it seems like an educated person, such as a doctor, would not be swayed by cheap marketing tactics and poor study design.
But then again I don't know how much time was spent on analyzing studies when studying to be a doctor back then, and I don't really have a good idea how many doctors were actually swayed by this information and not simply lured in by kickbacks and incentives. The STARK law wasn't even enacted until the late 80s, so medical ethics back then was often suspect.
Not to get too far off-topic, but doctors are human, they can't keep up with the firehose of information the profession demands, they want to help suffering people, and they're susceptible to...
Not to get too far off-topic, but doctors are human, they can't keep up with the firehose of information the profession demands, they want to help suffering people, and they're susceptible to useful freebies. In the U.S., at least, it's easy for them to shrug and accept any product which passes FDA approval.
Then, you've got a houseful of patients whose number one complaint is pain, often intractable for trauma victims with spinal injuries, aging folks with arthritis, and so on. Insurance companies balk at paying for durable treatments like physical therapy or surgery, but they're only too happy with "cheaper" drugs.
I'm sure there were thousands of physicians who breathed a little more freely at the thought, "Here's a pill that can give them relief!".
That's precisely what these classes on analyzing studies are about. Within less than 2 minutes I could see the studies linked supporting "oxycodone is not iatrogenically addictive" have some...
they can't keep up with the firehose of information the profession demands
That's precisely what these classes on analyzing studies are about. Within less than 2 minutes I could see the studies linked supporting "oxycodone is not iatrogenically addictive" have some serious flaws and tell me close to nothing about a patient's long term addiction from prescription.
Then, you've got a houseful of patients whose number one complaint is pain
Pain as the 5th vital sign really came about in the late 80s and early 90s and definitely contributed to the problem
Insurance companies balk at paying for durable treatments
A very real problem - how much was giving a patient a pill to get them to shut up and go away because nothing else is covered? I wonder...
"Here's a pill that can give them relief!".
There's a million other pills that do the same thing. Opioids for pain are nothing new.
I've followed the U.S. pharma industry follies pretty closely over the years. Purdue effectively leveraged a dual jackpot - patented time-release formulation for a long-duration opiate that they...
There's a million other pills that do the same thing. Opioids for pain are nothing new.
I've followed the U.S. pharma industry follies pretty closely over the years. Purdue effectively leveraged a dual jackpot - patented time-release formulation for a long-duration opiate that they could brand and sell as a "new" proprietary product, and the merest hint (not even a proper study, just a published letter of findings) that opioids weren't as addictive as commonly thought.
Health fads are still something of a personal fascination from the public health research years. I'd love to see the original chlorophyll studies measured against modern research standards.
But it hints at the same ability of business to create need and find health product applications which is now manifesting in "organic" marketing.
It would also be nice if claims for, oh, let's say Oxycontin's non-addictive properties, could have been debunked as easily as this:
Now this is a story I haven't heard anything about. Who ever claimed that?
The Promotion and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy
I dunno, to me it seems like an educated person, such as a doctor, would not be swayed by cheap marketing tactics and poor study design.
But then again I don't know how much time was spent on analyzing studies when studying to be a doctor back then, and I don't really have a good idea how many doctors were actually swayed by this information and not simply lured in by kickbacks and incentives. The STARK law wasn't even enacted until the late 80s, so medical ethics back then was often suspect.
Anyhow, interesting paper, thanks for the link.
Not to get too far off-topic, but doctors are human, they can't keep up with the firehose of information the profession demands, they want to help suffering people, and they're susceptible to useful freebies. In the U.S., at least, it's easy for them to shrug and accept any product which passes FDA approval.
Then, you've got a houseful of patients whose number one complaint is pain, often intractable for trauma victims with spinal injuries, aging folks with arthritis, and so on. Insurance companies balk at paying for durable treatments like physical therapy or surgery, but they're only too happy with "cheaper" drugs.
I'm sure there were thousands of physicians who breathed a little more freely at the thought, "Here's a pill that can give them relief!".
That's precisely what these classes on analyzing studies are about. Within less than 2 minutes I could see the studies linked supporting "oxycodone is not iatrogenically addictive" have some serious flaws and tell me close to nothing about a patient's long term addiction from prescription.
Pain as the 5th vital sign really came about in the late 80s and early 90s and definitely contributed to the problem
A very real problem - how much was giving a patient a pill to get them to shut up and go away because nothing else is covered? I wonder...
There's a million other pills that do the same thing. Opioids for pain are nothing new.
I've followed the U.S. pharma industry follies pretty closely over the years. Purdue effectively leveraged a dual jackpot - patented time-release formulation for a long-duration opiate that they could brand and sell as a "new" proprietary product, and the merest hint (not even a proper study, just a published letter of findings) that opioids weren't as addictive as commonly thought.