CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[BradInATX 9208]

I can't wait for the day when there are two versions of science, just like there are now only two perceived versions of journalism in idiot world. Oxford/Coastal libtard science and Liberty U real American science. We can have biologists from Harvard and Ole Miss go on cable news and yell at each other about what color the sky is and which candidate they're voting for. And of course brain genius Americans won't have any issues separating fact from fiction. Just look at how media savvy we are! I think all scientific institutions should go ahead and endorse a candidate. Let's speed this train up!

 

 

[Dahobbs 17682]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I can't wait for the day when there are two versions of science, just like there are now only two perceived versions of journalism in idiot world. Oxford/Coastal libtard science and Liberty U real American science. We can have biologists from Harvard and Ole Miss go on cable news and yell at each other about what color the sky is. And of course brain genius Americans won't have any issues separating fact from fiction. Just look at how media savvy we are! I think all scientific institutions should go ahead and endorse a candidate. Let's speed this train up!

Just stop. Get help.

[Sawbonz 27587]

10 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I can't wait for the day when there are two versions of science, just like there are now only two perceived versions of journalism in idiot world. Oxford/Coastal libtard science and Liberty U real American science. We can have biologists from Harvard and Ole Miss go on cable news and yell at each other about what color the sky is. And of course brain genius Americans won't have any issues separating fact from fiction. Just look at how media savvy we are! I think all scientific institutions should go ahead and endorse a candidate. Let's speed this train up!

The games not till 11. If you don’t pace yourself a bit you’re gonna be passed out by the second quarter 

[BradInATX 9208]

Just stop. Get help.

There's only one side of this discussion throwing a pissy fit when someone suggests any fault with emotionally and politically driven "strategy".
Can you explain the upside of this move?

[BradInATX 9208]

The games not till 11. If you don’t pace yourself a bit you’re gonna be passed out by the second quarter 

Still waiting for a single person to explain the benefit of it. I mean if y'all wanna throw around tired jokes I'm happy to participate but I was hoping for an intellectually honest attempt to make a case by at least one of you.

I'll be here when you're ready. Take your time 

 

 

[Sawbonz 27587]

Just now, BradInATX said:

There's only one side of this discussion throwing a pissy fit when someone suggests any fault with emotionally and politically driven "strategy".
Can you explain the upside of this move?

The target audience for the New England Journal of Medicine is physicians. More to the point, it is internists and subspecialists within the internal medicine sphere. Physicians probably distribute out along the political spectrum similar to the average American, but with the exception of a few nutters they by and large assess and judge matters of health/medicine based on the supporting evidence snd science. That’s whether they went to Harvard, ole miss, or anywhere else. Publishing an editorial against trump is not going to result in all the conservative doctors abandoning science for Trumpism. That assertion is absurd

[Sawbonz 27587]

8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Still waiting for a single person to explain the benefit of it. I mean if y'all wanna throw around tired jokes I'm happy to participate but I was hoping for an intellectually honest attempt to make a case by at least one of you I'll be here when you're ready. Take your time

 

When you make patently absurd assertions you should not expect serious rebuttals but again the target audience is docs who may be inclined to vote their pocketbooks. This article has a good chance of changing some of their minds, and they in turn can advocate to others who respect their opinions

[BradInATX 9208]

The target audience for the New England Journal of Medicine is physicians. More to the point, it is internists and subspecialists within the internal medicine sphere. Physicians probably distribute out along the political spectrum similar to the average American, but with the exception of a few nutters they by and large assess and judge matters of health/medicine based on the supporting evidence snd science. That’s whether they went to Harvard, ole miss, or anywhere else. Publishing an editorial against trump is not going to result in all the conservative doctors abandoning science for Trumpism. That assertion is absurd

You think that was my assertion?
You are either a shitty, shitty reader of you're being stupid on purpose. But that's what happens when people react emotionally. Go cool yourself off and come back when you're ready to have a grown up talk.

[Anastasis 23484]

NEJM talk not going away. 

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

When you make patently absurd assertions you should not expect serious rebuttals but again the target audience is docs who may be inclined to vote their pocketbooks. This article has a good chance of changing some of their minds, and they in turn can advocate to others who respect their opinions

Who is "they"? 

You think that there are doctors in the world who were not already anti-Trump that will be swayed by the political opinion of the NEJM? Where do these doctors live? Under a rock? With those untouched aborigine island tribes in the pacific? Could you name your PCP so I can note to never use them?

 

 

 

[Sawbonz 27587]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

You think that was my assertion?
You are either a shitty, shitty reader of you're being stupid on purpose. But that's what happens when people react emotionally. Go cool yourself off and come back when you're ready to have a grown up talk.

 

28 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I can't wait for the day when there are two versions of science, just like there are now only two perceived versions of journalism in idiot world. Oxford/Coastal libtard science and Liberty U real American science. We can have biologists from Harvard and Ole Miss go on cable news and yell at each other about what color the sky is and which candidate they're voting for

I mean I guess I’m a shitty reader

[BradInATX 9208]

I mean I guess I’m a shitty reader

You don't think we're headed down a path where science is considered liberal and anti-science is a real American by God Conservative value? I don't know how to help you there. We're already halfway down the road.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

Whew.  I think I'm going to have to go with Brad on this one.

Condemning the current administration's response seems entirely legitimate, perhaps without naming names.  They could, probably should, state that a 180 degree change in virus policy is required or strongly suggested.

Recommending an electoral course of action seems a bridge too far for a professional medical journal.  They could have made it implicitly very clear that that was the recommendation without coming out and stating it.

It's not going to change anyone's mind among its readership, but it may well diminish its credibility among laypeople.  Not that any of those laypeople really matter, but it seems a bad move to potentially tarnish that credibility by injecting itself explicitly into the political arena.

Tough call.

Fuck it.  Breaking norms is the new norm.

Edited October 10, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27587]

Just now, BradInATX said:

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I mean I guess I’m a shitty reader

You don't think we're headed down a path where science is considered liberal and anti-science is a real American by God Conservative value? I don't know how to help you there. We're already halfway down the road.

That is a completely different assertion. “We” as a society are definitely on that train. The docs that make up the target audience for the NEJM aren’t filling many of those train cars. Nor are the scientists at ole miss etc

[BradInATX 9208]

Whew.  I think I'm going to have to go with Brad on this one.
Condemning the current administration's response seems entirely legitimate, perhaps without naming names.  They could, probably should, state that a 180 degree change in virus policy is required or strongly suggested.
Recommending an electoral course of action seems a bridge too far for a professional medical journal.  They could have made it implicitly very clear that that was the recommendation without coming out and stating it.
It's not going to change anyone's mind among its readership, but it may well diminish its credibility among laypeople.  Not that any of those laypeople really matter, but it seems a bad move to potentially tarnish that credibility by injecting itself explicitly into the political arena.
Tough call.
Fuck it.  Breaking norms is the new norm.

Right. I'm not advocating that they don't do hard takedowns of Trump's terrible decisions. Please keep that up. But expressly endorsing a political candidate is a bridge too far. It turns your organization into a political vehicle from a perception standpoint. It might feel good to do, but it's foolish short-game strategy.

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

24 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I can't wait for the day when there are two versions of science,

Now you've lost it. We've been there for decades. Have you not been paying attention? There are numerous examples, lead and tobacco being two of the more prominent topics. But the most significant example facing us today is the one of anthropogenic global warming. Have you followed how the industry-funded denial machine works? They use the same sort of tactics used to deny the threats of lead and tobacco but they've cranked it up to 11 and their bought-and-paid-for stooges in the GOP are happy to help. The best example of that might be when James Inhofe brought a snowball in a cooler to Congress and held it up as proof that global warming is a hoax. And it's filtered down into the religious right where you have morons insisting that God wants us to use oil for our energy, He's given us enough to last forever, and He wouldn't let it harm the environment, therefore the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community must be wrong. 

Under what rock have you been hiding?

[BradInATX 9208]

That is a completely different assertion. “We” as a society are definitely on that train. The docs that make up the target audience for the NEJM aren’t filling many of those train cars. Nor are the scientists at ole miss etc

What about the people watching the idiots on cable news talk about it? What about the morons on the Daily Texan Covid thread who think masks are a hoax? Has this story not reached mainstream America?

 

[Anastasis 23484]

Just now, BradInATX said:

think masks are a hoax?

[BradInATX 9208]

Now you've lost it. We've been there for decades. Have you not been paying attention? There are numerous examples, lead and tobacco being two of the more prominent topics. But the most significant example facing us today is the one of anthropogenic global warming. Have you followed how the industry-funded denial machine works? They use the same sort of tactics used to deny the threats of lead and tobacco but they've cranked it up to 11 and their bought-and-paid-for stooges in the GOP are happy to help. The best example of that might be when James Inhofe brought a snowball in a cooler to Congress and held it up as proof that global warming is a hoax. And it's filtered down into the religious right where you have morons insisting that God wants us to use oil for our energy, He's given us enough to last forever, and He wouldn't let it harm the environment, therefore the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community must be wrong. 

Under what rock have you been hiding?

Did you miss where I said we're already halfway down the road, or do you just need to yell at stuff? Do you not think it's rapidly getting worse?

 

[Anastasis 23484]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Do you not think it's rapidly getting worse?

death spiral, imo. 

[BradInATX 9208]

death spiral, imo. 

Yep. Idiots ignore science. Media, science and academia are horrified and lash out. More idiots are born. Rinse repeat.

[Brisketexan 105319]

Still waiting for a single person to explain the benefit of it. I mean if y'all wanna throw around tired jokes I'm happy to participate but I was hoping for an intellectually honest attempt to make a case by at least one of you.I'll be here when you're ready. Take your time 
 
 

Whew.  I think I'm going to have to go with Brad on this one.
Condemning the current administration's response seems entirely legitimate, perhaps without naming names.  They could, probably should, state that a 180 degree change in virus policy is required or strongly suggested.
Recommending an electoral course of action seems a bridge too far for a professional medical journal.  They could have made it implicitly very clear that that was the recommendation without coming out and stating it.
It's not going to change anyone's mind among its readership, but it may well diminish its credibility among laypeople.  Not that any of those laypeople really matter, but it seems a bad move to potentially tarnish that credibility by injecting itself explicitly into the political arena.
Tough call.
Fuck it.  Breaking norms is the new norm.

The answer to all of this is because the norms have been shattered.

And they take a stand because that is what they believe that they are obligated to do.

As the clergyman protesting the Vietnam war answered:

“Do you think you can change the country with such a protest", he replied
"I don't do this to change the country.
I do this so the country won't change me."

To speak, so firmly and directly, is to take an unequivocal stand for their mission. Maybe they got it wrong. But that’s why they did it.

History is going to judge all of us when this is over. And we are going to have to account to ourselves. That matters. At least, it does to some of us.

[BradInATX 9208]

The answer to all of this is because the norms have been shattered.

The solution to shattered norms is not to shatter more of them in retaliation. My entire point. Especially when it serves no purpose and creates no value.

[Sawbonz 27587]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Recommending an electoral course of action seems a bridge too far for a professional medical journal.

Counterpoint: 200k dead and counting and trump literally being the source of a superspreader event that risks shutting down the senate and his cabinet 

[Sawbonz 27587]

21 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

What about the people watching the idiots on cable news talk about it? What about the morons on the Daily Texan Covid thread who think masks are a hoax? Has this story not reached mainstream America?

 

Oh yeah you’re right. They are sitting there watching hannity thinking  “Man I was totally going to start wearing a mask and cancel that gender reveal party I invited 100 people to until the most prestigious medical journal in the world said something mean about Trump. Hey honey call the pediatrician and cancel the kids’ vaccination appointment”

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

16 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Did you miss where I said we're already halfway down the road, or do you just need to yell at stuff? Do you not think it's rapidly getting worse?

Did you miss where I said we're already there?

You must be a shitty reader. I was just saying you lost all credibility with me on this subject when you made it clear that you're unaware of the current state of things. 

And stop accusing other people of being emotional when they're not. You're the one getting his panties in a bunch over a relatively innocuous event. And acting a little trollish about it. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Did you miss where I said we're already there?
You must be a shitty reader. I was just saying you lost all credibility with me on this subject when you made it clear that you're unaware of the current state of things. 
And stop accusing other people of being emotional when they're not. You're the one getting his panties in a bunch over a relatively innocuous event. And acting a little trollish about it. 

Do you or do you not think the problem can get worse?

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

33 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whew.  I think I'm going to have to go with Brad on this one.
Condemning the current administration's response seems entirely legitimate, perhaps without naming names.  They could, probably should, state that a 180 degree change in virus policy is required or strongly suggested.
Recommending an electoral course of action seems a bridge too far for a professional medical journal.  They could have made it implicitly very clear that that was the recommendation without coming out and stating it.
It's not going to change anyone's mind among its readership, but it may well diminish its credibility among laypeople.  Not that any of those laypeople really matter, but it seems a bad move to potentially tarnish that credibility by injecting itself explicitly into the political arena.
Tough call.
Fuck it.  Breaking norms is the new norm.

Read more  

Right. I'm not advocating that they don't do hard takedowns of Trump's terrible decisions. Please keep that up. But expressly endorsing a political candidate is a bridge too far. It turns your organization into a political vehicle from a perception standpoint. It might feel good to do, but it's foolish short-game strategy.

We’ve been screaming for people in positions of power to stand up and roundly reject the insanity and speak the truth. That’s exactly what they did. They should be applauded for it. 
 

 

[Sawbonz 27587]

Just heard on NPR that Chris Christie was just released after a week in the hospital. He will have a statement sometime next week. I guess that is assuming he doesn’t relapse of wind up back at the hospital. The head of the White House security force is apparently in critical condition, and we don’t know the condition of several of the other Covid positive people that Trump exposed.

[BradInATX 9208]

We’ve been screaming for people in positions of power to stand up and roundly reject the insanity and speak the truth. That’s exactly what they did. They should be applauded for it. 
 
 

Who has? I'm screaming for people in power to do what it takes to get the anti-intellectuals out. That means playing for a win, not a cathartic emotional moment for people already on the right side of things. That means smart and measured strategy, not digging in and exacerbating the problem.

[Brisketexan 105319]

We’ve been screaming for people in positions of power to stand up and roundly reject the insanity and speak the truth. That’s exactly what they did. They should be applauded for it. 
 
 

This. We have reached the “here I stand, I can do no other” point. I think it really, really sucks that we’re there. But that doesn’t change the fact that we ARE there.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

7 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

We’ve been screaming for people in positions of power to stand up and roundly reject the insanity and speak the truth. That’s exactly what they did. They should be applauded for it. 
 
 

Who has? I'm screaming for people in power to do what it takes to get the anti-intellectuals out. That means playing for a win, not a cathartic emotional moment for people already on the right side of things. That means smart and measured strategy, not digging in and exacerbating the problem.

No offense to @Lobo but your shit is all retarded, Brad.

[UpperWestside 6188]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

The answer to all of this is because the norms have been shattered.

And they take a stand because that is what they believe that they are obligated to do.

As the clergyman protesting the Vietnam war answered:

“Do you think you can change the country with such a protest", he replied
"I don't do this to change the country.
I do this so the country won't change me."

To speak, so firmly and directly, is to take an unequivocal stand for their mission. Maybe they got it wrong. But that’s why they did it.

History is going to judge all of us when this is over. And we are going to have to account to ourselves. That matters. At least, it does to some of us.

 

We are all going to be held to account by someone on some level for what we did, or better yet, did not do during this moment in history. The NEJM decided that sitting on the sidelines during a pandemic that has killed around 215k Americans alone was their breaking point. The denial of science and the senseless deaths of this many Americans and counting put them in a position where they wanted to be held to account. Good on them.
 

The people and organizations that should be ashamed and be held up to ridicule are the ones who know what they are witnessing is wrong yet do NOTHING and say NOTHING. Being afraid to take a stand right now is utter cowardice. 

[triplehorn 2664]

I'm not making a claim or accusation about the NEJM or those who penned the article, but as an exercise, consider what former NEJM editor in chief  Dr. Marcia Angell wrote about big pharma in her book The Truth About the Drug Companies: 

Spoiler

- The boundaries between academic medicine — medical schools, teaching hospitals, and their faculty — and the pharmaceutical industry have been dissolving since the 1980s, and the important differences between their missions are becoming blurred. Medical research, education, and clinical practice have suffered as a result.

- “To a remarkable extent … medical centers have become supplicants to the drug companies, deferring to them in ways that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago. Often, academic researchers are little more than hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to instructions from corporate paymasters. The sponsors keep the data, analyze it, write the papers, and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. In multi-center trials, researchers may not even be allowed to see all of the data, an obvious impediment to science and a perversion of standard practice."

- “[Drug] manufacturers typically prefer to work with academic medical centers. Doing so increases the chances of getting research published, and, more importantly, provides drug companies access to highly influential faculty physicians — referred to by the industry as ‘thought leaders’ or ‘key opinion leaders.’ These are the people who write textbooks and medical-journal papers, issue practice guidelines (treatment recommendations), sit on FDA and other governmental advisory panels, head professional societies, and speak at the innumerable meetings and dinners that take place every day to teach clinicians about prescription drugs.”

- “Medical centers increasingly act as though meeting industry’s needs is a legitimate purpose of an academic institution…. Academic leaders, chairs, and even deans sit on boards of directors of drug companies. Many academic medical centers have set up special offices to offer companies quick soup-to-nuts service.”

- “Increasingly, industry is setting the research agenda in academic centers, and that agenda has more to do with industry’s mission than with the mission of the academy. Researchers and their institutions are focusing too much on targeted, applied research, mainly drug development, and not enough on non-targeted, basic research into the causes, mechanisms, and prevention of disease.”

-  “[D]rug companies often contract with academic researchers to carry out studies for almost entirely commercial purposes. For example, they sponsor trials of drugs to supplant virtually identical ones that are going off patent…. There’s a high scientific opportunity cost in serving the aims of the pharmaceutical industry. For example, new antibiotics for treating infections by resistant organisms are an urgent medical need, but are not economically attractive to industry because they are not likely to generate much return on investment.”

- “In addition to distorting the research agenda, there is overwhelming evidence that drug-company influence biases the research itself. Industry-supported research is far more likely to be favorable to the sponsors’ products than in NIH-supported research.”

- “Conflicts of interest affect more than research. They also directly shape the way medicine is practiced, through their influence on practice guidelines issued by professional and governmental bodies and through their effects on FDA decisions.” Angell offers several examples, including this one: “In 2004, after the NIH National Cholesterol Education Program called for sharply lowering the acceptable levels of ‘bad’ cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.”

-“Drug companies support educational programs even within our best medical schools and teaching hospitals, and are given virtually unfettered access to young doctors to ply them with gifts and meals and promote their wares. … This is marketing masquerading as education. … But doctors do learn something from all the ostensible education they’re paid to receive. Doctors and their patients come to believe that for every ailment and discontent there is a drug, even when changes in lifestyle would be more effective. And they believe that the newest, most expensive brand-name drugs are superior to older drugs or generics, even though there is seldom any evidence to that effect because sponsors don’t usually compare their drugs with older drugs at equivalent doses.”

etc.

The exercise is to think of what the politicized article means if the substance and timing is being externally promulgated by big pharma interests as opposed to sacrosanct elements of the NEJM.  In this case, the targeted audience would be the Democratic political establishment that appears to be poised for wins next month and utilizing the powerful 'principle of reciprocity' to curry policy favor, if not to garner a degree of loyalty from those expected soon to be at the helm making real time decisions that have billions in the balance for pharma going forward.  Ordinarily, big corporate donations hedge and go to both sides.  The timing of this from NEJM is what seems a little suspect - the tea leaves point to a potential GOP wipeout.  OTOH, the public would have been better served if the influencers like the NEJM had voiced this level of sentiment last spring.

Edited October 10, 2020 by triplehorn

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

No offense to @Lobo but your shit is all retarded, Brad.

Professorchang/ I’ll allow it. 

[BradInATX 9208]

No offense to [mention=2691]Lobo[/mention] but your shit is all retarded, Brad.

Good content here. High effort stuff.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

6 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

No offense to [mention=2691]Lobo[/mention] but your shit is all retarded, Brad.

 

Good content here. High effort stuff.

Let me give you an analogy. Remember when Mack and GDGD would script the first 15 plays on offense? That’s what you’re doing, except you’re scripting the LAST 15 plays of the game. 
 

what adjective would describe a coach that did that?

[BradInATX 9208]

Well, there's triple horn to give you guys stumbling over your own dicks to come up with some sort of rationalization for shitty strategy an opportunity to switch gears. I'll let y'all have at that one. Best I've gotten from team emotions is "it's going to turn all of the Trump voting doctors to Biden. Dozens!". Safe to say at this point y'all have nothing, and it's time to make a drink and watch the game. Peace.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Sent to a friend of mine by their German family member. This is how the World sees us right now.

Translation:  “DONT BE AFRAID”

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Well, there's triple horn to give you guys stumbling over your own dicks to come up with some sort of rationalization for shitty strategy an opportunity to switch gears. I'll let y'all have at that one. Best I've gotten from team emotions is "it's going to turn all of the Trump voting doctors to Biden. Dozens!". Safe to say at this point y'all have nothing, and it's time to make a drink and watch the game. Peace.

We’re going to miss your hot take.

[Dahobbs 17682]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

Who is "they"? 

You think that there are doctors in the world who were not already anti-Trump that will be swayed by the political opinion of the NEJM? Where do these doctors live? Under a rock? With those untouched aborigine island tribes in the pacific? Could you name your PCP so I can note to never use them?

 

 

 

You realize you're arguing with a doc, right?

[Sawbonz 27587]

14 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I'm not making a claim or accusation about the NEJM or those who penned the article, but as an exercise, consider what former NEJM editor in chief  Dr. Marcia Angell wrote about big pharma in her book The Truth About the Drug Companies: 

  Reveal hidden contents

- The boundaries between academic medicine — medical schools, teaching hospitals, and their faculty — and the pharmaceutical industry have been dissolving since the 1980s, and the important differences between their missions are becoming blurred. Medical research, education, and clinical practice have suffered as a result.

- “To a remarkable extent … medical centers have become supplicants to the drug companies, deferring to them in ways that would have been unthinkable even twenty years ago. Often, academic researchers are little more than hired hands who supply human subjects and collect data according to instructions from corporate paymasters. The sponsors keep the data, analyze it, write the papers, and decide whether and when and where to submit them for publication. In multi-center trials, researchers may not even be allowed to see all of the data, an obvious impediment to science and a perversion of standard practice."

- “[Drug] manufacturers typically prefer to work with academic medical centers. Doing so increases the chances of getting research published, and, more importantly, provides drug companies access to highly influential faculty physicians — referred to by the industry as ‘thought leaders’ or ‘key opinion leaders.’ These are the people who write textbooks and medical-journal papers, issue practice guidelines (treatment recommendations), sit on FDA and other governmental advisory panels, head professional societies, and speak at the innumerable meetings and dinners that take place every day to teach clinicians about prescription drugs.”

- “Medical centers increasingly act as though meeting industry’s needs is a legitimate purpose of an academic institution…. Academic leaders, chairs, and even deans sit on boards of directors of drug companies. Many academic medical centers have set up special offices to offer companies quick soup-to-nuts service.”

- “Increasingly, industry is setting the research agenda in academic centers, and that agenda has more to do with industry’s mission than with the mission of the academy. Researchers and their institutions are focusing too much on targeted, applied research, mainly drug development, and not enough on non-targeted, basic research into the causes, mechanisms, and prevention of disease.”

-  “[D]rug companies often contract with academic researchers to carry out studies for almost entirely commercial purposes. For example, they sponsor trials of drugs to supplant virtually identical ones that are going off patent…. There’s a high scientific opportunity cost in serving the aims of the pharmaceutical industry. For example, new antibiotics for treating infections by resistant organisms are an urgent medical need, but are not economically attractive to industry because they are not likely to generate much return on investment.”

- “In addition to distorting the research agenda, there is overwhelming evidence that drug-company influence biases the research itself. Industry-supported research is far more likely to be favorable to the sponsors’ products than in NIH-supported research.”

- “Conflicts of interest affect more than research. They also directly shape the way medicine is practiced, through their influence on practice guidelines issued by professional and governmental bodies and through their effects on FDA decisions.” Angell offers several examples, including this one: “In 2004, after the NIH National Cholesterol Education Program called for sharply lowering the acceptable levels of ‘bad’ cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.”

-“Drug companies support educational programs even within our best medical schools and teaching hospitals, and are given virtually unfettered access to young doctors to ply them with gifts and meals and promote their wares. … This is marketing masquerading as education. … But doctors do learn something from all the ostensible education they’re paid to receive. Doctors and their patients come to believe that for every ailment and discontent there is a drug, even when changes in lifestyle would be more effective. And they believe that the newest, most expensive brand-name drugs are superior to older drugs or generics, even though there is seldom any evidence to that effect because sponsors don’t usually compare their drugs with older drugs at equivalent doses.”

etc.

The exercise is to think of what the politicized article means if the substance and timing is being externally promulgated by big pharma interests as opposed to sacrosanct elements of the NEJM.  In this case, the targeted audience would be the Democratic political establishment that appears to be poised for wins next month and utilizing the powerful 'principle of reciprocity' to curry policy favor, if not to garner a degree of loyalty from those expected soon to be at the helm making real time decisions that have billions in the balance for pharma going forward.  Ordinarily, big corporate donations hedge and go to both sides.  The timing of this from NEJM is what seems a little suspect - the tea leaves point to a potential GOP wipeout.  OTOH, the public would have been better served if the influencers like the NEJM had voiced this level of sentiment last spring.

I wonder if readers will perceive a difference between shilling for Big Pharma and expressing concern for the health of millions? Yeah probably not

[Dahobbs 17682]

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Well, there's triple horn to give you guys stumbling over your own dicks to come up with some sort of rationalization for shitty strategy an opportunity to switch gears. I'll let y'all have at that one. Best I've gotten from team emotions is "it's going to turn all of the Trump voting doctors to Biden. Dozens!". Safe to say at this point y'all have nothing, and it's time to make a drink and watch the game. Peace.

You're the one emotional brad. You think the NEJM is making some sort of strategic political decision in concert with the Democrats. I think the individual editors of the NEJM decided they needed to make a stand and draw a line in the sand. This is what they believe. It isn't a game to them. It isn't a politically calculated move. It is an honest and earnest expression of what they think must be done to save this country. If everyone who had a voice did the same, we would be in a better place. Not speaking is what got us here. Silence in the face of rising evil is what got us here. Playing political games is what got us here. Stop being emotional. Stop playing games. Start being a people again. 

Edited October 10, 2020 by Dahobbs

[triplehorn 2664]

51 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I wonder if readers will perceive a difference between shilling for Big Pharma and expressing concern for the health of millions? Yeah probably not

At the risk of misinterpreting you, generally the art of influence is not black and white and the targets aren't always obvious by design.  So yeah, in this case readers (the public, medical community, political establishment) not perceiving the difference between being a shill for political influence versus expressing genuine concern would be the goal.  What journals publish, including the NEJM, is significantly influenced by pharma's business interests, as the former editor-in-chief of the NEJM experienced first hand from the inside.  So the supposition is not just out of left field.  And this move by the NEJM is sufficiently irregular to warrant considering additional explanations.  

Edited October 10, 2020 by triplehorn
fuck ou

[BradInATX 9208]

You're the one emotional brad. You think the NEJM is making some sort of strategic political decision in concert with the Democrats. I think the individual editors of the NEJM decided they needed to make a stand and draw a line in the sand. This is what they believe. It isn't a game to them. It isn't a politically calculated move. It is an honest and earnest expression of what they think must be done to save this country. If everyone who had a voice did the same, we would be in a better place. Not speaking is what got us here. Silence in the face of rising evil is what got us here. Playing political games is what got us here. Stop being emotional. Stop playing games. Start being a people again. 

This is the best point made yet and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. I disagree with the weight given to some sort of esoteric "doing the right thing" vs. doing the correct thing to win minds and hearts. And in this particular case they're at odds. The bad guys always choose strategy over morals. 100% of the time. They play the long game, cynical game. We people of rationality and science can't win if we go the opposite and make emotionally driven decisions at every turn.

 

That's all I have on it, last word is yours. And I still love all you guys even if you're all purity-testing defensive pussies. Hook em. OU sucks.

 

 

 

[TXSG8R 3362]

My grandmother in Germany told us yesterday that the archdiocese in Bamberg has declared that there will be no heating in church this winter in an effort to keep the virus under control. I’m not sure of the science there, but I know my 90 year old grandmother said “guess I’m not going to church this winter.” I thought the virus was able to live in the cold just fine?  Maybe the goal is to force the olds to stay home?

[Royalfan5 2355]

The science is that you don’t want to move air around in a poorly ventilated space, and it’s hard to heat buildings without doing that 

[Beau Vine 54416]

On 10/10/2020 at 10:26 AM, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

No offense to @Lobo but your shit is all retarded, Brad.

Yeah, with all the other shit to get upset about, this is a very odd thing to make someone fly off the handle.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Sheesh

[staboner 4984]

eh at least they are outside i guess.