Journal zogger's Journal: The Holy "Peer Review" 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.
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.
I've got a Ritalin Deficiency that needs propping (Score:1)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
...healthcare 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 manda
moof (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:1)
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 on