Roberto Maroni, in una conferenza stampa, ha parlato di un danno «stimato in oltre sessanta milioni di euro per il sistema sanitario regionale» La Regione Lombardia intenterà «una serie di azionilegali nei confronti dei gruppi Novartis e La Roche» per il caso del farmaco Lucentis, che sarebbe stato favorito al posto del meno caro Avastin. Lo ha annunciato il presidente Roberto Maroni che, in una conferenza stampa, ha parlato di un danno «stimato in oltre sessanta milioni di euro per il sistema sanitario regionale». Per questo la sua giunta ha deliberato di dare «incarico all’avvocatura regionale per recuperare in sede giudiziale o extragiudiziale» la somma.
C'era un sorta di tariffario per ricompensare i medici che mettevano i pazienti sotto terapia di Omnitrope un ormone della crescita biosimilare secondo quanto hanno scoperto le indagini dei Nas
Cliccando “firma” sottoscrivo il documento “Patto dei genitori”, mi impegno a seguire le regole descritte ed esprimo il mio sostegno a questa iniziativa.FIRMA...
In occasione dell'uscita del documentario di Giulio Cederna "Una Scuola Italiana", prodotto da M.Carsetti, C.Bartoli e A. Triulzi, pubblichiamo un'importante intervista a Grazia Honegger Fresco sui temi della responsabilità educativa, della diversità religiosa e dell'educazione alla pace.
Uno dei primi esempi di diffusione di malattie è la Listerine, inventata nel 1879 e utilizzata come antisettico e persino come detergente per pavimenti prima che i suoi creatori capissero come venderla. Dopo averlo commercializzato ai dentisti per l'igiene orale in studio, hanno iniziato a venderlo direttamente ai consumatori. Solo che i consumatori non ne avevano bisogno. Così i creatori hanno inventato una malattia che il loro prodotto “cura”: l’alitosi, che non è altro che l’alitosi.
This paper explores ways in which the strategic use of discursive and generic conventions has the potential to create a non-existent pathology and mislead the public.
Il disease mongering (commercio di malattie) è una forma di medicalizzazione che provoca l’aumento del numero di malattie e malati allo scopo di allargare il mercato della salute. Tale commercio viene esteso alle problematiche della vita e della morte, alle emozioni, alla sessualità.
Le thé vert est loué pour ses bienfaits supposés sur la santé, voire pour prévenir le cancer. Mais aucune étude ne permet de montrer de telles propriétés.Le thé est la deuxième boisson la plus consommée dans le monde, après l'eau. Dans certains pays, sa consommation est un art de vivre faisant l'objet d'un cérémonial très codifié.Devenue un produit tendance chez les jeunes, cette boisson fait désormais l'objet d'une intense promotion de ses bienfaits présumés pour la santé et le bien-être (promesses de propriétés « détox », de drainage, etc.). Dans le cas du thé vert, de supposées propriétés « anticancer » sont également mises en avant. Qu'en est-il réellement ?
Infographie. Le Consortium international des journalistes d’investigation (ICIJ) a constitué une base de données des incidents survenus entre 2009 et 2017 aux Etats-Unis : en tête, les pompes à insuline.
Le revisioni sistematiche di alta qualità sono fondamentali per prendere decisioni basate sulle prove e “nessuna organizzazione ha contribuito alla loro produzione come ha fatto la Cochrane, in precedenza Cochrane Collaboration,ora al suo 25° anno.” La breve nota del direttore del BMJ, Fiona Godlee, si aggiunge al confronto di questi giorni. Vale la pena fare attenzione ai dettagli della sua Editor’s Choice
.We must hope that Cochrane remembers its roots. Fiona Godlee
Most patients will derive no health improvement from medication. We should tackle the root causes of disease instead
When former airline pilot Tony Royle came to see me last year to seek reassurance that it was OK to participate in an Ironman event, having stopped all his medications 18 months after suffering a heart attack, I was initially a little alarmed.
But after talking to him, I realised he had made an informed decision to stop the medication after suffering side effects, and instead had opted for a diet and lifestyle approach to manage his heart disease.
His case is a great example of how evidence-based medicine should be practised. This is the integration of clinical expertise, the best available evidence and – most importantly – taking patients’ preferences and values into consideration.
“Lo sponsor non ha avuto alcun ruolo nella conduzione dello studio e nella scrittura del lavoro”. Ma dietro questa dicitura, riportata nel Rapporto sulla sopravvivenza dei pazienti oncologici in Italia pubblicato nel 2017 dall’Associazione italiana registri tumori (Airtum), c’è ben altro. Dati venduti dal Registro Tumori a una multinazionale del farmaco, la Msd, interessata ad …
At a time when drug company lobbyists are widely vilified as icons of avarice, patient advocacy groups still wear the white hats.
But those organizations, which promote cures for every type of cancer and hundreds more diseases, have come under criticism lately for favoring their drug company funders in contests on Capitol Hill.
In one case, a diabetes group accepted money from food companies and played down the health risks from their high-sugar products; in another case, a mental health association, reliant on drug company dollars, opted to keep quiet about the soaring prices of its antidepressants. And many of the patient advocacy groups pushing for passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, which consumer groups argue rolls back patient protection, are funded in large part by pharmaceutical firms.
Read here about ways to support your child’s healthy mental development, build resilience and strengthen relational health so they can grow and thrive. Ask your pediatrician about any concerns and to help connect you to support and resources for your child.
Per sensibilizzare bambini e ragazzi su temi come parità di genere, cambiamento climatico e consumo responsabile, abbiamo pensato a una bibliografia ragionataindividuando, tra i nostri titoli, quelli che si legano agli obiettivi dell’Agenda.
In questi anni, siamo entrati nel vivo della rivoluzione digitale osservata ad altezza di bambino e bambina e attraverso la lente dei diritti dell’infanzia e dell’adolescenza, con programmi dedicati e un’analisi attenta.
The pharmaceutical industry and drugs advertisements are sometimes accused of “creating diseases”. This article assesses and describes the role of that industry in fostering medicalization.
Mediante estrategias narrativas en los medios de comunicación se modulan las creencias en la sociedad con la finalidad de que el público ubique su atención en condiciones inocuas. La construcción de la vejez como un problema, un trastorno o enfermedad, deviene en elecciones condicionadas y generando mayor consumo de tecnología médica, servicios de salud y […]
C'era una volta Il giornalista Silvestro Montanaro, conduttore del programma RAI "C'era una volta", racconta di come l'industria farmaceutica "crea" le malattie.
The Food and Drug Administration depends on the drug industry for much of its funding, and that money, in the form of “user fees,” comes with strings attached: every five years, the pharmaceutical industry gets to negotiate with the FDA the terms under which funding i
Big pharma is partnering with influencers to sell new drugs and medical devices.
Using influencers to sell products to the sick can be a particularly insidious form of marketing in large part because of the vague parameters set by the FTC and FDA. With today’s ambiguous regulations, health care sponcon will continue to saturate our feeds with posts that appear sincere but end up being misleading. Consumers looking for remedies to what ails them should not be expected to differentiate nuances in regulatory wording between “clinically validated” and “FDA-approved.”
La proposta di espulsione dall’organo di governo della Cochrane di Peter Gøtzsche continua ad agitare le acque della associazione internazionale dedicata a produrre “informazioni di alta qualità per le decisioni di salute”.
C’è una tempesta, anzi, un uragano, che sta travolgendo il mondo della ricerca biomedica, all’insaputa del grande pubblico, quasi fosse qualcosa che interessa solo pochi addetti ai lavori. Ne ha accennato il Manifesto, ne ha riferito Wired, ma per il resto, sui grandi mezzi di comunicazione, nemmeno una parola. In apparenza, d’altra parte, quella di questi giorni sembra una vicenda banale.
Alcohol companies have recently invested large sums of money in answering research questions to which they have clear vested interests in the outcomes. There have been extensive concerns about corporate influence on public health sciences, following the experience with the tobacco industry.
Approach
This systematic review aims to investigate the perspectives of researchers on the activities of alcohol industry actors in relation to science, in order to guide future research. All data published in peer‐reviewed journals (including commentaries, opinion pieces, editorials and letters as well as research reports) were eligible for inclusion. This analysis focuses on the manifest rather than latent content of the articulated views, and accordingly adopts a thematic analysis using an inductive approach to the generation of themes.
Key Findings
There are serious concerns identified in three main areas, principally defined by where the impacts of industry scientific activities occur; on evidence informed policy making (instrumental uses of research by industry actors), on the content of the scientific evidence base itself (industry funding as a source of bias); and on the processes of undertaking research (transgressions of basic scientific norms). There are also opposing views which provide a useful critique. The evidence‐base on the validity of all concerns has been slow to develop.
“Patient advocacy” groups have a unique power on Capitol Hill. They claim to represent the true voice of constituents, untainted by special interest bias. Politicians and the Food and Drug Administration use their endorsements as reflective of genuine public support.
But a new study shows that nearly all of these patient advocacy groups are captured by the drug industry.
David Hilzenrath at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reports that at least 39 of 42 patient advocacy groups who participated in discussions with the FDA over agency review processes for prescription drugs received funding from pharmaceutical companies. And at least 15 have representatives of drug or biotechnology companies on their governing boards.
The study is particularly notable now because Congress is poised to pass the 21st Century Cures Act, which trades temporary additional funding for the National Institutes of Health and the FDA for permanent weakening of the FDA’s approval process. Over 1,400 lobbyists have been working on this bill, which would be a major financial boon to the drug and medical device industries.
Patient advocacy groups have factored heavily into the lobbying effort. According to an analysis from research group Avalere in December 2014, 43 percent of public comments on the House version of the bill were from patient advocacy groups.
But those groups are not necessarily independent, POGO warns.
For instance, the National Health Council, a group that calls itself “The United Patient Voice” and has advocated before the FDA for faster drug approvals, includes on its board of directors leaders of the two main trade groups for the drug industry — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) – along with executives from drug companies Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, and Alkermes. PhRMA gave the National Health Council $1.2 million in 2014; in all, 77 percent of its funding came from the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, according to POGO. Its “Policy Action Team” also has a PhMRA representative on it, along with an employee of Johnson & Johnson.
Further Reading:
“Pharma Turning Patients With Rare Diseases Into D.C. Lobbyists”; http://sco.lt/6wBAp7
“PhRMA Deploys Scientists & Patients as Lobbyists on Capitol Hill”; http://sco.lt/5xer57
This is a list of health advocacy and consumer groups in the U.S. and Canada that take no funding from pharmaceutical, medical device, or biotech companies. The voices of independent groups that truly represent patients and consumers are drowned out by the thousands of groups that take money from industry and push industry viewpoints – or stay silent on drug safety, drug costs, and other issues vital to patients. This list is meant to be a resource for media and consumers who want to listen to – and support – independent groups whose opinions are not swayed by industry.
To learn more about pharma-funded advocacy groups, please read some of our articles on how pharma-funded groups negatively affect healthcare. For an in-depth analysis of the effect of industry funding of breast cancer groups, check out Health Advocacy, Inc.
Want to be on the list? If you represent a patient or consumer health advocacy group that does not take money from manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, biologics, or diagnostics, please email us at pharmedout@gmail.com with a link to your organization's website, 3 years worth of 990s (or t1004 or t3020 for Canadian groups) and annual reports, and a statement that the organization does not take money from industry and has a policy not to take money from industry. The groups submitted will be vetted by a committee that includes Sharon Batt PhD, author of Health Advocacy, Inc. and Adriane Fugh-Berman MD, director of PharmedOut.
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.
Your new post is loading...
