It’s scary to think there’s a vast body of evidence on medicine that’s unknown and inaccessible to doctors and patients.  Whoever controls the purse strings can set the research agenda and to an extent that’s fair. I’m all for free markets, where people and companies allocate their capital as they see fit. But the ability to suppress damaging research and silence dissenters is not good for a free market, nor for science. Much of the reason free markets are so successful is because the free flow of information signals buyers what to buy and producers what to produce more efficiently than any other system. When it comes to drug trials, we need ALL the information.
The government and pharma probably both worry that if information like this were to become public knowledge, it would erode trust in the healthcare system. This rationalization has been used many times before. In fact, Mary Eades shared a great example in a comment on yesterday’s post. A panel of top nutrition experts, including Walter Willet from Harvard, presented evidence onstage that the low fat diet they championed to the American public had failed. Could they admit failure? Would the American public ever trust them again? No, better to stay the course.
I see a parallel with the “too big to fail” reasoning of the financial crisis of 2008 when many of the big banks were on the verge of failure. Just imagine what would happen to the pharmaceutical giants if word got out that several of their cash cow drugs: statins and antidepressants, are not as effective as the public has been led to believe. Would the government let them fail?

Ran same course as last week, two minutes quicker.  Still 🐢 but a faster one.  

This poem is so striking to me. Having a child is what taught me what love truly means.