Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Bash32919]

“Fast forward a few years and look at some new pain meds that have been developed. Let’s take the medication Lyrica, for example. This is a great drug used for neuropathic pain and has been around since its approval by the FDA in December 2004. It was classified as a Schedule 5 controlled substance, so it has less risk for addiction. Why is it not prescribed and used more? It’s all about cost. Today, after 13 years on the market, the cash price for a 30-day supply for most patients is over $ 400. It is still not covered by most insurers, and when it is, it is usually in the highest tier so still out-of-pocket costs can be over $ 100 per month through insurance.”

— Surviving the “Business” of Healthcare - Knowledge is Power!: A Unique Perspective from a 4th Generation Family Practice Provider and Now Cancer Patient by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C

Considering it is a less addictive medication that would do the same as oxycodone why isn’t it more affordable?

[Count Lucanor]

Could be many things: monopoly, law of offer and demand, etc.

Cost of production doesn't seem to be a factor. Where I live, medicines are very expensive and you can get a 30-day supply of Lyrica (90 capsules) for around US$ 100.00 to US$ 150.00 without insurance cover and 20% discount with insurance. And nearby in Colombia, you can get the same supply (90 capsules) for around US $13.00.

[LuckyR]

Uummm... Pharmaceutical patents run 20 years, 7 more to go hefore generics cut into the price that can be sustained.

[Sculptor1]

By which I assume you mean pregabalin?
Pharmaceutical companies are not in the game altruistically.
When they develop, research and make drugs available their chief concern is to quickly recover developement costs and start milking the market for maxiumum profit.
Patents on thousands of drugs mean that profits in the thousands of %ages can be screwed out of sick people for decades. The third world has been making alternatives for deacades which give the same efficacy for pennies, where the same drug in the WEST can cost big money.

I imagine they want to get their money back before all the dangerous side effects start to attract litigation too.
Side effects include:
Hypnotic-Dependent Insomnia
violent behavior, aggressiveness, or anger.
anxiousness or restlessness.
anxiety
depression
irritability
mania.
panic attacks.
suicidal thoughts or behavior.

[Sushan]

You raise a valid concern about the affordability of potentially beneficial medications like Lyrica. The high cost of certain medications can be attributed to various factors, including:

Research and development costs: Pharmaceutical companies often spend considerable resources on research and development to bring a new drug to the market. They may try to recoup these costs by setting high prices for their products, especially if the drug is patented and they have a temporary monopoly.

Marketing and promotion expenses: Companies also invest in marketing and promoting their products to create awareness and drive demand. These costs can also contribute to the high prices of medications.

Limited competition: If there are few or no alternative medications available for a particular condition, the manufacturer may charge a premium price due to the lack of competition.

Insurance coverage: The extent of insurance coverage for a particular medication can influence its price. If insurers don't cover a drug or place it in a high copayment tier, patients may have to bear a significant portion of the cost.

[Sushan]

Could be many things: monopoly, law of offer and demand, etc.

Cost of production doesn't seem to be a factor. Where I live, medicines are very expensive and you can get a 30-day supply of Lyrica (90 capsules) for around US$ 100.00 to US$ 150.00 without insurance cover and 20% discount with insurance. And nearby in Colombia, you can get the same supply (90 capsules) for around US $13.00.

You're right that there could be multiple factors contributing to the high cost of Lyrica in certain countries, such as monopolies and supply-demand dynamics. It's interesting to note the significant price differences between countries for the same medication.

Differences in drug prices across countries may result from variations in government regulations, pricing policies, and negotiation power. Some countries have price control policies in place that limit the cost of medications, while others may negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies to secure lower prices. In contrast, countries without these mechanisms might experience higher drug prices.

It's crucial to consider the importance of international cooperation and policy alignment to ensure the affordability and accessibility of essential medications for all. This could involve sharing best practices, adopting similar regulatory frameworks, or working together to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

[Sushan]

Uummm... Pharmaceutical patents run 20 years, 7 more to go hefore generics cut into the price that can be sustained.

You make a valid point. Patents indeed play a significant role in determining drug prices. Pharmaceutical companies are granted patents to protect their intellectual property and to recoup the costs of research and development. During the patent period, the company has exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the drug, which often leads to higher prices due to the lack of competition.

Once the patent expires, other companies can produce and sell generic versions of the drug, which typically results in lower prices due to increased competition. In the case of Lyrica, the patent expiration should eventually lead to more affordable generic alternatives becoming available.

[Sushan]

By which I assume you mean pregabalin?
Pharmaceutical companies are not in the game altruistically.
When they develop, research and make drugs available their chief concern is to quickly recover developement costs and start milking the market for maxiumum profit.
Patents on thousands of drugs mean that profits in the thousands of %ages can be screwed out of sick people for decades. The third world has been making alternatives for deacades which give the same efficacy for pennies, where the same drug in the WEST can cost big money.

I imagine they want to get their money back before all the dangerous side effects start to attract litigation too.
Side effects include:
Hypnotic-Dependent Insomnia
violent behavior, aggressiveness, or anger.
anxiousness or restlessness.
anxiety
depression
irritability
mania.
panic attacks.
suicidal thoughts or behavior.

While acknowledging the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing and producing life-saving medications, it's important to take a critical look at some of the industry practices that contribute to high drug prices and lack of accessibility for many patients. Here are some key points of concern:

• Profit-driven motives: The pharmaceutical industry is often driven primarily by profit, which can lead to a focus on developing drugs with the highest potential for financial gain rather than those that address the most pressing health needs. This can result in a lack of investment in treatments for rare diseases or those that predominantly affect low-income populations.
  
  High drug prices: The high cost of many medications is a significant barrier to access for millions of people, particularly those without insurance or living in countries without robust healthcare systems. While companies need to recoup research and development costs, it's essential to find a balance that ensures fair profits without placing undue financial burdens on patients.
  
  Patent abuse: Some pharmaceutical companies have been known to engage in "evergreening," a practice where minor modifications are made to existing drugs in order to extend their patent protection and keep prices high. This stifles competition from generic drug manufacturers and contributes to the high cost of medications.
  
  Aggressive marketing tactics: The pharmaceutical industry often employs aggressive marketing strategies, targeting both doctors and patients, to promote the use of their products. This can lead to the over-prescription of drugs, particularly in cases where less expensive or less risky alternatives are available.
  
  Opaque pricing: The lack of transparency in drug pricing makes it difficult for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to understand the true cost of medications and to negotiate fair prices.
  
  Influence on research: The financial interests of pharmaceutical companies can sometimes influence research, leading to biased study designs, selective publication of positive results, and the suppression of negative findings.

To create a more equitable and accessible healthcare landscape, it's crucial to address these issues within the pharmaceutical industry. Policymakers, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups all have a role to play in advocating for greater transparency, fair pricing, and a more patient-centered approach to drug development and marketing.

[Sculptor1]

By which I assume you mean pregabalin?
Pharmaceutical companies are not in the game altruistically.
When they develop, research and make drugs available their chief concern is to quickly recover developement costs and start milking the market for maxiumum profit.
Patents on thousands of drugs mean that profits in the thousands of %ages can be screwed out of sick people for decades. The third world has been making alternatives for deacades which give the same efficacy for pennies, where the same drug in the WEST can cost big money.

I imagine they want to get their money back before all the dangerous side effects start to attract litigation too.
Side effects include:
Hypnotic-Dependent Insomnia
violent behavior, aggressiveness, or anger.
anxiousness or restlessness.
anxiety
depression
irritability
mania.
panic attacks.
suicidal thoughts or behavior.

While acknowledging the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing and producing life-saving medications,

No there is no real interest there. What they want is to prolong treatments so they can keep selling drugs. Actually curing the disease is not within the remit of the vast majority of drugs.
And the biggest growth area is palliative care.

it's important to take a critical look at some of the industry practices that contribute to high drug prices and lack of accessibility for many patients. Here are some key points of concern:

• Profit-driven motives: The pharmaceutical industry is often driven primarily by profit, which can lead to a focus on developing drugs with the highest potential for financial gain rather than those that address the most pressing health needs. This can result in a lack of investment in treatments for rare diseases or those that predominantly affect low-income populations.
  
  High drug prices: The high cost of many medications is a significant barrier to access for millions of people, particularly those without insurance or living in countries without robust healthcare systems. While companies need to recoup research and development costs, it's essential to find a balance that ensures fair profits without placing undue financial burdens on patients.
  
  Patent abuse: Some pharmaceutical companies have been known to engage in "evergreening," a practice where minor modifications are made to existing drugs in order to extend their patent protection and keep prices high. This stifles competition from generic drug manufacturers and contributes to the high cost of medications.
  
  Aggressive marketing tactics: The pharmaceutical industry often employs aggressive marketing strategies, targeting both doctors and patients, to promote the use of their products. This can lead to the over-prescription of drugs, particularly in cases where less expensive or less risky alternatives are available.
  
  Opaque pricing: The lack of transparency in drug pricing makes it difficult for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to understand the true cost of medications and to negotiate fair prices.
  
  Influence on research: The financial interests of pharmaceutical companies can sometimes influence research, leading to biased study designs, selective publication of positive results, and the suppression of negative findings.

To create a more equitable and accessible healthcare landscape, it's crucial to address these issues within the pharmaceutical industry. Policymakers, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups all have a role to play in advocating for greater transparency, fair pricing, and a more patient-centered approach to drug development and marketing.

There is something more to be said. Pharma spends lots of money on political campaigns and the reward is that much of their research is paid for by the taxpayer, but never returned.

And the argument about bias research goes way beyond pharma into the food companies which fund diabetes and nutrition authorities.
The result is that the dietary guidelines are false and particularly harmful, especially in the recommendations which persist to peddle fake vegetable oils and carbohydrates, which are the chief cause of obesity, diabetes heart disease, and now increasingly recognised as causing Alzheimer's.

sugar2.JPG (28.65 KiB) Viewed 3207 times

sugar.JPG (34.32 KiB) Viewed 3207 times

[Sculptor1]

Suffice it to say that there is ZERO dietary requirement for sugar or any carbohydrate for that matter.

And so the recommendations above are simple lies concocted to sell more sugar, and the graph shows its working.

[Sushan]

By which I assume you mean pregabalin?
Pharmaceutical companies are not in the game altruistically.
When they develop, research and make drugs available their chief concern is to quickly recover developement costs and start milking the market for maxiumum profit.
Patents on thousands of drugs mean that profits in the thousands of %ages can be screwed out of sick people for decades. The third world has been making alternatives for deacades which give the same efficacy for pennies, where the same drug in the WEST can cost big money.

I imagine they want to get their money back before all the dangerous side effects start to attract litigation too.
Side effects include:
Hypnotic-Dependent Insomnia
violent behavior, aggressiveness, or anger.
anxiousness or restlessness.
anxiety
depression
irritability
mania.
panic attacks.
suicidal thoughts or behavior.

While acknowledging the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing and producing life-saving medications,

No there is no real interest there. What they want is to prolong treatments so they can keep selling drugs. Actually curing the disease is not within the remit of the vast majority of drugs.
And the biggest growth area is palliative care.

it's important to take a critical look at some of the industry practices that contribute to high drug prices and lack of accessibility for many patients. Here are some key points of concern:

• Profit-driven motives: The pharmaceutical industry is often driven primarily by profit, which can lead to a focus on developing drugs with the highest potential for financial gain rather than those that address the most pressing health needs. This can result in a lack of investment in treatments for rare diseases or those that predominantly affect low-income populations.
  
  High drug prices: The high cost of many medications is a significant barrier to access for millions of people, particularly those without insurance or living in countries without robust healthcare systems. While companies need to recoup research and development costs, it's essential to find a balance that ensures fair profits without placing undue financial burdens on patients.
  
  Patent abuse: Some pharmaceutical companies have been known to engage in "evergreening," a practice where minor modifications are made to existing drugs in order to extend their patent protection and keep prices high. This stifles competition from generic drug manufacturers and contributes to the high cost of medications.
  
  Aggressive marketing tactics: The pharmaceutical industry often employs aggressive marketing strategies, targeting both doctors and patients, to promote the use of their products. This can lead to the over-prescription of drugs, particularly in cases where less expensive or less risky alternatives are available.
  
  Opaque pricing: The lack of transparency in drug pricing makes it difficult for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to understand the true cost of medications and to negotiate fair prices.
  
  Influence on research: The financial interests of pharmaceutical companies can sometimes influence research, leading to biased study designs, selective publication of positive results, and the suppression of negative findings.

To create a more equitable and accessible healthcare landscape, it's crucial to address these issues within the pharmaceutical industry. Policymakers, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups all have a role to play in advocating for greater transparency, fair pricing, and a more patient-centered approach to drug development and marketing.

There is something more to be said. Pharma spends lots of money on political campaigns and the reward is that much of their research is paid for by the taxpayer, but never returned.

And the argument about bias research goes way beyond pharma into the food companies which fund diabetes and nutrition authorities.
The result is that the dietary guidelines are false and particularly harmful, especially in the recommendations which persist to peddle fake vegetable oils and carbohydrates, which are the chief cause of obesity, diabetes heart disease, and now increasingly recognised as causing Alzheimer's.
sugar2.JPGsugar.JPG

You've brought up several important points about the influence of pharmaceutical and food industries on healthcare, research, and public policy. It's true that these industries often prioritize profit over public health, which can lead to biased research, misleading guidelines, and the promotion of products and treatments that may not be in the best interest of patients.

The close relationship between industry and policymakers, as well as the significant financial resources at their disposal, can make it difficult to challenge these practices and promote more equitable, evidence-based healthcare policies. However, it's crucial for healthcare professionals, researchers, and the public to remain vigilant and advocate for greater transparency, unbiased research, and guidelines that prioritize public health over corporate profits.

To address these concerns, it's important to:

1. Encourage independent research and the replication of studies to ensure that scientific findings are valid and reliable.
2. Advocate for transparency in industry-funded research and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Promote the development of evidence-based dietary and healthcare guidelines that prioritize public health over industry interests.
4. Foster a critical approach to the consumption of information and the evaluation of research findings, particularly in the context of public health and nutrition.
5. Support policies that limit the influence of corporate interests on healthcare and public policy decision-making.

[Sculptor1]

By which I assume you mean pregabalin?
Pharmaceutical companies are not in the game altruistically.
When they develop, research and make drugs available their chief concern is to quickly recover developement costs and start milking the market for maxiumum profit.
Patents on thousands of drugs mean that profits in the thousands of %ages can be screwed out of sick people for decades. The third world has been making alternatives for deacades which give the same efficacy for pennies, where the same drug in the WEST can cost big money.

I imagine they want to get their money back before all the dangerous side effects start to attract litigation too.
Side effects include:
Hypnotic-Dependent Insomnia
violent behavior, aggressiveness, or anger.
anxiousness or restlessness.
anxiety
depression
irritability
mania.
panic attacks.
suicidal thoughts or behavior.

While acknowledging the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing and producing life-saving medications,

No there is no real interest there. What they want is to prolong treatments so they can keep selling drugs. Actually curing the disease is not within the remit of the vast majority of drugs.
And the biggest growth area is palliative care.

it's important to take a critical look at some of the industry practices that contribute to high drug prices and lack of accessibility for many patients. Here are some key points of concern:

• Profit-driven motives: The pharmaceutical industry is often driven primarily by profit, which can lead to a focus on developing drugs with the highest potential for financial gain rather than those that address the most pressing health needs. This can result in a lack of investment in treatments for rare diseases or those that predominantly affect low-income populations.
  
  High drug prices: The high cost of many medications is a significant barrier to access for millions of people, particularly those without insurance or living in countries without robust healthcare systems. While companies need to recoup research and development costs, it's essential to find a balance that ensures fair profits without placing undue financial burdens on patients.
  
  Patent abuse: Some pharmaceutical companies have been known to engage in "evergreening," a practice where minor modifications are made to existing drugs in order to extend their patent protection and keep prices high. This stifles competition from generic drug manufacturers and contributes to the high cost of medications.
  
  Aggressive marketing tactics: The pharmaceutical industry often employs aggressive marketing strategies, targeting both doctors and patients, to promote the use of their products. This can lead to the over-prescription of drugs, particularly in cases where less expensive or less risky alternatives are available.
  
  Opaque pricing: The lack of transparency in drug pricing makes it difficult for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to understand the true cost of medications and to negotiate fair prices.
  
  Influence on research: The financial interests of pharmaceutical companies can sometimes influence research, leading to biased study designs, selective publication of positive results, and the suppression of negative findings.

To create a more equitable and accessible healthcare landscape, it's crucial to address these issues within the pharmaceutical industry. Policymakers, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups all have a role to play in advocating for greater transparency, fair pricing, and a more patient-centered approach to drug development and marketing.

There is something more to be said. Pharma spends lots of money on political campaigns and the reward is that much of their research is paid for by the taxpayer, but never returned.

And the argument about bias research goes way beyond pharma into the food companies which fund diabetes and nutrition authorities.
The result is that the dietary guidelines are false and particularly harmful, especially in the recommendations which persist to peddle fake vegetable oils and carbohydrates, which are the chief cause of obesity, diabetes heart disease, and now increasingly recognised as causing Alzheimer's.
sugar2.JPGsugar.JPG

You've brought up several important points about the influence of pharmaceutical and food industries on healthcare, research, and public policy. It's true that these industries often prioritize profit over public health, which can lead to biased research, misleading guidelines, and the promotion of products and treatments that may not be in the best interest of patients.

The close relationship between industry and policymakers, as well as the significant financial resources at their disposal, can make it difficult to challenge these practices and promote more equitable, evidence-based healthcare policies. However, it's crucial for healthcare professionals, researchers, and the public to remain vigilant and advocate for greater transparency, unbiased research, and guidelines that prioritize public health over corporate profits.

To address these concerns, it's important to:

1. Encourage independent research and the replication of studies to ensure that scientific findings are valid and reliable.
2. Advocate for transparency in industry-funded research and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Promote the development of evidence-based dietary and healthcare guidelines that prioritize public health over industry interests.
4. Foster a critical approach to the consumption of information and the evaluation of research findings, particularly in the context of public health and nutrition.
5. Support policies that limit the influence of corporate interests on healthcare and public policy decision-making.

I think all you would really have to do is make it a felony for any politician to take money from outside interests, and a capital crime to fail to disclose any interests.
We have a food industry which has no concern for health and a health industry which has no concern for food.
Meanwhile nutritional advice is not only wrong, but dangerously causing harm. Even bodies like the Diabetic association of America is giving out advice likely to cause harm so as not to upset food producers.

[LuckyR]

While acknowledging the role of pharmaceutical companies in developing and producing life-saving medications,

No there is no real interest there. What they want is to prolong treatments so they can keep selling drugs. Actually curing the disease is not within the remit of the vast majority of drugs.
And the biggest growth area is palliative care.

it's important to take a critical look at some of the industry practices that contribute to high drug prices and lack of accessibility for many patients. Here are some key points of concern:

• Profit-driven motives: The pharmaceutical industry is often driven primarily by profit, which can lead to a focus on developing drugs with the highest potential for financial gain rather than those that address the most pressing health needs. This can result in a lack of investment in treatments for rare diseases or those that predominantly affect low-income populations.
  
  High drug prices: The high cost of many medications is a significant barrier to access for millions of people, particularly those without insurance or living in countries without robust healthcare systems. While companies need to recoup research and development costs, it's essential to find a balance that ensures fair profits without placing undue financial burdens on patients.
  
  Patent abuse: Some pharmaceutical companies have been known to engage in "evergreening," a practice where minor modifications are made to existing drugs in order to extend their patent protection and keep prices high. This stifles competition from generic drug manufacturers and contributes to the high cost of medications.
  
  Aggressive marketing tactics: The pharmaceutical industry often employs aggressive marketing strategies, targeting both doctors and patients, to promote the use of their products. This can lead to the over-prescription of drugs, particularly in cases where less expensive or less risky alternatives are available.
  
  Opaque pricing: The lack of transparency in drug pricing makes it difficult for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers to understand the true cost of medications and to negotiate fair prices.
  
  Influence on research: The financial interests of pharmaceutical companies can sometimes influence research, leading to biased study designs, selective publication of positive results, and the suppression of negative findings.

To create a more equitable and accessible healthcare landscape, it's crucial to address these issues within the pharmaceutical industry. Policymakers, healthcare providers, and patient advocacy groups all have a role to play in advocating for greater transparency, fair pricing, and a more patient-centered approach to drug development and marketing.

There is something more to be said. Pharma spends lots of money on political campaigns and the reward is that much of their research is paid for by the taxpayer, but never returned.

And the argument about bias research goes way beyond pharma into the food companies which fund diabetes and nutrition authorities.
The result is that the dietary guidelines are false and particularly harmful, especially in the recommendations which persist to peddle fake vegetable oils and carbohydrates, which are the chief cause of obesity, diabetes heart disease, and now increasingly recognised as causing Alzheimer's.
sugar2.JPGsugar.JPG

You've brought up several important points about the influence of pharmaceutical and food industries on healthcare, research, and public policy. It's true that these industries often prioritize profit over public health, which can lead to biased research, misleading guidelines, and the promotion of products and treatments that may not be in the best interest of patients.

The close relationship between industry and policymakers, as well as the significant financial resources at their disposal, can make it difficult to challenge these practices and promote more equitable, evidence-based healthcare policies. However, it's crucial for healthcare professionals, researchers, and the public to remain vigilant and advocate for greater transparency, unbiased research, and guidelines that prioritize public health over corporate profits.

To address these concerns, it's important to:

1. Encourage independent research and the replication of studies to ensure that scientific findings are valid and reliable.
2. Advocate for transparency in industry-funded research and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Promote the development of evidence-based dietary and healthcare guidelines that prioritize public health over industry interests.
4. Foster a critical approach to the consumption of information and the evaluation of research findings, particularly in the context of public health and nutrition.
5. Support policies that limit the influence of corporate interests on healthcare and public policy decision-making.

I think all you would really have to do is make it a felony for any politician to take money from outside interests, and a capital crime to fail to disclose any interests.
We have a food industry which has no concern for health and a health industry which has no concern for food.
Meanwhile nutritional advice is not only wrong, but dangerously causing harm. Even bodies like the Diabetic association of America is giving out advice likely to cause harm so as not to upset food producers.

Interesting proposals.

What makes an interest "outside"?

I assume you are aware that for-profit industries only care about profit. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since that's their primary purpose.

As to nutritional advice, there is an overabundance of it. Though to categorize some of it as "wrong", while possible and reasonable, requires agreed upon goals and definitions of terms that take a lot longer to explain than the average citizen's attention span.

[Sculptor1]

No there is no real interest there. What they want is to prolong treatments so they can keep selling drugs. Actually curing the disease is not within the remit of the vast majority of drugs.
And the biggest growth area is palliative care.


There is something more to be said. Pharma spends lots of money on political campaigns and the reward is that much of their research is paid for by the taxpayer, but never returned.

And the argument about bias research goes way beyond pharma into the food companies which fund diabetes and nutrition authorities.
The result is that the dietary guidelines are false and particularly harmful, especially in the recommendations which persist to peddle fake vegetable oils and carbohydrates, which are the chief cause of obesity, diabetes heart disease, and now increasingly recognised as causing Alzheimer's.
sugar2.JPGsugar.JPG

You've brought up several important points about the influence of pharmaceutical and food industries on healthcare, research, and public policy. It's true that these industries often prioritize profit over public health, which can lead to biased research, misleading guidelines, and the promotion of products and treatments that may not be in the best interest of patients.

The close relationship between industry and policymakers, as well as the significant financial resources at their disposal, can make it difficult to challenge these practices and promote more equitable, evidence-based healthcare policies. However, it's crucial for healthcare professionals, researchers, and the public to remain vigilant and advocate for greater transparency, unbiased research, and guidelines that prioritize public health over corporate profits.

To address these concerns, it's important to:

1. Encourage independent research and the replication of studies to ensure that scientific findings are valid and reliable.
2. Advocate for transparency in industry-funded research and the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
3. Promote the development of evidence-based dietary and healthcare guidelines that prioritize public health over industry interests.
4. Foster a critical approach to the consumption of information and the evaluation of research findings, particularly in the context of public health and nutrition.
5. Support policies that limit the influence of corporate interests on healthcare and public policy decision-making.

I think all you would really have to do is make it a felony for any politician to take money from outside interests, and a capital crime to fail to disclose any interests.
We have a food industry which has no concern for health and a health industry which has no concern for food.
Meanwhile nutritional advice is not only wrong, but dangerously causing harm. Even bodies like the Diabetic association of America is giving out advice likely to cause harm so as not to upset food producers.

Interesting proposals.

What makes an interest "outside"?

£$£$£$£$£$

I assume you are aware that for-profit industries only care about profit. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since that's their primary purpose.

It is bad when they buy MPs and other officials to pass legislation which transfers tax money and other advantages directly into their pockets.
The UK PM, whilst giving double the advantage to child care companies over individuals, forgot to mention that his wife made millions through her shares.

As to nutritional advice, there is an overabundance of it. Though to categorize some of it as "wrong", while possible and reasonable, requires agreed upon goals and definitions of terms that take a lot longer to explain than the average citizen's attention span.

It would take a while to demonstrate just how bad this is, but I can suggest one book.

2014, Teicholz, Nina, The Big Fat Surprise, Simon & Schuster.

She was a vegetarian and a journalist interested in finding our more about fat. What she found changed her life and the life of many others including me.
Her book is by no means lightweight. It is ten years of hard research and well respected. As you can imagine - amongst those who have infested their whole lives on the bad advice, she has attracted masses of criticism.
Despite that her finding are having their effects, but all too slowly.

[Sculptor1]

On the subject of..
There is an interesting article which I am not allowed to post the link for, that is relevant to the discussion.
- medicalindependent dot ie comment opinion a-tale-of-two-papers -

The Medical Independent.
A tale of two papers
By George Winter - 16th Apr 2023
TAG: Medicine needs more heretics who are prepared to step beyond the stultifying confines of groupthink

In short - two approaches to Type2D. One pushing low carb with a massive track record of success, moving patients to drug free solutions and weight loss. Saving the NHS lots of money. David Unwin is literally saving lives and shed loads of cash with dietary advice that works.

WHilst the other - a news of yet another FAT DRUG, with side effects for some reason receives all the publicity. and raises health care costs. So who is behind the news cycle, and how is it that the worst of all possible "solutions" is getting all the positive publicity??