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

[Sushan]

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.

As citizens, we need to be proactive in educating ourselves about the various factors that influence public health, nutrition, and the healthcare system. By staying informed, we can make better choices for ourselves and our communities. This involves reading up on research, understanding the role of corporations and their financial interests, and recognizing the potential biases in guidelines and recommendations put forth by organizations.

It's also essential to engage in conversations with others and share information, as this can help raise awareness and promote critical thinking. In doing so, we can create a more empowered and informed public that is better equipped to hold corporations and policymakers accountable for their actions.

At the same time, we should advocate for policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. This can involve supporting politicians who champion transparency and evidence-based decision-making, or even engaging in grassroots activism to bring about change.

Lastly, fostering a culture of empathy and compassion is vital. By understanding and respecting the needs and well-being of all living beings, we can work towards a more just and equitable society where the interests of the many are prioritized over the profits of the few.

[Sushan]

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.

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.

You raise a good point about defining "outside interests." In this context, I believe it refers to financial contributions or support from industries and corporations that may influence a politician's decision-making, often to the detriment of public health and well-being.

You're correct that the primary purpose of for-profit industries is to make a profit, and this isn't inherently bad. However, when the pursuit of profit results in harm to public health or the environment, it's essential to reevaluate our priorities and consider implementing regulations to protect the greater good.

Regarding nutritional advice, it's true that there's a plethora of information available, and it can be challenging to sift through it all to find accurate, evidence-based guidance. This issue is further complicated by the fact that some organizations might provide misleading or harmful advice due to financial ties with certain industries. It's essential for people to be critical consumers of information and rely on reputable sources that prioritize public health over corporate interests.

[Sy Borg]

Lyrica side effects - a truly impressive list! https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-9396 ... ideeffects

I wonder if these risks are part of the issue, using price is a natural limiter? As Sculptor said, there's always the chance of litigation, and very powerful drugs will present a higher legal risk than milder ones, so there'd be some hoarding of pennies on top of the usual profits. I don't know enough to speak about price gouging, but that seems to be the usual impression of Big Pharma.

Logically, the severity of the complaint will determine whether the drug is worthwhile or not, ie. less harmful than the condition. As always, the depth of one's pockets plays a role.

[Sushan]

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.

It's concerning when financial interests influence political decisions and lead to policies that don't serve the public interest. Transparency and accountability are crucial to ensure that those in power are acting in the best interests of the people they represent.

You're right that the influence of profit-driven industries on healthcare and nutrition can have negative consequences. It's essential to be aware of potential biases and conflicts of interest when evaluating information and recommendations. The book you mentioned, "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz, is an excellent example of how challenging conventional wisdom and conducting thorough research can lead to a better understanding of complex topics like nutrition.

As you said, change can be slow, but it's essential for individuals to stay informed, question the information they receive, and advocate for evidence-based policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. By doing so, we can work together to create a more equitable and just society.

[Sushan]

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??

It's unfortunate that sometimes more effective and affordable solutions, like the low-carb approach you mentioned for Type 2 Diabetes, don't receive the same level of attention and publicity as costly pharmaceutical interventions. It's essential to consider the motivations and influences behind the information we receive, as they may not always prioritize public health and well-being.

The article you referenced from the Medical Independent highlights the importance of questioning conventional wisdom and exploring alternative approaches to healthcare that may be more effective and less expensive than mainstream options. By supporting and promoting evidence-based practices like the low-carb approach, we can help shift the conversation towards more sustainable and patient-centered solutions.

It's crucial to keep an open mind, engage in meaningful discussions, and continue to advocate for healthcare practices that prioritize the health of patients over financial interests. By doing so, we can contribute to a more balanced and equitable healthcare system that serves everyone's best interests.

[Sushan]

Lyrica side effects - a truly impressive list! https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-9396 ... ideeffects

I wonder if these risks are part of the issue, using price is a natural limiter? As Sculptor said, there's always the chance of litigation, and very powerful drugs will present a higher legal risk than milder ones, so there'd be some hoarding of pennies on top of the usual profits. I don't know enough to speak about price gouging, but that seems to be the usual impression of Big Pharma.

Logically, the severity of the complaint will determine whether the drug is worthwhile or not, ie. less harmful than the condition. As always, the depth of one's pockets plays a role.

It's true that powerful drugs can come with a long list of side effects, and the decision to use them should be based on a careful evaluation of their risks and benefits in the context of the individual patient's condition and circumstances.

The cost of medications and the potential for price gouging by pharmaceutical companies are also important issues to consider. The high cost of drugs may limit access to necessary treatments for many people, and it's essential to ensure that financial interests don't overshadow public health concerns.

[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.

As citizens, we need to be proactive in educating ourselves about the various factors that influence public health, nutrition, and the healthcare system. By staying informed, we can make better choices for ourselves and our communities. This involves reading up on research, understanding the role of corporations and their financial interests, and recognizing the potential biases in guidelines and recommendations put forth by organizations.

You cannot always just throw responsibility upon busy ordinary people struggling to makes ends meet. What you really need is legisation, enforcement and crutiny to prevent corruption.

It's also essential to engage in conversations with others and share information, as this can help raise awareness and promote critical thinking. In doing so, we can create a more empowered and informed public that is better equipped to hold corporations and policymakers accountable for their actions.

At the same time, we should advocate for policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. This can involve supporting politicians who champion transparency and evidence-based decision-making, or even engaging in grassroots activism to bring about change.

Lastly, fostering a culture of empathy and compassion is vital. By understanding and respecting the needs and well-being of all living beings, we can work towards a more just and equitable society where the interests of the many are prioritized over the profits of the few.

We've always had these velvet glove solutions.
And where are we? Americans having to cross the border to Canada to buy insulin they can afford; one of the solutions that are really cheap to produce?

Time for an iron fist.

[Sculptor1]

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.

It's concerning when financial interests influence political decisions and lead to policies that don't serve the public interest. Transparency and accountability are crucial to ensure that those in power are acting in the best interests of the people they represent.

You're right that the influence of profit-driven industries on healthcare and nutrition can have negative consequences. It's essential to be aware of potential biases and conflicts of interest when evaluating information and recommendations. The book you mentioned, "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz, is an excellent example of how challenging conventional wisdom and conducting thorough research can lead to a better understanding of complex topics like nutrition.

As you said, change can be slow, but it's essential for individuals to stay informed, question the information they receive, and advocate for evidence-based policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. By doing so, we can work together to create a more equitable and just society.

Her experience since then is also an example of how much of a brick wall vested interests put up to counter her banger her head against it.
Not just vested interests, but established beliefs and political inertia.

But she is still trying, along with Robert Lustig, Gary Taubes and many others..

website is nutritioncoalition dot us

[LuckyR]

When the issue is advertising specifically or influencing generally, most agree with allowing the practice. When consumers have to choose between 10 toothpastes that are essentially identical, no one cares and isn't it nice to have a choice. If someone is pedaling toothpaste that is poisonous, everyone agrees in regulation. But here we are speaking about the bleeding edge of "better". If Lyrica is 10% more effective than the standard med but costs 700% more and has 75% more side effects, what do you do if anything about it? A big piece of the problem is that many insurances isolate the consumer from the cost. Psychologically and economically the practice of disconnecting the two is almost always an error.

[Sushan]

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.

As citizens, we need to be proactive in educating ourselves about the various factors that influence public health, nutrition, and the healthcare system. By staying informed, we can make better choices for ourselves and our communities. This involves reading up on research, understanding the role of corporations and their financial interests, and recognizing the potential biases in guidelines and recommendations put forth by organizations.

You cannot always just throw responsibility upon busy ordinary people struggling to makes ends meet. What you really need is legisation, enforcement and crutiny to prevent corruption.

It's also essential to engage in conversations with others and share information, as this can help raise awareness and promote critical thinking. In doing so, we can create a more empowered and informed public that is better equipped to hold corporations and policymakers accountable for their actions.

At the same time, we should advocate for policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. This can involve supporting politicians who champion transparency and evidence-based decision-making, or even engaging in grassroots activism to bring about change.

Lastly, fostering a culture of empathy and compassion is vital. By understanding and respecting the needs and well-being of all living beings, we can work towards a more just and equitable society where the interests of the many are prioritized over the profits of the few.

We've always had these velvet glove solutions.
And where are we? Americans having to cross the border to Canada to buy insulin they can afford; one of the solutions that are really cheap to produce?

Time for an iron fist.

You're absolutely right that expecting individuals to shoulder the responsibility for systemic issues is not a sustainable solution. It's essential to have effective legislation, enforcement, and scrutiny in place to prevent corruption and prioritize public health over corporate interests.

While individual actions and grassroots activism can help raise awareness and bring about change, ultimately, it's the responsibility of policymakers to create and enforce regulations that protect citizens. It's crucial for those in power to recognize the importance of an iron fist approach when necessary, ensuring that corporations are held accountable for their actions and that public health takes precedence.

At the same time, citizens can play a role in supporting and advocating for these changes, as public opinion and grassroots movements can influence political decisions. But it's important to strike a balance between empowering individuals to take action and demanding systemic change from the top down.

In the end, both individual actions and strong legislation are needed to address these complex issues and create a world where public health and well-being are the primary focus.

[Sushan]

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.

It's concerning when financial interests influence political decisions and lead to policies that don't serve the public interest. Transparency and accountability are crucial to ensure that those in power are acting in the best interests of the people they represent.

You're right that the influence of profit-driven industries on healthcare and nutrition can have negative consequences. It's essential to be aware of potential biases and conflicts of interest when evaluating information and recommendations. The book you mentioned, "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz, is an excellent example of how challenging conventional wisdom and conducting thorough research can lead to a better understanding of complex topics like nutrition.

As you said, change can be slow, but it's essential for individuals to stay informed, question the information they receive, and advocate for evidence-based policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. By doing so, we can work together to create a more equitable and just society.

Her experience since then is also an example of how much of a brick wall vested interests put up to counter her banger her head against it.
Not just vested interests, but established beliefs and political inertia.

But she is still trying, along with Robert Lustig, Gary Taubes and many others..

website is nutritioncoalition dot us

You bring up a valid point about the resistance that researchers like Nina Teicholz, Robert Lustig, and Gary Taubes face when challenging established beliefs and vested interests in nutrition science. The fact that these individuals continue their work despite facing backlash speaks to the importance of questioning conventional wisdom and promoting evidence-based dietary recommendations.

"The Big Fat Surprise" highlights the difficulties in questioning long-held beliefs, particularly when these beliefs are backed by influential organizations and have become ingrained in public health policy. It's crucial to maintain a healthy skepticism and openness to new research that may challenge or revise existing knowledge.

As you mentioned, the website nutritioncoalition.us serves as a valuable resource for those interested in understanding the complexities of nutrition science and advocating for evidence-based policies. By supporting the work of these researchers and promoting open dialogue, we can foster a more comprehensive understanding of nutrition and its impact on public health.

[Sushan]

When the issue is advertising specifically or influencing generally, most agree with allowing the practice. When consumers have to choose between 10 toothpastes that are essentially identical, no one cares and isn't it nice to have a choice. If someone is pedaling toothpaste that is poisonous, everyone agrees in regulation. But here we are speaking about the bleeding edge of "better". If Lyrica is 10% more effective than the standard med but costs 700% more and has 75% more side effects, what do you do if anything about it? A big piece of the problem is that many insurances isolate the consumer from the cost. Psychologically and economically the practice of disconnecting the two is almost always an error.

You raise an interesting point about the complexities that arise when it comes to regulating products and advertising, especially in areas where the differences may not be as clear-cut. In the case of medications like Lyrica, it's important to consider the balance between effectiveness, cost, and potential side effects.

One possible approach is to promote transparency and provide consumers with accurate information about the products they are considering, including the potential benefits and risks. This would empower individuals to make informed decisions based on their unique circumstances and priorities. Additionally, healthcare providers can play a crucial role in guiding patients towards the most appropriate treatments, taking into account both the effectiveness and cost of different options.

You also highlight the issue of insurance policies disconnecting consumers from the actual costs of products and services. This can indeed contribute to a lack of awareness about the true financial implications of certain choices. Finding ways to better align the interests of consumers, insurance providers, and healthcare providers could help promote more efficient and cost-effective decision-making.

[Sculptor1]

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.

As citizens, we need to be proactive in educating ourselves about the various factors that influence public health, nutrition, and the healthcare system. By staying informed, we can make better choices for ourselves and our communities. This involves reading up on research, understanding the role of corporations and their financial interests, and recognizing the potential biases in guidelines and recommendations put forth by organizations.

You cannot always just throw responsibility upon busy ordinary people struggling to makes ends meet. What you really need is legisation, enforcement and crutiny to prevent corruption.

It's also essential to engage in conversations with others and share information, as this can help raise awareness and promote critical thinking. In doing so, we can create a more empowered and informed public that is better equipped to hold corporations and policymakers accountable for their actions.

At the same time, we should advocate for policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. This can involve supporting politicians who champion transparency and evidence-based decision-making, or even engaging in grassroots activism to bring about change.

Lastly, fostering a culture of empathy and compassion is vital. By understanding and respecting the needs and well-being of all living beings, we can work towards a more just and equitable society where the interests of the many are prioritized over the profits of the few.

We've always had these velvet glove solutions.
And where are we? Americans having to cross the border to Canada to buy insulin they can afford; one of the solutions that are really cheap to produce?

Time for an iron fist.

You're absolutely right that expecting individuals to shoulder the responsibility for systemic issues is not a sustainable solution. It's essential to have effective legislation, enforcement, and scrutiny in place to prevent corruption and prioritize public health over corporate interests.

We also need unions and community groups to gain collective action to call power to account.

While individual actions and grassroots activism can help raise awareness and bring about change, ultimately, it's the responsibility of policymakers to create and enforce regulations that protect citizens. It's crucial for those in power to recognize the importance of an iron fist approach when necessary, ensuring that corporations are held accountable for their actions and that public health takes precedence.

At the same time, citizens can play a role in supporting and advocating for these changes, as public opinion and grassroots movements can influence political decisions. But it's important to strike a balance between empowering individuals to take action and demanding systemic change from the top down.

In the end, both individual actions and strong legislation are needed to address these complex issues and create a world where public health and well-being are the primary focus.

[Sushan]

As citizens, we need to be proactive in educating ourselves about the various factors that influence public health, nutrition, and the healthcare system. By staying informed, we can make better choices for ourselves and our communities. This involves reading up on research, understanding the role of corporations and their financial interests, and recognizing the potential biases in guidelines and recommendations put forth by organizations.

You cannot always just throw responsibility upon busy ordinary people struggling to makes ends meet. What you really need is legisation, enforcement and crutiny to prevent corruption.

It's also essential to engage in conversations with others and share information, as this can help raise awareness and promote critical thinking. In doing so, we can create a more empowered and informed public that is better equipped to hold corporations and policymakers accountable for their actions.

At the same time, we should advocate for policies that prioritize public health over corporate interests. This can involve supporting politicians who champion transparency and evidence-based decision-making, or even engaging in grassroots activism to bring about change.

Lastly, fostering a culture of empathy and compassion is vital. By understanding and respecting the needs and well-being of all living beings, we can work towards a more just and equitable society where the interests of the many are prioritized over the profits of the few.

We've always had these velvet glove solutions.
And where are we? Americans having to cross the border to Canada to buy insulin they can afford; one of the solutions that are really cheap to produce?

Time for an iron fist.

You're absolutely right that expecting individuals to shoulder the responsibility for systemic issues is not a sustainable solution. It's essential to have effective legislation, enforcement, and scrutiny in place to prevent corruption and prioritize public health over corporate interests.

We also need unions and community groups to gain collective action to call power to account.

While individual actions and grassroots activism can help raise awareness and bring about change, ultimately, it's the responsibility of policymakers to create and enforce regulations that protect citizens. It's crucial for those in power to recognize the importance of an iron fist approach when necessary, ensuring that corporations are held accountable for their actions and that public health takes precedence.

At the same time, citizens can play a role in supporting and advocating for these changes, as public opinion and grassroots movements can influence political decisions. But it's important to strike a balance between empowering individuals to take action and demanding systemic change from the top down.

In the end, both individual actions and strong legislation are needed to address these complex issues and create a world where public health and well-being are the primary focus.

You make a valid point about the need for a combination of individual actions and strong legislation to create meaningful change. It's true that expecting individuals to bear the responsibility for systemic issues is not enough, and we need effective policies and regulations to hold corporations accountable and prioritize public health.

In addition to legislation, enforcement, and scrutiny, it's important to recognize the power of unions and community groups in fostering collective action. These organizations can help amplify the voices of citizens and provide a platform for people to advocate for their interests and demand systemic change.

While individual efforts and grassroots activism can contribute to raising awareness and pushing for change, it's ultimately the responsibility of policymakers to create and enforce regulations that protect citizens. Public opinion and grassroots movements can influence political decisions, but it's crucial for those in power to take decisive action when necessary.