While the Indy were taking the tobacco control shilling, The Times today printed an article of level-headed scepticism towards health charities*.
The author is a Glasgow GP who has written a book** after being agitated by the interference of industry into the area of health. The description at Amazon explains more.
Her article at the Times continues.
The most damning passage, though, is this.
It's interesting to note that this revelation is made on the very same day that Cancer Research UK were accusing opponents of plain packaging of having their strings pulled from the sidelines.
This being the same Cancer Research UK which enjoys "multimillion pound" patronage from AstraZeneca and Pfizer, manufacturers of smoking cessation products.
D'ya reckon Steve Connor will be writing about that industry-funded conflict of interest anytime soon? Nah, nor do I.
* Behind the paywall, or page 6 & 7 of the 'body and soul' section in print.
** The Patient Paradox. Why Sexed-up Medicine is Bad for your Health by Margaret McCartney is published by Pinter and Martin, £9.99 (or cheaper here and here).
Who could criticise a charity? Surely they are a necessary good. They shine lights into dark corners, make sure that the oppressed have a voice, and generate and direct funds for people who are in need of help.Remind you of any in particular? Yes, I'm sure you're already counting on both hands.
Some do, but there are others - specifically many healthcare charities - that seem to have quite a different aim. Far from doing quiet works, they try to seize the media, lobby government and place themselves firmly centre stage.
The author is a Glasgow GP who has written a book** after being agitated by the interference of industry into the area of health. The description at Amazon explains more.
In the world of sexed-up medicine pharmaceutical companies gloss over research they don't like and charities often use dubious science and dodgy PR to 'raise awareness' of their disease, leaving a legacy of misinformation in their wake.Those bells are ringing off their housings, aren't they?
Her article at the Times continues.
A decade ago, I would routinely seek out healthcare charities that could be useful for people who had a disease diagnosed or who needed support. They could put people in touch with fellow sufferers and offer practical insights that I often couldn't. Now, I'm often reticent to do so. The problem is that as the media, driven by charities, races to catch our short attention spans, the information people get from many health charities becomes alarmist and misleading.Tell us about it!
Pharmaceutical companies have made a friend of many healthcare charities, donating grants, collaborating on information leaflets, or sponsoring projects or conferences.Yep, and that just scratches the surface. It goes right to the top of the tree, too.
The most damning passage, though, is this.
The truth is, many charities take large sums from pharma — 3.4 per cent of Asthma UK’s income is from pharmaceuticals, which in the past five years totalled £1.5million from ten companies. Beating Bowel Cancer takes 11 per cent of its income from pharma; Breakthrough Breast Cancer — patron, the Prince of Wales — lists eight companies that made donations over the past financial year.All extremely grubby, I think you'll agree.
This is especially important when it comes to decisions made by NICE — the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence — about new, expensive drugs. The reaction of most charities to having NICE reject a treatment is of dismay; for example, when Avastin, a bowel-cancer drug, was turned down for funding, the chief executive of Beating Bowel Cancer said that this was a “great blow to patients”. When an asthma drug for children was rejected by NICE, Asthma UK said that children were being denied “a pioneering treatment that could free them from crippling daily symptoms”. It’s far rarer to have a charity that criticises the cost of the prescriptions. NICE makes judgments based on cost-effectiveness. So if a drug isn’t good value at the rejected price, logically, the pharmaceutical company should make it cheaper. Yet many healthcare charities take aim at NICE, not the costs of the drugs.
At times it seems as though the pharmaceutical companies and charities are working hand in hand. In 2010 a letter appeared in The Times appearing to be from a variety of healthcare charities and doctors, protesting against plans to enable pharmacists to substitute branded prescriptions for cheaper, generic ones. It transpired that a pharmaceutical company had been responsible for co-ordinating and organising the letter — but it didn’t appear on the signatory list. The pharmaceutical regulator later recognised that this was unacceptable — but months after the letter was published; supporters of the charities may have been completely unaware.
It's interesting to note that this revelation is made on the very same day that Cancer Research UK were accusing opponents of plain packaging of having their strings pulled from the sidelines.
This being the same Cancer Research UK which enjoys "multimillion pound" patronage from AstraZeneca and Pfizer, manufacturers of smoking cessation products.
D'ya reckon Steve Connor will be writing about that industry-funded conflict of interest anytime soon? Nah, nor do I.
* Behind the paywall, or page 6 & 7 of the 'body and soul' section in print.
** The Patient Paradox. Why Sexed-up Medicine is Bad for your Health by Margaret McCartney is published by Pinter and Martin, £9.99 (or cheaper here and here).
