Tainted Research
The Big Weasel
Why four out of five doctors recommend their sponsor's product
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
01/22/03
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/tainted.htm
Robert Lee Hotz, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reported
that "one-quarter of the biomedical researchers at universities had
commercial ties serious enough to raise the questions of financial
conflicts, the analysts found."
Well, duh.
At least, that was my initial response. Then I remembered
that I was exposed to the notion of tainted research some 11 years
ago, back before the corruption had become widespread in trials for
drugs for human use.
Hotz wrote a good piece, and the country would be better off
if people paid attention to it. But experience is that people will
glide right past it, unaware of what it could mean to them at any
point in the future.
Hotz' salient points were that two thirds of all universities
had conjoined commercial interests, twenty seven research universities
had equity in the companies involved, and studies funded by private
industry were three and a half times more likely to come up with
results favorable to that particular industry. The result, according
to Hotz, is a system that is compromised, and the worst of it is that
it's nearly impossible to tell just how compromised it is.
I got my introduction to the notion of tainted research back
in 1991, when, oddly enough, I decided to get a dog. We knew a woman
locally who raised Samoyed dogs, and we liked what we saw of the
breed. So when she asked us if we would take in a pregnant bitch and
take care of her and her litter in return for our choice of best male,
we jumped at the chance. A good purebred male went for at least $300.
So we set up an empty wading pool, and waited for puppies. They came,
as puppies do, at 3 in the morning: four male, four female, and one
"fading puppy" who died after about 24 hours. The breeder wanted us
to keep track of which pup was which, and since there's few things
other than gender to distinguish one Samoyed pup from another, I hit
on the idea of painting their tails with food color. It made for an
interesting sight, especially at feeding time, when all these colorful
tails were wiggling about from under momma dog's belly. We wound up
with the one known up until then as "Green Tail Male".(we had blue,
green, red and undyed, four for each gender).
The breeder had some suggestions about feeding, mixed in with
a ton of suggestions regarding grooming, exercise, and all the other
things that go into dog ownership. Most of the advise seemed pretty
sound, and we took it to heart. No wet food was at the top of the
list. It's damned good advice, too: Green Tail Male (aka Monk) never
missed what he never had, was perfectly happy with dry food, and at
age 12, has all his teeth, and incidently, has already reached the
high end of life expectancy for a male Sam. We've never had to clean
his teeth. They're still white and sharp. He has no gum disease.
He's currently about three pound below his peak weight when he was
seven, and just about ideal. For his age, he's a healthy dog, albeit
slow and stiff.
She had one other piece of advice. Don't feed the dog any dry
food containing ethoxyquin.
I was puzzled. I had no idea what ethoxyquin was.
"It's an antioxidant," she amplified. "They've been using it
instead of Vitamin E as a preservative to prevent mold and rancidity."
"What's wrong with it?" I wanted to know.
"It's been associated with a whole host of canid maladies,
including aggravated hip dysplasia, sterility, low sperm counts,
temperamental problems, and still-born litters. It may be causing
mutations, as well."
So we went looking for dry kibble that didn't have ethoxyquin.
That turned out to be difficult; all the major brands had it. In
fact, we could only find one in the local area that didn't have it: a
brand called Nature's Recipe. Monk seemed to like it just fine, and
if it was more expensive than the other brands, it was still cheaper
than tinned food, and healthier besides.
Over the next year, the breeder, who had a Masters' in
biochemistry and had done advanced study at Heidelberg, went on a
public campaign against Monsanto, the company that made ethoxyquin.
Aside from a rapidly-growing body of anecdotal evidence from
distressed breeders who had noticed detrimental effects on their
breeds, she was investigating the widespread use of ethoxyquin in
poultry feed, and worrying about how far along the food chain the
stuff might be spreading. It wasn't allowed in human food, although
there were reports that Monsanto was pressing for that.
At that point, I talked to my vet about it. We'd notice that
they fed their convalescing animals a brand that had ethoxyquin, and
asked if they were familiar with our breeder's opinions on the
substance.
They were, and pooh-poohed the whole notion, saying they
hadn't noticed any detrimental results, and pointing out that a raft
of studies had been done prior to its introduction into pet food.
(Dry cat food had it too).
So I went to the breeder and talked to her about it. She
wasn't particularly surprised or disturbed. She noted that the pet
food companies that sold the dry products with ethoxyquin provided the
veterinarians with a lot of products; not just free samples, but
supplies such as cages, port-a-pets, tables, medical equipment, and
the like. All in return for the cachet of having the friendly local
vet use their product. They also had considerable influence with the
professional realm as a whole, and could make life extremely difficult
for anyone who wanted to rock the boat. The breeder didn't think our
vet was being dishonest, but that he had all sorts of reasons to be
disinclined to pursue the matter.
Finally, she was able to get the detailed reports of the
studies done on ethoxyquin. Various studies had been done on groups
of dogs. (There's no "of course" to this: I still have a bottle of
dog shampoo that has at the bottom of the directions, the politically
correct statement: "This product was not used in animal testing."
Well, it has now.)
She vanished for several months to do a detailed analysis of
the studies. She emerged triumphant, and with compelling evidence
that the studies were at best incompetent, and at worse, seriously
compromised. My favorite example was the one where they had dogs
separated by gender into control and test groups, and lost track of
which was which. Dogs aren't like parrots; it's pretty easy, even
with puppies, to tell which is which. Reach between your dog's legs
(don't try this with a strange Doberman). If you encounter something,
either your bitch is desperately ill and needs medical attention, or
you have a male dog. It's not difficult. None the less, they lost
track of which were the males and which were the females about
half-way through a twelve-week study, and never did get it
straightened out.
Monsanto paid for the studies, lock, stock and barrel.
She went on the offense, writing articles for dog fancy and
husbandry magazines, and mounting an ongoing campaign at dog shows.
It never got to court, and Monsanto never acknowledged her complaints.
But within two years, ethoxyquin was quietly pulled from the market,
and now is used nowhere. They've all gone back to using vitamin E.
She won. And the public never knew about it.
About the time this was happening, the GOP, under the auspices
of Newt Gingrich, went on the offensive against the FDA, complaining
bitterly about the length and cost of the testing process. Newt even
made a remark about the FDA being a mass murderer through bureaucratic
delays, perhaps the most vicious and irresponsible thing the man has
said during a long and vicious and irresponsible career. There was
pressure on to reduce the testing process, allow privatization of
funding (I'm sure Monsanto was pleased about that). The really
pathetic thing is that the FDA had a superb track record in that
regard, and America had the shortest approval time of any western
industrial nation, and one of the best safety records. But Newt was
demagoging on his favorite bugaboo, that eeeeevil socialist/liberal
nanny government.
The result was that companies were permitted to do their own
funding for health and safety studies of their products (the dimbulb
libertarian rationale was that, being private, they would be both more
efficient and totally scrupulous. There has never been a shred of
evidence to support such a panglossian fantasy, but that was Newt's
world, and now it's ours.)
Californians can tell you a thing or two about that. Standard
Oil. Exxonmobil and Chevrontexaco commissioned and paid for the
studies on the safety and effectiveness of the oxygenate they proposed
to add to gasoline to make it burn hotter and cleaner, MTBEs. It
never occured to them to check to see if it could get into the water
supply. It did, and it's costing California billions to clean up and
change to a different oxygenate.
If you wonder how it's possible for America, with its great
universities, to be able to outspend much of the world on "scientific
research" while falling further and further behind in pure science,
here's your answer: the money is being spent by companies to test and
study products in which they have a vested economic interest, and the
universities and labs doing the studies have a vested economic
interest in making the companies happy. And the government that those
same companies contribute such lavish campaign funds and lobbying for
is overseeing these studies to make sure the results are satisfactory
to people that matter.
Your dog didn't matter. What made you think you'll get any
better treatment?
******************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in leftist/liberal commentary, visit
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com