Very true about judging scientific sources, and media writers. As a former reporter, govt. Spokesbabe and then corporate public affairs manager (40 years in all) — i encountered quite a few sincere and humble scientists, (and a few of their opposites). While activists posing as reporters were far more common than anyone might imagine.
Why did the FDA send their OCI (office of criminal investigation) to investigate me because I complained to them about allowing cellceutix to run clinical trials with Dana Farber when their so called "CSO" was lying about his credentials? He claimed to have a PhD in pharmacology from Harvard, I contacted Harvard, no record of him, the truth it turns out, he had a veterinary degree from a school in the Caribbean.
Why did the FDA just let them carry on business as usual?
People need to understand the guv isn't on their side, they are on the side of pharma.
I was a chemist who worked at this place called cellceutix, I saw first hand what was going on......so they decide to investigate me!?
I'm retired but try to keep up by among other things getting medical newsletter emails. Among these are MedPage Today, edited by Jeremy Faust, a Harvard guy and a big deal in the medical communication area. It's really annoying that while trying to get daily updated info in my area of interest I have to wade knee deep in politics disguised as medical news. In his occasional editorials Dr. Faust reveals his hand pretty clearly, never having a kind word to say about anything going on in the medical arena of the present administration.
However, Dr. Faust just summarized a discussion he had with his newsletter's editorial predecessor who happened to be Dr Marty Makary and try as he might, he couldn't get Dr. M to play politics. Blessed relief. I'd love to see it catch on, but there's no way that will happen.
What about Dr Mark Fishman? Former NIBR head, the "father" of entresto......billions in lost health care dollars.
Why does president Garber refuse to answer to it? He is a doctor after all? Why is harvard sponsoring "lets blind them with science" ripoffs of the taxpayer?
Love it! (and all of your posts Vinay). I've been telling my teen-aged daughter: sources that use the word 'misinformation' cannot or will not offer an explanation of even what is the specific information they are talking about, whereas those with good information will fully explain the specific evidence behind better or worse information.
Excellent post that I’m sharing immediately.
that was my first thought too...share this!
Very true about judging scientific sources, and media writers. As a former reporter, govt. Spokesbabe and then corporate public affairs manager (40 years in all) — i encountered quite a few sincere and humble scientists, (and a few of their opposites). While activists posing as reporters were far more common than anyone might imagine.
did he mention the media are the darlings of crooked venture capital trying to hype their biotech pump and dumps?
The word “misinformation” should always be written in blue ink.
Excellent post Dr. Prasad. Tip #1-4 is the reason choose to add my voice to healthcare, even as a physician. I have found your words insightful additions to my discussion on The Signal. https://www.readthesignal.com/hhs-layoffs-cut-to-cure-or-just-cut/
Love step 5. Could not agree more.
Why did the FDA send their OCI (office of criminal investigation) to investigate me because I complained to them about allowing cellceutix to run clinical trials with Dana Farber when their so called "CSO" was lying about his credentials? He claimed to have a PhD in pharmacology from Harvard, I contacted Harvard, no record of him, the truth it turns out, he had a veterinary degree from a school in the Caribbean.
Why did the FDA just let them carry on business as usual?
People need to understand the guv isn't on their side, they are on the side of pharma.
I was a chemist who worked at this place called cellceutix, I saw first hand what was going on......so they decide to investigate me!?
I'm retired but try to keep up by among other things getting medical newsletter emails. Among these are MedPage Today, edited by Jeremy Faust, a Harvard guy and a big deal in the medical communication area. It's really annoying that while trying to get daily updated info in my area of interest I have to wade knee deep in politics disguised as medical news. In his occasional editorials Dr. Faust reveals his hand pretty clearly, never having a kind word to say about anything going on in the medical arena of the present administration.
However, Dr. Faust just summarized a discussion he had with his newsletter's editorial predecessor who happened to be Dr Marty Makary and try as he might, he couldn't get Dr. M to play politics. Blessed relief. I'd love to see it catch on, but there's no way that will happen.
What about Dr Mark Fishman? Former NIBR head, the "father" of entresto......billions in lost health care dollars.
Why does president Garber refuse to answer to it? He is a doctor after all? Why is harvard sponsoring "lets blind them with science" ripoffs of the taxpayer?
Love it! (and all of your posts Vinay). I've been telling my teen-aged daughter: sources that use the word 'misinformation' cannot or will not offer an explanation of even what is the specific information they are talking about, whereas those with good information will fully explain the specific evidence behind better or worse information.