Last week's column in part addressed a newly published echinacea study that was noted as a giant phraud.
An accompanying editorial published with the study in the New England Journal of Medicine railed against echinacea and every other non-medical approach to health care. The author was a Dr. Wallace Simpson noted as editor of a medical journal Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. The journal title gives an appearance of authority on the subject matter. Remember that looks can be deceiving.
Clear judgment
Only a few years ago a California Superior Court judge ruled in favor of a supplement manufacturer defendant that was opposed by Dr. Sampson as an alleged "expert" witness.
The judge noted of Sampson that he "has relatively thin credentials to opine on the general questions of the proper standards for clinical or scientific research or other methods of obtaining valid evidence".
The judge further noted of Sampson that his "testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility".
The case was appealed and subsequently upheld with the appellate court ruling noting of Sampson that he was "biased, and unworthy of credibility."
This is the man that the New England Journal of Medicine and all major, mainstream news services quoted as an authority against echinacea as well as any and all non-medical methods.
Lap dog?
The media is backing a judicially discredited "expert" as a source. Are they ignorant or bought off? Inquiring minds want to know.
The web site address for Sampson's "science" journal uses the initials of the publication -- sram. That is an amazing (?appropriate?) similarity to sham. In much smaller print than the title is a subtitle that notes "And Aberrant Medical Practices". The bias is clear and clearly unscientific.
Sampson's journal was founded at about the time that the government set up a separate agency to address non-medical health care methods. The journal has consistently railed against any methodology that is non-medical and against any government spending on such matters.
Modern medicine has a virtual monopoly on health care funds. The former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, noted only a few years ago that the 10 pharmaceutical companies on the Fortune 500 had more annual profits than all the other 490 companies combined. Big Pharma doesn't want any funds directed anywhere else.
Lap dog II?
Last weekend a "health tip" article on allergies appeared that noted one should consult an allergist/immunologist before taking any herbal remedies because of the possibility of "potentially serious side effects". First of all, medical doctors are neither trained nor qualified to address herbs for either effectiveness or harm. Secondly, their own 'Physicians Desk Reference' and the package inserts of the drugs they prescribe contain lengthy lists of "potentially serious side effects". This is a clear case of "fox in the hen house".
Could reliance upon mainstream medicine and mainstream media be a game of Russian Roulette with more bullets than empty chambers?
