Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Advertising may have more influence on prescriptions than science

CARLY WEEKS

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:44 PM EDT 02/04/08

Few Canadians are taking controversial new cholesterol-lowering drug compared with millions in the U.S. where the medication has been heavily promoted ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Encyclopedia Brown from Canada writes: "worry that direct-to-consumer advertising will result in patients asking their doctors for prescriptions for heavily promoted drugs even though the medications may not be the best health choice"

    That is exactly what drug companies put in the commercials. "Ask your doctor about....." Because there is nothing your doctor likes more than being asked about a drug that you heard about on TV, instead of letting them put their $250,000 education to work to find out what is wrong, if anything.
  2. Lemmy Nothor from Exiled in Barcelona, Spain writes: You really want to lower your bad cholesterol ? Easily, and cheaply ?
    Eat fenugreek seeds...
  3. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: That's not necessarily true. About half of Rx's in Canada are paid for by gov't drug plans. So if the drug is not on the drug formulary then that drug won't be purchased by those people that rely on the gov't drug plan. In the US most drug pruchases are private (directly patient or private insurance). I doubt that advertising was able to give patients the power to force their doctors to prescribe the drug even if the doctor didn't feel it was the right choice.
  4. Wayne Spitzer from Faywood, United States writes: Advertizing cholesterol lowering drugs directly to the consumer is a two edged sword. While you don't want the patient making the decision about the choice of a drug, there is evidence to suggest that a substantial per cent of the population would benefit significantly by lowering their cholesterol levels. It seems reasonable that drug advertising might be better if the advertisements were limited to talking about the disease itself (the importance of a lower cholesterol level), and restricted from mentioning any specific drug by name.
  5. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: If a drug is effective and does what it claims to do, then a company doesn't need to spend millions of dollars trying to "sell" it to the public.
  6. Howard Citrin from Canada writes: Luke R hit it bang on. CDN and US drug purchasing habits are not comparable since Canadians are influenced by what the government is willing to pay for, which rarely is the newest drug. Furthermore, that decision is provincially made so PEI might be willing to pay but Ontario is not.

    This case is a little bit weird. I don't think any drug advertising gave people high cholesterol. So if the doctor is prescribing it, I presume the patient has a need. That this drug is prescribed more than the others may also demonstrate that doctors believe it to be more effective.
  7. Banofee Pie from Toronto, Canada writes: In Canada, drug companies are not allowed to directly advertise a medication and its benefits to the public, but they can promote their products to physicians.

    Thank god for that! And thank god I have a doctor who prescribes medication only as a last resort. I was just diagnosed with slightly high cholesterol - her best Rx for me? Go to the gym three times a week instead of two, consume two tablespoons of ground flax seed every day and cut out meat (which I rarely eat anyway).

    High cholesterol is something you can take care of through better lifestyle choices. In my family, it's genetic but it's still manageable without having to take drugs.

    Drugs are undoubtedly essential for many things, but too many people take drugs for conditions which could be and should be managed by adopting a healthier lifestyle.
  8. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: More likely, the greater use in the US shows a preference there for drugs rather than lifestyle or other changes that might result in the same outcome.

    It is difficult to believe a good doctor would prescribe any medication simply because a patient had seen an ad for it and then asked for a prescription. A greater influence would be the other 'bonuses' doctors are sometimes reputed to receive for prescribing one drug over another.
  9. Eugene Moreau from Candiac, Canada writes: Ever wonder why and how the current cholesterol levels were established. They were quite simply adjusted downwards by edict in response to complaints by the white coats conducting trials for statin efficacy some thirty years ago because they couldn't find enough people over the age of 50 with levels over 240 mg/dl (6.2 mmol/l), the then norm for that age bracket, to sufficiently power their trial studies. So the medical cartel to the glee of Big Pharma arbitrarily, by fiat, declared that 200 should be the norm for everybody. Of course this resulted in providing participants galore for cholesterol studies and statin therapy for practically the whole of the nation. And we have been stuck with these artificial levels ever since with the alarming result that our drinking water is now laced with it, statins that is. The cholesterol hypothesis for heart disease is the mother of all scams for cholesterol at any level is not the cause of heart disease and gobbling statins with their horrendous side effects only serve to line the pockets of Big Pharma while draining precious dollars from Medicare coffers.
    .....http://tinyurl.com/2nylpn
  10. D. Clearwater from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: "I doubt that advertising was able to give patients the power to force their doctors to prescribe the drug even if the doctor didn't feel it was the right choice."

    Actually, you would be surprised. Studies have shown that advertising promotes individuals going to doctors requesting brand-name drugs and, in this era of the consumer/patient always being right, doctors feel tremendous pressure to make their patients happy... they often write the prescription even when they feel there would be little benefit. Also, we can't forget that the drug companies heavily lobby medical professionals and doctors too. Whether we like to admit it or not, advertising plays a strong role here and the big question is whether turning pharmaceuticals into mass consumer products is beneficial. Here is an interesting story:

    http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/directads/
  11. Encyclopedia Brown from Canada writes: Banofee Pie makes a great point with the marketing that is done to physicians. Pharmaceutical sales reps shower doctors with gifts, golf games, vacations to entice them to prescribe their product. Consumers are all to willing to accept a prescription from their doctor, looking for the easiest solution instead of the best solution.

    Here's a test for your doctor. Ask him/her what their bankers name is, or their lawyer's phone number. They will likely need to look it up or ask their assistant. Ask him/her who their pharma rep is, and they will look at the post-it note on their monitor.
  12. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: D. Clearwater from Lethbridge, AB, Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: "I doubt that advertising was able to give patients the power to force their doctors to prescribe the drug even if the doctor didn't feel it was the right choice."

    Actually, you would be surprised. Studies have shown that advertising promotes individuals going to doctors requesting brand-name drugs and, in this era of the consumer/patient always being right, doctors feel tremendous pressure to make their patients happy... they often write the prescription even when they feel there would be little benefit. Also, we can't forget that the drug companies heavily lobby medical professionals and doctors too. Whether we like to admit it or not, advertising plays a strong role here and the big question is whether turning pharmaceuticals into mass consumer products is beneficial. Here is an interesting story:
    *******
    You missed the point. In the end in comes down to who pays for it and in Canada about half of the Rx's are paid for by the gov't. If the drug is not listed on the gov't formulary you're not going to get it no matter how good the commercials/ads are.
  13. Banofee Pie from Toronto, Canada writes: Actually Encyclopedia Brown, I'm lucky to have a doctor who doesn't shoot for the easiest solution, but she's also close to retirement, ie a bit old school. I'd say walk-in clinic doctors are the worst because they're just trying to get through a waiting room full of patients as fast as possible while getting maximum mileage out of their relationships with drug companies. True story: I was waiting to see my doctor the other day when a pharma rep came in to sell Seasonale, a popular brand of birth control, which is also rife with all kinds of possible horrible side effects. The odd thing is the pharma rep just came in, didn't make an appt and was making the pitch in the hallway where anyone could hear her. I also heard my doctor who was asking all the right questions. Interestingly enough, one of the doctors in that practice will not prescribe bc pills period, and there is a sign up at reception to that effect. My doctor prescribes it reluctantly, only at the insistence of her patients, primarily because the side effects can be hazardous (blood clots, elevated cholesterol, depression). Pill manufacturers can't advertise in Canadian magazines, but look in any American issue of Elle, Marie Claire and every ad for the Pill has a back page full of side effects, all listed in fine print of course (else they wouldn't be able to fit it all in). Pharma companies are scary.
  14. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: This is old news. Studies have shown a correlation with the frequency of adverts on television regarding antidepressants and and increase in amount of prescriptions. Most people walked into their doctors' office quoting the commercials themselves instead of doing any legwork.
  15. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Of course advertising increases the sales of the drugs -- if it didn't you wouldn't see the ads! These drug companies are not stupid; they know if you convince people that a little pill can make their life better, they will demand that pill from their doctor. Doctor's may know better, but they also know that antibiotics don't work for certain illnesses, yet I read that they still overwhelmingly prescribe them, often just to shut up demanding patients.

    I prefer Canada's approach, but if they have to change it, why not do what someone above already mentioned -- allow advertising, but only about conditions, not about any specific drugs. I would rather the Dr determine what course of treatment is appropriate instead of some actor on a 30 second ad.
  16. Jim Bradley from Ottawa, Canada writes: Isn't the math a little flawed here? The population of the US is approximately 10 times that of Canada. Thus in order to make a fair comparison we need to reduce the quantity of US prescriptions by a factor of 10 - down to 3.3 million compared to 884,000. Now THAT is a more reasonable comparison. It still demonstrates the impact of advertising but in a far more accurate context.
  17. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Can the advertising for all of these products including over the counter. I couldn't believe the other day seeing an ad for quitting smoking where the people said they had finally figured out why they could not quit...they were suffering from the condition knows as "nictoine addiction!"......
  18. larry hallatt from Canada writes: Most patients are medical junkies who want a pill for ever ache pain and bad life style. More GP's need to simply say.......change your life style or XYZ will occur and you will live a little too long regretting it. Too often the pills never cure and base problem but mask the steps required for reversal of our illnesses and sloppy behaviour. Doctors too often do not prescribe tough love....telling it as it is ....we too often are killing ourselves.
  19. d. duck from burlington, Canada writes: "Encyclopedia Brown from Canada writes: Banofee Pie makes a great point with the marketing that is done to physicians. Pharmaceutical sales reps shower doctors with gifts, golf games, vacations to entice them to prescribe their product."
    Sorry Encyclopedia Brown but this time you're incorrect (the irony of this is very amusing). No 'pharaceutical reps' in CANADA can shower Docs with gifts, golf games, vacations, etc. From what I can gather, even free drug samples which were then given to individuals without insurance plans are no longer available to CDN Docs. The CDN gov't (federal) put an end to this approx. 4-5 yrs ago (still prevalent in the USA though to a less extent than it was in the past). Some medical manufacturing companies (those that do not make drugs but make tools for surgeons eg., hip joints) can still entice SOME surgeons who need this type of equipment with limited 'gifts'. It's too bad that the Federal/provincial/municipal gov'ts don't do what they have written into law for others (federal liberal 'sponsorgate' and Toronto city hall computer fiasco may not have occurred if these perks were taken away from the politicians). Cheers
  20. Shane Martin from Canada writes: Thanks for stating the obvious Mike Z. Of course advertising directly to patients works, why do you think big Pharma spends millions doing it? I just returned from a week in the States and was absolutely amazed at the number of drug ads on American television. Brave New World indeed.
  21. The Economic Hitman jr. from Vancouver, Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto writes, "I doubt that advertising was able to give patients the power to force their doctors to prescribe the drug even if the doctor didn't feel it was the right choice. "

    The doctors aren't being forced, they choose to perscribe the drug. One, they don't want to lose the patient who may, if the doctor does not give him/her to drug, go to another doctor. Two, the doctor is basically just a pawn of the drug companies already, and will therefore, have no moral qualms about using this drug in preference to any other. Three, it's been proven that some doctors will perscribe a placebo to patients in an effort to simply shut them up; why not extend that to a drug of marginal benefit.

    I agree that up here we have some gov't assistance for drug purchases by certain segments of the population; but, I don't see how this will affect a doctor's decision and it would not affect the request of the patient.

    The US believes that pills can cure-all; cure your mood, cure your weight, cure your headache, cure your libido. The doctors are complicit in propagating this fiction in conjunction with the drug companies who reap huge profits.
  22. see see writer from Canada writes: Advertising is the elephant in the room which nobody sees -- or smells.

    It is sacred to the media because it pays the bills. It is sacred to politicians and corporations because it drives the engine of consumer demand. Demand for stuff 90 per cent of which we don't really need. And which is destroying our environment. Oh but wait -- it's about jobs, right? Well not any more. China has the jobs.

    Our society is not plastered with giant pictures of Stalin or Mao or Saddam -- our giant invasive pictures are of STUFF without which you cannot 'really live' or be a 'winner' in the eyes of others. Advertising's influence is overwhelming, everywhere, everyday. It is created by experts in the manipulation of human beings. What is it doing to us? I think its influence is changing us, each generation a little more. What values is it eclipsing? The research in this article, flawed or not, is just a hint.
  23. d. duck from burlington, Canada writes: The Economic Hitman jr. from Vancouver, Canada writes: "One, they don't want to lose the patient who may, if the doctor does not give him/her to drug, go to another doctor. Two, the doctor is basically just a pawn of the drug companies already, and will therefore, have no moral qualms about using this drug in preference to any other. Three, it's been proven that some doctors will perscribe a placebo to patients in an effort to simply shut them u.' Keeping it simple: (1) Ontario has 1 million people without a Doc (see G&M) so I assume patients who don't get the 'drug du jour' that they wish will NOT fire their Doc and go to another (as there is not another to go too). (2) As I stated earlier, Docs get nothing anymore (eg., golf, computers, vacations, etc) from drug companies so how can they be 'pawns without moral qualms'. Though, I hope my Doc treats me because she is ethical, moralistic and altruistic with my best interests in her mind. (3) Prescribing 'placebos' is deemed medically unethical and could generate a letter of complaint to the college of physicians and surgeons of Ontario sooooooo I would expect that this type of prescription is no longer tolerated by the medical establishment (may have been OK in the past......could not find any articles about remote 'placebo prescription). Cheers
  24. L T from Canada writes: Patients can't write their own prescriptions. Looking for the answer? Follow the money.
  25. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Shane Martin -- I was stating the obvious because it evidently wasn't obvious to the writer of the article. I agree though -- US TV is scary, what with all the ads telling me that every little (real or perceived) problem can be fixed with a little pill.

    On a different note though, you know what scares me just as much? Lysol commercials. They work hard at convincing people that germs are evil and your house must be hospital-grade sanitary or else you are a bad person/parent. I would like to see studies on the health impact of having kids exposed to cleaners (like Lysol) in households using Lysol "as directed" instead of only using it where it is actually needed (where genuinely dangerous bacteria are present). I suspect the kids are worse off with concentrated and prolonged exposure to the harsh chemicals in the cleaners, as they would be if parents acted like they do in the commercials.
  26. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: Excuse me, but where are all the bashers of Canada's public health care system now? Did the "anti-nanny state" people suddenly disappear? Their silence is telling.

    This study irrefutably shows that profit-motivated pharmaceutical companies have a destructive influence in the US medical system. Connect the dots people: the Canada Health Act, which grew out of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957) and the Medical Care Act (1968), is probably one of the greatest pieces of legislation we have created, collectively, as a nation. We need to further entrench this and continue to celebrate it.
  27. Mikey Dee from Canada writes: I think that cholesterol lowering drugs are going to end up being the thalidomide nightmare of this generation. I have been talked into three different cholesterol drugs by three different doctors and had three different reactions to them The last one had me in ICU for 10 days. You can guess what will freeze over before I buy into another of these drug companies scams!
  28. Chuck the Canuk from the east, Canada writes: And this is surprising? hahahahaha. It amazes me that drug companies are allowed to advertise their harmful crap directly to the same people in the US who voted for George Bush twice. They have no common sense when you look at it. A lot of Americans still think that Saddam Hussain was responsible for 9/11 when it has been proven that it was Saudis. And they seem not to care that Bush has taken them from a $250 BILLION surplus to a $3 TRILLION deficit and a recession. They are fed whatever the media gives them down there and they believe it apparently. Here is some common sense to follow, Americans. DO NOT let the conglomerate pharmaceutical companies sell you ANYTHING. Pass some laws that make it illegal to advertise these drugs, and also illegal to lobby and pay off politicians to allow these same companies to push their drugs. They are the same quality people as those the thugs who sell crack to your kids on the street corners. This is private health care at its worst. Hmmm. Bilderberg group members maybe?
  29. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: In a study by Toronto area researchers and reported in January, 2008, it was claimed that U.S. pharmaceutical companies spend more than twice as much on promotion and advertising as on research and development.
  30. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: One cholesterol-lowering drug, not the one discussed in this article, was recently shown to lower the risk of cancer. For human cancers, chemoprevention has an enormous amount of potential. While some of the arguments about drugs discussed above are valid, there are no shortage of people who take this to an extreme. "Natural" or "natural sources" are not necessarily better and sometimes considerably worse. We have to put modern medicine in context--lifespan has increased dramatically over the past 100 years and its not from people turning to "natural remedies" that have been around for centuries. I have serious issues with the pharmaceutical industry and the PMAC agreement in particular but the drugs themselves have made very important contributions to mankind.
  31. bry land from Canada writes: at the very end of the article , imo would be the real reason ezetrol did not penetrate the canadiaan market. the insurance companies in canada did not pay/cover directly for the product. forms had to be completed and submitted . Sort of like CRTC control.

    I guess we were saved by the insurance companies . given a choice , most people would chose free , instead of paying the bill themselves.

    "and insurance coverage also contributed to its popularity in the United States, Dr. Tu said"
  32. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Just say "NO" to drugs
  33. gerhard beck from Canada writes: Homeopathic drugs work quite well without advertising. The big drug makers worry only about the profits, even if the drugs advertised do more harm than good.
  34. benjamin barr from CORNWALL, Canada writes: any salesman knows the phrase sell the sizzle not the stake. This is the bread and butter of the advertising dept. So what is new. Also remember, buyer be aware. Just because it is suppose to be golden, it may not be gold.
  35. see see writer from Canada writes: Scientists were puzzled by the fact that Inuit people who lived on the traditional diet of meat and fat did not have problems with cholesterol. Why not? Seems they ate a lot of fish too, and also liver. These are very high in nutrients which prevent cholesterol deposits.
  36. jeff franklin from Canada writes: 'According to prescription drug tracking firm IMS Health Canada, 30.2 million antidepressant prescriptions were filled by retail drugstores in the 12-month period ending Nov.30th, a 51% increase over 2002.

    Another 8.5 Million prescriptions were filled for anti-psychotics, nearly double the 4.7 million dispensed in 2003'.

    Brought to you by Stephen Harper, his Pharmaceutical Rapturists(Tony Clement) and their quest for a Drug Free Canada.

    Cannabis that is. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds Mr. Harper.
  37. Joe Smith from Canada writes: Gerhard Beck: When homeopathic remedies work, it is because of the placebo effect. They are basically pure water -- there is a high statistical improbability of finding even a single active molecule. The scientific basis for homeopathy was developed before our modern understanding of what molecules are had been developed.
  38. see see writer from Canada writes: Joe Smith, morphic field research in biology, and particle physics as well, indicates homeopathic medicine is grounded on actual laws of the natural world. Look it up. When they taught you to think the way you think, it was already way out of date. De Carte lived a looong time ago, and the real universe is participatory -- not something we can logic away at pretending to be objective observers. And there are many healing traditions in the world which do what they do simply because it works. Without understanding why. We would be fools to dismiss them.
  39. Joe Smith from Canada writes: See See Writer, I looked up "Morphic Field Research" and though it seems popular in New Age circles, it stands apart from any recognizable area of science as it is understood today. Its proponent's book was described in a Nature review as "pseudo-science". I guess I'm not qualified to evaluate it, because it is so completely separate from the experiment-based science that I do.

    Homeopathy is based on the idea that when you dilute a solid or liquid solution of a substance, the solvent retains a "memory" for that substance, even as the degree of dilution goes to infinity. This idea was promulgated before chemists really had a good idea of what the molecular structure of water is. Modern spectroscopy has allowed chemists (some at the U of T who are involved with this research) to show that water does indeed have a "memory" for former solutes, but that this "memory" persists only for one-billionth of a second or less.

    I don't doubt that ancient healing traditions based on plant and animal substances work. Many of them have given rise to modern drugs, and there's a lot about biology that we still have left to discover. However, homeopathy doesn't fall into this class of healing traditions. It is a chemical theory that pre-dates the modern scientific era, and its principles have been disproved by modern chemistry. Beneficial effects of homeopathy arise from the placebo effect.
  40. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm not sure if the comparison is making any sense. The article suggests Canadians are NOT being bombarded with these drug ads, but they are there for all of us to watch, particularly if we tune in to the evening news on any of the U.S.'s big three: ABC, CBS, or NBC. I usually watch local news at six, then turn to Brian Williams on NBC; believe me, this is one Canadian who has seen tons of ads for drugs.

    Of course, most of the drug ads are for "illnesses" that could be cured without the drugs. Raging heartburn? Stop stuffing yourself with four slices of pepperoni pizza! Can't get it up? Lose some weight and stop after one martini! And what's with that invented disease they're calling "restless leg syndrome"? Always easier to just pop a pill than change your destructive behaviour, though, isn't it?
  41. see see writer from Canada writes: Joe Smith -- Richard Dawkins, a well-known science writer whose books have a constant 'spin' toward atheism, was so incensed at Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphogenic fields that he said Sheldrake should be 'excommunicated' from the science community. The scientists also reacted that hotly to the man who first claimed dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Likewise the fellow who first promoted plate tectonics, as I remember. And then there was Galileo -- but that was the Church, wasn't it? They excommunicate too don't they? Odd that the new ideas which cause the hottest reactions so often prove correct.

    Please -- read Sheldrake's books. Also The Secret Life of Plants.

    One example of the connection of this 'field' research to physics: a certain complex chemical was extremely difficult to congeal/form correctly in the laboratory. (Sorry, I might not be using the correct term.) But when one batch finally 'set' correctly the very first time, the other test tubes soon also set correctly -- even though there had been the usual minor variations in different tubes. Not only that, but affiliated laboratories in distant places also began having success once that initial batch formed correctly. This is not so different from the inexplicable ability of split/twinned particles to move in synchronism even when widely separated. Both phenomena imply some kind of sub-spatial unifying effect which we are stumblingly calling a 'field'. ( Other examples abound among plants and animals.) I think there is a possibility that the efficacy of homeopathic water may derive from manipulation of this poorly-understood aspect of the universe.

    On the other hand, it's possible that it IS merely a placebo effect. Or maybe the placebo effect is actually derived from influencing one's morphogenic field ! I mean, what is the placebo effect really?
  42. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: See See Writer, those scientists whose views were so controversial in the beginning were ultimately vindicated by strong scientific evidence that couldn't be ignored. Experimental evidence is the bedrock of how research works. A theory like morphic fields has to be able to explain observations and make testable predictions about the natural world. I can guarantee you that when Sheldrake's theory makes testable predictions about the behaviour of materials that turn out to be correct, with the correct control experiments to rule out alternatives, the scientific world will take notice. Until then, morphic fields are just an imaginative idea with no evidence to support them, and as much as the media would like us to, we don't automatically root for the underdog in science -- just because Dawkins criticizes Sheldrake doesn't mean that Sheldrake isn't wrong.

    Your description of "congealing chemicals" is vague so I can't really make a comment. If I observed something like that in the lab, I run a whole lot of control experiments to rule out known and previously observed possibilities (was it humidity? temperature? water quality? particles or contaminants in the air? batch variations in the chemicals being used?) before invoking something extraordinary like that. Were these control experiments carried out? As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
  43. see see writer from Canada writes: Joe Smith -- Years ago it was commonly believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and were very difficult to cure. An Australian doctor learned that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria and could be cured accordingly. Because no one in the medical profession would listen to his proofs for almost 20 YEARS, he finally -- and heroically -- induced stomach ulcers in his own stomach and then cured himself with antibacterial treatment, all the while being examined by a group of doctors. After he did this, his proofs were finally published -- in Australia, I believe --and even then most North American medical journals refused to look at the research or consider publishing it. It was still decades after his genuine "prediction and replication" before the bacterial cause of ulcers was generally accepted by North American doctors.

    Read Sheldrake. You will find that "predictions and replications" do indeed exist. We are currently in the denial phase of a new paradigm. Indeed you should read Kuhn about scientific orthodoxy and paradigm shifts too . . and maybe Morris Berman's The Reenchantment of the World.
  44. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: See See Writer, I agree with you that the Australian doctors' (Warren and Marshall) efforts were heroic. But their work was well documented and in fact I see 1983 and 1984 citations for their papers in "The Lancet" on their theory of the bacterial origin of ulcers, and by 1994 the NIH had published a consensus statement supporting this theory. They may have faced an uphill battle, but this 10 year interval is hardly the "decades" you write about. Between the 1983-84 "Lancet" citations and the NIH consensus decision, I see a number of related citations from other research groups from the late 80s and early 90s. It seems like there was a lot of research and independent testing of their hypotheses during that period (and you do know that they won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine!) and journals hardly balked at publishing the research, even if the consensus took 10 years to form.

    When I look at Sheldrake's research as described on his website, I see a very different situation -- his publications in biology journals seem to end in the 1970s, whereas more recent papers are in journals like "Journal of Psychical Research". The ulcer research may have been controversial, but it got published because it had evidence to back it up. If there is evidence for morphic fields, why isn't Sheldrake's research being published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals?
  45. see see writer from Canada writes: Good answer. I read that it was a 20-year battle, but did not remember the specifics too well.

    Sheldrake's thought involves a much more fundamental shift in perspective -- more akin to the shift undergone lately in particle physics. It is akin to Lovelock's Gaia work, which also has really ticked off a lot of scientists, but is gaining credence. In a way both require shifting from an I-it view of the world to an I-Thou perspective -- IE from objective to participatory.

    If a participatory paradigm can yield truths about the world which are not accessible to the objective perspective, can science venture there? Or is science trapped in the objective perspective?

    We are approaching a threshhold, on many fronts, beyond which some of the old Cartesian-observor methods do not work well -- for we are beginning to explore the interface between consciousness and physical matter. Particle physics has led the way in this direction, but now other disciplines are also running up against the limits of objectivity not unlike those of physics.

    We need to translate those procedures of scientific verification, which you described so well, into a discipline which can be used in this new frontier. For example, prediction has been shown to affect the movement of particles being viewed by students-- so prediction can be problematical as a standard of scientific method.

    We require an expanded standard of proof which can deal with consciousness and with synchronicity.

    And I will concede it is possible that Sheldrake -- rather like Lamark vs Darwin-- is close but not quite on track. ("Field" seems to me a misleading term, because it evokes a spacial perspective for something that may not be in any way spacial...)

    Still -- you should really read one of his books before making up your mind. He is onto something very important which our contemporary observor-mentality almost blinds us to .
  46. John Doucette from Manotick, Canada writes: "Advertising may have more influence on prescriptions than science" SURPRISE!
  47. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Mikey Dee from Canada writes: I think that cholesterol lowering drugs are going to end up being the thalidomide nightmare of this generation. I have been talked into three different cholesterol drugs by three different doctors and had three different reactions to them The last one had me in ICU for 10 days. You can guess what will freeze over before I buy into another of these drug companies scams!
    ******
    Mikey. Cholesterol lowering drugs (statins) have been around since the 80s. Sorry, no thalidomide-like tragedy has or will happen.
  48. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    "Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: If a drug is effective and does what it claims to do, then a company doesn't need to spend millions of dollars trying to "sell"" it to the public. "

    Same could be said for any consumer product. The fact advertising builds awareness of the product and the brand. If people with a particular ailment are unaware that there is treatment available they may not seek it out.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top