One more proof of how the family industry controls research ...

Josep Baselga has resigned as a medical director of the Sloan Kettering Memorial this Thursday, five days after 'The New York Times' and Propublic revealed that the prestigious Catalan oncologist omitted the collection of millions of dollars of health companies and pharmacists in tens of dozens ofresearch.

The president of the memorial, Craig Thompson, has confirmed the resignation of Baselga, who had arrived at the center in 2013 after being head of hematology and oncology at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and where his fees in 2016 were 1.5 milliondollars

The weekend articles showed that Baselga, 59 and that he was director of the Institut d'Oncologia Vall d'Hebron, has created the Baselga Oncological Institute and last year he was one of the winners of the International Catalonia, did not reportThe payments he received from the industry in 60% of the articles he has published since 2013.

The omissions were climbing since then and last year affected 87% of the texts that carried their signature in publications such as 'The Lancet' and 'The New England Journal of Medicine'.

"inconsistencies"

Baselga initially reacted recognizing the importance of omissions but also said they had not been intentionally."I recognize that there have been inconsistencies but that is what it is," he told 'Times' and Propublic.In a statement he said that this inconsistency "is far from compromising my responsibilities as a doctor, scientist and clinical leader."

He also defended that his ties with the industry were publicly known, although he refused to give data on the payments he received from some small biotechnological start-ups.According to public information, between 2013 and 2017 Baselga received almost 3.5 million dollars from nine companies, but companies that still have their proof phases do not have to disseminate what doctors pay.

Although according to Baselga and the memorial the center knew the payments that the oncologist received from the industry and protections had been created to prevent the doctor's relationships with the industry and their obligations with some of the corporations created conflicts of interest, public revelations aboutThe omission in the articles shook the Sloan Kettering.

There the meetings of the Board of Directors have happened since the weekend and with medical leaders and those responsible on Sunday sent a message to the center staff giving instructions to “do a better job” by informing their relationships with the industry.

The investigation of the newspaper and Propublic pointed, for example, that Baselga gave a positive interpretation on the results of two clinical trials sponsored by Roche that many others considered disappointing without disseminating their economic ties with the Swiss pharmacist, of which he charged as an advisorAnd he received 3 million dollars when Roche bought another company where he had a participation.Roche is also the Mententech matrix, a Herceptin manufacturer, a drug for cancer treatment whose Baselga development played a key role.

"permeable borders"

The case of Baselga, as wrote the 'Times', is considered illustrative of the problematic of the "permeable borders between academic research and industry" and "how weakly apply information requirements in medical publications and in societiesprofessionals in charge of controlling them. "

Baselga was in 2015 and 2016 president of the American Association for Cancer Research, an organization that is also investigating its work in the face of the apparent violation of information rules on the charges that occurredalso during your presidency.

Your P.M.(with forgiveness).

This is the order of the day, if only this man would be nothing.Many doctors, researchers, scientific societies, etc. are bought by the pharmaceutical or food industry.You just have to go to the Spanish Association of the Heart or the Pediatrics and see who appear as collaborators in the events they organize.Normal then put their seal in ultraprocessed.
And many pharmacists and large food companies pay scientists to show "manipulated" data to deceive people.And they do not have to be false data, just showing % relative you are already manipulating the data and it is not a lie what you say.All tricks are known.
In the end they are only interested in pasta, people's health is indifferent to them.

Everything is bought.But, to see the positive side, the investigation continues if there is money, and the treatments advance.

I don't see the positive side anywhere.
He was favoring medications for how much they paid him, not for his effectiveness.
For me it is the worst of the worst that a doctor can do? Researcher? Prestige?Your P.M.!

It is the base of sale of pharmaceuticals.In my family there are several medical visitors and the doctor who prescribes his medicine pays him in kind.They take out the sale statistics for pharmacy and area of ​​influence from that doctor.
It is amazing that they give to doctors and the visitor ... small trips for free around the world my relatives are hit!Free, of course.Not counting salaries ...

ruthbia said:
is the basis for the sale of pharmaceutics.In my family there are several medical visitors and the doctor who prescribes his medicine pays him in kind.They take out the sale statistics for pharmacy and area of ​​influence from that doctor.
It is amazing that they give to doctors and the visitor ... small trips for free around the world my relatives are hit!Free, of course.Not counting salaries ....

I was born too soon.In my parents (cardiologist/pneumologist he, pediatrician), visitors only gave them some laboratiorio advertising plastic bolis and booklets with millimeter paper that came very well for some school subjects.:)
But in any case, I think that the gift in kind is not comparable to a foot doctor (it does not seem important at the medical level that a paracetamol or other brand is prescribed), than a gift in money and in unworthy quantities to favor theLaunch/sale of medicines through researchers from influential institutions worldwide, implying top -level scientific validation when it is nothing more than a bribe/corruption/Illicit personal enrichment.Little seems to me a simple resignation.Very little.Scandally little.

@"aaandres" I agree with you that this man is not comparable to the case of any doctor who prescribes a specific brand but I would not give importance.Think about the amount of money that public health could be saved if doctors do not receive gifts for prescribing a specific brand and recipes in generic when there are.That money in a medicine is nothing but added to the millions used in Spain if it is a lot.And I would go further, imagine that that doctor is a pharmacist gives him X to prescribe more statins of his brand.A patient with cholesterol is still a little higher than normal but nothing worrying and instead of advising him that I changed his diet and exercise that it would be the most beneficial for the patient, he prescribes statins because the more he prescribes the most the pharmaceutical.He is offering a treatment with many side effects (including increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes) to a patient who could solve his problem with good habits that also improve his general health instead of exposing themselves to the risks of that medication.I see that very serious and I think it should be forbidden for visitors to give doctors gifts of any kind.Medical decisions should not be influenced by economic interests.

@"Yesssica_a", I do not agree with you, for several reasons that I describe:
1.- Tipical Spanish: We start talking about a serious subject, and we end up talking about "and you more", diverting the attention of the matter.There are very serious things and a lot of waste of money, surely yes, but that is another issue.
2.- In public medicine, doctors are obliged to prescribe generic that I know, so your first argument gets rid of like a sugar water in hot water.
3.- If a prescription doctor knowing that it is not the best option for the health of your patient for taking a commission, that doctor is committing as little irregularity (although I think it could well be crossed out of a crime, by attack against thehealth for illegitimate enrichment).Amen of perjury to his Hippocratic oath (which also has its consequences).
I don't think professionals act like this.The engineers come to the houses of components to 'teach' their products.And engineers will choose that product if it meets the requirements.He will not choose a steel bar that does not hold the bridge because, if he does, as in the case of your doctor, he will be committing a crime.And you can put here how many examples and professions you want.Commercial work exists and is necessary.The scoundrel and crime, there are also ... although in this case they are not necessary.

aaandres said:
@"Yesssica_a", I do not agree with you, for several reasons that I describe you:
1.- Tipical Spanish: We start talking about a serious subject, and we end up talking about "and you more", diverting the attention of the matter.There are very serious things and a lot of waste of money, surely yes, but that is another issue.
2.- In public medicine, doctors are obliged to prescribe generic that I know, so your first argument gets rid of like a sugar water in hot water.
3.- If a prescription doctor knowing that it is not the best option for the health of your patient for taking a commission, that doctor is committing as little irregularity (although I think it could well be crossed out of a crime, by attack against thehealth for illegitimate enrichment).Amen of perjury to his Hippocratic oath (which also has its consequences).
I don't think professionals act like this.The engineers come to the houses of components to 'teach' their products.And engineers will choose that product if it meets the requirements.He will not choose a steel bar that does not hold the bridge because, if he does, as in the case of your doctor, he will be committing a crime.And you can put here how many examples and professions you want.Commercial work exists and is necessary.The scoundrel and crime, there are also ... although in this case they are not necessary.

I have not tried to divert the attention of anything, it has been you who has spoken first about the subject, I have only refuted you what you have said.I am not attacking your medical relatives at all or you, so don't take it as something personal.At no time have I said that they do bad practices or anything.I have not even spoken badly about doctors in general.Most doctors do what they believe best for their patients and do not let themselves be purchased, but there are also those who accept pharmaceutical gifts in exchange for favoring their products and that seems very serious and it is the same as this man has donethat out so on you but on a smaller scale.
And as for the commercial work of the visitors I have not said anything that they should not do it.What I said is that they should not allow doctors to give things to doctors because gifts are done in exchange for something.One things is that they give you a ball and another to pay you a trip or give you an iPad and those things are done.One things is to explain a medication and their benefits and leave signs (which is the work of a visitor) and another to pay a trip to the doctor to prescribe his medicine (which is to buy the doctor).If that seems good to you then great, but I think it is a very serious problem.And with this I do not want to say that everyone does it, as in all the professions there are honest people who do their job well and people who sell the bidder.

aaandres said:
@"Yesssica_a", I do not agree with you, for several reasons that I describe you:
1.- Tipical Spanish: We start talking about a serious subject, and we end up talking about "and you more", diverting the attention of the matter.There are very serious things and a lot of waste of money, surely yes, but that is another issue.
2.- In public medicine, doctors are obliged to prescribe generic that I know, so your first argument gets rid of like a sugar water in hot water.
3.- If a prescription doctor knowing that it is not the best option for the health of your patient for taking a commission, that doctor is committing as little irregularity (although I think it could well be crossed out of a crime, by attack against thehealth for illegitimate enrichment).Amen of perjury to his Hippocratic oath (which also has its consequences).
I don't think professionals act like this.The engineers come to the houses of components to 'teach' their products.And engineers will choose that product if it meets the requirements.He will not choose a steel bar that does not hold the bridge because, if he does, as in the case of your doctor, he will be committing a crime.And you can put here how many examples and professions you want.Commercial work exists and is necessary.The scoundrel and crime, there are also ... although in this case they are not necessary.

I have not tried to divert the attention of anything, it has been you who has spoken first about the subject, I have only refuted you what you have said.I am not attacking your medical relatives at all or you, so don't take it as something personal.At no time have I said that they do bad practices or anything.I have not even spoken badly about doctors in general.Most doctors do what they believe best for their patients and do not let themselves be purchased, but there are also those who accept pharmaceutical gifts in exchange for favoring their products and that seems very serious and it is the same as this man has donethat out so on you but on a smaller scale.
And as for the commercial work of the visitors I have not said anything that they should not do it.What I said is that they should not allow doctors to give things to doctors because gifts are done in exchange for something.One things is that they give you a ball and another to pay you a trip or give you an iPad and those things are done.One things is to explain a medication and their benefits and leave signs (which is the work of a visitor) and another to pay a trip to the doctor to prescribe his medicine (which is to buy the doctor).If that seems good to you then great, but I think it is a very serious problem.And with this I do not want to say that everyone does it, as in all the professions there are honest people who do their job well and people who sell the bidder.

This forums is complicated ... we don't put ourselves face or intonation.
I have not taken it as personal (my parents were very far from those practices as I have said and I have no special appreciation for any doctor, except my son's endo), nor have I tried to offend you, or be abrupt in my answer.If I have been, I apologize.
I only tell you that:
- We deviate the subject
- We don't spend more for visitors.The doctors of the S.S.generic recipe.The prebendas of this type are therefore exclusive to private health.And therefore your argument was not valid.
- The doctors who recipe badly to benefit economically I think, I hope and wish they are the least.I do not believe that your second argument was weight for what concerns us.

The lord of the article, a renowned doctor in cancer treatment, belonging to one of the most prestigious institutions worldwide in the treatment of cancer, accepted money, in metallic, worth millions of dollars, to favor/advertise/meetcertain pharmaceutical products without the corresponding scientific support with the sole purpose of enriching themselves.It is a perfect H.P.

His attitude does harm the investigation.His attitude can affect the health of millions of patients.Your attitude may stop research subsidies.His prestigious public status is critical in this matter.His status should be that of a perfect H.P.

A real shame.He believed that due to their preparation, profession, culture, ethics and even economic level there would be people who would not worship the golden calf and would not be blackmailed, but it is seen that anyone escapes.Everyone has a price and what is missing is the financial.In this case were the pharmacists.