That show was controversial, I think there's a lot of truth in it...
I tend to agree on both counts for the simple reason that the pharmaceutical industry has had so many 'lemons' over the years, promoted to the hilt as 'good' and 'safe' drugs only to be later shown up to be either poorly researched or deliberately skewed or fraudulent research tabled with it's registration supplication.
How much chance has this got in the face of a billion dollar industry that relies on the sale of these drugs ?
Non.
I wouldn't be that negative. A little logic can go a long way, even in the face of sustained assault by vested interests.
I suggest you listen to Dr Norman Swan discussing the matter with
Professor Peter Clifton
Professor of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences
NHMRC Principal Research Fellow
University of South Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/
Two doctors, especially one with the qualifications and experience of the latter, are just a bit more likely to be able to accurately assess the value or otherwise of the Catalyst program than most people here, or some forum where "a guy" has been saying this for years.
Logically... a Phd, any number of qualifications or 'titles' or amount of consensus doesn't in itself "accurately assess" the value of anything. All it does is appeal to, or establish a consensus... which is often wrong when not backed by sound science.
You might also like to think about who, other than the pharmaceutical industry, would come up with the billions that currently go into research.
The first point that needs to be realised here is humans survived and flourished for thousands of years without a pharmaceutical industry... on pure clean food, water and air. The quality of our environment and particularly the food we are served up in the last 40 or 50 years since the corporation of the world with it's lobby tentacles infesting most of our government and public safety authorities, has diminished to something well short of clean and pure. Just so much processed food that contains stuff that we are not told about.
We've all heard about the adverse effects of added hormones and excess antibiotics in humans and also chicken, fish and to a lesser extent other livestock farming... overly promoted by big pharma for extra profit.
Even some fresh fruit and veg is adulterated with chemicals from big pharma just to force them to ripen a few days sooner and or colour up for presentation a bit better most often to the determent of nutrient quality and sometimes the alteration of the natural compounds to unnatural compounds in the fruit or veg.
The second point is less is often more. All other things being equal, less of this adulterated stuff we consume the more healthy we tend to be. Our body can only consume so much and perform so many chemical reactions before it wears out. Unless you have an irreversible condition, the best option is 'less is more' healthy.
It has been said that we are living longer these days, not because we are intrinsically more healthy, but because big pharma can prescribe more stuff for us to keep consuming to, not necessarily make us healthier, but just delay the progression of disease or our death.
logically, one only has to look at the correlation of the obesity rate increase with the increased life span and increased rate of 'consumption' ( that key word for corporations) of processed foodstuffs and drugs to realise we are too often being force fed and brainwashed.
The third point is that the quality of the end product is not directly related to the amount of money put into research. The best end products are often the result of some specific industry or academic funded project.
Big pharma too often researches stuff just for the sake of the next big thing it can patent, try to find a use for it or multiple uses for it, employ high powered sales people who often would 'sell their mother for a quid' and convince the authorities we need it and proceed to convince us we need to consume it.
There is plenty of arguably better research being done by other than the big pharma companies that make drugs like statins.
Bottom line; the Catalyst program came with at least or more medical warnings and conditions in their comments than big pharma put on the drugs they push out... so what's the justification of the complaint!? Certainly can't be based on free speech or equal time or resources for each side of the debate.