NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor) header
NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor) profile picture

• Not mainstream • Not alternative • Not unqualified • Not disinterested in your wellbeing ... just ... Not Your Doctor 😉

Ireland
Joined April 2024
Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)Photo by NotYourDoctor (@_NotYourDoctor)
NotYourDoctor retweeted
One eye drop a day could allow people to ditch glasses forever. The FDA has approved VIZZ, the first eye drop of its kind to literally fix near vision. After about age 40, the lens inside the eye stiffens, and reading a menu or a phone gets harder. It's called presbyopia, and it affects almost everyone eventually. In 2025 the FDA approved VIZZ, a once-a-day eye drop made by LENZ Therapeutics that uses a drug called aceclidine. It works by shrinking the pupil to under 2 millimeters, creating a pinhole effect that brings close objects into focus without blurring distance vision. In clinical trials with hundreds of adults, near vision improved within 30 minutes and the effect lasted up to 10 hours. Earlier drops like Vuity mainly worked by squeezing the muscle that focuses the eye, which could cause brow aches and dimmer distance vision. VIZZ acts mostly on the pupil instead, and the company reported no serious treatment-related side effects across more than 30,000 days of use. That said, the drops don't cure presbyopia, since the effect wears off each day, and they need a prescription. Also, in trials about one in five users had eye irritation, 16% noticed dimmer vision and 13% had headaches, mostly mild and brief. Even so, for millions of people tired of hunting for their readers, it's a real new option worth asking an eye doctor about. source: LENZ Therapeutics. (2025, July 31). LENZ Therapeutics announces U.S. FDA approval of VIZZ (aceclidine ophthalmic solution) 1.44% for the treatment of presbyopia [Press release].
61
268
33
1,471
95,390
On 13th December 2026, folic acid will be mandated in non-wholemeal flour in UK including imported and organic flour. On 14th December 2026, the House of Commons will debate that unethical and unsafe law.
145
962
44
1,925
40,074
Cancer diagnoses in England hit record high of more than 1,000 people a day “According to the latest cancer registration statistics, more than 373,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in England in 2024, the highest figure on record. On average, NHS England diagnosed 1,021 people a day with cancer in 2024, up from 972 a day in 2023.” theguardian.com/society/2026…
62
178
31
410
133,328
NotYourDoctor retweeted
NEW Study: - Adolescent exposure to Prozac in females leads to increased anxiety-like behaviors in adulthood (in mice.) "The present findings strengthen the growing consensus that increasing serotonergic tone during the juvenile stage of development, via FLX [Prozac] administration, results in abnormal emotional and anxiety-like behaviors in adulthood." "These findings add to the growing body of evidence that pharmacological manipulation of the serotonergic system across development results in persistent, unintended behavioral changes. Importantly, these findings have translational implications, as clinical studies have reported persistent sexual dysfunction in adult women with a history of adolescent SSRI exposure, including FLX [Prozac]. Although the present study does not directly address sexual function, the convergence of persistent behavioral alterations across preclinical and clinical studies highlights the potential for adolescent SSRI exposure to mediate long-term unforeseen side effects across multiple domains of adult behavior. As such, our results underscore the importance of considering the persistent side effects of adolescent SSRI exposure, particularly in teenage girls, who remain understudied at both clinical and preclinical levels despite the higher prescription rates of FLX [Prozac] within this population." link.springer.com/article/10…
3
29
1
68
1,849
NotYourDoctor retweeted
🚨: Brain scans have revealed children living with unstable families (excessive, arguing, abusive and neglectful) have brain changes similar to combat soldiers after active duty.
2
26
2
87
2,617
Thinking about meniscus surgery? Don’t bother. 10-Year Study Finds Worse Outcomes After Surgery The long-term results paint a concerning picture. Patients who underwent partial meniscectomy did not experience better outcomes than those who had sham surgery. In fact, they tended to do worse. After a decade, these patients reported more knee symptoms and poorer function. They also showed greater progression of osteoarthritis and were more likely to need additional knee surgery compared to those who did not receive the actual procedure. sciencedaily.com/releases/20…
54
82
4
297
10,435
NotYourDoctor retweeted
The American College of Pediatricians just put out a 🔥🔥🔥 statement calling out all the major medical associations by name for pushing the gender transition craze on kids. They ask for these groups to "IMMEDIATELY stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex." The full @ACPeds statement ⬇️ "Therefore, given the recent research and the revelations of the harmful approach advocated by WPATH and its followers in the United States, we, the undersigned, call upon the medical professional organizations of the United States, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the  Endocrine Society, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to follow the science and their European professional colleagues and immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.  Instead, these organizations should recommend comprehensive evaluations and therapies aimed at identifying and addressing underlying psychological co-morbidities and neurodiversity that often predispose to and accompany gender dysphoria. We also encourage the physicians who are members of these professional organizations to contact their leadership and urge them to adhere to the evidence-based research now available.”
244
2,655
257
7,715
161,255
NotYourDoctor retweeted
A question I get from patients all the time is the classic: "is coffee good or bad?" I always answers it depends ... The interesting post below concerns individual variations in the main liver enzyme that deals with caffeine. So one could could run the genetic test to verify one's reactivity to coffee ... But there are generally clinical clues that might suggest it's not the best beverage to have lots of for a given person. "Idiopathic" hypertension is one clue. But even without that, it's generally a good guess that too much coffee doesn't usually "fast types": those who talk fast: and whose faces show a lot of dramatic micro-muscular expressivity
For roughly half the population, 2-3 cups of coffee a day was associated with 36% higher odds of a heart attack. The difference comes down to CYP1A2 — the liver enzyme that breaks down ~95% of the caffeine you drink. And this is not a rare genetic variation. Roughly 45-55% of the population carries at least one copy of the slow CYP1A2 variant, meaning they're classified as slow metabolizers. About 10% have two copies — the slowest clearance of all. Caffeine’s half-life averages around 5 hours. In fast metabolizers: 2 to 4 hours. In slow metabolizers: 6 to 10 hours or more. A landmark study published in JAMA in 2006 compared 2,014 people who had a first nonfatal heart attack with 2,014 matched controls. Among slow metabolizers, compared with people drinking less than one cup a day: 1 cup a day — no increase in odds of heart attack. 2-3 cups — 36% higher odds. 4+ cups — 64% higher odds. A second study, from Italy in 2009, followed 553 young adults with mildly elevated blood pressure for a median of 8 years. Among slow metabolizers: 64.6% of coffee drinkers developed high blood pressure requiring treatment, vs. 47.8% of those who didn’t drink coffee. Urinary adrenaline told the same story — significantly elevated in coffee drinkers, but only in slow metabolizers. The authors’ recommendation followed the genotype directly. Slow metabolizers with prehypertension or hypertension: avoid caffeinated coffee. Roughly half the population is metabolizing caffeine slowly right now and has no idea.
1
59
NotYourDoctor retweeted
Creatine is known for building muscle and improving athletic performance. A new UCLA study just found it does something completely different: it powers the immune cells that direct your body's cancer-fighting response. Researchers at UCLA published findings in iScience showing creatine supplementation enhances dendritic cell function and suppresses tumor growth in preclinical models. The work identifies a metabolic bottleneck in cancer immunity and suggests creatine might help address it. What dendritic cells do Dendritic cells serve as coordinators of your immune system's response to cancer. They patrol tissues, capture pieces of tumor cells, and present those fragments to T cells in lymph nodes. This presentation activates T cells to recognize and attack cancer. Without functional dendritic cells, T cells never get properly instructed. The immune system fails to mount an organized response against tumors. Patients with more dendritic cells in their tumors tend to have better outcomes and more active immune responses. There is an energy problem in dysfunctional dendritic cells. Dendritic cells require significant energy to function. When they encounter danger signals from tumors, they activate, migrating to lymph nodes, ramping up production of surface molecules that interact with T cells, and secreting inflammatory signals. All of this requires ATP, the cellular energy currency. Inside tumors, dendritic cells face a hostile metabolic environment. Cancer cells consume available glucose and other nutrients aggressively. Immune cells competing for those same resources often lose out, leaving them energy-depleted and dysfunctional. Where does creatine fit in? Creatine functions as an energy buffer. Inside cells, an enzyme called creatine kinase adds a phosphate group to creatine, creating phosphocreatine. When ATP gets consumed during cellular work, phosphocreatine rapidly donates its phosphate back to regenerate ATP. This system is particularly important in tissues with high, fluctuating energy demands like muscle and brain. Athletes supplement with creatine to maintain ATP availability during intense exercise. The researchers found dendritic cells also rely on this system. When activated, dendritic cells dramatically upregulate expression of the creatine transporter, the protein that imports creatine into cells. Intratumoral dendritic cells showed especially high transporter levels compared to dendritic cells from spleens. So how did the team test their hypothesis? The team used two complementary approaches. First, they generated mice lacking the creatine transporter specifically in immune cells. Dendritic cells from these knockout mice showed impaired survival and activation when stimulated. They expressed lower levels of costimulatory molecules needed to activate T cells and produced fewer inflammatory cytokines. When these creatine-deficient dendritic cells were co-cultured with T cells, the T cells proliferated less, produced fewer effector molecules, and showed reduced activation markers. The dendritic cells couldn't effectively prime an immune response. Second, the researchers tested whether creatine supplementation could enhance normal dendritic cell function. Adding creatine to cell cultures improved dendritic cell survival and ramped up their activation. The cells displayed more surface proteins that signal readiness to interact with T cells and pumped out higher levels of inflammatory signaling molecules that coordinate immune responses. There were some interesting mechanistic findings as well. RNA sequencing revealed creatine supplementation activated energy-dependent inflammatory signaling pathways in dendritic cells. Metabolic profiling showed creatine-treated cells maintained higher ATP levels and increased phosphocreatine stores. The researchers directly measured ATP in dendritic cells. Cells lacking the creatine transporter showed significantly lower ATP levels after activation compared to normal cells. Creatine supplementation restored and even enhanced ATP availability. This ATP preservation appears critical for dendritic cell function. Many of the processes required for activation, including protein synthesis, trafficking of molecules to the cell surface, and cytokine secretion, are energy-intensive. When ATP drops, these functions fail. The tumor experiments were particularly fascinating. The team tested whether creatine supplementation could enhance anti-tumor immunity in mice bearing B16 melanoma tumors, an aggressive cancer model. Mice received either regular drinking water or water supplemented with creatine. Creatine-supplemented mice showed significantly slower tumor growth. Analysis of the tumor tissue revealed more activated dendritic cells with higher expression of maturation markers. These tumors also contained more activated T cells producing IFN-γ, a key anti-tumor cytokine. Importantly, the anti-tumor effect of creatine required functional dendritic cells. When the researchers depleted dendritic cells, creatine supplementation no longer suppressed tumor growth. This confirmed dendritic cells were the critical cell type mediating creatine's effects. Human relevance The researchers tested whether their findings applied to human cells. They generated dendritic cells from human blood monocytes and treated them with creatine. Human dendritic cells responded similarly to mouse cells: enhanced activation, increased costimulatory molecule expression, and improved capacity to stimulate T cell responses. This cross-species validation strengthens the translational potential. The creatine transporter and creatine kinase system are evolutionarily conserved between mice and humans. Key takeaways: • Dendritic cells upregulate creatine transporter expression when activated, especially in tumor environments • Creatine functions as an ATP buffer, maintaining energy availability during dendritic cell activation • Knockout of creatine transporter impairs dendritic cell survival, activation, and ability to prime T cell responses • Creatine supplementation enhances dendritic cell function in both mouse and human cells • Oral creatine supplementation suppressed melanoma tumor growth in mice through dendritic cell-dependent mechanisms • The effect was mediated by improved dendritic cell ATP levels and enhanced inflammatory signaling It's a super fascinating study for what it tells us about the role of creatine outside of musculoskeletal function. There are some limitations, however. The tumor experiments used a single cancer type in young, healthy mice. Whether creatine supplementation works across different tumor types, in aged mice, or in the context of existing immunotherapies remains untested. The creatine doses used in mouse drinking water translate to relatively high human equivalent doses, though still within the range commonly used by athletes (typically 3-5 grams per day). The study measured associations between creatine treatment and immune activation but didn't fully map all downstream mechanisms. Additional signaling pathways likely contribute. All experiments used syngeneic tumor models where mice develop cancer from transplanted tumor cells. Spontaneous tumor models or patient samples would provide additional validation. This work adds to emerging evidence that creatine plays immunomodulatory roles beyond its established effects on muscle and brain. Previous studies from other groups showed creatine enhances CD8 T cell function and polarizes tumor-associated macrophages toward anti-tumor phenotypes. The convergence across multiple immune cell types suggests creatine metabolism represents a general mechanism supporting anti-tumor immunity in metabolically challenging tumor environments. Dendritic cells represent a logical target for metabolic interventions. They're relatively rare in tumors but have outsized influence on whether productive immune responses develop. Enhancing their function could amplify downstream T cell responses. Current cancer immunotherapies focus heavily on T cells, particularly checkpoint inhibitors that release brakes on T cell activity. But those therapies depend on T cells already being properly activated. If dendritic cells fail at the initial priming step, checkpoint inhibitors have less to work with. Metabolic support for dendritic cells could complement T cell-directed therapies. The combination might prove especially valuable in immunologically cold tumors that lack robust immune infiltration. The practical advantage of creatine is accessibility. It's inexpensive, widely available, well-tolerated at typical doses, and has decades of safety data from use in athletes. The safety profile makes it a reasonable candidate for clinical testing. The next step is human trials examining whether creatine supplementation enhances immune responses in cancer patients, particularly those receiving immunotherapy. Endpoints would include dendritic cell activation markers in blood and tumors, T cell responses to tumor antigens, and clinical outcomes. The study provides proof of concept that targeting dendritic cell metabolism can enhance anti-tumor immunity and identifies creatine as a specific intervention worthy of further investigation.
7
44
10
253
35,927
NotYourDoctor retweeted
"If we come to logic... the entire purpose of the Human Rights Act is to defend the citizen against executive overreach, against abuse of power by the executive. And what the judges are saying is that there can be no abuse of power by the executive because they're democratically elected... In which case, what's the point in having a Human Rights Act?" Standing outside the Supreme Court in London following the appeal against the proscription of Palestine Action on behalf of Huda Ammori, Craig Murray breaks down the alarming reality of executive overreach and the erosion of judicial accountability in the UK. When the courts defer entirely to the Secretary of State, claiming the executive cannot commit an abuse of power simply because they are democratically elected, the foundational purpose of the Human Rights Act collapses. If citizens are stripped of their livelihoods, assets, and legal recourse without independent judicial protection, we cross a dangerous line. As Murray highlights, it is a massive mistake to confuse the law with justice when the two no longer meet. Watch the full breakdown and share your thoughts on where this leaves our rights. #PalestineAction #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #CraigMurray #SupremeCourtLondon
44
594
36
939
14,132
NotYourDoctor retweeted
"You didn't join the police force to do this, did you?" On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the Palestine Action ban, a 94-year-old barrister tells @ShehabKhan why she got arrested, and the words that made her arresting officer cry. Watch the full interview 👇
67
1,439
51
2,992
135,479
NotYourDoctor retweeted
Another large study finds ADHD meds don't improve school performance, at least for kids on the margin of treatment. I remain unsure what ADHD is. I was taught it was a delay in maturation that resolved. Later, a lifelong disorder of attention. More recently, a problem of alertness and reward pathways more than attention. Either way, parents and teachers often push medication hoping to improve grades. This study looked at all children aged 5 to 15 in Norway. It used differences in how clinics prescribe as a natural experiment. Using this analysis academic benefits of medication disappeared. "For children and adolescents on the margin of pharmacological treatment for ADHD, we found no causal effect of pharmacological treatment on any of our measures of academic performance." DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2026.10754 Picture: Figure 2(b) showing that GPA doesn’t significantly increase with meds using the instrumental variable analysis.
40
44
12
203
20,626
A new Minnesota organ donor unit will be optimizing the donor’s health for 24-72 hours before organ harvesting — in order to maximize the number of transplantable organs. "Sometimes it’s a period of 24–72 hours where we’re optimizing their organ functions so we can utilize as many of their organs as they wanted to give," says transplantation chief Dr. Andrew Adams. Corpses can only decay over time. The donors in these centers are still biologically alive: undergoing tests like bronchoscopy, cardiac catheterization, and kidney biopsies — not for their own benefit, but to optimize their organs for somebody else. These organ donor units are ignoring a recent transplant ethics statement made by the world’s largest medical specialty organization, the American College of Physicians: “It is unethical, before the declaration of death, to use any treatments or interventions aimed at preserving organs or assessing their suitability for donation that may harm the still-living patient by causing pain, causing traumatic injury, or shortening the patient’s life.” And according to the news article, these organ procurement centers are also saving money “from decreased operating room and anesthesia costs.” When you registered as an organ donor, were you informed that you would still be biologically alive when you were transferred to an organ donation center? Or that they would be performing invasive tests on you that have been determined to be unethical? Or that they would be cutting costs on your anesthesia? Thanks to @grimst76708 for sharing this news article with me!
13
57
8
106
2,601
NotYourDoctor retweeted
The Keto CTA study is back on my feed today, and the authors are reiterating that it was retracted at their request. That’s fine. I’m actually open to the idea that the Cleerly data was flawed. My much, much larger problem is with the way the science was communicated. As they say, “Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.” At launch, the message was “no association of ApoB with plaque” and “most participants showed NO OR MINIMAL progression.” (Pictures below.) But when the authors requested the retraction, the exact same data was suddenly the problem. Plaque progression was so high and so one directional, that it was said to be statistically implausible. So what is it? No or minimal progression or progression so consistent and so bad that the data must be flawed? Second, it’s worth remembering how science is supposed to be communicated. Plaque progression was the PRIMARY OUTCOME cited for the Keto CTA study. But plaque progression was not reported. The authors later apologized (which, to their credit, is good!) for not including the number in the graph they provided. But while putting the number in the figure would have been nice, that is not how you DISCUSS your primary outcome in the DISCUSSION of a paper. Let’s compare this to how @BradStanfieldMD discussed the primary outcome of his Rapamycin study, a study he put a tremendous amount of reputation behind and, quite literally put a second mortgage on his house to get over the finish line: “4.1 Principal Findings This randomised, double-blind, exploratory trial evaluated whether once-weekly sirolimus (rapamycin) 6 mg, timed to avoid peak training windows, could enhance functional adaptations to a 13-week resistance and endurance programme in sedentary older adults. Contrary to the ‘cycling hypothesis’ derived from preclinical models, we found no evidence of benefit. Instead, sensitivity analyses (complete-case and per-protocol) revealed a statistically significant blunting of functional gains in the sirolimus arm. Specifically, participants taking the drug performed fewer chair-stand repetitions and showed non-significant trends toward reduced walking distance and grip strength compared with placebo. Safety monitoring identified a higher burden of minor AEs and one serious infection (pneumonia) in the treatment arm.” He was clear. The study did not meet his primary endpoint, and instead, the intervention appeared to have worsened it. That is how science is communicated. I asked Grok to write the Discussion the Keto CTA should have had for its primary endpoint, had it been written the way Dr Stanfield did. Here is what Grok wrote: "Discussion Principal Findings This prospective, single-arm observational study evaluated whether long-term exposure to elevated LDL-C and ApoB (in the lean-mass hyper-responder phenotype on a ketogenic diet) was associated with progression of noncalcified coronary plaque over one year, as quantified by coronary CT angiography. The pre-specified primary endpoint was change in noncalcified plaque volume (NCPV). Contrary to the hypothesis that these elevations would not drive measurable plaque progression in this metabolically healthy cohort, we observed a median increase in NCPV of 18.9 mm³ (IQR 9.3–47.0 mm³), corresponding to a 42.8% relative change. The mean change was 31.5 mm³ (SD 31.5 mm³), reflecting substantial inter-individual heterogeneity. Most participants showed an increase in NCPV." That is how you discuss your primary endpoint. It’s not supposed to be a number on a chart (which was omitted anyway).
We, the authors, retracted the paper, @Drlipid This was due to the anomalous @Cleerlyhealth dataset they provided us alongside their repeated refusal to quality control check their work. Study participants have since resubmitted their scans and have gotten results far more in line with the other independent analyses from Heartflow and QAngio. So yes, understandably, we moved to withdraw the paper leading to its retraction. (This has been known for over half year now.) teapawt.net/realDaveFeldman/status…
14
21
2
102
10,591
NotYourDoctor retweeted
This really blew my mind when the study came out. I can't tell you how many doctors told patients to stop drinking coffee if they had intermittent Afib. The mechanism was obvious: caffeine will make the heart a little more twitchy. Reality? The polyphenols and possibly partial adenosine blockade outweighs the caffeine. Reduced Afib recurrence. Huge victory for coffee. This actually brings me back to one of my pet peeves: everyone assumes that a theoretical "mechanism" is all holy, and we see influencers break out their biochemistry (usually with a little help from ChatGPT) and say "X -> Y -> Z -> AAA so ALWAYS do X!!!!" all the time. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works. If mechanisms were all powerful, we probably would've solved most human disease years ago. That's why we do outcome research. We had a plausible mechanism by which coffee would increase Afib, but it didn't work in reality. Sort of like how there are plausible mechanisms by which seed oils might cause health problems... that don't appear to play out in any outcome based studies.
Coffee remains a cardioprotective tool 1 cup/day = 40% lower AFib recurrence than those who quit entirely
7
12
1
70
8,350
NotYourDoctor retweeted
What if the medical journals you trust most are really just fancy ads for drug companies? That is the blunt warning from Richard Smith, who ran the famous BMJ journal for 13 years. In a 2005 essay, Smith said medical journals have become “an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies.” He spent decades inside the system. He watched how the money worked. Drug ads bring in cash, but that is not the biggest problem. The real power comes from industry-funded studies. Companies pay for most of the big drug trials published in top journals. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of those trials come from drug makers. And those trials almost never show bad results for the company’s product. Smith pointed to dozens of studies proving that who pays for the research often shapes the answer. A positive trial is worth far more than regular advertising. Companies buy thousands of reprints and hand them out to doctors. One big order can bring a journal more than a million dollars in pure profit. Editors know this. Many journals need that money to survive. So they keep publishing the industry studies. Readers treat those papers as pure science. They do not always see the marketing side. Smith said it took him almost 25 years as an editor to fully wake up to the problem. He quoted the Lancet editor, who called journals “information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” Smith suggested a radical fix: stop publishing industry trials in journals. Put the raw results on public websites instead. Let journals focus on explaining and criticizing the science, not selling it. His words still hit hard today. When the people who once ran the biggest journals say the system is broken, it is worth paying attention.
27
255
33
557
20,799
NotYourDoctor retweeted
What if the doctors teaching you, the researchers testing new drugs, and the journals you trust were all being paid by the same companies that sell those drugs? Arnold Relman, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for 14 years, believed that is exactly what was happening. In 1980 he warned about a new “medical-industrial complex”—a growing web of for-profit hospitals, labs, and companies that treat health care like a business instead of a service for sick people. Over time he became especially worried about the pharmaceutical industry’s influence. Relman said the drug companies were buying the medical profession. They paid for research, sponsored medical education classes, and funded the experts who wrote articles and guidelines. Academic medical centers and universities, he argued, were letting themselves become “paid agents” of the industry. In his view, this was disgraceful because doctors and scientists are supposed to put patients first, not company profits. He saw the problem in continuing medical education, where drug companies helped pay for the courses doctors must take to keep their licenses. He argued that education should be free of marketing pressure so doctors learn what is best for patients, not what sells the most pills. As editor, he made the New England Journal one of the first to require authors to disclose any money they received from companies whose products they wrote about. Relman thought the solution was bigger than better rules. He believed medicine should be non-profit, with doctors paid a salary instead of fees for every test or procedure, and with a simpler payment system that does not reward unnecessary care. He kept sounding the alarm for decades, saying the commercial side of medicine had grown even worse than he first predicted.
17
239
14
553
14,877
NotYourDoctor retweeted
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, concluded that medical journals had “devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.” This statement comes from his March 2004 New York Review of Books essay “The Dawn of McScience.” He described how companies sponsor meetings, pay speakers, have communications firms turn the talks into articles (often with minimal or no peer review), and then pay publishers large sums to run them as journal supplements. The result, he argued, is marketing dressed up as science that seeds the literature with weaker evidence used to promote products. Around the same period, in written and oral evidence to the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee (2004–2005), Horton described the journal–industry relationship as “somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic,” noting that it had swung too far toward the parasitic side. He highlighted financial pressures (e.g., companies promising large reprint orders if a favorable paper is published, or threatening to pull papers if criticism is not softened) and listed roughly 10 distorting practices, including: • Manipulation or selective reporting of findings • Bias toward positive results in industry-sponsored studies • Hiding negative or adverse data • Ghostwriting • Lightly peer-reviewed supplements used for marketing • Undisclosed conflicts of interest He stated that commercial sponsorship of research and its intrusion into academia represented “one of the gravest threats to the independent evaluation of new medicines—indeed to the notion of an independent science base,” and that the for-profit motive of the sector clashes with public-health values and independent scientific research. In a 2013 Lancet piece (“Falling out with pharma”), Horton withdrew the journal’s support from industry-linked guidance on doctor–pharma collaboration, saying the document’s claims did not match the evidence on company behavior regarding transparency, medical education, and prescribing influence. His better-known 2015 editorial (“Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”) was broader—arguing that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” due to small samples, invalid analyses, tiny effects, and “flagrant conflicts of interest”—but conflicts of interest (often industry-related) were explicitly part of that critique. These statements reflect Horton’s long-standing concerns about industry influence on the medical evidence base rather than a single one-off finding.
27
304
48
653
34,633
NotYourDoctor retweeted
When the editor of the world’s most prestigious medical journal concluded that much of the clinical research it published could no longer be trusted, the problem was no longer abstract. Marcia Angell, a pathologist who joined the New England Journal of Medicine staff in 1979, rose to executive editor and then served as interim editor-in-chief from 1999 to June 2000. She stepped down after more than two decades at the journal, formally to write a book. The deeper context was her growing conviction, formed from years of editing manuscripts, that pharmaceutical industry influence had compromised the independence of clinical research. She and previous editors had enforced strict conflict-of-interest rules, yet industry-sponsored studies continued to arrive with designs, analyses, and selective reporting that favored the sponsor’s product. Negative results were often suppressed, side effects minimized, and “academic” authors frequently carried undisclosed financial ties. In a widely cited 2009 New York Review of Books essay, Angell wrote the line that crystallized her position: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” She described an industry that had shifted from discovering useful drugs toward marketing, co-opting academic medical centers, researchers, and even the journals that were supposed to serve as independent arbiters. Her 2000 editorial “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” and later book The Truth About the Drug Companies expanded the critique, arguing that commercial priorities systematically distorted what research was done, how it was conducted, and what reached publication. Angell’s departure marked the end of an era of tighter editorial resistance to industry influence at the NEJM. Her public statements afterward made clear that she viewed the problem as systemic rather than isolated: once the bulk of clinical research depended on commercial funding, journals could no longer function as reliable filters of medical evidence.
128
1,685
167
3,942
174,596
NotYourDoctor retweeted
A very interesting study was just released, and it’s not the first of its kind, but it is the perfect exemplification of just how critical every day of exercise is. A single workout, just one, turns on and activates 3,000 unique exercise related proteins. These are gene signaling proteins. These are the messages that you’re sending your entire body about your behavior, your environment and your daily habits. It is the activation of these proteins that, in part, tells your nervous system about the trajectory of the organism. How active is this guy? What does he value? What is he working towards? Those 3,000 messages you’re sending your body every time you work out play an enormous role in maintaining the overall milieu of an active, healthy, abundant organism. You can skip one, sure, and come back tomorrow and get those messages sent. But can you miss two or three or four? I would advise strongly against it. This is why consistency is so important. This is why frequent exposures to intense bouts of physical output are so important. They keep the messages flowing in one direction. You do one workout and then skip a week. That’s not good enough. That doesn’t send the signal to your nervous system, to your DNA, to your epigenome that physical activity is important and that adaptations had better begin to happen. The only way you send that all important signal is to exercise consistently and regularly, to go hard and then recover and then go hard again. This is something we all knew already, but to have it spelled out in such explicit gene level detail is valuable. You don’t even have to know what the signals are actually saying. You don’t have to know the specifics. All you have to know is that they are happening.
13
49
5
428
19,506