
Top cancer researcher fails to disclose corporate ties in major journals - DrJaws
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/health/jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html
======
Gatsky
(I work in this field and have met the subject of the article.) There isn't
much to say except he couldn't be bothered. The article tries to find some
kind of angle to make this more interesting, but fails. It's sloppy for
someone in such a high position, but that's about it.

If he had disclosed all his conflicts, the same research would have been
published in the same places with the same people. Nothing would have changed.
At conferences academic oncologists get up and flash a slide with many
conflicts of interest at the start of their talk. Nobody really cares or pays
much attention.

When it comes to clinical trials, there are many checks and balances that
prevent a 'rogue' conflicted investigator from influencing the results. Not
the least of these are the other investigators on the study which put their
name on the paper, who are free thinking individuals. The data is also
collected and analysed by an independent data monitoring committee, who will
for example stop the study early if it is looking futile, whatever the drug
company thinks should happen. Independent clinical trial staff will also send
out teams to hospitals running the trial and inspect the data and talk to the
staff. For trials going for regulatory approval of the drug, there is often a
formal independent audit which goes even deeper, to the point of interviewing
staff in a confidential setting and asking them if they have been coerced for
example.

~~~
sixstringbudha
>If he had disclosed all his conflicts, the same research would have been
published in the same places with the same people. Nothing would have changed.

Speculation.

> Nobody really cares or pays much attention.

Maybe they should.

>When it comes to clinical trials, there are many checks and balances that
prevent a 'rogue' conflicted investigator from influencing the results.

And you think these checks and balances work good enough, most of the time?

~~~
rrock
He has to declare his conflicts annually to his institution, and has to
provide updates with any new conflicts within 90 days. They would almost
certainly have a conflict management plan in place for this situation

------
danso
More than 10 years ago, the NYT [0] and a Mt. Sinai researcher [1] published
exposes of doctors being paid heavily by drug companies, after examining the
paper records that companies were required to file in the state of Minnesota.
That helped spur the creation of the federal Open Payments database
([https://www.cms.gov/openpayments/](https://www.cms.gov/openpayments/)),
which, for a government web-facing database, is actually pretty good. That
prominent doctors are still comfortable with flouting the disclosure rules is
a nice example of how availability of data and records is still toothless
without people (including journalists) being vigilant.

[0]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/health/03docs.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/health/03docs.html)

[1]
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/206127](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/206127)

------
mirimir
He's arguably done a better job at disclosure than many politicians and
judges, at least. It's not so well known, but judges in the US are courted by
monied interests as much as physicians and politicians are. Some decades ago,
there was a public-interest site that reported on that, but it got nuked from
orbit.

~~~
drdeca
Do you happen to know the URL / if it was archived on internet archive?

~~~
mirimir
No, sorry. The site had mainly focused on meta-policing stuff. Stories behind
crime reporting. Almost police fandom. And then they started hosting FOIA data
about financial reporting by judges. And investigative stories about
conferences for judges, speaking fees, and so on. Basically the same stuff
that's well known for the medical sector.

And then the site just disappeared.

Edit: Maybe [https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-financial-
disclosure/](https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-financial-disclosure/) is
a descendant. But damn, they seem rather on the right-wing fringe.

Edit: Found it! It was APBnews.com.[0] And it seems that I was wrong. It
apparently just disappeared during 2003-2004.[1] I don't have the patience to
trawl through all that, to see what they actually said on their site.

Also, it seems that the National Law Journal has been publishing redacted
disclosure data.[2]

0) [https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-
media-l...](https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-
law/news-media-and-law-spring-2000/judges-decide-release-finan)

1)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20000101000000*/APBnews.com](https://web.archive.org/web/20000101000000*/APBnews.com)

2) [https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-
resources/news/legal-s...](https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-
resources/news/legal-site-releases-judges-financial-disclosure-data-
highlighting-te)

------
user1324345
Nothing is ever as it seems with people. Public perception and our methods of
assigning legitimacy to public figures is deeply flawed. How any public
individuals are we incorrectly demonizing? How many bad ones do we think are
good? Surely more than we are currently aware of.

~~~
colordrops
Curious that there's a lot of downvoting of reasonable comments in this
thread.

------
wallace_f
Sometimes I wonder if there is any place for monks in modern Western society.

We already know certain parts of society need specific protections from other
parts of society: professors, journalists, judicial-administrators, etc.

Is it a legitimate extension of that concern that certain parts may, at least
in part, need protection from other parts of society?

I mean... leading scientists from schools like Harvard have knowingly lied to
the population about the dangers of things like lead, sugar, etc.

~~~
dragonwriter
> We already know certain parts of society need specific protections from
> other parts of society [...]

> Is it a legitimate extension of that concern that certain parts may, at
> least in part, need protection from other parts of society?

That's not an extension, it's just a restatement, and not even in different
words.

~~~
wallace_f
Yea what I mean is in some sense it seems obviously logical. But I admit the
use of the word _other_ does change from one sentence to the other.

------
aviv
And people still wonder why it is taking so long to find a "cure". Everyone
invovled is incentivized to never actually get to a point where "cancer" is a
solved problem.

Of course, that is beside the point. One of the most effective treatments
remains a series of prolonged dry or water fasts. ~10 and ~40 days
respectively. But because no one can patent it or make $3M a year in
kickbacks, I doubt it will ever be known to the mainstream in my lifetime.

~~~
Gatsky
This sort of thing has been tested in animal models and it doesn't work. It is
also completely implausible, but that's beside the point, you are unlikely to
be convinced I suppose.

There are clinical trials of fasting in cancer patients. These have been
designed by careful and ethical scientists and doctors. They are looking
currently at whether fasting can improve the efficacy or tolerance of
chemotherapy.

It is frankly stupid to take an already malnourished individual and make them
fast for 40 days.

~~~
aviv
The reason I will not be convinced is that in the last 20 years I have seen
first hand hundreds of people cure such diseases from Crohn's to many types of
cancer by fasting.

The only times people have not been as successful as others is when fasting
was preceded by chemotherapy/radiation which frankly destroy the body and for
the most part is a death sentence one way or another.

And you are flat out wrong about your last point. Fasting is the biggest gift
you can give your body, including and especially when it appears weaker due to
a disease.

~~~
jstandard
Are there any studies or support you can give behind your claims?

Just as you're skeptical of research in the area, I'm skeptical of people
claiming to have seen "hundreds of people" cured of diseases by something as
simple as fasting.

