American Diabetes Association ties to Big Pharma
Those of us in the low carb community have long shaken our heads, wondering why, oh why, the American Diabetes Association still insists that the best diet for people with severely impaired carbohydrate metabolisms is a low fat diet loaded with starch -- aka "lots of sugar holding hands." The research and clinical experience of doctors like Dr. Richard Bernstein and Dr. Mary Vernon seems to affect them not at all. Nor do years of positive clinical research, or the stories of millions of diabetics who have controlled their blood sugar through low carbohydrate diets.
They also seem oblivious to the fact that before hypoglycemic medication was invented, low carbohydrate diets were commonly recommended for diabetics: Dr. John Rollo, Surgeon General in the Royal Artillery of the British Army being credited as the first modern doctor to recommend such a diet for treatment of the disease. This text, Diabetes Mellitus and Its Treatment, by R.T. Williamson MD, was published in 1898, and includes this statement:Ever since Rollo published his book on diabetes in 1797, and pointed out the value of restriction of the carbohydrates in the food, it has been acknowledged that of all forms and methods of treatment this dietetic one is the most important.
Yet the ADA continues to recommend a diet of the very foods that destabilize blood sugar, instructing diabetics to "cover" those "healthy" carbs with higher and higher doses of medication -- this, despite it being generally recognized that tight blood sugar control is the most important preventive of diabetic complications. Why?
Take a look at this: a list of the ADA's top corporate sponsors. See the "Banting level" sponsors, the biggest bankrollers of the ADA? All but one of them are pharmaceutical companies. The remaining one -- BD -- is a medical supplies corporation whose business includes "diabetes care" and "pharmaceutical systems. All of them make money off of diabetes. All of them. They are all making money, very big money, off of diabetes medications. I question whether those sponsors have any corporate interest in diabetes interventions that would dramatically lessen the quantity of drugs diabetics have to take.
The Bible says "A man cannot serve two masters." The same holds true of a corporation. And for any publicly traded corporation, their "master," their main and driving goal, must be shareholder profits. Legally, ethically, that is their greatest responsibility. Not one of these companies can, therefore, have the health of diabetics, their toes, their kidneys, their eyesight, as their greatest concern. Their greatest concern is, must be, the bottom line. Anything that reduces shareholder profits is inimical to their mission.
I don't know if the folks at the ADA are actually doing the Mr. Burns finger-steeple-ing thing, intoning "Excellent!," as they plot the further enslavement of diabetics to their Big Pharma corporate masters. I actually doubt it. On the other hand, I can't help but think that thirteen companies (Hmm. I just counted them. That there's thirteen of 'em just seems so... theatrical.), each contributing a minimum of a cool mil a year, have at least a modest degree of influence.
They also seem oblivious to the fact that before hypoglycemic medication was invented, low carbohydrate diets were commonly recommended for diabetics: Dr. John Rollo, Surgeon General in the Royal Artillery of the British Army being credited as the first modern doctor to recommend such a diet for treatment of the disease. This text, Diabetes Mellitus and Its Treatment, by R.T. Williamson MD, was published in 1898, and includes this statement:Ever since Rollo published his book on diabetes in 1797, and pointed out the value of restriction of the carbohydrates in the food, it has been acknowledged that of all forms and methods of treatment this dietetic one is the most important.
Yet the ADA continues to recommend a diet of the very foods that destabilize blood sugar, instructing diabetics to "cover" those "healthy" carbs with higher and higher doses of medication -- this, despite it being generally recognized that tight blood sugar control is the most important preventive of diabetic complications. Why?
Take a look at this: a list of the ADA's top corporate sponsors. See the "Banting level" sponsors, the biggest bankrollers of the ADA? All but one of them are pharmaceutical companies. The remaining one -- BD -- is a medical supplies corporation whose business includes "diabetes care" and "pharmaceutical systems. All of them make money off of diabetes. All of them. They are all making money, very big money, off of diabetes medications. I question whether those sponsors have any corporate interest in diabetes interventions that would dramatically lessen the quantity of drugs diabetics have to take.
The Bible says "A man cannot serve two masters." The same holds true of a corporation. And for any publicly traded corporation, their "master," their main and driving goal, must be shareholder profits. Legally, ethically, that is their greatest responsibility. Not one of these companies can, therefore, have the health of diabetics, their toes, their kidneys, their eyesight, as their greatest concern. Their greatest concern is, must be, the bottom line. Anything that reduces shareholder profits is inimical to their mission.
I don't know if the folks at the ADA are actually doing the Mr. Burns finger-steeple-ing thing, intoning "Excellent!," as they plot the further enslavement of diabetics to their Big Pharma corporate masters. I actually doubt it. On the other hand, I can't help but think that thirteen companies (Hmm. I just counted them. That there's thirteen of 'em just seems so... theatrical.), each contributing a minimum of a cool mil a year, have at least a modest degree of influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment