80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented through widespread use of CT scans.This research is significant because it implicitly promotes smoking - a total backwards step for cancer research.
But now... the fine print has been acknowledged.
[the research] had been financed in part by a little-known charity called the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment. A review of tax records by The New York Times shows that the foundation was underwritten almost entirely by $3.6 million in grants from the parent company of the Liggett Group, maker of Liggett Select, Eve, Grand Prix, Quest and Pyramid cigarette brands.
dun dun dun duh.......
The entire credibility of this Dr. Henschke has been compromised and a "black taint" on her record, as well as of Weill Cornell Medical College.
So... what?
Does where the money come from de-legitimize the research? In this case, where cigarette companies are considered the ultimate dark mark on any medical research, it does.
For reference, here is the article
that I looked at.
There is not much else going on in the world today, except everyone should buy a t-shirt to support Faustine's appeal.
6 comments:
Well, where the research funds come from shouldn't de-legitimize the research, after all, it would be the same research. However, from watching the movie "Thank You for Smoking" and from general knowledge, it seems like tobacco companies in particular have a habit of getting twisted results when they fund things.
And, Go Faustine!
It'd be like Jack Daniels funding research that said whiskey cures cancer. I think people would naturally not trust the research, even if it could be true.
The research is not de-legitimized at all because it is in fact true research. I think it is worth knowing the fact that 80% of lung cancer can be prevented by CT scans. You still have to think about those people who are regularly smokers. This new information could help save the lifes of those who already smoke. But it does promote smoking as well, I agree with that too. Is it any suprise to any of us that tobacco companies would try to fund research that could encourage smoking? NO. They do it now and they'll keep doing it.
Hold on a sec-how would CT -scans- prevent cancer? Detect it, maybe, and allow treatment, which would obviously be the whole point of a scan in the first place. If the study is actually claiming that scans prevent cancer, then it's seriously fishy. Also, there's the point that people rich enough to get CT scans are probably healthier in the first place.
As for the original point, there is no real way to tell whether the research was affected by its funder. Certainly, even if it was correct, tobacco companies would have a great interest in providing the money to get it out there, as it implies their products are less dangerous. This dummy company thing might have been confusing, but either way the researcher should not have accepted the money: it creates the impression of a confict of interest, which can be just as bad as a real one.
I don't see how this new scan prevents lung cancer like Brian says. Either you have it or you don't. I think all this shows is that there's a new way to "test" for lung cancer. But I see in no way that this is considered promoting smoking. You still shouldn't. It's not like you can smoke and think that you're a-ok to smoke all you want because you sort of have a safety blanket of CT scans to make sure you catch your cancer in time from the scans.
But as for if it's legit because of who funds it, I think having it supported by cigarette companies is a little weird. But then again I've seen their nonsmoking ads on TV...But anyways, like most research, other scientists review their work and replicate it if possible. So we'll see what others think. I think the main question is if the research was done independently without influence of the sponsors. Also, if they tried to hide the sponsors and money sources, then that’s a little fishy.
I think that people who are smart enough not to smoke won't change their minds, and suddenly decide to smoke. Anything that causes a risk for cancer period isn't going to suddenly become popular to nonsmokers (especially when most people start smoking at a young age and wouldn't pay attention to the research anyway). It's like saying, "You'll have an 80% of surviving a car crash if you decide to drive off a cliff."
From my own personal experience, I don't think it's a risk worth taking.
Post a Comment