A Look at the ASA Puzzle

We saw in the article on the AHA (American Heart Association) that the medical science puzzle is not a single puzzle, but a puzzle made of other puzzles. As such, our analysis lead us to look at the ASA (American Stroke Association) and the ADA (American Diabetes Association) which will will examine in the next article. Our examinations, at this point, are only preliminary, just enough to get a general picture.

The place to begin, is where we found the best in formation about the AHA, on the website under about us. Here we find a history, and find two points of interest.

1.

1997. The Stroke Division was formed as a result of a recommendation made by the Stroke Positioning Task Force. The Stroke Division is a cross-functional work group with representatives from all of the key work process groups operating throughout the American Heart Association National Center. (i.e., Consumer Health Marketing, Communications, Advocacy, Scientific Meetings, and Research)

The purpose of the Stroke Division was to help the American Heart Association increase its strategic focus in stroke and maximize and integrate stroke messages through all appropriate American Heart Association programs, products and services.

Next, the American Heart Association's national Board of Directors considered changing the corporate name to include stroke, but chose instead to change the name of the newly created Stroke Division. American Heart Association volunteers and market research supported this decision.

1998. The Stroke Division was renamed the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association. This change was made to:

• Elevate the name to match the organizational commitment to stroke.
• More closely align the Stroke Division?s programming activities with the American Heart Association?s newly established goals and strategies hierarchy.
• Reinforce stroke as a priority among the general public, internal staff and volunteers.
• Increase recognition among the general public that the American Heart Association is the organization to turn to for information about stroke.
• Increase the American Heart Association?s ability to marshal resources at all levels to achieve of the long-range stroke impact goal.

2.

1999. The Bugher Foundation made a major commitment to stroke research with the American Stroke Association by committing $7.5 million over an eight-year period. The American Stroke Association focused its energy on developing or revising more than 40 programs, products and services relating to stroke. One such product, the Acute Stroke Treatment Program, was launched to give hospitals the tools needed to implement primary stroke centers.

The first point tells us that the ASA is a division of the AHA and how it emerged from the AHA and became the ASA. The second tells us it's function, from which the last line causes my the most problems. As with the AHA, we see a large chunk of their work (and expenses) goes into these professional services. What troubles me, and is the primary question that comes to mind. Why aren't the MDs learning (being trained) in medical school? Further, it calls into question the standard(s) of licensing for MDs. The reason being, it seems to be falling to the AHA, the ASA and other such organizations to properly train MDs.

The next issue comes from the fact the 2004 annual report reviewed for the AHA, is also for the ASA, this means that the research funds are (with all things being equal) just 50% of the total for each area. The minimal 20% of the income that is used for research must be shared between both cardiology research and stroke research - leaving only 10% for each. This is actually a substantial decrease in the total funding available. This creates the environment described in the journal Science and in the past article (in this journal) Science is noPlace for Fudge that produces the problematic "forward-looking" research. Research that produces favorable reports for those who provide the funding. This is demonstrated by the recent concerns about the drug Crestor. Richard H. Karas, M.D., Ph.D., director of preventive cardiology and the Woman's Heart Center at Tuft-New England Medical Center, wrote a paper issuing a warning about the safety of the drug Crestor The paper, was published in the AHA journal Circulation, by Elliott Antman, M.D., of Harvard Medical School, director of the coronary care unit at Brigham and Woman's Hospital in Boston and a Circulation senior associate editor. Who admitted "fast tracking" the paper to publication. Further, the author was found, on CNBC, to have been funded by a group with interests in a class action lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the maker of Crestor. Who, promptly produced medically backed arguments of itsown.

Open Forum for the Weekend of May 28

Welcome to this weekends (long weekend - Friday to Monday) Open Forum.

Suggested Topics


1. How should research institutes alter their funding formula to prevent problems highlighted this week.

2. What's your concern about research "fudge"? - dangerous fraud or "no biggy"?

3. The Crestor issue

Known Pieces of the Medical Science Puzzles - Part 3

Here is yet one more "forward looking" statement. An honorable one, that no one would really question.

"We are driving toward a 25 percent reduction in coronary heart disease, stroke and risk by the year 2010. This is an ambitious goal — but attainable. We’re seeing lives saved along the way, and we see the drive culminating in 2010 with an additional 192,000 lives saved in that year alone. » How are we getting there? » The answer begins with organizational effectiveness. We are focused on the areas of greatest impacton heart disease and stroke. We’re disciplined to say “NO” but willing to take prudent risks. " [Page 7, letter from CEO]

It's backed by their only other statement of science in the report.

"Research — discovering scientific truth ....... Scientific inquiry is the starting point for medical advances and improved patient treatment. Good science has the potential to reduce the physical and financial cost of heart disease and stroke. It also confirms our credibility as a voluntary health organization and is central to our professional and public education initiatives. That’s why we enthusiastically help investigators begin their careers while also supporting established researchers’ ongoing scientific projects. ...... We have a research program nationally and at each of our 12 affiliates. We gave 1,057 new awards in 2003–04, representing an investment of more than $130 million. We also continued to offer scientists and physicians unique professional growth opportunities through our 13 scientific councils and three interdisciplinary working groups." [Page 11]

The problem is that good science, no matter how good, has both risk and the need for self-criticism. Something that is lacking in the new AHA voluntary health organization. While there is a promotion on the amount they spent on ("invested" in) research, they neglect to state how much they didn't spend on research (40% of their income at a minimum). Their enthusism to "help investigators begin their careers while also supporting established researchers' ongoing scientfic projects" - is muted when a new funding formula, that meets all the concerns pointed out in the journal Science, is presented. This means that unless science research meets their standards, no funding is provided. If fact, the AHA no longer pro-actively seeks new scientists, but has place barriers to is now restricted reseach investment (just 20% of their income).

The question that needs to be asked, is one of the lacking self analysis. An analysis that will begin at the public website - where we see;

1. " Could you be the next face of stroke? Each year there are 700,000 new and recurrent strokes. For each of these 700,000 faces of stroke there are many more who feel the effect as a family member or friend of a stroke survivor. Find out now if you or a loved one is at risk for stroke and take action now."

2. Statistics from the AHA Heart and Stroke 2005 update;

a. "Yearly totals of out-of-hospital death (ICD/9 codes: 390–398, 402, and 404–429) in people ages 15 to 34 rose from 2,719 in 1989 to 3,000 in 1996. Alarmingly, though the numbers are very small, the death rate increased by 30 percent in young women. Death rates were also higher among young African Americans than among Caucasians. (Sudden Cardiac Death in U.S. Young Adults, 1989–96, CDC, 2001)" [Page 6]

b. "Age-adjusted death rates for Diseases of the Heart from 1990 to 1998 declined 15 percent for non-Hispanic whites, 11 percent for non-Hispanic blacks, 17 percent for Hispanics, 14 percent for Asian or Pacific Islanders and 8 percent for American Indians or Alaska Natives. In 1998 the rate for non-Hispanic blacks was 2.8 times the rate for Asian or Pacific Islanders. (Healthy People 2000, Statistical Notes, No. 23, CDC/NCHS, Jan. 2002)" [Page 6]

c. "Among adults age 18 and older, the prevalence of 2 or more risk factors increased from 23.6 percent in 1991 to 27.9 percent in 1999. It increased significantly for both men and women and for all race, ethnic, age and education groups. (BRFSS, CDC/NCHS, Arch Intern Med 2004;164:181–8)
— Among persons with 2 risk factors in 1999, the most common combination was HBP and high cholesterol (23.9 percent).
— Among those with 3 risk factors, the most common combination was HBP, high cholesterol and obesity (32.5 percent).
Among those with 4 risk factors, about 43 percent had the combination of HBP, high cholesterol, obesity and smoking. Another 40 percent had HBP, high
cholesterol, obesity and diabetes. These risk factor combinations were also the most common combinations in earlier years."

From this brief review of statistics, problems quickly arise - (a) supports (c), but (b) contradicts (c). The problem is that the statistics are confusing and "adjusted", but are showing a worsening problem, not the promoted improvement. What is actually occuring, will have to be studied further. To do this we will have to go to the source of statistics. While it appears that the statistics come from a variety of sources, there is a common source - the CDC. However, for now, the general picture provided by these pieces is a picture of serious problems and failure. This means that the puzzle of the AHA has to be added to the "to-do list".

Known Pieces of the Medical Science Puzzles - Part 2

As we can see, there are known pieces of the medical science puzzle. This means that the question is no longer, if there are known pieces of the puzzle, but what are they and how do they fit together. This, in turn, leads to the question, are there any gaps in the picture. However, the complexities are already beginning to show. The one piece of the American Heart Association is turning into a puzzle, itself. This kind of gives the indication that the medical science puzzle may have no easy edges to use as a guide, but instead is a composition of other puzzles. If this is the case, an understanding of the larger medical science puzzle can be derived (extrapolated) from the American Heart Association puzzle.

From the pieces collected, in part 1 of this article, we can see that the American Heart Association is large enough to cover the medical science area of cardiology. We also see, that the general overview (picture) of the AHA (American Heart Association) is one of a scientific society that evolves into a social agency. A serious issue raised in the article, Science is No Place for Fudge [Dr. Daniel Carras, PhD, DMSc, MD[Defending] - Week 1 Vol 0 of this journal] . This article introduces the scientific issues occurring in the medical science community, and we see the AHA evolve right into these problems. The question here is what has been the effect?

The answer requires further investigation and the best place to start, in the AHA puzzle, is the final 2004 Annual Report. The first question was, how far has the AHA evolved? We find that (on page 2) that the AHA had a total income of $652,921,542 and spent only $132,655,795. Here's where the fudging begins, they have their research expenses listed as 23.7%, but when calculated against the total income, the research expenses only can up to about 20%. So where did the "23.7% come from? It's the research expenses calculated against total expense, not the total income - it's a "forward-looking" adjusted result. It places the best possible look on the evolution of the AHA. Promotion can be seen as any activity to present the image of the AHA. Here the total expenditure was, ($200,912,662 - public education, $81,033,906 - fund raising) $281,946,568 or 41% at a minimum, and $387,635,033 or 59% - if you consider the promotional value of ($66,540,327 - professional edu & training and $39,148,138 - community services).

So what's happened to the science that the AHA relies on?

"(1)In organizations, one good decision can produce far-reaching benefits. Our renewed focus on “putting passion into action” is a perfect illustration. Emphasizing the personal impact of cardiovascular diseases has created new excitement and energy for our cause, which has led to new opportunities and a host of new achievements. » Our passion for reaching others was evident when Go Red For Women debuted and put a red spotlight on the long-neglected issue of women and heart disease. Our Women’s Primary and Secondary Prevention Guidelines received widespread coverage as a result. Go Red For Women continues as a year-round campaign that will be renewed each February. ... (2) To increase our impact in emergency care, we’re evolving our very successful local Operation Heartbeat and Operation Stroke initiatives into new efforts that focus on improving Emergency Medical Services infrastructure statewide. (3) Our commitment to improving heart and stroke education, care and services remains unwavering; now we’re focusing more efforts on advocacy, strategic alliances and Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease and Get With The Guidelines–Stroke, two proven quality improvement initiatives. These programs help hospitals establish protocols and follow guidelines in treating and discharging patients to reduce future cardiovascular events. » (4) We’re also passionate about serving customers, including the researchers and scientists who are so vital to our association. To better meet their needs, we launched an enhanced membership program. Now members have an array of new services, including greater access to scientific information and better networking opportunities. » (5) It’s been said that what you give comes back to you. That’s certainly been true this year. The more we’ve shown our passion for serving our constituencies, the more they’ve responded by supporting our cause. This year our fund-raising revenues rose a remarkable18 percent over last year. " [Page 6, letter from Chairman of the Board and President]

(1) is a statement of hope, which in itself is not bad, but the actual results are - lacking. In fact, much of the statements throughout the 2004 annual report, are of the "forward looking type. The only stats provided is the year over year financial increase. The only statement, (4) from the above, that mentions the "science" that their success depends on - view the scientists and research as customers, not as an integral part of the AHA - which is no longer a scientific organization, but a social agency. Much of the report reads just like the warnings of scientific integrity stated in the journal, Science.

Open Forum for the Weekend of May 21, 2005

Welcome to this weekends (long weekend - Friday to Monday) Open Forum.

Suggested Topics


1. How should research institutes alter their funding formula to prevent problems highlighted this week.

2. What's your concern about research "fudge"? - dangerous fraud or "no biggy"?

Known Pieces of the Medical Science Puzzle - Part 1

We have already seen three pieces of the medical science puzzle, which points us to a problem in funding and fudging scientific results. So the next place to look for pieces are the foundations that fund medical research.

1. The American Heart Association - The American Heart Association is a national voluntary health agency whose mission is to reduce disability and death from cardiovascular diseases and stroke.The mission statement was affirmed by the Delegate Assembly at its meetings of June 1993, June 1996 and June 1999. The mission statement undergoes a formal review process every third year.
   

   The following is the current mission statement of the American Heart Association. [Mission statement from the website.]
   

   1. A brief history
   
   
   
   
   1. A pioneering group of physicians and social workers formed the first Association for the Prevention and Relief of Heart Disease in New York City in 1915. They were concerned about the lack of heart disease information. At that time, heart disease patients were considered doomed, limited to complete bed rest. So these physicians conducted studies in New York City and Boston to find out whether heart disease patients could safely return to work. Similar groups in Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago evolved into heart associations in the 1920s.
   
   
   2. interest spread widely in other cities across the United States and Canada. Recognizing the need for a national organization to share research findings and promote further study, six cardiologists representing several groups founded the American Heart Association in 1924. The founding members were Drs. Lewis A. Conner and Robert H. Halsey of New York; Paul D. White of Boston; Joseph Sailer of Philadelphia; Robert B. Preble of Chicago; and Hugh D. McCulloch of St. Louis. Drs. James B. Herrick of Chicago and William S. Thayer of Baltimore were also instrumental in the early planning.
   
   
   
   3. The American Heart Association made its public debut in late 1948 during a network radio contest, "The Walking Man," on the "Truth or Consequences" program hosted by Ralph Edwards. Millions of Americans sent contributions to the AHA along with guesses on the walking man's identity. The effort netted $1.75 million before Jack Benny was identified as the "Walking Man."
      

      A small national staff in New York City then began to organize American Heart Association divisions across the country. They launched the first national fund-raising campaign the following year in February 1949, raising $2.7 million.

   4. The mid-1990s were a time of great change in the American Heart Association. The association's scientific findings began to move more quickly from laboratories and clinics to physician's offices and American households. The AHA took positions on important issues and made clear, simple statements about controlling risk factors. Volunteers and staff agreed on a strategy for improving affiliate research programs, and the national organization created new divisions dealing with stroke and emergency cardiac care. To reduce costs and increase international circulation, the association outsourced the publication of its scientific journals and began publishing them online.
   
   
   5. Finally, and most profoundly, AHA volunteers and staff began transforming the organization into an enterprise that could be vibrant and relevant in the 21st century. The change was deeper than anything since 1948, when the AHA transformed itself from a scientific society into a voluntary health agency.
   
   
   
   
   2. 
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins publishes Circulation for the American Heart Association
   
   
   3. Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press® assists in the publication of Circulation Online
   
   
   4. Journals are restricted access via subscription only.
   5. 2004 Annual Report [Final]
   1. Only 20.3 cents is spent on research for every dollar earned. [from piece(i).e. - the AHA is no longer a scientific organization] So
      they no longer actually do any research.
   
   
   2. Pharmaceutical Sponsors
   1. Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.
   2. Eli Lilly and Company
   3. Pfizer
   4. Kos Pharmaceutical
   5. Guidant Corporation
   6. Bristol-Myers Squibb
   7. AstraZeneca
   8. GlaxoSmithKline
   9. Merck
   10. Novartis
   11. Sanofi-Aventis

Science is No Place for Fudge

Consider the following three pieces found in the February 4th 2005 issue of the journal, Science.

1.

Many scientists are aware of the subtle influences on their own scientific conduct, but many are others are not. Sydney Brenner, the joint winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine, delightfully described a slide in which data points were scattered very close to a straight line - but a large mysterious black object lay in one corner. By degrees, the onlooker realizes that the object is a thumb placed over a data point far away from the straight line.

2.

Social psychologists and sociologists have long been aware of the subtle ways in which bias can creep into research. The behavior of their subjects sometimes results not from the effects of experimental manipulation, but merely from the attention paid to them by the experimenter. Much evidence suggests that experimenters often obtain the results they expect to obtain, partly because they unwittingly influence the outcome of the experiment.

3.
The reality of prejudice or theoretical conformism in scientific work emphasizes that a considerable job of educating many members of the scientific community is still needed. That kind of awareness becomes all the more necessary when issues of funding and promotion are at stake. Some notorious cases have demonstrated just how ferocious ca be the pressure from commercial funders to ignore good scientific practice. A well known example was the shameful treatment at the University of Toronto of Nancy Olivieri, who published data uncongenial to the drug company that funded her.

These three pieces point to a picture of serious problems in the picture of medical science. A picture that shows the pressure to alter scientific findings, not to mention errors and theoretical bias built into the experiment.

Collecting Pieces

I described the new process of medical science (bringing medical science from the classical structure to a modern structure) as being like a puzzle, only in this puzzles the pieces have to be found. A friend asked me, "How do you known when you've found a piece"? The problem is that there is no simple answer, but it can be illustrated via my work in Cardiology.

The first step is to ask what has been done in Cardiology. This simple general survey was done via a search of the internet to find out who was out there and what they were doing. This yielded a wealth of information on the pharmaceutical advances in medicine for cardiology. This information was contradicted by articles in the journal Science, such as in the January 7 2005 (Vol. # 307) Page 19, Fighting Arrhythmias . An article that described the positively project drugs do little or nothing to reduce the risk of arrhythmias in cardiac patients. A piece that demonstrates that not only more work needs to be done, but areas of viable research are going undone. In short, there are holes in the current picture of medical science.

Open Forum for the Weekend of May 14, 2005

Here's your chance to tell us what's on your mind! What medical science and healthcare issues are important to you.

The Next Step

The drug failures of Vioxx, celebrex, bextra, and the numerous other failures between Nov/Dec 2004 and March 2005, and the conflicts of interest problems at the FDA underscores the need for independent research. The issue has been furthered, by repeated articles in the journal Science, warning of research reports being skewed to produce favoriable (or at least optimistic) results to secure funding from "review" based granting foundations. Everyone knows of the these foundations, who don't actually do the research that they raise funds for. Private foundations, societies and associations, have become a major source of funding other than the NIH, FDA and other such government agencys. They raise money for research, that researchers compete for. Conflicts of interest are supposed to be eliminated, by the "peer review" process, but many "reviewers" compete for grants themselves. It's these conflicts of interest that cause the ethical questions raised innumerous articles in the journal Science.

Here are just some of the problems that have arisen;


1. medical care costs have risen,

2. leaving 5 million Canadians without a family doctor

3. An increase in the health insurance (OHIP) premium.

4. in the US nearly 30 million people are without health insurance

5. health care costs have caused large companies like GM to issue earnings warning.

6. failures of the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory bodies like the FDA.

The 5 million Canadians without a family doctor (due to a shortage of GP's) is a significant issue, because many politicians are looking to Canada as a solution to the medical crisis in the US. Few Canadians understand where their medical system comes from, or how long it takes to ensure that the medicine that they are getting (or want) is safe for public use. Most Canadians only notice the shortfalls when there is a specific need or emergency - like SARS. The reason is that most medical science is hidden behind gilded walls seen only by the appointed doctors, who's rule was absolute. However, now they are viewed as elitists by a political system that prefers nurse pratictioners. This shortage of doctors has pushed health care costs up, but it's only aminor factor.

The major factor in the raise in medical cost, has been the amazing developments of medical science and medical technology. The pharmaceutical and biotech industry has spent billions since the 1970's developing the medicine and technology (under the regulatory guidance of the FDA and NIH) that we began to see in the 1990's. Technology and medicine that was supposed to bring future generations a longer lifespan and better health.

However, was not to be, the problems of healthcare cost and conflicts of interest - even with the regulatory bodies of the FDA and NIH - isjust the tip of the iceberg.

1. There are ever increase numbers of drug resistant strains of infections (CDC & WHO - Center for Disease Control & the World Health Organiztion),

2. The AHA (the American Heart Association) has conituned to reported an increase in heart disease, and project that heart disease will start in men as young as 30 (it was 45 in the 1970's and 80's)

3. The ADA has reported a continual increase in diabetes

This along with reported increases in asthma , cancer, severe allergies (peanuts, etc), gi disorders and neurological disorders. The irony here is that despite all of the medical improvement, future generations will be facing a decrease in life span! This means our children will be dying younger. This is a very serious problem because all and any solution will come from medical research. And currently, the only avenue being explored is the pharmaceutical and surgical avenue, at theexpense of other valid medical science avenues.

Since the primary source of the problem seems to centered around funding, we began by changing our funding formula. Our first step wasto create a medical science fund that has no middlemen - it's not a charity, foundation or society that simply collects money to be "used" in research, minus their administration costs. All funds generated go direct to research. The next goal, is to create a fully independent source of funds for research that will not cause the problems written about in the journal Science. A difficult prospect due to all the foundations, charities who also want funds from the public. As well, the message that foundations and charities offer is not the real view of the risk of medical research and the length of time required. This means that public donations are insufficient for the monthly funds required to keep a good research program going. As such, funds from public donations can only be a small part of the overall funds generated. Other avenues of revenue generations is being researched as the funding formula is redeveloped. However, the funding issues cannot overshadow the medical research.

This brings us to our next step, which is to bring the science back into medical science. Medical science, like most other sciences (except for physics), is stuck in theories and standards laid out in the 1800's. While physics has moved from classical physics (standards and views set in the 1800's) to modern physics, the rest of science is still under the classical standard. Under the classical standard, scientific knowledge was "absolute" and scientists were experts (for example Newton's Laws). Universities adopted the classical standard from which they taught and set their academic standards. However, in phyics, this view of science ended around the 1900 with Albert Einstein and was buried with the development of Quantum Physics (modern physics). It was found that knowledge of the universe (the focus of astronomy and physics) was far beyond the capacity of the human mind (something that contradicted the classical view) and was relative. The experiment that was supposed to support the classical view of physics became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. In classical physics (and classical science) all knowledge was absolute and could be understood (and controlled) by the human mind. Experiments were supposed to be created to confirm what theory already understood. However, in physics, when they began to explore the particle structure of nature (molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles) all the classical theories collapsed with the experiment that became known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. An experiment, that Einstein would take and build his theories of relativity around - which inturn would become central to the concepts known as Quantum physics, Super string theory and the physics work done here. From this point on, it would be experiments that lead theory in physics and astronomy. This standard lead to the space program, computers, computer technology and all medical and genetic technology.

However, this standard was never applied to any other field of science - until now. The changes in physics were buried - hidden - to prevent the collapse of the entire academic system. Further, because much ofphysics and astonomy (modern) was of extreme interest to government (because it was used to develop the atomic bomb), much of the standards in physics were classified. Hidden, by the government, from the general view of the public. This suited universities and academics just fine because, the reality of physics no longer threatened the classical view of the university and the other sciences. It's only been since the 1990's that the technology (and physics) of the cold war became declassified and used by the general public. Technology that brought in the technology for DNA analysis, computer technology (like that used in PET and MRI scanners), lasers for laser surgery, etc. .

It was the scientific standards of physics that pushed the successes in medical technology. This means that to resolve the problems listed above, and develop a better medical system for future generations, the standards of physics needs to introduced and applied to medicine. As such, we have begun the work necessary to take a research technic from astronomy, known as a general field survey, and apply it to medicine. This method is akin to building a large puzzle (between 2000 and 3000 piece puzzle). The more pieces of the puzzle you have put together, the clearer the picture becomes. However, as anyone who has built one of these large puzzles knows, this is not that simple. There is a lot of trial and error in matching pieces, a process that can easily take a month to complete. Astronomers have another problem, unlike a puzzle the pieces of the puzzle is not provide, nor is there really a picture. This is what the general survey does, it provides the general picture and provides hints as to what pieces need to be collected. More specific surveys are required to identify pieces.

In the application of this standard, we already have a good IT system in place and have been collecting the various pieces for about 6 years. In this time, it has become apparent that a proper general survey has never been done in medicine. The general picture developed from the pieces of the medical science puzzle, is that there is no general picture. There is no modern scientific structure, just the classical structure. However, this has been the focus of this institute to bring the pieces of the medical science puzzle, into a structure based on modern physics.

More Than You Think

As stated, the drug failures of Vioxx, celebrex, bextra, and the numerous other failures between Nov/Dec 2004 and March 2005, and the conflicts of interest problems at the FDA underscores the need for independent research. The issue has been furthered, by repeated articles in the journal Science, warning of research reports being skewed to produce favoriable (or at least optimistic) results to secure funding from "review" based granting foundations. Everyone knows of the these foundations, who don't actually do the research that they raise funds for.

Here's the problem that has arisen, medical care cost has risen, leaving 5 million Canadians without a family doctor and an increase in the health insurance premium. As well, in the US nearly 30 million people are without health insurance and health care costs have caused large companies like GM to issue earnings warning. This at the same time as the failures of the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory bodies like the FDA. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are ever increasing numbers of drug resistant strains of infections, a reported increase in heart disease, an increase in diabetes, asthma , with cancer the list continuing to grow. Despite all of the medical improvement, the next generation will be facing adecrease in life span! This means our children will be dying younger.

Our first step was to create a medical science fund that has no middlemen (we're not a charity), there are no marketing people, only scientists. This means all funds (100%) go to research. Our next step will be to take a research technic from astronomy, known as a general field survey. It's akin to building a large puzzle (between 2000 and 3000 piece puzzle). This research will be integrated at our blog, http://ci-medicalscience.blogspot.com , were the public can give their views on issues in medical science.

Check out our current corporate sponsors at

http://medsci.cybernetics-institute.org/donations/,

you can start your legacy with as little as $500 as a corporate sponsor with your logo;

Send cheque or money order to;
Cybernetics Institute - Medical Science,
87 Telson Road,
Markham, Ont., L3R-1E4
Canada

Link