recentpopularlog in


How Goop’s Haters Made Gwyneth Paltrow’s Company Worth $250 Million - The New York Times
But the other rule is — well, the thing couldn’t be fact-checked. Goop wanted Goop magazine to be like the Goop website in another way: to allow the Goop family of doctors and healers to go unchallenged in their recommendations via the kinds of Q. and A.s published, and that just didn’t pass Condé Nast standards. Those standards require traditional backup for scientific claims, like double-blind, peer-reviewed studies. The stories Loehnen, now Goop’s chief content officer, wanted to publish had to be quickly replaced at the last minute by packages like the one on “clean” getaways.

G.P. didn’t understand the problem. “We’re never making statements,” she said. Meaning, they’re never asserting anything like a fact. They’re just asking unconventional sources some interesting questions. (Loehnen told me, “We’re just asking questions.”)

insane. exactly like qanon believers.
#$#ineq  %words  #$#pharma  #xxi#health  #$#cons  %portrait  %longform  #xxi#culture 
august 2018 by lemeb
Sky-High Deductibles Broke the U.S. Health Insurance System - Bloomberg
When one large employer switched all its employees to high-deductible plans, medical spending dropped by 12 percent to 14 percent, according to an analysis by economists at University of California, Berkeley and Harvard. But the workers weren’t learning to shop more effectively for health care. They simply reduced the amount of medical care they used, including preventative care. In high-deductible plans, women are more likely to delay follow-up tests after mammograms, including imaging, biopsies and early-stage diagnoses that could detect tumors when they’re easiest to treat, according to research in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. 

the downside of ‘skin in the game’
!write!dystopia  #$#pharma  #$#ineq  %econ%behav  #healthcare 
june 2018 by lemeb
IBM pitched Watson as a revolution in cancer care. It's nowhere close
Breathlessly promoting its signature brand — Watson — IBM sought to capture the world’s imagination, and it quickly zeroed in on a high-profile target: cancer.

But three years after IBM began selling Watson to recommend the best cancer treatments to doctors around the world, a STAT investigation has found that the supercomputer isn’t living up to the lofty expectations IBM created for it. It is still struggling with the basic step of learning about different forms of cancer. Only a few dozen hospitals have adopted the system, which is a long way from IBM’s goal of establishing dominance in a multibillion-dollar market. And at foreign hospitals, physicians complained its advice is biased toward American patients and methods of care.
#t#oops  #$#cons  #t#ml  #t#bio  #t#beyondsv  #t#automation  #$#pharma  !write!technologist 
june 2018 by lemeb
Gene editing tool hailed as the solution to disease may increase cancer risk | The Outline
The gene editing tool CRISPR, which has been hailed as the potential solution to everything from malaria to early-onset Alzheimer’s to breast cancer, may increase the risk of cancer, according to two papers published Monday in Nature Medicine. Both research teams in question found unexpected effects when cutting up DNA within cells that caused cells to start to go haywire, leading to circumstances that would create cancerous cells.
%science  #$#pharma  #t#bio 
june 2018 by lemeb
Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sustainable business model (
One-shot cures for diseases are not great for business—more specifically, they’re bad for longterm profits—Goldman Sachs analysts noted in an April 10 report for biotech clients, first reported by CNBC. The investment banks’ report, titled “The Genome Revolution,” asks clients the touchy question: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” The answer may be “no,” according to follow-up information provided. Analyst Salveen Richter and colleagues laid it out: The potential to deliver “one shot cures” is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically engineered cell therapy, and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies... While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.

in the both-totally-logical-and-utterly-depressing category

to be fair, i guess economists would say that one-shot cures have massive positive externalities, which, well are not reaped directly by pharma. sad!
%econ  #$#pharma  #$#innov  %contrarian 
april 2018 by lemeb

Copy this bookmark:

to read