Double standards in supplement industry

[Eos of the Eons]

The editor's article "Injunction impedes independant information" which show that a judge has issued an injunction preventing Auspharm Consumer Health Watch from publishing an article, (based on a review done by the Cochrane Collaboration), showing that Ginkgo biloba is ineffective in its claimed treatment of tinnutus.

Supplement companies whine and whine about wanting more research done, cuz researchers only work for big pharma doncha know.

So, research is done, but since it doesn't show what they want, they go to great lengths to prevent its publication.

It's this kind of double standard (only favourable results are allowed, not the truth when it comes to supplements, but let's make darn sure that unfavorable results about "drugs" get splashed all over the media) that makes me irate.

And the court is allowing it! WTH??

 

[Mojo]

What was it that the Cochrane review of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus said?

No evidence that Ginkgo biloba is effective for tinnitus

Maybe we can Google bomb it.

At least they haven't got that pulled.

 

[Cuddles]

The supplement industry has standards?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From PR watch, "Drug Company's Hearing Too Sensitive For Criticism", this is the most distressing outcome of the injunction:

Greenwood optimistically decided that if the injunction were granted, the public interest could still be served by the government drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, investigating the claims made in the draft report.

However, the simple act of the company serving a writ prompted seven of the group's ten founders to bail out. With the remaining three members having spent over A$15,000 out of their own pockets unsuccessfully trying to fend off the injunction, the prospect of burning tens of thousands more on an appeal or a full trial was too much to contemplate. Bowed and bloodied, the defendants have reluctantly proposed making the injunction permanent.

What Justice Greenwood appears not to have understood was that as long as the matter is before the courts, the Therapeutic Goods Administration are obliged to sit on the sidelines. A regulation - known as Regulation 42ZCAJ - specifically prevents the agency from investigating a complaint, "if a proceeding has begun in a court about the subject matter of the complaint and the proceeding has not been finally disposed of." The Complementary Healthcare Council of Australia, which administers the self-regulatory code for herbal product marketers, won't investigate either, as long as the legal case is active.
Stopping the SLAPP-Happy

The Tebonin case illustrates how the legal system can work to the advantage of deep-pocketed corporations and why legal reforms are necessary to protect public interest advocacy groups. A group of public health professionals, who were only doing what the government regulator failed to do in the first place, have been deterred from raising legitimate questions over drug promotions. Greenwood's injunction has had the effect of forcing public-spirited citizens to surrender their legal rights, simply to clear the way for a government regulator to investigate whether the companies marketing claims stack up or not.

In other words, the marketers easily outspent the consumer health watch group in court. The judge made the false assumption the Australian equivalent of the FDA would provide the follow up investigation. But the law somehow prohibits the Australian FDA from investigating anything which has an open court case going on, presumably to prevent the government agency from getting involved in a lawsuit. The health watch group has to either see the case through to the end despite the considerable cost or concede the case. Otherwise the marketers can leave the case open thus effectively preventing the Aussie FDA from evaluating the claims.

Seems to me Australia needs a law like in the US, if you make a claim of a drug action, you have to prove it first. Otherwise you can sell the supplement as a food but can't make the claim. Maybe that's the case and these marketers are advertising their drug's benefit off label.

I'd say the judge in this case didn't think her actions through very well. It makes sense on the one hand to prevent damage until the case was decided, but on the other hand, the costs of this lawsuit to the consumer health watch group was overlooked and the regulating body's effectiveness overstated.

It's like saying only the government can investigate marketing claims. That's a dangerous precedent considering what is occurring here in the USA where the marketers are increasingly buying favor with legislators. At least one prominent scientist in our own FDA resigned over Bush's interference in FDA decisions. One approval regarding a treatment was made despite no supporting evidence it was effective and the infamous RU486 emergency contraception was denied over the counter status despite the science which showed it would have been safe to do so. The Bush appointments to the FDA were placed there to make the false claim that the science supported their political decisions.

I don't know if I have interpreted this matter correctly not knowing Aussie law. Perhaps some Australian forum members have more knowledge of this incident.