Who edited the Andrew Hill paper? Coming very soon.

I have been a little quiet these past few days. My intention with The Digger is to do original journalism, something that’s higher quality and more in-depth than fast turnaround articles. Is this a good approach? Please let me know your thoughts so far, what you liked, what you didn’t, and how I might structure my output in a way that’s more helpful. This in-depth approach does leave me somewhat dependent on you guys to help these articles to find their audience…growing the audience is a pressing requirement right now. Any assistance/input there would be great.

On Friday I intend to publish a substantial piece on the Andrew Hill paper. To my knowledge, these are fresh discoveries on this particular story, connecting the regulatory process to the paper itself. I am in the process of receiving comments before I can publish. It’s in requesting comment I realise the scale of what I’m trying to take on here.

I no longer believe it’s valuable to describe the things I’ve been writing about as ‘lobbying’. Lobbying is how modern medicine works: the practices of sponsoring research doctors, all over the world, is so endemic that you can’t easily separate it from the industry itself. Where there’s a financial output potential from research conclusions, there’s an equal financial input potential towards that research.

Add to this a strangely subservient media system that takes science as gospel, as though it cannot be compromised by the same forces that shape journalism. As I already argued, the case for financial meddling in medical publishing dwarfs the problems we’ve seen in journalism.

What’s needed are bright lights to be shone onto these problems, only then can demands for reform be credibly addressed. Over the coming months, If I can get enough support, I’d very much like to grow the team so more can be done in the same time frame. There is so much to do.

Thanks again for your support.

Phil