Consumer of information, beware….

When we look to official bodies to safeguard our interests, which technically we should, we will be most disappointed. Especially if we accept what they say blindly. We, as consumer of information, should be less naive about everything we read. We absolutely cannot trust 100% of what official bodies say, no matter how noble their cause or interest may be.

Let’s look at a couple of recent examples.

US Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]

Extracted from the internet: By Joanna Chung in New York

Published: September 2 2009 21:52 | Last updated: September 3 2009 00:12

“The US Securities and Exchange Commission missed many chances to expose Bernard Madoff’s giant “Ponzi” scheme because the staff either did not know what to do or failed to follow up on detailed complaints, the agency’s internal watchdog has concluded.

In spite of eight credible complaints over the years, including one as recently as March 2008, “a thorough and competent investigation or examination was never performed,” said a summary of the findings, released on Wedesday. The SEC “never took the necessary, but basic, steps to determine if Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme.”

This is part of the finding in a 477-page report released late on Friday, which detailed how the SEC failed to stop one of the world’s biggest investment frauds.

Consumers of investor information should be able to look to SEC for credible information. Or should they?

Pfizer Fraud

Extracted from the internet: By Channel News Asia

“The case arose from allegations that Pfizer illegally marketed Bextra, Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug, Zyvox, an antibiotic, and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug, for uses that were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Justice Department had alleged that Pfizer's inappropriate marketing "caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programmes for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programmes."

The settlement also ends civil proceedings over "allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to healthcare providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs," the Justice Department said.

From the Los Angeles Times:

"Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by healthcare providers, and costs the government billions of dollars…” 

From Reuters:

“One of the whistleblowers, John Kopchinski, a former Pfizer sales rep and Gulf War vet said in a statement, "In the Army I was expected to protect people at all costs…At Pfizer I was expected to increase treatments at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives,"

Consumers of medical information should be able to look to doctors and authorities for credible information. Or should they?

There are many more such examples which should wake us up from stupor. Just because an official body has endorsed or said is good does not mean we should accept it hook, line and sinker.

So I am most amused at one of our local organisation which recently got caught in the midst of controversy, quickly jumped at a yet to be formally released UNESCO report to state “See, I told you we are right”….

From Channel News Asia:

“The guidelines, scheduled to be released by UNESCO next week, are aimed at reducing HIV infections among the young, and will be distributed to education ministries and school systems around the world.”

“….president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), felt UNESCO’s guidelines affirmed AWARE’s own Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme, which was suspended by the MOE in May.

…took an "evidence—informed and rights—based" approach, offered "a sound, comprehensive approach to sexuality education".

The emphasis "on relationships, values, attitudes, culture, human development, sexual and reproductive health exactly matches the emphasis" in AWARE’s CSE programme, ….”

It does not matter what UNESCO said in its report. It matters what Singaporeans say and Singaporeans have spoken.

The report does not lend weight, as hoped by the local organisation. At best, the two organisations have similar preferences and biases.

Consumer of information, beware!