The tomato effect in medicine occurs when a highly efficacious therapy for a certain disease is ignored or rejected because it does not ‘make sense’ in light of accepted theories of disease mechanism and drug action. The tomato effect was introduced in JAMA, May 11, 1984 by doctors at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. Its name is derived from the history of the tomato in North America. By 1560 the tomato was becoming a staple of the continental European diet. However, it was shunned in America until the 1800s. Why? Because we knew it was poisonous. Everyone knew it. It was obvious. Tomatoes belong to the nightshade family. The leaves and the fruit of several plants in this family can cause death if ingested. The fact that Europeans were eating tomatoes without harm was not relevant. It simply did not make sense to eat poisonous food.
The peer review process has probably done more to discourage innovative research than any other factor. The March 9, 1990 issue of JAMA was devoted entirely to the topic of peer review. One article in particular, by Horrobin (himself editor of a peer review medical journal), cited 18 examples of peer review attempting to suppress medical innovation. The article observed: “…some of the most distinguished of scientists may display sophisticated behavior that can only be described as pathological. Editors must be conscious that, despite pubic protestations to the contrary, many scientist-reviewers are against innovation unless it is their innovation. Innovation from others may be a threat because it diminishes the importance of the scientist’s own work.
“Peer review in the grant giving process is so restrictive that most innovative scientists know they would never receive funding if they actually said what they were going to do. Scientists therefore have to tell lies in their grant applications. Such views have been explicitly stated by at least two Nobel Laureates.” The article contends that medicine has lost sight of the basic purpose of peer review, asserting “the true aim of peer review in biomedical science must be to improve the quality of patient care.”
My aim in sharing a segment of my friend Robert Maver’s article is that, we don’t always base our judgment on someone else, unless we know the ethics and interest of the individual. Robert was F.S.A., M.A.A.A., former head actuary for Mutual Benefit Life (MBL), the 19th largest insurance company at the time. Robert’s article, which appeared in an insurance industry journal, was explaining about the difficulty many technologies and therapies have to endure in order to possibly be recognized as a part of orthodox medicine. Robert and I worked together in a three year health research project for MBL in the late 1980s. After showing him almost 100 therapies, techniques, devices and clinics, that were addressing cancer, arthritis, diabetes, heart difficulties and more, he could not understand why these scientifically validated approaches were not a part of medicine in the US. When he learned of the credentials of the scientists, researchers and medical experts involved with these innovations, it was even more confusing.
We personally journeyed around the world and conducted sight visits to talk with the various scientists. Robert Maver’s approach was to evaluate all techniques, therapies, devices in an open unbiased light where they stood on their own merits.
Because something is in use does not mean that it is the most effective or least expensive. Because someone renders their opinion, does not mean that they are conversant in the subject or that they might not have a vested interest. Ego can be involved where someone is recognized as an authority and needs to hold that position by commenting on something they aren’t familiar with. The Tomato Effect is influenced by wrong economics. Someone is involved with a current therapy that might be replaced. Communications problems with a different language and concept such as Dr. Nordenstrom utilizing electricity and other peers are not familiar with electromagnetics. A cumbersome bureaucracy can make it impossible for a new innovation to prove itself. The FDA approval process takes an average of 12 years and $200 million. Good therapies and techniques can’t be tested due to lack of money.
Precedent may not the Ultimate. Has the tomato effect influenced you in some manner? My article is meant to empower you to look a bit deeper and follow your own intuition. Of course input can be valuable, but the ultimate decision should be what you sense/feel. This is how you tap into the portal that is your connection to greater awareness. You will be guided properly. Trust yourself.
“Peer review in the grant giving process is so restrictive that most innovative scientists know they would never receive funding if they actually said what they were going to do. Scientists therefore have to tell lies in their grant applications. Such views have been explicitly stated by at least two Nobel Laureates.” The article contends that medicine has lost sight of the basic purpose of peer review, asserting “the true aim of peer review in biomedical science must be to improve the quality of patient care.”
My aim in sharing a segment of my friend Robert Maver’s article is that, we don’t always base our judgment on someone else, unless we know the ethics and interest of the individual. Robert was F.S.A., M.A.A.A., former head actuary for Mutual Benefit Life (MBL), the 19th largest insurance company at the time. Robert’s article, which appeared in an insurance industry journal, was explaining about the difficulty many technologies and therapies have to endure in order to possibly be recognized as a part of orthodox medicine. Robert and I worked together in a three year health research project for MBL in the late 1980s. After showing him almost 100 therapies, techniques, devices and clinics, that were addressing cancer, arthritis, diabetes, heart difficulties and more, he could not understand why these scientifically validated approaches were not a part of medicine in the US. When he learned of the credentials of the scientists, researchers and medical experts involved with these innovations, it was even more confusing.
We personally journeyed around the world and conducted sight visits to talk with the various scientists. Robert Maver’s approach was to evaluate all techniques, therapies, devices in an open unbiased light where they stood on their own merits.
Because something is in use does not mean that it is the most effective or least expensive. Because someone renders their opinion, does not mean that they are conversant in the subject or that they might not have a vested interest. Ego can be involved where someone is recognized as an authority and needs to hold that position by commenting on something they aren’t familiar with. The Tomato Effect is influenced by wrong economics. Someone is involved with a current therapy that might be replaced. Communications problems with a different language and concept such as Dr. Nordenstrom utilizing electricity and other peers are not familiar with electromagnetics. A cumbersome bureaucracy can make it impossible for a new innovation to prove itself. The FDA approval process takes an average of 12 years and $200 million. Good therapies and techniques can’t be tested due to lack of money.
Precedent may not the Ultimate. Has the tomato effect influenced you in some manner? My article is meant to empower you to look a bit deeper and follow your own intuition. Of course input can be valuable, but the ultimate decision should be what you sense/feel. This is how you tap into the portal that is your connection to greater awareness. You will be guided properly. Trust yourself.
RSS Feed
