I've been wondering about this
Outlook issue from
Nature, which seems to be highly respected as a scientific journal.
It seems that
Nature issues
Outlook as a special, somewhat "dumbed down" periodical from time to time. Here is what Nature says about it:
Nature Outlooks tackle topics of scientific, clinical and societal interest, giving a comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge and the hottest areas of research. They present news features written by top science journalists and commentary pieces from leading academic and industry thinkers. A Nature Outlook might focus on a disease, technological innovation or a field of particularly intense scientific progress. Outlooks target a generalist, scientifically literate audience, while maintaining Nature’s strong evidence-based editorial values. As such, Outlooks offer a unique opportunity for sponsors to report their scientific advances in the pages of Nature alongside relevant, independent and accessible content.
Couched in this paragraph is "a unique opportunity for sponsors to report their scientific advances in the pages of
Nature alongside relevant, independent and accessible content."
I was perturbed when I saw that the content of this entire issue seems like boilerplate MS information, some of it highly questionable. The section about diet, in particular, isn't very trustworthy information.
The article on stem cells gives a very negative view of this treatment.
On the other hand, Ocrevus is described in glowing terms in the section entitled "Therapies: Progressive steps."
The sponsor of this issue of
Nature Outlook, as mentioned earlier, is Hoffmann-LaRoche. The issue is dated December 2, 2016--nicely timed to precede the anticipated FDA approval of Ocrevus.
Hoffmann-LaRoche is the maker of Ocrevus.