Drug Companies Have A "Parasitic" Relationship With Journals
Categories..."One author had claimed that a review was written by him but had made the mistake of leaving on Microsoft Words "track changes" facility in the document he sent, revealing that in fact everything had been ghost written with the help of the manufacturer of the drug. It carried the telltale note "marketing approval required please.""...
So much for their parroting of peer review bunk...
Chris Gupta
-----------------------BMJ 2005;330:9 (1 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7481.9
Editor claims drug companies have a "parasitic" relationship with journals
London Lynn Eaton
The relationship between medical journals and the drug industry is "somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic," according to the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton. But at the moment it has swung too much towards the parasitic, he told the House Commons select committee on health last month in his oral evidence on the role of the industry.
He outlined some of the financial incentives that could, potentially, influence a commercially run medical journal to publish a paper. Many of the formal research papers in the Lancet are reprinted and bought in bulk by drug companies, which use them for marketing purposes, he explained. The drug companies regularly try to exert pressure on the journal to run a paper by arguing that, if the journal does so, they will buy reprints, which will earn the journal more money, he said.
As another example of the parasitic nature of the relationship Dr Horton cited the example of a recently submitted paper on cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors. When the journal raised questions with the authors over the paper, the drug company sponsoring the research called Dr Horton, asking him to "stop being so critical."
He reported to the committee that the company told him, "If you carry on like this we are going to pull the paper, and that means no income for the journal."
"That is just one example, and it is not that uncommon," he told the committee.
He outlined some of the measures that had been introduced across medical journals, including the BMJ, to try to reduce research fraud and to eliminate "ghost writing" of leading editorials. But he said this was based on people being honest.
"However, people do lie," he said.
One author had claimed that a review was written by him but had made the mistake of leaving on Microsoft Words "track changes" facility in the document he sent, revealing that in fact everything had been ghost written with the help of the manufacturer of the drug. It carried the telltale note "marketing approval required please." "The paper was rejected," said Mr Horton.
He also hit out at the way drugs were regulated in Britain and decried as "nonsense" the yellow card system for reporting adverse reactions.
"That is the worst possible way of doing epidemiology," he said. Instead what was needed was a five year periodic review of each drug at every stage on the market. "It would clear out the dross," he said.
Also giving evidence were Jenny Hope, medical correspondent at the Daily Mail, and Lois Rogers, medical editor at the Sunday Times. Ms Hope denied that drug companies unduly influenced her decisions about what made a news story.
"I dont feel I am being used, but I feel I am a target," she said. In deciding whether or not she pursued a story she said her decisions were based on whether the public should know about it, whether it was of interest, and whether it would be wrong to keep the information secret, she said.
Both she and Ms Rogers said they needed to know how the regulatory authority reached its decision in granting a licence to new products. At the moment this information is bound by a confidentiality agreement and is not made public in the United Kingdom. "The regulation process needs to be more transparent," said Ms Rogers.
The BMJ did not submit written evidence to the committees inquiry so was not invited to give oral evidence.
The transcript of the oral evidence is available here.
posted by Chris Gupta on Monday January 10 2005
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2005/01/10/drug_companies_have_a_parasitic_relationship_with_journals.htm
Related ArticlesThe spooky reality behind drug-related "news"
Tricks of the trade... ..."The long and short of the process is this: A drug maker funnels a highly-educated ghostwriter only the most flattering evidence - much of it no doubt doctored (no pun intended) - regarding a certain patent medicine's miraculous effectiveness and utter lack of side effects. Instead of being immediately used as toilet paper, this information is then skillfully crafted by the highly paid and totally amoral... [read more]
October 09, 2003 - Chris GuptaPharmaceutical corporations accused of Genocide before ICC in The Hague
June 14, 2003 - The Hague Pharmaceutical corporations and individual executives have been accused of genocide and crimes of war before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The charges, which also involve accusations of war crimes against US President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top political figures, are contained in a detailed complaint filed with the ICC by Dr. Mathias Rath. Pharmaceutical companies including... [read more]
June 23, 2003 - Sepp HasslbergerDrano' for arteries works in 6 weeks
Thanks Susan, for the post. I am afraid this sort of thing does not impress me at all, as most of these news release teasers are just there to give us the illusion of progress and serve to mostly to drum up, never ending, funding. Note the comment "...but he said that commercial use is probably a few years off." meanwhile give us more funds... There is good reason why... [read more]
November 12, 2003 - Chris Gupta
