Comments on: Doctors on the take: how to read the fine print in medical research reports

By: Millie Dade

Millie Dade — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:08:36 +0000

I don’t like the term “doctors on the take” – they would prefer describing it as merely being appropriately paid for valuable time – but it is what it is. Publicly reporting conflicts of interest is just the beginning and misses the point. How do we get those docs to consider their industry links to be unethical?

LikeLike

By: Quinn R. Wade

Quinn R. Wade — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:28:40 +0000

“… two of the study’s co-authors are actually current or former full-time employees of Solae..”

This is not “research” – it’s a corporate marketing brochure, aided and abetted by medical journal editors. There is simply no way that these editors did not fully comprehend what they were agreeing to accept for publication. This throws all journal submissions into question. Astonishing, really.

LikeLike

By: PhDave

PhDave — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:33:24 +0000

The study you mentioned from the Archives of Internal Medicine looked at just 47 people, hardly a significant sample size, one might say. Even aside from the considerable industry influence on a number of the study’s authors, this is surely one of those limited ‘research’ projects that usually end with the statement: “Further studies are required…”

Thanks Carolyn for reminding us to be critical consumers of health “news” like this.

LikeLike

By: Trusted Doc

Trusted Doc — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 01:29:42 +0000

It’s naive to assume that a skilled expert with many years of experience in a certain field should not be approached to share that expertise on committees, speakers bureaus, advisory boards, etc. The doctors paid by corporate interests in this story are no different than experienced stockbrokers or architects or consultants who are paid for their professional opinions on specific issues. I’m a physician who has served willingly on a number of pharmaceutical industry projects and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this practice.

LikeLike

By: Registered Nurse

Registered Nurse — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:21:24 +0000

“Consider the physicians hired by Big Tobacco decades ago to undertake research “proving” that cigarettes were not dangerous to our health.”

This is the single most compelling argument in this entire article. Having the letters M.D. after your name does not mean you are an “expert” on anything. But agreeing to be the mouthpiece for Big Tobacco or Big Soy or Big Pharma or whatever corporation pays you just means you have found a profitable new way to make money from simply having that M.D. designation.

Your recent conflict of interest essay here about doctors who sell retail products is another good example of doctors who put the SELL in SELLING OUT. Thank you Carolyn for this.

LikeLike

By: Berkeley

Berkeley — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:57:49 +0000

This article peaked my interest and motivated me to do some further reading on this subject. Who knew? I now worry that the actual reality of misleading journal publications may be far far worse than you outline here. yikes.

LikeLike

By: Vlad

Vlad — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:38:11 +0000

“…98% of scientific papers based on research funded by drug companies promoted the effectiveness of that company’s drug….”

Why does this not surprise me? He who pays the piper….

LikeLike

By: Whyz Kid

Whyz Kid — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:40:47 +0000

Oh great. Thanks for ruining my day. And here i thought that if an MD signed his/her name to something, it must be for pure science and not anything else…. 😉

LikeLike

By: Shaun

Shaun — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:09:24 +0000

At first, I wondered why you seemed upset about “healthy” things these doctors were involved with – what could possibly be wrong with that? But the more I read, and the more I have learned elsewhere on this subject, the more alarmed I feel.

As you say, it’s a short stretch of road between this cozy affiliation and one that prompts doctors to prescribe a certain company’s drugs to you. We should all be alarmed by this.

Thanks for opening my eyes.

LikeLike

By: Winchell

Winchell — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:49:00 +0000

Useful tips. Since I first read this, I wanted to let you know that now when I’m reading reports on WebMD or other online sources, I immediately zero in on the ‘conflict of interest’ disclosure statements at the bottom. If the researchers are funded by the very company whose drug or medical device company whose product is being researched, that pretty well dismisses the validity of the results.

Don’t these ‘researchers’ get this?

Love your site – keep it up.

LikeLike

By: Retired Tyler

Retired Tyler — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:40:54 +0000

Hello Carolyn,
This is an eye-opening look at what goes on behind the scenes in journals that we trust, by doctors we (used to) trust.

It reminds me, as a heart patient myself, how important it is to be a critical researcher myself when it comes to what I read about medical “news”.

Thanks for this intriguing look at the “fine print” we all need to be more aware of.

Great job – well done.

LikeLike