NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”

NEJM posterHarvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell is the author of The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. But more to the point, she’s also the former Editor-in-Chief at the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably one of the most respected medical journals on earth. But after reading her article in the New York Review of Books called Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, one wonders if any medical journal on earth is worth anybody’s respect anymore.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Dr. Angell cites the case of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital. She explains:

“Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose, and none of which were approved for children below ten years of age.”

Biederman’s own studies of the drugs he advocates to treat childhood bipolar disorder were, as The New York Times summarized the opinions of its expert sources, “so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive.”

In June 2009, an American senate investigation revealed that drug companies, including those that make drugs he advocates for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid Biederman $1.6 million in “consulting” and “speaking” fees between 2000 and 2007.

“Two of Biederman’s colleagues received similar amounts. After the revelation, the president of the Massachusetts General Hospital and the chairman of its physician organization sent a letter to the hospital’s physicians expressing not shock over the enormity of the conflicts of interest, but sympathy for the beneficiaries: “We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them.”

Biederman’s failure to disclose his Big Pharma payments to his employers ar Harvard (as is required for all Harvard employees) has been under investigation* for the past two years by Harvard Medical School, in as journalist Alison Bass describes this: “what must be the longest investigation in that school’s history”).

Dr. Angell’s article contains bombshell after bombshell, all gleaned during her tenure as NEJM editor. For example, on the subject of doctors who are bought and paid for by Big Pharma, she writes:

“No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top 9 U.S.-based drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year in North America alone.By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease.”

Revelations like this from medical profession insiders cast serious doubt on more than what’s printed on the pages of these medical journals.

Your physician reads these journals, treatment decisions are changed, care is affected, drugs are prescribed – all based on Big Pharma-funded medical ghostwriter-prepared journal articles from physicians who fraudulently claim to be the study authors. Then you walk out of your doctor’s office with a prescription for a drug that may or may not kill you, based on treatment protocols written by doctors like Biederman who are on the take from Big Pharma.

A very recent example of the sad reality over at the once-prestigious New England Journal of Medicine is their decision to publish a drug company-funded review article. This review attempts to discredit emerging research suggesting that many years of using Merck’s Fosamax or Procter & Gamble’s Actonel (both osteoporosis drugs in a class called bisphosphonates) could actually result in more leg bone fractures.

Not surprisingly, drug manufacturers of bisphosphonates are fighting back ferociously against this emerging (independent) research.  A Merck-funded review paper published in the NEJM on March 24, 2010 concludes:

“The occurrence of fracture of the subtrochantericor diaphyseal femur was very rare, even among women who had been treated with bisphosphonates for as long as 10 years.”

Sounds promising for Big Pharma. But if you look very, very closely, the article’s fine print confesses:

“The study was underpowered for definitive conclusions.”

You might justifiably ask yourself why a medical journal would stoop to publishing a meaningless scientific paper that the paper’s own authors admit lacks any conclusion. Even more troubling than a journal article that was itself bought and paid for by Merck, is the conflict of interest disclosure list at the bottom of this NEJM article.  It reads like a Who’s Who of Big Pharma.

Of the 12 study authors listed in the NEJM article, at least three are full-time employees of Merck or Novartis. Each one of the other nine admit owning equity interests in or receiving cash, travel expenses, or “consulting and lecture fees” from companies including Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Roche Nycomed, Procter & Gamble, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronics, Nastech, Nestle, Fonterra Brands, OnoPharma, Osteologix, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Tethys, Unilever,Unipath, Inverness Medical, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, OSIProsidion, or Takeda.

Why is the New England Journal of Medicine or any other credible medical journal accepting for publication articles submitted by paid employees of pharmaceutical companies?

As a cardiac patient, I’m gobsmacked by what appears to be this systemic corruption of not only medical journals who continue to publish what they clearly know is tainted research linked to drug marketing, but of the very doctors whom patients trust to look out for us.

Since my heart attack in 2008, I take a fistful of cardiac meds every day, and I have no clue which of them were prescribed for me based on flawed research or tainted medical journal articles funded by the very companies that make my drugs.

And worse, neither do my doctors.

Happily, there are other decent physicians out there who, like Dr. Angell, are just as outraged as she is. Her targets are not just guilty of unethical conflict of interest – they are criminals who should be charged with endangering our health while padding their wallets.


Read Dr. Angell’s article from the New York Review of Books, called Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

* NEWS UPDATE:  “Massachusetts General Hospital Discloses Sanctions against Three Psychiatrists for Violating Ethics Guidelines”, July 1, 2011:   The Boston Business Journal said today that three psychiatrists have been sanctioned for failing to adequately report seven-figure payments they received from drug companies.

Drs. Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens disclosed the disciplinary actions against them in a note to colleagues. According to a copy of the note made public upon request by the hospital, the three doctors:

• must refrain from all industry-sponsored outside activities” for one year

• for two years after the ban ends, must obtain permission from Mass. General and Harvard Medical School before engaging in any industry-sponsored, paid outside activities and then must report back afterward

• must undergo certain training

• face delays before being considered for “promotion or advancement.”

The three doctors have been under the political microscope since June 2008 when Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, began investigating conflicts of interest involving clinicians. Biederman and Wilens have since admitted to accepting $1.6 million from drug companies whose drugs they were promoting; Spencer took $1 million.

Senator Grassley said, according to an online version of the Congressional record:

“These three Harvard doctors are some of the top psychiatrists in the country, and their research is some of the most important in the field. They have also taken millions of dollars from the drug companies.”

See also: 

161 thoughts on “NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published”

  1. More evidence of the misrule by what Thomas Szasz called the “pharmacracy.” It’s not a surprise that psychiatric drugs are at the center of a scandal. After all, they are prescribed for the treatment of “diseases” that have no demonstrable biological basis. Only Szasz had the guts to state that the emperor had no clothes, and that those who diagnose behavior as disease are charlatans whose treatments are actually poisons.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Prevention is better than cure. Unfortunately psychiatry is a very toxic profession. If the psychiatrist’s conscientiousness is supplanted by cowardice, greed, pride, self-deceptions, the already vulnerable patient must bear the brunt.

      Thomas Szasz was one in a million. We have Peter Breggin, Terry Lynch, Robert Whitaker and few more honourable people around. We don’t have a health care system, we have a disease-care system. Reflecting on personal experience, my daughter in law was pregnant, the doctor suggested to her to take antidepressants. This behaviour is not very professional. All the evidence suggesting Seroxat causes baby’s heart defects; she did not listen because she is intelligent and responsible for her pregnancy. We are grateful to people in the profession who speak out; it is a very courageous thing to do. Thank you, Robert Whitaker, Peter Breggin, Terry Lynch and others.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Now these doctors have made it really tough to convince my paranoid patients to take the medications they need and convince them it is not going to kill them.


    • Are you for real ? You took an oath “First do no harm” – you read the evidence of corruption in a reputed medical journal and you think the patients are paranoid ? Will nothing wake you doctors up ? What you are doing is shortening the lives of children and elderly! Do your research not just parrot fashion dish out your 1st line / 2nd line and 3rd line drugs to line the pockets of corrupt big pharma. WAKE UP !!


  3. Thanks for sharing this with everyone. It’s pitiful and downright criminal to allow this unlawful behavior to proceed with just a slap on the wrist as if some minor infraction has occurred. People put their lives into these physicians hands and most don’t care if the medications they are giving out even work. Or worse yet, are killing anyone. Side effect symptoms are far worse than the original problem you’ve been diagnosed with.


  4. This article has been published in 2009. the update in 2011 says that the 3 doctors were found to be at fault. what is the fun in posting this in 2016?????/ Of course, I do not think things would have changed drastically now. But that is the way of the world, where money rules. Look at VW falsifying test data on cars, look at countries indulging in false propaganda in the oil wars(new crusades?). Why, are you sure that you will not bribe a policeman for a traffic violation? Humans will be greedy and be advised to take your pill after questioning your doctor and being satisfied. THEN, you MAY be safe.


  5. Pingback: NHPPA

  6. Pingback: Cady Wellness Institute

  7. I believe that we should not jump to prescribe or use drugs or instruments or implants in our practice till we have multicenter trials reviewed by a non-funded body. So publication of papers with or without sponsors should not be considered. Thisay be for money fame or power. So only the teaching institute should do further trials of the said new drugs or implants. After doing extensive and large numbers of patient trials, only then should we practice. This should be the mamdatory requirement to use the new things.
    Dr Arvind Patel


  8. I’m bipolar II, and I was determined to have been born with a chemical imbalance that caused it. That could be why children as young as two are being diagnosed, and I wish I could have been saved a lot of grief between age 9, when the disease first presented, and age 20, when I slipped into a full manic psychosis. Perhaps if I had begun psychotherapy around age 14, I could have headed off a lot of later symptoms, and reduced the amount of time I needed SSRIs, if not eliminated the need for them completely. In any event, if I am to follow Dr. Leaf’s conclusions, then I should have died years ago, because my mind has been ravaged by anxiety since I began high school. However, I put my trust in modern day psychology, and any pharmaceuticals I am prescribed. I am not going trust my mental well-being to her god, and that book of myths, and fairy tales he supposedly inspired men to write.


  9. Pingback: Lokahi Guru

  10. Coming from such a respected source one has to take note – much of this article has been said before though – Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” of 2008 basically outlines the same argument.
    I see some posters have decided to post regarding the effectiveness of some drugs, which is really completely off topic. The problem is the influence that “Big Pharma has on scientific research and how this skews results away from accuracy towards the benefit of a drug company.

    double blind peer reviewed clinical trials ae still the most effective way to prove a substance and maybe governments should get more involved in doing this thus preventing “Big Pharma ” getting away with so much.

    Furthermore it would also behoove journals like NEJM and all to consider more thoroughly the value of what papers they are publishing – how many papers do we need on acupuncture and homeopathy? They only give gravitas to totally discredited and unscientific therapies.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: Openhearted Rebel

  12. We are doctors who have published research articles in journals of repute. Articles on additional use of proven drugs that are out of price control regulations like diphenyl hydantoin are difficult to publish as there are no financial rewards. Even if we show ample proof, articles are not accepted.

    This news and views of the NEJM editor are true.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s