Comments on: A philosopher’s take on Big Pharma marketing

By: Dr. Joe Kosterich

Dr. Joe Kosterich — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:38:15 +0000

[…] first wrote about his work in A Philosopher’s Take on Big Pharma Marketing. Focusing on what he calls the pharmaceutical […]

LikeLike

By: AMA

AMA — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 04:42:30 +0000

Good post. I absolutely love this site.

LikeLike

By: Somatosphere

Somatosphere — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:52:48 +0000

[…] “A philosopher’s take on Big Pharma marketing” by Carolyn Thomas […]

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:56:09 +0000

Yes and no, Dr. H. Concerns about peer review have been increasing for years, as you know. Remember the 2010 open letter to major scientific journals from Drs. Robin Lovell-Badge, Austin Smith and 12 other stem cell researchers questioning the peer review process? They alleged that “a small scientific clique” was using peer review to block papers from other researchers, and that some reviewers are sending back negative comments, asking for unnecessary experiments to be carried out for spurious reasons, or intentionally hampering competitors’ work from being published in these high profile journals.

Again, peer review isn’t the focus of this particular article on the influence of industry-funded medical ghost management – that other topic deserves its own airing!

LikeLike

By: Dr. Jose Hernandez

Dr. Jose Hernandez — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:26:31 +0000

Editors and those who perform peer review share epistemic values. Furthermore, my guess is that the way the term “medical journal editors” is used, specially when the concern is of “all the dreck they have to read,” it would be difficult to differentiate editors from members of the peer review faculty/staff.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:04:59 +0000

This brings up the (new) subject of peer review! That’s a whole different ball game . . .

LikeLike

By: Dr. Jose Hernandez

Dr. Jose Hernandez — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:43:23 +0000

Carolyn, Gwendolyn B. Emerson and co-workers tested exactly the query you are posing. In a sense you are questioning if there is any validity to the claim that journal editors have a bias against negative outcomes studies. The investigators concluded that a “Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.” (Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934-1939)

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 18:59:29 +0000

Thanks Dr. H for your comments here. It seems that journal editors are less likely to engage in publication bias against negative outcomes of studies submitted. For example, Dickersin later wrote in JAMA: “We are unaware of any evidence that editors are more likely to publish studies with positive results”, which supports your observation that negative studies may indeed be submitted less frequently – as opposed to being submitted but rejected by journal editors (which seems to contradict Mahoney’s 1977 theory).

But this still leaves us with the disturbing and well-documented prospect of industry-funded studies that deliberately cherry-pick trial results for submission so as to present their drugs in the most positive light in order to maximize sales (e.g. Danish study from Chan et al published in JAMA 2004 suggesting “50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported in journals”).

LikeLike

By: Dr. Jose Hernandez

Dr. Jose Hernandez — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:16:34 +0000

As expected from this blog, this is an excellent expose of BigPharma power over data dissemination.

I support most of your points but I may take a different view in your description of publication bias. Your blog points an accusing finger at BigPharma for “selective outcome reporting,” which I do not doubt occurs just like you described; however, I am not certain this behavior is solely, or primarily, an outcome of BigPharma manipulation.

For example, in an attempt “to evaluate the extent to which the medical literature may be misleading as a result of selective publication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results showing a statistically significant treatment effect” K. Dickersin and associates [Clinical Trials 8:343-353 (1987)]] concluded that “non-publication (of negative results) was primarily a result of failure to write up and submit the trial results.”

The authors go on to state that “Negative trials … may be submitted for publication less often or rejected more frequently because the authors or editors do not consider the findings worthy of publication.” As Michael J. Mahoney has written (Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 161-175) publications are “biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective.”

I believe the points brought out in this blog are valid and of grave concern, but so are the epistemologic constraints in the scientific community.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:56:33 +0000

Thanks so much for your comment. The difference between judges and doctors who each use ghost writers might be that a third party (let’s say, a drug company) doesn’t stand to gain financially based on what a judge’s clerk writes. But both the doctor claiming to be a study’s author and Big Pharma make big money off their hired writers.

LikeLike

By: investigator25

investigator25 — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:42:20 +0000

Ghost writing happens in most professions, even judges often rely on law clerks or winning attorneys to write the “opinion”, however the signature author must bear the responsibility for what she/he is claiming as their work.

It is ridiculous that someone would put their license on the line to claim work they haven’t even read or are familiar with…happens – you are doing a great service exposing this.

LikeLike