Re: Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry?
In response to Trish Groves
Your argument rests on the difference between the two industries, yet none of the points you make actually differentiate between them.
"The drug and tobacco industries, notwithstanding the inescapable fact that both are out to make money, have very different aims."
They have different methods, but the same aim: to create a profit. This is clear: if a drug company made a profit by selling only e.g Vioxx without the safety of the drug being called into question, they would be a successful company; however if they sold only asparin at a loss, they would be an unsuccessful company.
"The drug industry makes and sells products aimed at* improving health."
*This could read: "'marketed as' improving health", as tobacco once was.
"The tobacco industry, meanwhile, makes and sells products that harm health."
Not even the Pharmaceutical industry would claim that they don't sell products which harm health, but they would appeal to the doctrine of double effect: that the good outweighs the harm. We cannot tell, because we have to return to what has already been published, but Peter Gotzsche argues effectively that we have at least some instances where more harm has been caused, certainly in many incidences such as with anti-psychotics.
Later you defend the argument to ban tobacco research (reference 18) but the same arguments made could have the words "pharmaceutical" replace "tobacco" almost word for word. It states that "The editor’s job... is to “try to separate the insufferable behaviors of mere jerks from the illegal actions of bona fide crooks.”"
Well as Ben Goldacre, David Healy and Peter Gotzsche, among others, have detailed extensively, they have knowingly misled the public on multiple occasions in situations where non-disclosure of known risks has led to deaths: Vioxx; Rosiglitazone; Paroxetine etc. These are the "little murders" referred to. In none of these cases were these cover-ups revealed by the drug industry themselves, but by accidents of journalism or hell-bent and oft rebuffed clinicians and researchers. Even where these come to light, industry has been known to use gagging laws to delay admission.
Perhaps drug industry could provide valid research, but we cannot tell the difference between the benign and the malign, and we have no reason to begin to believe their say-so.
We currently have the un-enviable task of reappraising all current EBM knowledge with new eyes which seek to discover the extent of this deception. At the very least, the corpus of research to investigate should not increase until it has been entirely vetted, and not one more industry-funded trial should be accepted until this point, when we can decide whether the preponderance of the evidence weighs in their benevolence.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
17 January 2014
N Blondel
Medical Student
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Barts and The London Student Union Stepney Way London E1 2JJ
Rapid Response:
Re: Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry?
In response to Trish Groves
Your argument rests on the difference between the two industries, yet none of the points you make actually differentiate between them.
"The drug and tobacco industries, notwithstanding the inescapable fact that both are out to make money, have very different aims."
They have different methods, but the same aim: to create a profit. This is clear: if a drug company made a profit by selling only e.g Vioxx without the safety of the drug being called into question, they would be a successful company; however if they sold only asparin at a loss, they would be an unsuccessful company.
"The drug industry makes and sells products aimed at* improving health."
*This could read: "'marketed as' improving health", as tobacco once was.
"The tobacco industry, meanwhile, makes and sells products that harm health."
Not even the Pharmaceutical industry would claim that they don't sell products which harm health, but they would appeal to the doctrine of double effect: that the good outweighs the harm. We cannot tell, because we have to return to what has already been published, but Peter Gotzsche argues effectively that we have at least some instances where more harm has been caused, certainly in many incidences such as with anti-psychotics.
Later you defend the argument to ban tobacco research (reference 18) but the same arguments made could have the words "pharmaceutical" replace "tobacco" almost word for word. It states that "The editor’s job... is to “try to separate the insufferable behaviors of mere jerks from the illegal actions of bona fide crooks.”"
Well as Ben Goldacre, David Healy and Peter Gotzsche, among others, have detailed extensively, they have knowingly misled the public on multiple occasions in situations where non-disclosure of known risks has led to deaths: Vioxx; Rosiglitazone; Paroxetine etc. These are the "little murders" referred to. In none of these cases were these cover-ups revealed by the drug industry themselves, but by accidents of journalism or hell-bent and oft rebuffed clinicians and researchers. Even where these come to light, industry has been known to use gagging laws to delay admission.
Perhaps drug industry could provide valid research, but we cannot tell the difference between the benign and the malign, and we have no reason to begin to believe their say-so.
We currently have the un-enviable task of reappraising all current EBM knowledge with new eyes which seek to discover the extent of this deception. At the very least, the corpus of research to investigate should not increase until it has been entirely vetted, and not one more industry-funded trial should be accepted until this point, when we can decide whether the preponderance of the evidence weighs in their benevolence.
Competing interests: No competing interests