Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editorials

Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals

BMJ 2015; 350 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2957 (Published 02 June 2015) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h2957

Rapid Response:

Re: Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals

I completely agree that that it is a mistake for the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) to suggest that rigorous standards preventing financial conflicts of interest being beneficial should be revisited.

It has been a concern that for some time now that too many publications and advisory groups are attempting to reinstate the use of hormone therapy. Randomised trials were prematurely terminated because of harms and breast cancer incidences fell as use dwindled. Many “experts” have pharmaceutical connections as I did indirectly in the 1960s .

I summarised the harmful effects of using progestogens and oestrogens, in a then anonymous BMJ Editorial in 1969, which stated that merely reducing the dose of oestrogen was unlikely to be the whole answer to reducing the risk of arterial and venous thrombosis.1 There has been no overall improvement in the harm from hormones since then with increases in thrombosis, breast cancer, weight gain and use of antidepressants in young women. www.harmfromhormones.co.uk

1 Anon. Changing oral contraceptives BMJ, 1969:4:789-791.

Competing interests: No competing interests

12 June 2015
Ellen CG Grant
Physician and medical gynaecologist
Retired
Kingston-upon-Thames. KT2 7JU