A deliberately misleading title?
Alan S. Black huffs and puffs that the title of the piece is
misleading because it is from a survey in Germany. He goes on to
substantiate his case by emphasising the rigour applied to pharmaceutical
advertising literature in the UK.
In other words, what he is saying is that pharmaceutical companies
will be as 'misleading' (or insert your own choice of synonym) as they can
where they think they will get away with it. How reassuring. I wonder if
the standards applied to advertising and promotion in many third world
countries are as rigorous, if they can get away with only 6%
substantiation in Germany?
In some respects, I think the 85% of citations that either don't
exist or are cited deceptively is the most telling.
Competing interests: No competing interests