corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4431

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Swanson RW.
Three cheers for CME?
Canadian Medical Association Journal 1992; 146:1519


Abstract:

The author presented a seminar during which he mentioned that there was no difference between three drugs in a certain class, one of which was made by the company that was sponsoring the seminar and paying an honorarium to the author. A sales representative for the company was disturbed by this statement and attempted to convince the author otherwise. The author also pointed out that trying to influence his speech was contrary to the code of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada.

Keywords:
*letter to the editor/Canada/continuing medical education/honoraria/corporate funding/guidelines, discussion of/sales representatives/ conference speakers/ guidelines, discussion of/PROMOTION DISGUISED: COMPANY SPONSORED SPEAKING TOURS AND CONFERENCE SPEAKERS/PROMOTION DISGUISED: SUPPORT FOR CME

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963