Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15212

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

Anon (Name and address supplied to BMJ)
Reframing relations with Pharma: An insider writes
BMJ 2009 Feb 24; 338:(7693):b764
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/338/feb24_1/b764

Abstract:

As a medical doctor working as an epidemiologist and clinical researcher in a contract research organisation, I am a privileged witness and actor in some of the debated misbehaviours.1

Part of my work is to design seed studies or even crude prescription buying studies, which seem to be standard practice for expensive medical devices or prostheses. Regulatory provisions against such practices exist in EU member countries. Nevertheless, people like me are paid to make these studies look scientifically honourable, and they unfailingly pass all the required boards and committees.

I also do a lot of ghost writing. Sometimes I report good quality studies to which I am proud to contribute, albeit anonymously. Yet, too often, I write so called reviews, amounting to mere panegyrics of the discussed drugs, or I report poorly designed and implemented “epidemiologic” studies, bearing gross biases. Many of the (paid) signing authors of these papers do . . .