Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15497

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

Antonuccio D, Healy D.
Stealth advertising and academic stalking.
BMJ 2009 Apr 21; 338:b1612:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/338/apr21_3/b1612

Abstract:

In a rapid response Leo and Lacasse critiqued a study published in JAMA for not mentioning that a psychosocial intervention was as effective as an antidepressant for post-stroke depression and for failing to record relevant conflicts of interest.1 JAMA’s editors have since contacted Leo and his superiors.2 This dispute highlights the fact some studies in respected journals amount to stealth advertising,3 and when legitimate scientific critics point this out, they may be the recipients of academic stalking.4

Stealth advertising and academic stalking mean that many patient volunteers generate research data that are never made accessible to the public. For example, the Turner et al analysis of antidepressant trials found that 3449 depressed patients participated in studies that were never published.5 Another 1843 patients participated in studies in which the data were published as positive in conflict with the Food and Drug Administration’s assessment that they were negative studies. Someone . . .