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: 18004

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

Commens CA.
Truth in clinical research trials involving pharmaceutical sponsorship.
Med J Aust 2001 Jun 18; 174:(12):648-9
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/174_12_180601/commens/commens.html


Abstract:

Large clinical trials are expensive to mount. Funding comes mainly from pharmaceutical companies seeking information on drug efficacy and adverse events. Patients should be informed of the financial and publication agreements reached between those conducting the trials. This is unlikely to have a significant effect on trial participation and will provide patients with information relevant to informed consent. A small proportion of monies raised from drug trials could be set aside to fund both a trial register site and further studies on adverse drug reactions.

Keywords:
* Bias (Epidemiology) * Clinical Trials as Topic/standards* * Drug Industry* * Humans * Informed Consent * Intellectual Property * Patient Advocacy* * Patient Education as Topic * Research Support as Topic/organization & administration* * Truth Disclosure*

 

  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