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: 18399

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

Jefferson T, Doshi P
WHO and pandemic flu: Time for change, WHO
BMJ 2010 Jun 29; 340:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/340/jun29_4/c3461


Abstract:

The World Health Organization has long term relationships with the pharmaceutical industry1 2 and even conceives of industry as a “partner.“3 Now Cohen and Carter show that WHO chose not to disclose financial conflicts of interest among industry sponsored experts guiding its influenza policy.4 In her reply Margaret Chan, WHO’s director-general, writes: “At no time, not for one second, did commercial interests enter my decision making.“5 This self evaluation is irrelevant and misses the point: that transparent declarations of interest are crucial to allow others to decide for themselves.

Chan’s dismissal of concerns over the scientific integrity of policymaking at WHO is a familiar theme. Our 2009 Cochrane review of influenza antivirals,6 alongside a BMJ-Channel 4 investigation,7 8 showed substantial publication bias, inconsistencies across different versions of the same dataset, and the presence of ghost and guest authors of a key study. But WHO dismissed our review as inapplicable to pandemic . . .

 

  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