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: 5570

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

Dobson R.
NEJM “failed its readers” by delay in publishing its concerns about VIGOR trial
BMJ 2006 Jul 15; 333:(7559):116
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/333/7559/116-f?etoc


Abstract:

The New England Journal of Medicine has been accused of failing its readers and damaging its reputation over a study involving the drug rofecoxib (Vioxx).

The journal waited five years to publish its concerns about the study’s findings, says an editorial published online ahead of print publication in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (www.jrsm.org). Had it done so earlier, says the editorial, the dangers of the drug, which was later withdrawn, might have been highlighted sooner.

“The way that the journal has behaved in the dispute around the VIGOR [Vioxx gastrointestinal outcomes research] trial, which was the making of Merck’s drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), has raised doubts about its integrity and dovetailed with a growing anxiety about the ethics of medical journals,” the editorial says.

The editorial’s author, Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, said, “It is unfortunate that the . .

 

  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