The One Click Group http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/THEONECLICKPROTEST/

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

NEW
Dr Iain Stephenson
Found Guilty of Vaccine
Research Fraud
The One Click Group

NEW
Mobilising ME/CFS Charities
To Smash Flawed
PACE Trial Results
Lara, Health Advocate

NEW
UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

Stunning
Vaccination Graphs
The Awful Stats In Action
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

UPDATED
March 2010

One Click
Freedom
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

Barbara Loe Fisher
Interview
NVIC Conference
Style, Gonads
Brass Ovaries
By Jane Bryant

New Journalism
Challenging
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference
USA

How The
Judicial Review
Of The CFS/ME
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

The BMJ
Vaccines Propaganda
Professor
David Salisbury
And
Trimedia
Public Relations

David Southall
"A Very
Dangerous Doctor"
Panorama swims
with sharks
Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dr David Salisbury
Ooops!
Never Mind Me,
I'm Basil Fawlty!

ONE CLICK RESPONSE
David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown
Psychologist

Poling
Vaccine/Autism Case
Mitochondrial Disfunction
ME/CFS Patients

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Weird World of Wikipedia
By Martin J. Walker

Click here to email us with any thoughts or opinions you wish to share about the website.

 

News Archives 4781-4800
Number Title Post Date
4781 ACLU Counts Four More Secret Records Demands in WikiLeaks Probe 23/05/2011 14:43:02
4782 G8: Protect the Net 23/05/2011 14:46:03
4783 Nominetís 2,650 domain seizures - no legal accountability 23/05/2011 14:48:40
4784 Legal aid to be removed for anyone with £200k home 23/05/2011 14:49:59
4785 Atos Threatens Disabled Group With Legal Action 23/05/2011 14:51:38
4786 Reports Detail More Drug Industry Ties to Medical Societies 23/05/2011 14:57:29
4787 How drug companies' PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research 23/05/2011 14:58:50
4788 Petition to FDA: Withdraw Aricept 23mg Immediately 23/05/2011 15:03:22
4789 India: Pharma Won't Pay Over Clinical Trial Deaths 23/05/2011 15:05:19
4790 Learn more about Lyme disease from award-winning film 24/05/2011 10:58:41
4791 Detroit Mother Fights to Choose Daughterís Medication 24/05/2011 11:00:11
4792 Leeds girl's mystery illness linked to MMR vaccine? 24/05/2011 11:01:15
4793 Rule shielding military doctors from liability faces legal battle 24/05/2011 11:04:30
4794 Adverse reactions lead US patients to ask just how safe are antibiotics? 24/05/2011 11:05:24
4795 Drug regulators accused of risking patient safety by not publishing clinical trial data 24/05/2011 11:06:26
4796 UK government censors YouTube videos 24/05/2011 11:10:02
4797 The Unmaking of Bradley Manning, Part V: 'The White-Haired Dude,' the Chat Logs and the 'New Yorker' Writer 24/05/2011 11:11:13
4798 Tory Politician Lord Taylor Jailed For Expenses Fraud 31/05/2011 14:28:06
4799 TalkTalk and BT to resume legal challenge on UK Digital Economy Act 31/05/2011 14:30:26
4800 Response to deadly BioLab construction in Central London 31/05/2011 14:31:33

[Previous] [Next]

How drug companies' PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research
Share |

20 May 2011

How drug companies' PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research

Elliot Ross reveals the secret 'army of hidden scribes' paid by the drug companies to influence doctors


Doctors turn to medical journals in search of unbiased evaluation of new drugs

When doctors are deciding which drug to prescribe a patient, the idea behind evidence-based medicine is that they inform their thinking by consulting scientific literature. To a great extent, this means relying on medical journals.

The trouble is that pharmaceutical companies, who stand to win or lose large amounts of money depending on the content of journal articles, have taken a firm grip on what gets written about their drugs. That grip was strong way back in 2004, when The Lancet's chief editor Richard Horton lamented that "journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry." It may be even tighter now.

Drug companies exert this hold on knowledge through publication planning agencies, an obscure subsection of the pharmaceutical industry that has ballooned in size in recent years, and is now a key lever in the commercial machinery that gets drugs sold.

The planning companies are paid to implement high-impact publication strategies for specific drugs. They target the most influential academics to act as authors, draft the articles, and ensure that these include clearly-defined branding messages and appear in the most prestigious journals.

Over the past few months I've tried to find out as much about these companies as possible. I wanted to know how big this industry is, exactly how it operates, and how people in the business think about their work. It's a nervous, opaque industry, but I did find answers to some of my questions.

There are now at least 250 different companies engaged in the business of planning clinical publications for the pharmaceutical industry, according to the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals, which said it has over 1000 individual members.

Many firms are based in the UK and the east coast of the United States in traditional "pharma" centres like Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Precise figures are hard to pin down because publication planning is widely dispersed and is only beginning to be recognized as something like a discrete profession. These numbers are higher than any previous estimate, yet in truth the industry is likely to be bigger still.

In selling their services to drug companies, the agencies' explain their work in frank language. Current Medical Directions, a medical communications company based in New York, promises to create "scientific content in support of our clients' messages". A rival firm from Macclesfield, Complete HealthVizion, describes what it does as "a fusion of evidence and inspiration."

Having talked to over a dozen publication planners I found that the standard approach to article preparation is for planners to work hand-in-glove with drug companies to create a first draft. "Key messages" laid out by the drug companies are accommodated to the extent that they can be supported by available data.

Planners combine scientific information about a drug with two kinds of message that help create a "drug narrative". "Environmental" messages are intended to forge the sense of a gap in available medicine within a specific clinical field, while "product" messages show how the new drug meets this need.

But the issue that dominates industry discussions is authorship.

In a flow-chart drawn up by Eric Crown, publications manager at Merck (the company that sold the controversial painkiller Vioxx), the determination of authorship appears as the fourth stage of the article preparation procedure. That is, only after company employees have presented clinical study data, discussed the findings, finalised "tactical plans" and identified where the article should be published.

Perhaps surprisingly to the casual observer, under guidelines tightened up in recent years by the International Committee of Journal Editors (ICMJE), Crown's approach, typical among pharmaceutical companies, does not constitute ghostwriting.

What publication planners understand by the term is precise but it is also quite distinct from the popular interpretation.

"We've never done ghostwriting, per se, as I'd define it", says John Romankiewicz, president of Scientific Therapeutics Information, the New Jersey firm that helped Merck promote Vioxx with a series of positive articles in medical journals. "We may have written a paper, but the people we work with have to have some input and approve it."

The industry has grown despite its prominent involvement in a succession of medical ghostwriting scandals.

In the early 2000s, court documents released through litigation over controversial drugs - such as Vioxx and the hormone replacement therapy Prempro - showed pharmaceutical companies frequently hiring medical communication agencies to ghostwrite articles and place them in influential medical journals under the "authorship" of well-known academics paid thousands of pounds for their endorsement.

The ICMJE tweaks, plus a new willingness to disclose their involvement in the preparation of articles, has fostered a remarkable confidence among industry proponents.

"I feel that we're doing something good for mankind in the long-run," said Kimberly Goldin, head of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP). "We want to influence healthcare in a very positive, scientifically sound way."

"The profession grew out of a marketing umbrella, but has moved under the science umbrella," she said.

But without the window of court documents to show how publication planning is being carried out today, the public simply cannot know if reforms the industry says it has made are genuine.

Dr Leemon McHenry, a medical ethicist at California State University, says nothing has changed. "They've just found more clever ways of concealing their activities. There's a whole army of hidden scribes. It's an epistemological morass where you can't trust anything."

Alastair Matheson is a British medical writer who has worked extensively for medical communication agencies. He dismisses the planners' claims to having reformed as "bullshit".

"The new guidelines work very nicely to permit the current system to continue as it has been", he said. "The whole thing is a big lie. They are promoting a product."

Matheson expects an article he wrote about a new cancer treatment to appear in print later this year, with an oncologist considered a "key opinion leader" (KOL) by planners listed as the author in his stead. "You'd do the same thing if you were selling cornflakes," Matheson told me. "It's no different."

And with the industry business model that is all about facilitating the influence of business over science thriving as it is, it's hard to see when, if ever, we will again see the thick line one likes to imagine there once was between the sale of cornflakes and the analysis of medicine. It has all become rather blurry.

Elliot Ross is a Fulbright scholar currently based at Columbia University

UK Web Hosting by 3DPixel.net Mon, May 23rd, 2011. 02:58 pm