The One Click Group

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

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

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

UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

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

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

March 2010

One Click
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

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

New Journalism
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference

How The
Judicial Review
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Vaccines Propaganda
David Salisbury
Public Relations

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

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

David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown

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 4861-4880
Number Title Post Date
4861 USA woman killed by polio vaccine 17/06/2011 11:12:50
4862 How much does Big Pharma pay drug dealer doctors? 17/06/2011 11:16:31
4863 Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research 17/06/2011 11:17:42
4864 N.H. doctors can now treat Lyme disease with long-term antibiotics 20/06/2011 13:34:22
4865 Lyme Disease Bacteria Take Cover in Lymph Nodes 20/06/2011 13:36:38
4866 Doctors refuse to name vaccine (now withdrawn) that allegedly caused child's death 20/06/2011 13:39:13
4867 Manufacturing consent for coercive New Zealand vaccination policy 20/06/2011 13:41:36
4868 San Marcos couple sue county for taking their children 20/06/2011 13:43:03
4869 LulzSec Declares War 20/06/2011 13:47:15
4870 Parents of disabled British children could lose 1,400 in welfare shakeup 20/06/2011 13:48:39
4871 What it's costing British taxpayers to bomb Libya 20/06/2011 13:50:35
4872 This attack on UK legal aid is an attack on justice 22/06/2011 13:45:08
4873 LEAKED: UK copyright lobby holds closed-door meetings with gov't to discuss national Web- censorship regime 22/06/2011 13:46:45
4874 LulzSec denies detested UK census hack 22/06/2011 13:48:11
4875 Criminal charges to proceed against Detroit mom, Risperdal and vaccines 22/06/2011 13:49:30
4876 CSL influenza vaccine investigation 'inadequate' - US Food and Drug Administration 22/06/2011 13:50:43
4877 To vaccinate or not 22/06/2011 13:53:19
4878 The Forty-Year Quagmire: An Exit Strategy for the War on Drugs 22/06/2011 13:54:27
4879 Rebellious Media Conference 23/06/2011 09:34:42
4880 BEWARE: Romas/COIN Classified Intelligence Mass Surveillance 23/06/2011 09:40:45

[Previous] [Next]

Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research
Share |

One Click Note: Thisvis a MUST READ article of the month.

Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research

June 16, 2011

By Dr. Marc-André Gagnon
Dr. Sergio Sismondo
Expert Advisors

OTTAWA, and KINGSTON, ON, June 16, 2011/ Troy Media/ – The medical research world has been concerned about the problem of ghostwriting for more than a decade.

The issue has been repeatedly raised in the mainstream media over the past few years, with most of the commentary focused on the ethics of academics serving as authors on papers they did not write and on some of the most egregious actions by pharmaceutical companies.

But these efforts miss the ways in which Big Pharma has developed new forms of medical research to serve its own interests.

How ghostwriting feeds Big Pharma profits

Big Pharma firms spend twice as much on promotion as on research and development (R&D). But it is worse than that: more and more medical R&D is organized as promotional campaigns to make physicians aware of products. The bulk of the industry’s external funding for research now goes to contract research organizations to produce studies that feed into large numbers of articles submitted to medical journals.

Internal documents from Pfizer, made public in litigation, showed that 85 scientific articles on its antidepressant Zoloft were produced and coordinated by a public relations company. Pfizer itself thus produced a critical mass of the favourable articles placed among the 211 scientific papers on Zoloft in the same period. Internal documents tell similar stories for Merck’s Vioxx, GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil, Astra-Zeneca’s Seroquel, and Wyeth’s hormone-replacement drugs.

To promote the now-notorious Vioxx, Merck organized a ghostwriting campaign that involved some 96 scientific articles. Key ones did not mention the death of some patients during clinical trials. Through a class action lawsuit against Vioxx in Australia, it was discovered that Elsevier had created a fake medical journal for Merck – the Australasian Journal of Joint and Bone Medicine – and perhaps 10 other fake journals for Merck and other Big Pharma companies.

In another example, GlaxoSmithKline organized a ghostwriting program to promote its antidepressant Paxil. According to internal documents made public in 2009, the program was called “Case Study Publication for Peer-Review”, or CASPPER, a playful reference to the “friendly ghost”. Such strategies are not exceptions; they are now the norm in the industry. Most new drugs with blockbuster potential are introduced accompanied by 50, 60, or even 100 medical journal articles. Any firm that refused to play this game in the name of ethics would likely lose market share. Profits in the pharmaceutical industry depend on companies’ capacity to influence medical knowledge and create market share and market niches for their products.

A call for Evidence-Based medicine

In 2008, research showed that pharmaceutical companies systematically failed to publish negative studies on their SSRIs, the Prozac generation of antidepressants. Of 74 clinical trials, 38 produced positive results and 36 did not: 94 per cent of the positive studies were published, but only 23 per cent of the negative ones were, and two-thirds of those were spun to make them look more positive.

Physicians reading the scientific literature got a biased view of the benefits of SSRIs. This helps to explain the huge number of antidepressant prescriptions, in spite of the fact that, according to a meta-analysis in JAMA in January 2010, for 70 per cent of people taking SSRIs, the drug did not bring more benefits than a placebo. Compared to placebo, however, SSRI antidepressants can result in serious adverse drug reactions.

There we see one of the problems with the ghost management of medical research and publication. Pharmaceutical companies want upbeat reports on their drugs. They design, write, and publish studies that are likely to show their drugs in positive lights – and there are myriad ways to do so. Ghosts sometimes bend the truth, and sometimes even commit fraud, with grave results.

Why do academics serve as authors on scientific articles they did not write, using research they did not perform? Because they are rewarded, both by their universities and by their colleagues for how much they publish and for its prominence. Pharmaceutical companies and their agents are very good at placing articles in prestigious journals, and then make them even more prominent by having their armies of sales reps circulate them and talk them up.

Researchers who serve as authors on studies and analyses (perhaps scientifically correct) that are favourable to the industry can expect to see these articles increase their prestige and influence, and possibly even funding.

What happens, however, when a researcher produces studies and analyses (also scientifically correct) showing that some products are dangerous or inefficient, as some did about Vioxx before the scandal broke? Reading Merck’s internal e-mails, revealed during the class lawsuit, it was exposed that the company drew up a hit list of “rogue” researchers who needed to be “discredited” or “neutralized” – “seek them out and destroy them where they live,” reads one e-mail. Eight Stanford researchers say they received threats from Merck after publishing unfavourable results.

Corporate science

In the ghost management of research and publication by drug companies we have a new model of science. This is corporate science, done by many unseen workers, performed for marketing purposes, and drawing its authority from traditional academic science. The high commercial stakes mean that all of the parties connected with this new corporate science can find reasons or be induced to participate, support, and steadily normalize it. It also biases the available science by pushing favourable results and downplaying negative ones – and sometimes through outright fraud.

As long as pharmaceutical companies hold the purse strings of medical research, medical knowledge will serve to market drugs, not to promote health. And as long as universities grovel for more partnerships with these companies, the door will remain wide open to proceed with the corruption of scientific research.

Dr. Marc-André Gagnon is assistant professor with the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University. He is also an expert advisor with, a comprehensive and non-partisan online resource designed to help journalists covering health policy issues in Canada. Dr. Sergio Sismondo is professor of Philosophy and Sociology at Queen’s University. His current research is on the pharmaceutical industry’s relationships with academic medicine and practicing physicians.

UK Web Hosting by Fri, June 17th, 2011. 11:17 am