Scientific medical journals like JAMA fail basic credibility standards; medical journals become increasingly irrelevant]

[Guest guest]

> Monday, November 29, 2004 commentary:

>Scientific medical journals like JAMA fail basic credibility standards;

>medical journals become increasingly irrelevant

>http://www.newstarget.com/001890.html

>

>The Journal of the American Medical Association -- JAMA -- and other

>scientific medical journals have been caught red-handed by the Center

>for Science in the Public Interest for failing to disclose the financial

>relationships between study authors and companies that might benefit

>from such studies. For example, one author of a study published in JAMA

>that conducted research on kidney disease did not disclose that he is a

>consultant paid by Merck, Bristol-Meyers, Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and

>Pfizer, all of which have products that could be marketed to the public

>based on the information presented in the study.

>

>Here's how the con works: the study author receives cash from these

>pharmaceutical companies, gets his study published in a prestigious

>scientific journal, and then the drug companies can state that they are

>basing the marketing of their product on published, peer-reviewed

>scientific facts. The hidden fact in all of this, of course, is that the

>author of the study is on the payroll of these companies and didn't even

>bother to disclose that relationship to the journal. It's good old

>fashioned corruption... but with the stamp of approval from so-called

> " modern science. "

>

>It isn't just this one study, either -- a review of JAMA articles by the

>CSPI revealed that 11.3% of the articles reviewed had non-disclosed

>conflicts of interest. For a journal that claims to be presenting

>scientific truth in a non-biased way that is independent of

>pharmaceutical company influence, that's an alarmingly high number. And,

>of course, it's one of the reasons why these scientific journals are

>increasingly considered to be lacking in scientific credibility today. A

>number of journals were caught in the same study, revealing that this

>failure to disclose conflicts of interest is not merely something that

>happens at the American Medical Association, but something that is

>widespread in the conventional medical community.

>

>None of this comes as a surprise to me, since I've been one of the most

>outspoken critics of scientific journals for many years. Too many of

>these journals are masquerading as stewards of good science -- they

>pretend to show articles that are well-researched, that are authored by

>people who have no financial interest in their publication, and that

>have been put through a rigorous quality control process known as peer

>review. But in fact what you often find in these journals is the

>exclusion of articles that talk about alternative therapies or

>pioneering therapies that compete with pharmaceutical profits. You also

>find a closed network of old school, closed-minded, conventional

>researchers and medical doctors who primarily use the journals to

>protect their own belief systems by only allowing the publication of

>articles that agree with their narrow beliefs. In that regard, it's more

>like a dogma or a religion than a scientific community.

>

>Often, the so-called scientific truth presented by these journals is

>really just a relative truth that has been invented by a circle of

>influential doctors, researchers and journal editors who define

>scientific truth by choosing what to publish (and what to ignore). So,

>it is a rather obvious case of circular reasoning on their side. In

>other words, to put it more plainly, it's true if they say it is, and if

>they reject a paper, then it's not true. Scientific fact is whatever

>they tell you it should be.

>

>But that philosophy stands at odds with true science. True science is

>based on a demonstrated curiosity about the way nature and the universe

>works. A true scientist would look at the relationships between the

>consumption of water and human health and they might ask, " What is the

>role of water in the human body? " Or they might look at plants and

>observe the miraculous nature of how plants are tiny pharmaceutical

>factories that convert vitamins and minerals, sunlight, and carbon

>dioxide into powerful medicinal compounds that can enhance human health.

>True scientists would look at the nature of relationships and how people

>who have more friends and engage in more social activities tend to live

>healthier, longer lives than those who don't. Those are the kinds of

>activities that true scientists pursue, because they are curious about

>the way the world works and how human beings can take advantage of

>natural laws in order to enhance their health and quality of life.

>

>But those aren't the kinds of topics that these so-called conventional

>medical scientists pursue. They pursue topics like, " How do we cure

>cancer with nanotechnology? " or " How do we override the body's immune

>system and interfere with it using toxic chemicals that poison the

>body? " They might say, " How do we take this patented drug that nobody

>else can legally sell, and market it to the entire world by inventing a

>disease, such as social anxiety disorder, and then sell the drug at

>monopoly prices to people while confiscating imported generic versions

>of that drug from another country? " Those are the kinds of activities

>that many of today's conventional scientists, doctors and pharmaceutical

>executives pursue, and it's all one big school of people who are

>essentially serving their own interests while invoking -- in a

>blasphemous way -- so-called " science. "

>

>The bottom line to all of this is that the game is up -- these journals

>are starting to be exposed for their deceit and their lack of

>open-mindedness, as well as their failure to disclose the financial ties

>between authors and pharmaceutical companies that benefit from the

>publication of authors' studies.

>

>And by the way, I almost forgot to mention that most of these scientific

>journals are, in fact, supported by advertising funds from

>pharmaceutical companies. So, you have a direct financial link from

>pharmaceutical companies to these journals, such as the Journal of the

>American Medical Association, and then you have the journals either

>neglecting, or even perhaps suppressing the disclosure of financial ties

>between authors of articles they publish and the very same

>pharmaceutical companies that are writing checks to the journals. I'm

>sure the American Medical Association realizes that publishing JAMA is a

>highly profitable business activity. It generates a lot of money, and

>one has to wonder about the priority of that money when you're standing

>in front of the pharmaceutical executive who's handing you a check for

>$100,000 or $1,000,000 (or some amount that's even larger).

>

>Personally, I don't trust any scientific publication that survives based

>on advertising revenues from pharmaceutical companies. The conflict of

>interest is so obvious as to be utterly ridiculous -- the journals need

>to keep their financial lifelines alive, and that means supporting

>pharmaceutical companies that keep on sending them checks. In that kind

>of system, there is no such thing as credibility. You can't have an

>unbiased publication of any kind if you're dependent on advertising

>revenues paid directly to you by the very same companies you're supposed

>to be covering in the editorial content. These medical journals are,

>effectively, bought out by the financial interests of Big Pharma.

>

>And, by the way, the whole concept of a medical journal is increasingly

>irrelevant these days anyway. Thanks to the internet and the launching

>of an open-source medical journal endeavor, we all have the capacity to

>participate in open databases of clinical studies. We don't need to be

>reading niche journals that are financed by pharmaceutical companies and

>still charge readers hundreds or thousands of dollars a year for access

>to their articles. What we need in this country is open, public access

>to all of the trials and studies that are being conducted, and we need a

>more open-minded, web-based journal system, where pioneering researchers

>and those who are engaged in activities outside conventional medicine

>can get solid, scientific work published, regardless of whether it

>threatens the profits of drug companies.

>

>

>About the author:

>Author Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with over 4,000 hours of

>study on nutrition, wellness, food toxicology and the true causes of

>disease and health. He is well versed on nutritional and lifestyle

>therapies for weight loss and disease prevention / reversal. View Adams'

>health statistics showing LDL cholesterol of 67 and outstanding blood

>chemistry. Adams uses no prescription drugs whatsoever and relies

>exclusively on natural health, nutrition and exercise to achieve optimum

>health. Adams' books include the Seven Laws of Nutrition, The Five Soft

>Drink Monsters and Superfoods For Optimum Health. In his spare time,

>Adams engages in pilates, cycling, strength training, gymnastics and

>comedy improv training. In the technology industry, Adams is president

>and CEO of a well known email marketing software company.

>

>Related Reading:

>

>* Several leading medical and science journals fail to enforce their own

>policies for disclosing financial conflicts of interest among

>contributing authors, according to a study released today by the

>nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

>* It identified at least 13 articles where authors did not disclose

>relevant conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed according

>to the journals' policies.

>* a Procter & Gamble scientist, William Owens, was only identified in

>EHP as an official of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

>Development in an article that validated a toxicity test that would

>likely be used on various P & G products.

>* a National Institutes of Health senior scientist published a study in

>JAMA on predictors of kidney disease, but did not disclose his

>consulting relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb,

>GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer, all of which sell products whose marketing

>could benefit from the insights gleaned from that study.

>* Nondisclosure of financial conflicts of interest was a problem at all

>four journals, but JAMA had the highest rate of nondisclosure of

>conflicts at 11.3 percent (six out of 53 articles).

>* CSPI recommends that journal editors require authors to disclose any

>financial arrangements they have had with private firms within the past

>three years, regardless of whether those arrangements relate to the

>subject of the article, and that the conflicts be published if they are

>in any way related to the article's subject.

>* CSPI also says that authors should be required to disclose any patent

>applications, or intentions to apply for any patents.

>* " Some of the blame for the failure to disclose these conflicts rests

>with the individual scientists, who clearly feel comfortable withholding

>fairly glaring conflicts, " Goozner said.

>

>

>==========================================

>Source: http://cspinet.org/new/200407123.html

>Report Faults Scientific Journals on Financial Disclosure

>**

>July 12, 2004

>

>CSPI Says Authors Fail to Disclose Financial Conflicts of Interest;

>Journals Fail to Enforce Disclosure Policies

>

>Several leading medical and science journals fail to enforce their own

>policies for disclosing financial conflicts of interest among

>contributing authors, according to a study released today by the

>nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). The study

>examined 163 articles in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the

>Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Environmental Health

>Perspectives (EHP), and Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (TAP). It

>identified at least 13 articles where authors did not disclose relevant

>conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed according to the

>journals’ policies. CSPI found another 11 articles where there were

>undisclosed conflicts of interest that might not have directly related

>to the subject at hand, but should have been disclosed nevertheless.

>

>Some of the unpublished conflicts of interest include:

>

>* a University of Arkansas College of Medicine professor, Dr. John

>Shaughnessy, published a NEJM article outlining the potential efficacy

>of a treatment for multiple myeloma, but did not disclose that he

>intended to apply for a patent on the underlying technology. He also

>failed to disclose that he is a paid consultant for drug companies

>developing vaccines for the condition.

>

>* a Procter & Gamble scientist, William Owens, was only identified in

>EHP as an official of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

>Development in an article that validated a toxicity test that would

>likely be used on various P & G products. There was no disclosure of

>Owens’ employment with Procter & Gamble in this article, even though it

>was known to EHP editors.

>

>* two scientists at the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Frank

>D. Kolodgie and Renu Virmani, published an article in NEJM about the

>formation of plaque in coronary arteries, but did not disclose their

>consulting relationships with over 20 companies in the heart disease

>treatment field, including Medtronic, Guidant, Boston Scientific, and

>Novartis.

>

>* a National Institutes of Health senior scientist published a study in

>JAMA on predictors of kidney disease, but did not disclose his

>consulting relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb,

>GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer, all of which sell products whose marketing

>could benefit from the insights gleaned from that study.

>

>“Published research that fails to disclose authors’ ties to drug

>companies threatens the credibility of scientific journals and rightly

>undermines public confidence in studies about the safety or efficacy of

>various drugs or chemicals,” said Merrill Goozner, director of the

>Integrity in Science Project at CSPI and the author of the study.

>

>Nondisclosure of financial conflicts of interest was a problem at all

>four journals, but JAMA had the highest rate of nondisclosure of

>conflicts at 11.3 percent (six out of 53 articles). The undisclosed

>conflicts in JAMA ranged from consulting fees from companies immediately

>involved in the subject of the study to authors holding patents on

>technologies that may one day prove valuable because of information

>contained in the study. EHP had a nondisclosure rate of 8.6 percent

>(three of 35 articles), TAP had a nondisclosure rate of 6.1 percent (two

>of 33 articles), and NEJM had the lowest rate of nondisclosure at 4.8

>percent (two of 42 studies examined). CSPI typically researched only the

>first and last of the authors cited for each article, and only when no

>disclosure statement was published for either author, so there are

>likely to be undisclosed conflicts among the other authors not researched.

>

>CSPI recommends that journal editors require authors to disclose any

>financial arrangements they have had with private firms within the past

>three years, regardless of whether those arrangements relate to the

>subject of the article, and that the conflicts be published if they are

>in any way related to the article’s subject. CSPI also says that authors

>should be required to disclose any patent applications, or intentions to

>apply for any patents. To encourage authors to comply with journals’

>policies, CSPI also recommends that editors adopt strong sanctions for

>failing to disclose conflicts of interest, such as a three-year ban on

>publication imposed on authors who fail to make complete disclosures.

>

>“Some of the blame for the failure to disclose these conflicts rests

>with the individual scientists, who clearly feel comfortable withholding

>fairly glaring conflicts,” Goozner said. “But much of the blame must

>rest with the journal editors themselves, who, for the most part, have

>created disclosure policies that too narrowly define what conflicts are

>relevant.”

>

>