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.”