BMJ Front page pill pushers/Drug companies face the music

[Guest guest]

" Zeus " <info

BMJ Front page pill pushers/Drug companies face the music

Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:08:09 +0100

 

 

 

 

BMJ

 

BMJ 2005;331:410 (13 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7513.410

reviews

Press

 

Front page pill pushers

How the media are complicit in drug marketing

 

The lay media have long come under attack for not adequately

scrutinising the information emerging from Big Pharma about new

prescription drugs, but now they stand accused of helping to publicise

and promote drug company products. In a hardhitting article in the

current issue of the prestigious US periodical the Columbia Journalism

Review, the press is criticised, in its coverage of drug industry

matters, for failing as a public watchdog. " Americans have always been

obsessed with all things health-related, " says the article, " but today

a drug can move almost instantaneously from medical research to

miracle cure through news media that too often seem more interested in

hype and hope than in critically appraising new drugs on behalf of the

public " (www.cjr.org/issues/2005/4/lieberman.asp).

 

The article's author, Trudy Lieberman, who is health policy editor of

US watchdog organisation Consumers Union, blames various factors. In

short, she says, journalists all too often fail to:

 

* find information sources and case studies other than those

offered by drug companies and their public relations people

* disclose the financial or other interests of those they quote

* seek out and evaluate research data.

 

Other factors exacerbate the situation, she says: there is the

increasingly sophisticated way that drug companies hide aggressive

marketing activities; there is the growth in direct to consumer

advertising leading to conflict between advertising and editorial in

media organisations; and there is the hard to break culture of

newsrooms in which simplistic black and white stories are seen as so

much sexier than reports painted in more realistic shades of grey. Ms

Lieberman also points a finger at the US Food and Drug Administration

and its " somewhat cozy relationship with the companies it regulates, "

which sees those reporters asking tough questions being " frozen out. "

 

Overall, she says, such a mix finds the press caught up in a drug

industry marketing web that leaves the public without a reliable watchdog.

 

Ms Lieberman—whose article analyses coverage of various drugs that

have since been withdrawn, such as rofecoxib (Vioxx)—is writing about

the United States, but the scenario she outlines is recognised all too

clearly by Dr Ike Iheanacho, editor of the UK based Drug and

Therapeutics Bulletin. " These themes of how the drug industry

interacts with the public involving the media are universal and

perennial, " he says.

 

Dr Iheanacho points to the standard health reporting formula: " There's

a `break-through,' an interview or quotes from somebody who has

benefited, and maybe a quote from the manufacturer. You don't get a

sense of balance, that there might be side effects, or that the drug

might not even be available for a few years. " He adds: " It takes time

to be truly critical. Either you have to look at the studies yourself

or talk to someone or several people in detail. Having done all that

you may end up with a very confused picture and that doesn't make easy

journalism. "

 

Indeed, for journalists not content to settle for " easy journalism, "

reporting can be more than just time consuming. Jo Revill, health

editor of the UK Sunday broadsheet the Observer, believes that UK

journalists do at least display a greater scepticism toward the drug

industry than their US counterparts—but you need more than scepticism

to cover the health beat critically and effectively. The big drug

companies, she says, are reluctant to talk to journalists outside of

the trade press, and while invitations to press conferences about drug

launches are forthcoming, " when you want to ask more detailed

questions about a drug it can be really difficult getting information.

The PRs won't deal with these questions and people in-house don't want

to deal with you either. "

 

On the other hand, when drug companies are keen to speak to

journalists, they can be incredibly forthcoming—from offering trips

abroad to attend launches to paying " honorariums " to attend evening

" think tanks. "

 

According to Dr Iheanacho, however, there are glimmers of hope for a

better informed public. There are growing demands for clinical trial

information to be made public and patients are exhibiting a new

enthusiasm for asking questions about their health care. In addition,

uncritical reporting often has a fixed lifespan: as in the case of

Vioxx, today's miracle cure can turn out to be tomorrow's disaster.

" The public will become more sceptical, " he says.

 

Naomi Marks, freelance journalist

 

Brighton NSMarks{at}aol.com

 

 

PubMed

Articles by Marks, N.

_________

 

 

 

 

 

Drug companies face the music

 

How do you get people to tune in to the tricks of pharmaceutical

marketing? A US band, the country/bluegrass satirists the Austin

Lounge Lizards, has decided that one approach is to write and record a

song about it.

 

The group has collaborated with US watchdog body Consumers Union—New

York based publishers of the reputable Consumer Reports—to come up

with the song " The Drugs I Need, " which tells the story of the fake

drug Progenitorivox, made by the fake company SquabbMerlCo, for a fake

" strange " disease. Though entirely farcical, the song is part of

Consumers Union's serious Prescription for Change campaign, which aims

to provide consumers with safe, effective, and affordable drugs, while

making them aware of ongoing political-pharmaceutical movements. The

campaign is calling for increased drug safety laws and accountability.

 

 

Hoping to strike a chord with patients

 

" The Drugs I Need " takes a tongue in cheek look at drug advertising.

It chronicles the marketing process and how a consumer might view and

be influenced by an advertisement. The song's chorus is a satire on US

drug advertisements' list of side effects: " It may cause deprivation,

humiliation, debtors' prison and deportation/Dark depictions, dire

predictions, life as seen in Dickens' fiction. "

 

The voice-over end credits imitate the rapid strings of warnings

following adverts: " Any resemblance to actual drugs, living or dead,

is purely coincidental. Any unauthorised use of your own judgment in

the application of Progenitorivox is strictly prohibited.

Progenitorivox may not be reproduced without the express written

consent of Major League Baseball. "

 

The video to the song, produced by the Animation Farm, depicts sad,

sickly characters experiencing awful side effects, and a happy pink

pill dancing across a psychodelic sun filled backdrop.

 

The song and video are available on line at www.prescriptionforchange.org

 

Allison Barrett, second year medical student

 

 

 

Boston University School of Medicine, and BMJ Clegg scholar

abarrett{at}bmj.com

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com