Guest guest Posted June 26, 2002 Report Share Posted June 26, 2002 I know this is a bit off subject since it's not directly related to food, but it is in a sense what keeps many Americans away from becoming educated on proper health and nutrition. They just continue to trust their Dr.s who are also getting paid off by the drug co's. Regina New England Journal Changes Rules and Says Its OK to Payoff Its Reviewers E-mail to a friend Editors at The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals in America, announced on June 12 a change in journal policy that would allow experts to comment on the effectiveness of a drug or device, even when that expert has a financial tie to the maker of the product under review. The move could leave the journal open to criticism that drug companies and other private entities could wield more influence in the publication process. The new rules do not apply to " original articles " -- articles presenting new data on the causes or treatments of various conditions. In those cases, the journal discloses the study's funding and the financial interests of the researchers, and that won't change. But they are changing rules applying to " review articles, " where noted experts in a particular field provide commentary on new study findings, and editorials, in which experts are asked to comment on new findings. The policy has now been changed to read that the authors of these types of articles will not have any " significant " monetary ties to private companies that might stand to gain from a review article in the Journal. And the editors base their definition of " significant financial interest " on guidelines issued by the US National Institutes of Health and the Association of American Medical Colleges, which set the amount at $10,000 or more in any given year. The New England Journal of Medicine 2002;346:1901-1902 -- DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: E-mail to a friend Just terrific. The entire June 5, 2002 issue of JAMA was on the major conflict of interest with the peer review system and the next week we find that NEJM decides to loosen its grip on the conflict of interest in the journal. Of course, this is all for our benefit. Seems that they just couldn't find any expert who was not being paid off by the drug companies. So rather than addressing the real problem, the drug companies influence on physician behavior, NEJM just capitulates and says we will now change the rules, it is just fine for someone to be paid off by the drug companies as long as they don't give them more than $10,000. Makes perfect sense (at least from the drug company's perspective). To me this should be a headline story in the major periodicals, but it never made it to major media. This would not have happened under the former editor of the journal, Marcia Angell, MD. You can find links to her brilliant editorials from two years ago below. Related Articles: Peer Review System For Journals Can Get You Into Trouble The Pharmaceutical Industry -- To Whom Is It Accountable Medical Journals Aim to Curtail Drug Companies' Influence - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2002 Report Share Posted June 26, 2002 Regina Let the journalists eat, even SAD, if they want. If they write bunk, it will be spotted. In this forum we know that " going raw " has been compared with changing religion, but I hazard that with each passing day that similarity is reduced. Faith is mystical and without the element of doubt, it is moribund. Raw foodism is a practice which makes increasing sense as each myth is exploded. That surely is what this form is for! Peter Regina DeLuca [regdeluca] mercredi 26 juin 2002 18:52 rawfood [Raw Food] Some Education I know this is a bit off subject since it's not directly related to food, but it is in a sense what keeps many Americans away from becoming educated on proper health and nutrition. They just continue to trust their Dr.s who are also getting paid off by the drug co's. Regina New England Journal Changes Rules and Says Its OK to Payoff Its Reviewers E-mail to a friend Editors at The New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals in America, announced on June 12 a change in journal policy that would allow experts to comment on the effectiveness of a drug or device, even when that expert has a financial tie to the maker of the product under review. The move could leave the journal open to criticism that drug companies and other private entities could wield more influence in the publication process. The new rules do not apply to " original articles " -- articles presenting new data on the causes or treatments of various conditions. In those cases, the journal discloses the study's funding and the financial interests of the researchers, and that won't change. But they are changing rules applying to " review articles, " where noted experts in a particular field provide commentary on new study findings, and editorials, in which experts are asked to comment on new findings. The policy has now been changed to read that the authors of these types of articles will not have any " significant " monetary ties to private companies that might stand to gain from a review article in the Journal. And the editors base their definition of " significant financial interest " on guidelines issued by the US National Institutes of Health and the Association of American Medical Colleges, which set the amount at $10,000 or more in any given year. The New England Journal of Medicine 2002;346:1901-1902 ------ -------- DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: E-mail to a friend Just terrific. The entire June 5, 2002 issue of JAMA was on the major conflict of interest with the peer review system and the next week we find that NEJM decides to loosen its grip on the conflict of interest in the journal. Of course, this is all for our benefit. Seems that they just couldn't find any expert who was not being paid off by the drug companies. So rather than addressing the real problem, the drug companies influence on physician behavior, NEJM just capitulates and says we will now change the rules, it is just fine for someone to be paid off by the drug companies as long as they don't give them more than $10,000. Makes perfect sense (at least from the drug company's perspective). To me this should be a headline story in the major periodicals, but it never made it to major media. This would not have happened under the former editor of the journal, Marcia Angell, MD. You can find links to her brilliant editorials from two years ago below. Related Articles: Peer Review System For Journals Can Get You Into Trouble The Pharmaceutical Industry -- To Whom Is It Accountable Medical Journals Aim to Curtail Drug Companies' Influence - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.