|
Home > Archive > Hepatitis disease > August 2006 > Drug companies
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Alan Veloceraptor 2006-08-17, 9:27 pm |
| From http://www.scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/Alan
Why pharmaceutical companies need to be prevented from researching clinical aspects of their own drugs The past month has seen a spate of erudite articles in medical journals explaining why pharmaceutical companies should no longer be allowe
d to control and conduct research looking at the efficacy and clinical use of their own drugs.
Here are a few publicly available ones.
Review of Pfizer internal documents relating to manipulation of science and the perception of science Annals of Internal Medicine, August 2006
Evidence of an industry out of control Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, August 2006
From optimism to disillusionProfessor Sir Ian Chalmers, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, July 2006
Can We Tame the Monster? "Drug companies should not be allowed to evaluate their own products." Godley, Editor of the British Medical Journal, July 2006
Bearing in mind that medical journals usually bend at the first sign of a potential legal raised eyebrow from their corporate masters, are we seeing the start of a sea-change, or yet more fine words?
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/4/284
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/4/374
http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/0607JRSM.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/333/7558/0-f
Procter research shenanigans 4: Befriending the red herring Pharmaceutical companies stand accused of overturning the usual safeguards of science. The accountability of authors is the most fundamental of these safeguards. Readers of legitima
te science expect that the stated authors are the authors, that authors vouch for the work, and that authors would be able to defend their findings if challenged. They expect that authors would be able to provide underlying raw data.
This posting addresses only one of the many intriguing excuses provided by Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals to justify refusal to supply randomization codes and raw data underlying ghostwritten material (statistical reports, meeting abstracts, two draft
publications) to me as first author and also to the first author of a previous publication based on a subset of the same data (Eastell et al., 2003 J. Bone. Miner. Res. 18:1051-6). The real reason was far more obvious. The backstory is here and here.
This excuse (see correspondence here) was that they :
"use the approach described in PhRMA guidelines and that in these guidelines there is not access to the data (other than those from your center) for investigators".
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
| |
|
| Ohhh bubba.......we missed ye! doogie sniff sob blubber
"Alan Veloceraptor" <aveloceraptor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:20060817113111.62079.qmail@web27111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com...
From http://www.scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/
Alan
Why pharmaceutical companies need to be prevented from researching clinical aspects of their own drugs
The past month has seen a spate of erudite articles in medical journals explaining why pharmaceutical companies should no longer be allowed to control and conduct research looking at the efficacy and clinical use of their own drugs.
Here are a few publicly available ones.
Review of Pfizer internal documents relating to manipulation of science and the perception of science Annals of Internal Medicine, August 2006
Evidence of an industry out of control Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, August 2006
From optimism to disillusionProfessor Sir Ian Chalmers, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, July 2006
Can We Tame the Monster? "Drug companies should not be allowed to evaluate their own products." Godley, Editor of the British Medical Journal, July 2006
Bearing in mind that medical journals usually bend at the first sign of a potential legal raised eyebrow from their corporate masters, are we seeing the start of a sea-change, or yet more fine words?
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/145/4/284
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/4/374
http://www.rsmpress.co.uk/0607JRSM.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/333/7558/0-f
Procter research shenanigans 4: Befriending the red herring
Pharmaceutical companies stand accused of overturning the usual safeguards of science. The accountability of authors is the most fundamental of these safeguards. Readers of legitimate science expect that the stated authors are the authors, that authors vouch for the work, and that authors would be able to defend their findings if challenged. They expect that authors would be able to provide underlying raw data.
This posting addresses only one of the many intriguing excuses provided by Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals to justify refusal to supply randomization codes and raw data underlying ghostwritten material (statistical reports, meeting abstracts, two draft publications) to me as first author and also to the first author of a previous publication based on a subset of the same data (Eastell et al., 2003 J. Bone. Miner. Res. 18:1051-6). The real reason was far more obvious. The backstory is here and here.
This excuse (see correspondence here) was that they :
"use the approach described in PhRMA guidelines and that in these guidelines there is not access to the data (other than those from your center) for investigators".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
|
| |
|
|