Phoenix Rising tells QMUL: release the PACE trial data
Mark Berry, Acting CEO of Phoenix Rising, presents the Board of Directors’ open letter to Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) urging them to release the PACE trial data, and hopes that other non-UK organisations will join British charities in the same request...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Snow Leopard, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,611
    Likes:
    12,421
    South Australia
    Has anyone read this? An essay by a former BMJ editor:
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

    Some of the comments discuss some of the conflicts of interest in medicinal research in general - eg sponsor of research bias, information on trials should be published before the trial is conducted to avoid selectively publishing only successful trials etc.
     
  2. revita

    revita [banned as spam]

    Messages:
    2
    Likes:
    0
    This is just my first time to read that article. And from what I've learn and noticed to it. Some of the comments really have points. But still it is a great article.
     
  3. *GG*

    *GG* Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes:
    4,693
    Concord, NH
    Mike Adams on Natural News is always saying this. FYI

    He said he thinks PlosOne is the best because they do not do advertisement for Pharmaceuticals.

    GG
     
  4. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,459
    Just because PlosOne doesn't advertise for Pharmaceuticals, it doesn't follow that th

    Yeah, now if they could only get good peer reviewers who could distinguish researcher failure and researcher bias (including sponsor-bias) from real research. The politics might be better at PlosOne, but the science isn't (necessarily). Pharmaceutical companies can get all kinds of biased info into PlosOne if they want to. The "research" just has to sound more-or-less okay to some reviewer whose knowledge set is somewhere on the same planet as the research topic. That doesn't mean that all the research published in PlosOne is bad; it just means that it's a monstrous buyer beware situation. The reviewer may not know any more about the topic than you do, AND has to do the review in a hurry. I suspect there's a lot of biased info published in PlosOne. It's pitifully easy to get published in PlosOne, so why wouldn't pharmaceutical companies be funding quick and dirty research to publish there? I wouldn't trust any research about the efficacy of any pharmaceutical published in PlosOne.

    PlosOne has its place, but it's not in high-level cutting edge research.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page