Unmasking Special Interest Groups: The Key to Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Medicine
Giovanni A. Fava
There is no abstract to this, I'm afraid.
I've underlined some bits I thought were interesting.
When our journal published the first investigation which gave an idea of the extent and dangerousness of conflict of interest in science , this took place in a stage of massive denial by major medical journals . The issue was whether specific episodes that emerged were the unavoidable drawbacks of a scientific system that functioned in a substantially independent way, or whether they were simply the tip of the iceberg. What iceberg? Corporate interest which results in self-selected academic oligarchies (special interest groups) that influence clinical and scientific information . Members of special interest groups, by virtue of their financial power and close ties with other members of the group, have the task of systematically preventing dissemination of data which may be in conflict with their interests.
I think CBT/GET proponents might fit in such a description
The first target is to undermine the critical individual judgment of the physicians. George Engel  differentiated between ‘scientific physicians’ (clinicians who fully apply the scientific method in their care of patients and in their understanding of the disease) and ‘physician- scientists’ (physicians whose primary commitment is to scientific research pertaining to medicine, with no obligation to be involved with patients). Clinical practice is the source of fundamental scientific challenges for scientific physicians, whereas the application of basic (including pharmaceutical) research is the preferred focus of physician-scientists. The intellectual freedom portrayed by scientific physicians is the worst enemy of special interest groups, and thus requires massive doses of censorship. Censorship may take different forms: direct suppression of information by special interest groups who act as editors and reviewers or make choices in scientific pro- grams, careful selection of the literature in a biased direction and manipulated interpretation of clinical trials (including those supported by public sources), and self-censorship (when an investigator omits raising questions and criticism for the fear of retaliation) .
Other instrumental methods are the substitution of critical reviews with meta-analyses whose data could be easily manipulated by excluding censored (unpublished) studies , the emphasis on clinical guidelines by experts with major conflicts of interest , full control of medical societies, their journals and their meetings , and keeping medical literature as distant as possible from the clinical problems of daily practice.