More medical ghostwriting

A University of Pennsylvania psychiatry professor is alleging that several colleagues - including his department chair - allowed their names to be added to a medical journal manuscript but gave control of the contents to GlaxoSmithKline. Read article at pharmalot.com

Authors of a new study propose a strict ban on medical ghostwriting

Read article at scientificamerican.com

Suppression and Manipulation of Pharmaceutical Drug Research

One of the blessings of the internet is that one comes across blogposts like this one Health Care Renewal post about the suppression and manipulation of pharmaceutical drug research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower.

I urge you to read this well-supported indictment of venal doctors, a corrupt drug industry and the lack of anything approaching an adequate regulatory authority. – The GMC, of course, is notoriously lenient in its treatment of erring doctors and should be abolished as a waste of time and money and a source of further distress to patients who have already been harmed by members of the medical profession.

A further article about the reprehensible practice of ghostwriters, on the payroll of drug companies, writing articles for medical journals

Documents recently released in federal court cases against the drug company Wyeth have exposed one of the dirty secrets in the world of medical journals: the widespread practice of ghostwriting. While doctors are named as the authors of articles about treatments and diseases, behind the scenes is a paid writer who is largely responsible for crafting the piece. Not only is the ghostwriter on the payroll of a drug company with interests in the topic, the company often reviews the manuscript before the physician sees it.
Read article in the St. Petersburg Times (Florida/USA)

There's an excellent article in the Guardian about a bone expert at Sheffield Uni who faces action over claims of ghostwriting for a US drug company

Excellent Guardian article by Sarah Boseley about a UK doctor (Professor Richard Eastell, a bone expert at Sheffield University) who is facing action over claims of 'ghost writing' for a US drug company. The article is also about the prevalence of ghost-written medical articles in order to profit drug companies.

It's good to see Tim Kendall, joint director of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, speaking out on the matter, and saying that the problem is the close relationship between doctors and the industry.

Extract from the article: "Ghost writing was one manifestation of a bigger problem which he believed was the institutional bias of doctors who work closely with and for drug companies. "In mental health 85% of all published trials are funded by the drug industry," he said. Allowing for the unsuccessful trials the industry does not publish, the figure is probably nearer 95%, he said. Studies have shown that drug company-funded trials are five times more likely to come out with a positive result for the drug than independent trials."

Others criticise the GMC for its leniency towards doctors involved in dubious research practices.

Look at this startling and scandalous fact: A study of 4,000 physicians found that 96% received money from drug companies, and yet "the majority did not see it as a conflict of interest."

Doctors fall over themselves in their eagerness to preen themselves about their scholarly articles being 'peer-reviewed' and therefore worthy of respect not to be accorded to writings by lay people who have studied matters usually thought of as the sphere of the professionals only. - But what respect or even credence should be accorded ghost-written articles based on false data, false claims and false evidence, falsely by-lined by corrupt medics motivated by greed? - My question is rhetorical, of course. No respect whatever should be accorded to these junk articles, written about junk pharmaceuticals, by medics who dishonour their high calling.

Drug Maker Said to Pay Ghostwriters for Journal Articles

Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company, paid ghostwriters to produce medical journal articles favorable to its female hormone replacement therapy Prempro, according to Congressional letters seeking more information about the company’s involvement in medical ghostwriting. At least one article was published even after a federal study found the drug raised the risk of breast cancer.
Read article in the New York Times (USA)