Archive for category Pharmaceuticals

More Falsified Scientific Research – will it never end?

With thanks to the One Click Group 3.4.12

Cancer Research False Claims 29 March 2012

100 Amgen scientists were astonished to find that they were able to replicate the results of only 6 of 53 widely cited landmark cancer research papers. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences heard testimony about the tenfold increase during the last decade, in the number of scientific journal articles that had to be retracted.

But that number may obscure the far greater number of unsupportable published reports in so-called peer reviewed academic journals that are never retracted. A report in NATURE, by Glenn Begley (former head of cancer research at Amgen) and Lee Ellis (surgical oncologist at MD Anderson), Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research describes the effort of 100 Amgen scientists to replicate the results claimed by the authors of 53 widely cited landmark cancer research papers.

The Amgen scientists were astonished to find that they were able to replicate only 6 (11%) of the published conclusions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Forget Murdoch – tell Leveson about the Pharmaceutical Companies subtle control of the media!

With thanks to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting August 2009:

While it should go without saying that correlation is not causation—and MSNBC’s example proves that interlocking directorates are hardly the only factor in media coverage—this study indicates that, at the very least, corporate media and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries’ interests are fundamentally aligned.

Media Corporation Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies
Disney/ABC Proctor & Gamble
GE/NBC Chubb, Novartis, Proctor & Gamble, Merck
Time Warner AIG, Health Cap, Paratek Pharmaceuticals
Fox/News Corp GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Hybritech
New York Times Co. First Health Group, Eli Lilly
Tribune Co. Abbott Labs, Middelbrook Pharmaceuticals
Gannett/USA Today Chubb
Tell Leveson who is really behind this dreadful national scandal …

Scandalous: Scientists and Doctors Falsifying Research Data

With thanks to The One CLick Group and Mike Barrett, Natural Society, March 11, 2012:

Medical doctors are nearly revered by many individuals for their medical knowledge accumulated after years of schooling. These doctors have gone through years of training in what is regarded as the western based medicine philosophy, where drugs and surgery are more or less their specialties. In addition to knowing virtually nothing about nutrition, natural solutions, and how to address the root causes of health conditions, many doctors, as well as scientist, have also been shown to be falsifying data in order to have research published. What’s more, many colleagues of the scandalous individuals are urged to keep quiet about what they know.   Read the rest of this entry »

Pharma Fraud: withheld clinical trial data shows antidepressants no better than dummy pills

With thanks to the One Click Group and What Benefit? Antidepressants & The Placebo Effect By Ed Silverman // February 21st, 2012:

We all know about the placebo effect. But a Harvard Medical School professor has applied the same theory to antidepressants and his findings are likely to rile drugmakers. Why? He filed Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain unpublished clinical trial data and found that, when combining results with published data, the various antidepressants were no better than dummy pills. Read the rest of this entry »

Misconduct pervades UK research according to Financial Times

With thanks to the One Click Group 2.2.12 and the Financial Times‘ Science Editor, Clive Cookson:

The British Medical Journal released the results at a conference in London where experts pushed for stronger action to tackle what they said was a problem being ignored by many universities, hospitals and other scientific institutions. Fiona Godlee, BMJ editor, said the survey showed “that there is a substantial number of cases and that UK institutions are failing to investigate adequately, if at all. “The BMJ has been told of junior academics being advised to keep concerns to themselves to protect their careers, being bullied into not publishing their findings, or having their contracts terminated when they spoke out,” she added. Read the rest of this entry »

Reporting of research: Ghosts in the machine

With thanks to the One Click Group Reporting of research: Ghosts in the machine 31.1.12:

By Peter T Wilmshurst, Consultant Cardiologist, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury SY3 8XQ 31 January 2012

If I tried to make money by deceiving people that a picture that I had painted was the work of some great artist, the law would call it fraud. Yet when pharmaceutical and medical device companies make money by deceiving doctors and patients that their articles were written by medical opinion leaders we call it ghost writing and gift authorship.[1]

This double standard is because this form of financial “fraud” is so prevalent amongst the most influential opinion leaders in the profession and so many journals and organisations profit from it that we have institutionalised this dishonesty in which everyone profits except perhaps the patients who may get inappropriate treatment and potentially those who pay for it – in the UK that is usually the tax-payer. Read the rest of this entry »

One Third of Scientific Researchers could not find the original data to back up figures in scientific papers when these were questioned

With thanks to the One Click Group 30.1.12 ‘Scientific research emperor is marching around buck naked. The British Medical Journal’:

See Research misconduct The emperor is marching around buck naked. BMJ 2012; 344 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e541 (Published 24 January 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e541.

The validity and quality of research underpin the entire research enterprise worldwide. However, a number of studies have shown that many researchers take “shortcuts” and that perhaps 1-3% of research is grossly false, fitting into the category of research misconduct.

Research misconduct has been defined in US federal law as fabrication, plagiarism and/or falsification. Identified cases have been few, often limited to easy-to-identify falsified figures in published papers. Read the rest of this entry »

Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?

With thanks to the Journal of Medical Ethics  Med Ethics doi:10.1136/jme.2011.043133. 17.5.2011. R Grant Steen, President, MediCC, Medical Communications Consultants, LLC, 103 Van Doren Place, Chapel Hill NC 27517, USA; [email protected] 

Abstract: Background Clinical papers so flawed that they are eventually retracted may put patients at risk. Patient risk could arise in a retracted primary study or in any secondary study that draws ideas or inspiration from a primary study. Read the rest of this entry »

Results of medication studies in top medical journals may be misleading to readers

Results of medication studies in top medical journals may be misleading to readers. UCLA-Harvard study highlights 3 types of confusing outcome measures Contact: Enrique Rivero [email protected]= 310-794-2273 University of California – Los Angeles Health Sciences Public release date: 25-Aug-2011

Studies about medications published in the most influential medical journals are frequently designed in a way that yields misleading or confusing results, new research suggests. Investigators from the medical schools at UCLA and Harvard analyzed all the randomized medication trials published in the six highest-impact general medicine journals between June 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2010, to determine the prevalence of three types of outcome measures that make data interpretation difficult. Read the rest of this entry »

Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research

With thanks to The One Click Group 16.6.2011:

By Dr. Marc-André Gagnon and Dr. Sergio Sismondo, Expert Advisors, Dr. Marc-André Gagnon is assistant professor with the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University. He is also an expert advisor with, a comprehensive and non-partisan online resource designed to help journalists covering health policy issues in Canada. Dr. Sergio Sismondo is professor of Philosophy and Sociology at Queen’s University. His current research is on the pharmaceutical industry’s relationships with academic medicine and practising physicians.

OTTAWA, and KINGSTON, ON, June 16, 2011/ Troy Media/ – The medical research world has been concerned about the problem of ghostwriting for more than a decade. The issue has been repeatedly raised in the mainstream media over the past few years, with most of the commentary focused on the ethics of academics serving as authors on papers they did not write and on some of the most egregious actions by pharmaceutical companies. But these efforts miss the ways in which Big Pharma has developed new forms of medical research to serve its own interests. Read the rest of this entry »