 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008Study finds medical journals with heavy pharma ads more likely to degrade supplements and alternative medicine
A study published in the online journal "BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine" in April has found that there may be a correlation between the amount of pharmaceutical advertising that a medical journal contains and its editorial content concerning dietary supplements. My belief is that this study clearly shows how the dietary supplement and alternative healthcare industries are pushed aside in favor of large corporate advertising budgets. For the study, researchers recorded instances of pharmaceutical advertisements (including ads for prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, and drug-eluting stents) and dietary supplement editorial content in all issues published within a 1-year time span of 11 major medical journals. The 11 selected journals focus on general medicine, internal medicine or pediatrics, and issues spanned from June 2006 through June 2007. According to the authors’ results, the average number of pharmaceutical ads varied from less than a page to over 60 pages per issue, and the amount of dietary supplement editorial content ranged from 4 to 61 instances per journal. The journals with the most pharmaceutical ads published fewer major articles about dietary supplements (i.e., original research, editorials, reviews) per issue than journals with a medium level of such ads. Journals with the fewest pharmaceutical ads published the most major dietary supplement articles. Here's the kicker . . . Journals with the most pharmaceutical advertising were also significantly more likely to publish major articles concluding that dietary supplements were unsafe than journals with a medium or low level of pharmaceutical advertising. The study’s results were consistent with the authors’ hypothesis that pharmaceutical advertising may bias journals against non-drug therapies. Dave Jensen Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/ A study published in the online journal "BMC Complementary and The study’s results were consistent with the authors’ hypothesis that pharmaceutical advertising may bias journals against non-drug therapies. PM But there are plenty of other reasons why popular (and therefore advertisement-attracting) mainstream journals may be biased against CAM products. They don't need to be paid to be so. I am biased against CAM products by the transparent fraud, the delusional science, the inconsistent quality, and the habitually inflated claims, very few of which are ever supported when the products are subjected to quality clinical trials. Those who can only see sinister reasons for any bias against CAM should look to their own biases and blind spots. PM > I am biased against CAM products by the transparent fraud, the delusional > science, the inconsistent quality, and the habitually inflated claims, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PM Uhmm, Moron, I am biased against pharmaceutical products by the obvious fraud, the psuedoscience ( including having bogus papers signed by MDs who never participated in the research), the consistent poor quality, the habitually inflated claims, few to none of which are ever supported when subjected to quality clinical trials ( Vioxx for example ), and the ignoring of the millions of humans harmed and killed by the supposed "medicines." Those who continue to suport and defend big pharma should look in the mirror and see all the sinister reasons for why they have a biase and are blinded to the truth. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. >> I am biased against CAM products by the transparent fraud, the delusional >> science, the inconsistent quality, and the habitually inflated claims, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Uhmm, Moron, Umm, Cretin (that is what the Cee stands for, right?), >I am biased against pharmaceutical products by the obvious fraud, the >psuedoscience ( including having bogus papers signed by MDs who never >participated in the research), the consistent poor quality, the >habitually inflated claims, few to none of which are ever supported >when subjected to quality clinical trials ( Vioxx for example ), Vioxx worked -- as a painkiller. It turned out to have ugly side effects, but it worked as a painkiller. >Those who continue to suport and defend big pharma should look in the >mirror and see all the sinister reasons for why they have a biase and >are blinded to the truth. What are your reasons for being biased and blinded to the truth? Just curious. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > Vioxx worked -- as a painkiller. It turned out to have ugly side > effects, but it worked as a painkiller. Oh it WORKED as a painkiller did it...?? See these headlines from http://mustv.com/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5033105 Vioxx: The Downfall of a Drug The Drug Vioxx Corbis Merck Tries to Move Beyond Vioxx Debacle Merck to Ante Up $4.85B for Vioxx Settlements Million-Dollar Setback for Merck in Vioxx Cases Medical Journal Publishes Correction on Vioxx Study Medical Journal Issues Vioxx Study Correction Conflicted Safety Panel Let Vioxx Study Continue Timeline: The Rise and Fall of Vioxx Data: Vioxx Heart Risks Began Earlier than Thought Q&A: Vioxx's Health Risks May 18, 2006 · NPR Health Editor Joe Neel answers questions about the painkiller Vioxx and its health risks. Jury: Vioxx Maker Owes Heart-Attack Victim $9 Million Merck Ordered to Pay $4.5 Million in N.J. Vioxx Case Are you one of those attacking Homeopathy? Perhaps you need to pay more ATTENTION to things you support, first. Citizen Jimserac There are only two kinds of Republicans, Millionaires and people who STILL think taking Vioxx is OK. >> Vioxx worked -- as a painkiller. It turned out to have ugly side >> effects, but it worked as a painkiller. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > See these headlines from > http://mustv.com/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5033105 None of which dispute its effectiveness as an antiinflammatory and painkiller. As noted in the grandparent post, the furor over Vioxx is over the side-effects. Most particularly, over the fact that Merck had, and did not disclose, evidence of the risks from those side-effects. Have you always had this problem with black and white? > Are you one of those attacking Homeopathy? > Perhaps you need to pay more ATTENTION to > things you support, first. By all means show us a homeopathic remedy that's as good an antiinflammatory as vioxx; the relative safety is not in dispute. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >> Vioxx worked -- as a painkiller. It turned out to have ugly side >> effects, but it worked as a painkiller. > >Oh it WORKED as a painkiller did it...?? Sure did. I used it myself at one point and was amazed at how well it worked. Happily, I only took it for two weeks, so I doubt I'll be suffering any cardiac problems from it. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan > A study published in the online journal "BMC Complementary and > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > PM Hi Peter, I have biases, to be sure. But I tried not to reflect those in my blog post today (perhaps paragraph two is the one which shows the most potential bias). Instead, I was reporting on a scientific study of medical journals. I found it interesting that the number of mentions of dietary supplements in a journal was tied in some way to the amount of advertising that pharma companies did in that same magazine. This is just too big of a coincidence. I just returned from the APA (American Psychiatric Association) meeting in Washington, DC, which had 20,000 attendees, primarily MD's. The size of pharma company booths were like basketball courts, while many of the supplement companies were in 10 foot by 10 foot squares, the poor man's booth size. It was interesting to note that despite all the INCREDIBLE giveaways in the pharma booths (laser pens with USB chips in them, first aid kits, etc) some of the small companies had huge attendance because there seemed to be a growing trend among psychiatrists at least to consider an integrative approach. Several of the meeting topic presenters were discussing yoga, mind/body exercises, herbs like Rhodiola, etc. I think there is room for both. What disturbs me is when medical journals think they need to side one way or the other. I hope that isn't always the case, Dave > I have biases, to be sure. But I tried not to reflect those in my blog > post today (perhaps paragraph two is the one which shows the most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of advertising that pharma companies did in that same magazine. This > is just too big of a coincidence. I'd be utterly floored if it were otherwise. You're a supplement vendor. Where are you going to see the most bang for your advertising buck: in the "Journal of Colon Cleansing and Nutritional Medicine" or the "New England Journal of Medicine?" Likewise, you're a pharmaceutical vendor. Where are *you* going to expect the most bang for your advertising buck of the same two journals? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > "Dave" <djense...@cox.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > PM Hi Peter, I have biases, to be sure. But I tried not to reflect those in my blog post today (perhaps paragraph two is the one which shows the most potential bias). Instead, I was reporting on a scientific study of medical journals. I found it interesting that the number of mentions of dietary supplements in a journal was tied in some way to the amount of advertising that pharma companies did in that same magazine. This is just too big of a coincidence. PM I am sure it is not coincidence. But you seem to assuming that you are demonstrating some sort of undue influence of advertisers upon the content of medical journals, when there are far more plausible explanations for what you observe. Important articles on supplements may merely be far too few and far between to get published in top-notch medical journals. I am sure that advertsisers are mainly interested in the circulation of the journals and also the kind of doctor who reads them. You would thus find a lot of surgical devices advertised in surgical journals and virtually no articles on alternative medicine. PM I just returned from the APA (American Psychiatric Association) meeting in Washington, DC, which had 20,000 attendees, primarily MD's. The size of pharma company booths were like basketball courts, while many of the supplement companies were in 10 foot by 10 foot squares, the poor man's booth size. It was interesting to note that despite all the INCREDIBLE giveaways in the pharma booths (laser pens with USB chips in them, first aid kits, etc) some of the small companies had huge attendance because there seemed to be a growing trend among psychiatrists at least to consider an integrative approach. Several of the meeting topic presenters were discussing yoga, mind/body exercises, herbs like Rhodiola, etc. I think there is room for both. What disturbs me is when medical journals think they need to side one way or the other. I hope that isn't always the case, Dave > A study published in the online journal "BMC Complementary and A study published in the online journal "BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine" in April has found that there may be a correlation between the amount of pharmaceutical advertising that a medical journal contains and its editorial content concerning dietary supplements. My belief is that this study clearly shows how the dietary supplement and alternative healthcare industries are pushed aside in favor of large corporate advertising budgets. For the study, researchers recorded instances of pharmaceutical advertisements (including ads for prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications, and drug-eluting stents) and dietary supplement editorial content in all issues published within a 1-year time span of 11 major medical journals. The 11 selected journals focus on general medicine, internal medicine or pediatrics, and issues spanned from June 2006 through June 2007. According to the authors’ results, the average number of pharmaceutical ads varied from less than a page to over 60 pages per issue, and the amount of dietary supplement editorial content ranged from 4 to 61 instances per journal. The journals with the most pharmaceutical ads published fewer major articles about dietary supplements (i.e., original research, editorials, reviews) per issue than journals with a medium level of such ads. Journals with the fewest pharmaceutical ads published the most major dietary supplement articles. Here's the kicker . . . Journals with the most pharmaceutical advertising were also significantly more likely to publish major articles concluding that dietary supplements were unsafe than journals with a medium or low level of pharmaceutical advertising. The study’s results were consistent with the authors’ hypothesis that pharmaceutical advertising may bias journals against non-drug therapies. Dave Jensen Full text article above extracted from http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/ > The study’s results were consistent with the authors’ hypothesis that > pharmaceutical advertising may bias journals against non-drug [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > PM But--overlooks the fraud within organized and conventional medicine. Per example--Dr Wilson can KILL and it is A OK with Peter Moran who could see no cover-ups, no *deliberate and repeated*wrong doings. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.