NYTimes Editorial: Biased Medical Journals
In a recent editorial release from the New York Times the reliability of certain medical journals was analyzed and found grotesquely false in many cases, with a couple glaring examples from the Journal of the American Medical Association and Neuropsychopharmacology, a lesser known medical journal. In the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), antidepressant drugs were promoted as extremely beneficial, warning pregnant women that withdrawal from antidepressant medication would significantly increase chances of slipping back into depression. These statements lack foundation when it is taken into consideration that most of the 13 authors involved in the journal had been paid as consultants or lecturers by antidepressant manufacturers. Their financial obligations were left unmentioned in their consultations with JAMA because allegedly they were deemed "irrelevant". With bias in the media, important medical information may be neglected to the public resulting in false representation of a bad product or dangerous procedure.
The same example applied to Neuropsychopharmacology, wherein eight of the nine authors advocating a controversial new treatment to therapy-resistant clinical depression were on the payroll of the company producing the product advertised. The ninth author worked directly for the company. The lead author of the depression study is the journal's editor and a consultant to the product company, holding a history of accusations concerning financially tied product and therapy promotion.
The New York Times editorial argues the fallibility of these journals in both their allowance of such baised authors to promote false standards and in the lack of association between the authors and their employers. The article pushes for journals that promote authors free of conflict for more credible information.
You can find the editorial on conflicted medical journals here, at www.nytimes.com.
If you're looking for more reliable information on health hazards and dangerous drugs, feel free to contact a personal injury attorney specializing in dangerous procedures and pharmaceutical injuries such as Pomerantz, Perlberger and Lewis of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The same example applied to Neuropsychopharmacology, wherein eight of the nine authors advocating a controversial new treatment to therapy-resistant clinical depression were on the payroll of the company producing the product advertised. The ninth author worked directly for the company. The lead author of the depression study is the journal's editor and a consultant to the product company, holding a history of accusations concerning financially tied product and therapy promotion.
The New York Times editorial argues the fallibility of these journals in both their allowance of such baised authors to promote false standards and in the lack of association between the authors and their employers. The article pushes for journals that promote authors free of conflict for more credible information.
You can find the editorial on conflicted medical journals here, at www.nytimes.com.
If you're looking for more reliable information on health hazards and dangerous drugs, feel free to contact a personal injury attorney specializing in dangerous procedures and pharmaceutical injuries such as Pomerantz, Perlberger and Lewis of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
posted by Tara at 7:57 AM
1 Comments:
I took zyprexa starting in 1996 the year the FDA approved it, which was ineffective for my condition and gave me diabetes.
Zyprexa is the product name for Olanzapine,it is Lilly's top selling drug.It was approved by the FDA in 1996 ,an 'atypical' antipsychotic a newer class of drugs without the motor side effects of the older Thorazine.Zyprexa has been linked to causing diabetes and pancreatitis.
Zyprexa, which is used for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, accounted for 32% of Eli Lilly's $14.6 billion revenue last year.
Did you know that Lilly made nearly $3 billion last year on diabetic meds, Actos,Humulin and Byetta?
Yes! They sell a drug that can cause diabetes and then turn a profit on the drugs that treat the condition that they may have caused in the first place!
I was prescribed Zyprexa from 1996 until 2000.
In early 2000 i was shocked to have an A1C test result of 13.9 (normal is 4-6) I have no history of diabetes in my family.
All the psychiatrist I've interviewed and the information on line presents zyprexa as a worse offender than the other Atypicals such as seroquel.My doctor has stopped prescribing zyprexa altogether.
The PDR classifies zyprexa as 'severe' for causing weight gain and diabetes and seroquel as 'moderate'.
Of course the 50 year old Thorazine didn't cause diabetes and is many times cheaper but it could cause tardive dyskinesia.
Where Eli Lilly's negligence comes in,is their KNOWING and not informing consumers (black box warning) until the FDA demanded it.
Lilly's incentive not to readily disclose is they had billion$ coming in from state medicaid scripts.
----
Daniel Haszard http://www.zyprexa-victims.com
Post a Comment
<< Home