Who Checks Facts Anymore?

Over 4 years ago, a New York Times editorial lovingly endorsed an opinion piece published by JAMA (HERE) decrying medical product promotion to physicians working in academic health centers.  The authors of the critical JAMA piece relied on one previously published literature review (HERE) which they alleged had found “overwhelming negative effects on clinical care” resulting from the pharmaceutical industry’s interactions with physicians. Remarkably, the cited review article explicitly stated that none of the studies reviewed had even attempted to measure the impact of interactions on clinical care. This is major misinterpretation of published research. Yet the authors have not corrected their error, nor has the New York Times called for their doing so. 

And the Times has done it again in an editorial entitled “Cleaning up medical advice.” (May 1, 2010). Some of the same authors from the original falsified JAMA article, defined uncritically by the editorial as “experts” (a topic for another post), had published a follow up piece in the same journal (HERE), extending their complaints to medical product industry’s financial support of medial professional organizations.  They recommended markedly reducing and eventually eliminating commercial support of such societies.  The Times provides a megaphone to tout the recommendation of these “experts” based on the theoretical contention that commercial support of medical education results in inappropriately biased information.  This conjecture has been proven false.  Four studies published HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE in the past year surveying hundreds of thousands of physicians participating in education events reported strikingly low perceptions of bias due to commercial sponsorship. 

And more importantly, the “experts” downplay, and the Times totally ignored, the positive and indeed necessary contribution industry funding makes to the educational activities of professional societies.  They fixate on the false idea that the interests of physicians and of the companies that provide them with powerful tools are not closely aligned – to promote longevity, reduce pain and improve quality of life. 

The Times should not accept as fact, conjectural opinions. The evidence is out there. The Times should check the facts before giving advice to the nation’s medical societies ... maybe it's the Times that needs to “clean up” its advice?