Reporters, like lemmings, appear to follow each other in odd
directions. Therefore I can only guess that, wanting not to
be
outdone, the WSJ decided to one-up the New York Times's
bizarre
and uninformed article by Lawrence Altman suggesting that
fraud
is almost routine in medical journals.
Of all the parties involved in the Vioxx mess, medical
journals
would seem to have the least blame. Top honors would go to
Merck's aggressive marketing department, the
asleep-at-the-wheel
regulators at the FDA, and authors who did not fully
disclose
negative data. Eric J. Topol wrote a comprehensive review
of the
chronology of events regarding Vioxx (see
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/17/1707).
Note that
this was published in the New England Journal itself, making
it
the only party to have been transparent about its role in
the
fiasco.
Note also that, contrary to the view that medical journals
stood
idly by while the disaster unfolded, JAMA published a clear
warning about the potential cardiotoxicity of Vioxx in
2001--a
full 3 years before the drug was finally withdrawn (see
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract
/286/8/954?ijkey=0c6a7caca768d4d8655a428a05ab3f8da42a55ce&am
p;keytype2=tf_ipsecsha).
Neither FDA nor Merck followed up on JAMA's clear warning.
Nor,
it seems, did the Wall Street Journal or any other major
news
outlet take note of this story and warn its readers.
Many parties are responsible for Vioxx, and to lay blame on
the
New England Journal is reckless and irresponsible, but sadly
all
too predictable in this time of ignorance about medical
publishing.
Peter Banks
Publisher
>>> Michele_Masterson simbanet.com 05/15/06 9:02
PM >>>
I am writing an article an article concerning today's story
in
the WSJ, "Bitter Pill: How the New England Journal
Missed Warning
Signs on Vioxx." I would like to get input/reactions
from STM
societies/publishers as soon as possible. Please feel free
to
e-mail me privately if you do not want your posts stated
publicly. I am deadline, so I would appreciate responses as
soon
as possible, thanks.
The article reports some very troubling news, alleging that
the
"medical weekly waited years to report flaws in
article that
praised pain drug." In a summary, a blog on the Pharma
Marketing
News Web site stated: We were hoodwinked!
http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2006/05/we-were
-hoodwinked.html
michele_mastersonsimbanet.com
Michele Masterson
Editor/Analyst
Simba Information
www.simbanet.com
|