It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

JAMA refuses to exclude authors who hide financial ties to drug companies

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

www.newstarget.com...
(NewsTarget) The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) said today that it would not ban authors who fail to disclose financial ties to drug companies, because such an action might bring antitrust lawsuits.

Catherine DeAngelis, editor-in-chief of JAMA, says after speaking with lawyers, she and other medical journal editors have decided not to risk being sued by pharmaceutical companies for antitrust by banning authors with financial conflicts of interest.

DeAngelis rejected calls for JAMA to outright ban authors who have not revealed financial links to drug makers, saying that such an action "would only encourage that author to send his or her articles to another journal; it cleans our house by messing others."


Is that a bad thing? If a certain [insert drug baron here]is found to have "financial ties" -- and some of the info in the [insert publication/study here] is found to be false, or overly bias for the pharma company in terms of marketing
, etc why shouldn't there be a antitrust suit filed against those responsible?

'' said today that it would not ban authors who fail to disclose financial ties to drug companies, because such an action might bring antitrust lawsuits." lol, u don't say. don't forget folks, if you've done nothing wrong, you/they have nothing to worry about.[rolls eyes]






[edit on 9-8-2006 by SteveG]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2006-8-11 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
As long as the information in the article is accurate, who cares what the author has financial ties to? There is a bigger problem with test and study results being (excuse the pun) doctored to get a desired result than there is with who some doctor is being paid by. Unless I'm mistaken JAMA is often the basis for "peer review" of findings and that is usually a good thing.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
i agree buddie, as long as the information is accurate of course that is ok but if it is not then surely that would bring about antitrust cases against the company/person in question, which doesnt nessasarily mean the ruling will be in favour of those filing but i think this is the idea always on peoples minds, they worry the information might not be accurate



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
great, would you let car companies do the crash tests? i mean as long as it's accurate... :lol


Does conflict of interest mean anything to you???


[edit on 10-8-2006 by Long Lance]




top topics
 
0

log in

join