In the immortal words of Richard W. Smith, longtime editor of the British Medical Journal, "Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies” (PLoS Med, 2005).
It’s a pity that he kept that information to himself during the 25 years he worked for the journal, only letting the cat out of the bag after he was out the door. Chris ….. Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 43.773897°, -79.503667° [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo ………………………………... On Sep 17, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > In 2001 the "Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent > Psychiatry" published a research study on the treatment of depression > in adolescents, randomized control trial (RCT) which had groups > that received paroxetine, imipramine, or placebo -- this study > is also known as "Study 329". In that article it was claimed that > paroxetine was effective and safe to use with adolescents. At that > time there were those who questioned the research design and > the results but the marketing of paroxetine (by the company now > known as GlaxoSmithKline or GSK) made it widely used. > > Critics of the Study 329 were able to get the original data and > documents and they completed and published a re-analysis of > the data which was just published in the British Medical Journal > or BMJ. The main conclusion: one the primary measure of > depression, the three groups did not differ after 8 weeks of > treatment (i.e., paroxetine vs imipramine vs placebo). No > effect at all. However, the paroxetine group showed increased > suicidal ideation and behavior while the imipramine group showed > cardiovascular problems. As you might imagine, all hell has > broken loose as a result. The popular media has picked up > on this story and one source is (you guessed it) the New York > Times; see: > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/health/antidepressant-paxil-is-unsafe-for-teenagers-new-analysis-says.html?_r=0 > > The re-analysis is available on the BMJ website; see: > http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4320 > > The BMJ also has an editorial that highlights some of the research > and ethical problems associated with the research and those > who were involved in the origin study; see: > http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4629 > > The title of the editorial is: > No correction, no retraction, no apology, no comment: paroxetine > trial reanalysis raises questions about institutional responsibility > > I think this study beats Milgram and Zimbardo in the unethical department. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > P.S. I find the following sentence from the editorial both frightening > and hilarious: > > |The first draft of the manuscript ultimately published in the > |Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent > |Psychiatry (JAACAP) was not written by any of the 22 named > |authors but by an outside medical writer hired by GSK. . > > There were 22 authors and the paper was originally written > by a medical writer who probably didn't even get an authorship > credit. > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=46811 > or send a blank email to > leave-46811-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=46813 or send a blank email to leave-46813-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
