Financial Disclosures Are Inconsistent In Journals
35 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 14th, 2008 // 7:32 am
Researchers are inconsistent about disclosing financial conflicts of interests, and journals are inconsistent in how they use or publish disclosure info, according to a study in PLoS One. And the findings call into question the whole purpose and efficacy of a process intended to preserve integrity and eliminate bias in medical literature, heartwire writes.
“The system of disclosures that we have for the professional literature in medicine is not as extensive as we’d hoped,” Kevin Weinfurt, a Duke University medical school professor and lead author, tells heartwire. “I think people are under the impression that disclosures are more consistent and frequent than they actually are.”
The researchers analyzed studies about stents that were published in 2006, and then compared prevalence, nature, and consistency of financial disclosures. Of 746 papers by 2,985 authors, only 17 percent had a disclosure statement for any author, and only 6 percent of authors had disclosure statements. And in one-third of the studies, no disclosure statement was provided, despite the fact that one or more authors had disclosed conflicts of interest in other papers, heartwire writes.
Weinfurt tells heartwire that it is difficult to determine whether authors intentionally failed to disclose a conflict, whether they were unsure what constituted a “relevant” conflict, or whether journals failed to reques or publish disclosure info.
“Disclosure is sort of like a new drug that’s been proposed to solve a health problem,” Weinfurt tells heartwire. “In the journals, we’re sort of in a situation where people are using this drug very inconsistently and not at the same dose, and very few people are giving the drug. We’re asking the question, how effective is the drug? But the problem is, we’re really not seeing a consistent use of the drug so that we can evaluate whether it’s working or not.”
In their review, the researchers found that the more renowned medical journals - which were defined as journals that endorsed International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines or have a “higher impact factor” - were the most likely to include disclosure info.
According to Weinfurt, an informal Google search found names of authors who had expressly listed “no conflicts,” they found that some were advisory board members or consultants for stent makers or for companies that made drugs used during or after stenting. One person had even founded a company that makes stents, yet had not disclosed that info, heartwire writes.
While some authors may have intentionally withheld info, Weinfurt gives them the benefit of the doubt.
“Investigators may be getting only very vague directions from the journals and doing their best to comply with them, but perhaps not including information that the public might think is appropriate,” he tells heartwire.
“If the journal says, please disclose any relative conflicts of interest, and if my article is evaluating the effectiveness of stents, I sincerely might not believe that the consulting work I do for a major manufacturer of medical interventions would be a conflict. So part of the problem might be a lack of awareness on the part of investigators as to what might constitute a conflict and what might be perceived as a conflict.”
Only 1.3 percent the 623 papers included info on author contributions, something the researchers argue is a valuable corollary to understanding conflicts of interest. “If one purpose of financial disclosures is to allow readers to assess the influence of the financial interests on the overall study, presumably readers would also need to know the role played by the authors with the financial interests,” they write.
Weinfurt said he and his coauthors chose to look specifically at stents, within a one-year period, partly because of the controversies around drug-eluting stents in the past few years and partly because it is a very active area of scholarship, where people “are really looking to the research to figure out what to do,” heartwire writes.
The results of stent research will have a major influence on public health, on the multibillion-dollar stent industry, and on products/strategies that are alternatives to stents, according to Weinfurt. “I think problems with disclosure are across the board, but I think the finances involved with stents and other devices do make them ripe territory for problems with conflicts of interests,” he tells heartwire.
Lilli
To Ed Silverman
Do you have answers concerning the unfavorable conduct of the Research Profession?
Ed Silverman
Hi Lilli,
Generally, I have questions. Perhaps a simple way to address the problem mentioned in this study is to standardize and enforce disclosure rules.
Does this answer your question?
ed
Lilli
Hi E,
Thanks for your quick reply. I thought our government did enforce disclousre rules. What I am really questioning is why are there is so much corruption in the medical and professional industries?
Ed Silverman
Hi Lilli,
I don’t know how to answer your question specifically because I don’t want to generalize or suggest there is a simple answer. But as long as there are humans, there will be instances of corruption. I don’t believe it’s confined to any one group or situation. Just part of the complex human nature.
ed
Lilli
Hi Ed,
I got the answer that I expected you would give.
Lilli
Ed Silverman
Hi Lilli,
Not sure what you mean. Do you expect me to excoriate a group of people do fit a point of view?
ed
Lilli
Ed—This has nothing to do with point of view—Research should not be conducted in the interest of financial interests—but for ethical medical research and care. That is the only answer for this behavior. Is power and money more important than ethical values in our society and culture?
Lilli
Nathan
Lilli,
Question: What behavior are you referring to? The article in question (above) has to do with financial disclosures not being reported consistently. This is hardly a major ethical lapse in itself. There must be some other behavior that you are referring to.
If you want research to be conducted completely independent of financial interest, you’ll have to move to Cuba, North Korea, or maybe Burma. In case you aren’t aware, research is incredibly expensive. The only way people will do research is if there is motive for profit. If you think government supported research is the answer, I want you to look over the current list of currently used cancer drugs. How many of them came from the NIH or NCI?
Lilli
Nathan
Whose interests are you concerned with? Pharmaceuticalls or honest medical research? Do not tell me where to move— just because I voiced my opinion. The following is from The Miami Hearld
Posted on Wed, May. 14, 2008
Doctor in IVAX stock deal has ties to Bush family
By BETH REINHARD
The former President Bush calls him ”Zach,” and the Bush currently in the White House calls him “Zee Zee.”
He has been a repeat guest at the family’s Crawford ranch, the White House and on Air Force One.
And when cardiologist Zachariah Zachariah had the Bushes over for dinner and served the green vegetable notoriously disliked by the former president, apparently no one flinched.
”Bush supporters flock to Zach’s house like migratory birds,” gushed former Gov. Jeb Bush at the dinner in 2004 for his brother’s reelection campaign.
Zachariah’s partisan zeal dating back to Ronald Reagan was the talk of Republican circles Tuesday, one day after he was charged with insider trading of IVAX stock, and in the stock of another company bought by a Boca Raton firm that employed Zachariah as a consultant. He pocketed at least $585,000 between the companies, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleges. Zachariah and his brother, Mammen Zachariah, who also faces SEC charges, were part of an elite circle of GOP fundraisers.
”He was at the top of the finance chart in Florida,” said Fort Lauderdale lobbyist Justin Sayfie, a fellow Bush ”Ranger” for collecting at least $200,000 in 2004. “He was symbolic of the strong affinity that a lot of Florida Republicans felt toward the Bush family.”
No wonder former presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s campaign was elated when Zachariah, 58, agreed to host a fundraiser in October at his waterfront home in Sea Ranch Lakes, just north of Fort Lauderdale. But Thompson’s campaign collapsed, marking Zachariah’s second bad political bet in as many years.
He served as finance co-chairman for Tom Gallagher in the 2006 governor’s race, though he later hosted a $5,000-per-person fundraiser for Charlie Crist — with former President Bush and then-Gov. Bush at his home.
”You try to make your choices based on friendships and knowledge and relationships and philosophy, and sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn’t,” said Fort Lauderdale attorney William Scherer, who also backed Gallagher. “When you’re involved in the process, you learn that there’s winners and losers in every race. Zach was a very formidable fundraiser and very influential.”
BIG MONEY
When he co-chaired the former President Bush’s 1992 fundraising campaign in Florida, Zachariah helped raise $750,000 in individual contributions — more than any other donor on record. He also helped raise millions of dollars for Bob Dole’s failed presidential bid in 1996 and President Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004. The president appointed him to the Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Former Gov. Jeb Bush tapped him for the Board of Governors, which oversees the state’s higher education system. Zachariah also serves on the board of directors for the former governor’s think tank, the Foundation for Florida’s Future, which advocates holding schools accountable for test scores and giving private-school scholarships to students at struggling public schools.
Not only is Zachariah one of the top political fundraisers in Florida, but an Indian-American leader once described him as “the most influential, hardworking, Indian-American Republican recognized all over the United States of America.”
The dinner with the Bush family at Zachariah’s home was described in India West, a California-based weekly newspaper that covers Indian Americans. The president of the Fort Lauderdale Heart Institute is widely credited with cultivating a network of wealthy Indian-American Republicans, mostly doctors like himself, in a community that leans Democratic.
”Some might consider it sheer audacity to invite George H.W. Bush to dinner and serve him broccoli — even a political novice will tell you that the 41st president of the United States hates that much-misunderstood vegetable,” reported the newspaper in 2004.
`DREADED VEGETABLE’
“Bush Sr. was more than tolerant with his host when he joked about the dreaded vegetable on his plate while addressing the 100-odd guests who had paid anywhere between $5,000 to $25,000 each for an indifferent menu consisting of shrimp salad, medium-rare steak and, of course, broccoli. There was a good reason why the patriarch of the American political dynasty was so gracious — the evening netted over a $1 million for his son’s presidential campaign.”
——————————————————————————–
© 2008 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Nathan
Lilly asks: “Whose interests are you concerned with? Pharmaceuticals or honest medical research?”
Both. I support my family and have a lot of fun by performing research in the pharma industry. On the other hand, I also have friends and family with cancer, HPV, depression and other conditions. I hope that my time in the pharma industry will have some small positive effect on human health and the health of my friends and family.
Without the pharma industry money, the research I do would never be done. I love what I do for a living — but I certainly wouldn’t do it for free.
BTW, I really don’t understand why the article you posted has any relevance to the disclosure of financial conflicts in scientific journals.
.
Lilli
Nathan
Politics, Pharmaceuticals,are connected to research—and they are not advocating honest medical care. Doctors will not report errors. I know from experience. Do we have research on preventive care? No, What would happen to the pharceutical companies? Medication has caused many harmful dangerous illnessess that has made many suffer needlessly, while others died unexpectentally from the side effects from doctors not reporting these issues–and prescribing more medicine that complicates the adverse conditions. I know sometimes we need medications—but doctors and pharmaceuticals , reserchers, must tell the truth and report that drugs such as statins have more adverse side effects and are causing more problems, especially for the elderly. YOU KNOW IT ALL ABOUT MONEY! THATS WHY I INCLUDED THE ARTICLE FROM THE MIAMI HEARLD! What happened to NJ State Attorney General, Ann Millgram’s Task Force for Doctors taking Gifts from Pharmaceuticals? She started in September 2007– I contacted her office but never found a report on the task force. I still can’t believe you telling me to go to Cuba. Why don’t you go to the Government Accountability Office and read about the pharmaceuticals, hospitals and the reports of the improvement that is needed in medical and pharmaceutical research.
LILLI
James
Lilli, how do you expect pharmaceutical researchers to pay for their rent and food with the ethical values in our society and culture?
What is the conversion rate from ethical value to monetary value?
Solution
Honest disclosure should be universal. I don’t think that the researchers forgot. The pharmaceutical industry is very good about sponsoring research in the US and on a global scale, but there shouldn’t be any reason to hide anything. I’ve worked in industry for over 10 years. Unfortunately, the commercial people often push to keep the name of the company and its’ employees off of publications. They’re afraid that the public will think it’s tainted in some way. This only serves to hurt researchers in the industry because they don’t get credit for their work. In contrast, many times big name KOLs get their names on when they’ve done very little. If a pharma company either was behind the research, sponsored the research, or supported the author, then it should be out in the open for all to see.
Lilli
James–What does ethical values have to do when paying for rent and and food? Kill people with unethical research is that answer—for wealth? You must be jesting? Pharmaceutical research is it for money or to be a factor for curing medical probelms? Should we build cars, applicances and not car if it harms or kills?
Lilli
James
Lilli, I have a tough time responding to your posts as they don’t seem to be written entirely in English. However, I think your car question may be apt.
People die in cars every day. They are unsafe, especially in the hands of certain drivers. Car makers could equip cars with far more safety features. They could put governors on the motors that cap them at 35 mph of speed. They could build them of heavier metal, make roll cages standard, include five point harnesses, automatic seat belts, paint them highly visible colors, install early warning crash detection radars, and many other features. They don’t, though.
Why? Because it wouldn’t be profitable. Cars would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and only the richest people could afford them. You can’t have a thriving industry that only caters to the wealthiest few, so only small, boutique companies would make them. Thousands of people would be out of jobs, and millions of Americans would have no way to get around.
But automakers want to make a profit. So they build “unsafe” cars.
Now, I realize trying to explain this to you is like talking to a car, and it will do no good. But I thought I would try.
Lilli
I believe as I said before—Pharmolot is a spokesman for the pharmaceutical industry and not for the consumer. Sometimes there are articles that diclose differences in the pharmaceutical industry—but it is not to protect the consumer from the cruel ruthless influence of the BIG PHARMA! PHARMOLOT REMINDS OF ELECTED OFFICALS PROMISE TO THE PEOPLE BUT AFTER ACCEPTING DONATIONS FROM THE BIG PHARMA THEY HAVE TO BE DIRECTED BY THE DISHONESTY OF PHARMACEUTICALS.COMMPANIES, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, HOSPITAL ASSOCIATIONS, HEALTCARE INDUSTRY AND STATE MEDICAL SOCITIES ARE DIRECTING THE FEDERAL STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATURES. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY, POWER AND GREED! THE NEWS MEDIA IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER.
LILLI
Ed Silverman
Hi Lilli,
We’ve been through this many times before. Pharmalot is independently run and is not speaking for anyone. I cover a lot of territory here, some of which you have never commented about. I do sometimes voice opinions or ask provocative questions, but my goal is not to take sides. However, if you read the site closely, you will see that many posts do address the issues that concern you. (By the way, I’ve asked this before - please don’t use caps, it’s the equivalent of shouting).
Regards
ed
Lilli
James–sorry you do not understand me. My answer is that pharmaceutical research should be geared toward honesty and truth and regulated the same way. Warning labels protects pharma. Most warning labels say”Tell you doctor if you have muscle pain—but your doctor does nothing—because tht will prove that the medication is giving you problems. I really am wasting my time corrsponding with the MARKETING of pharmalot. Instead I will do what it is really necessary.
LILLI
Nathan
James, that’s an excellent illustration. Even if Lilli doesn’t understand it, I think it’s an excellent analogy that I will try to remember for future conversations.
Lilli — if you want intelligent people to listen to what you are ranting about, please use proper grammar. I could only make sense of about half of what you wrote.
Melody
No issue is ever black or white, but many shades of gray. Of course pharma must do research (and make a profit to continue doing research). What seems to be missing–a role that used to be played by universities–is objective review, with no strings attached. Years ago, hubby (in the ag field) could do his own research, comparing commercial products, and publish his findings–without impediments. There were no industry pre-review criteria; there was, quite frankly, no reason to skew results. But that was THEN, when industry did what industry did, and universities did what universities did. When funding for educational instutitions was reduced, the path was opened for industry financial support . . . and that support came WITH STRINGS ATTACHED. The revolving door between government and industry now encompasses academia, providing more ammunition for claims of pseudo-science, biased research and corruption.
CMC guy
Ed I often wonder if you sometimes feel like a piece of Toast as you seem to get heat from both sides?
It might be interesting to run a poll such as Doug Bremmer recently suggested about himself on whether you/Pharmalot are a promoter/detractor of pharma industry (although could point to your interview that addresses the subject).
Paul
What a crazy thread!!
Let’s face it, there are rotten apples everywhere: in industry, in academics, in medical practice, in government, even in blogs!
Some rotten apples don’t mean the whole bushel is ruined. Let’s praise, appreciate and congratulate those who do things well and when good things are done. Ans also, let’s punish wrongdoing. This formula has proven to work over time.
Will thinges ever be perfect? Absolutely no way. Are they as bad as some people think? I don’t think so. Can they be better? Sure!
Ed Silverman
Hi CMC,
I long ago got used to darts and arrows doing what I do. But I’ve actually been asked similar questions over time and my response is, generally, that I’m simply in favor of improved business practices.
This isn’t about promoting or detracting. Beyond that, I take meds, as do members of my family, and bask in the economic benefit of living in an area where big drugmakers employ many people and do business with others.
I posted the interview because I’m increasingly asked my views or questions about the site, so I thought it may have been helpful. People will hold their opinion of my work here, regardless, though. I guess they’ll have to decide for themselves.
Cheers
ed
Lilli
Hi Ed,
So Sorry but I do not believe that pharmalot is really in the interest of consumers and neither is the news media. Tell me where does a consumer turn to when your elected officals are not protecting the health of all Americans? If I contacted the Star Ledger would they listen to me?
In 2004 a Sen. Joseph Vitale sponsered the Patient Safety Act which like all other states did not do anything for the New Jersey consumer. At that time I contacted Sen. Vitale and though he replied to my letter, he did not change the conditions that prove that patient safety act was in name only and more for the paharmaceuticsls, healtcare industries, hosptials and protecting the medical profession from medical MALPRACTICE practices. Pharmaceuticals may be necessary, but at the same time meications are causing serious harmful dangerous complications that has caused many to die needlessly. I speak from experience. Yet the pharmaceutical companies are protected by our elected officals becaue they contribute to their campaing funds. Why don’t you do a survey on the many elected officals that have investments in pharmaceuticals? How many retired Congressman or appointed officals are working for the Big Pharma?
LILLI
Just A Thought
In my humble opinion…
I think some folks are expecting more of Ed than is reasonable. He’s a reporter. He cannot regulate the industry or the industry’s regulators.
He is simply giving us a voice. We have the opportunity here to support or admonish the actions of this industry here. I don’t see how allowing that makes Ed biased. In fact, quite the opposite.
I mean really, if he did not give us the opportunity to reply to his articles then you could accuse him of preaching a side. By allowing our comments he is opening important dialogue… whether you like his take or not.
Could this be more off topic?
Ed Silverman
Dear Lilli,
By conveying information about topics that do affect consumers - safety, pricing, legislation, among others - I think Pharmalot does cover issues that you say you care about. And as the info circulates, becoming known by a wider spectrum of people, then perhaps changes occur. Things generally work that way.
Earlier today, I posted the congressional hearing on preemption. Did you read about that? Did you watch the hearing? The topic has widespread ramifications. By posting about preemption as often as I have, I try to shed light on an issue of importance to many people for different reasons.
In any event, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I do what I do. I present information and it’s up to the readers (viewers?) to decide from there. The next move is yours, Lilli.
Regards
ed
Lilli
Nathan
At this time grammar is not the issue. Thr issue is safety of our healthcare– I am not writing a novel only telling the truth. Pharmaceutical companies are taking over our elected officals and directing our government.I know I am right about pharmalot because all day today everyone has been against me and praising pharamaceuticals, instead iof telling the truth. Yes, some people need medications—but not all medications are necessary and pharmceuticals are not interested in the patient. Why does every medication cause adverse side effects? Why don’t we do more research on preventive medical care—but then that will not make money for the pharmaceuticals.
LILLI
Nathan
Lilli asks: “Why don’t we do more research on preventive medical care—but then that will not make money for the pharmaceuticals.”
That’s a great question — but it’s not a question to ask the pharmaceutical business. The pharmaceutical industry is only one segment of the “health care industry”. We in the pharmaceutical industry utilize our skills to design small molecules, proteins, and vaccines to treat and prevent disease. For the most part, preventative medicine lies outside the scope of what we study. Who WILL study preventative medicine? Well, as I’ve said, there has to be funding to conduct the research. Even research in preventative medicine will not be cheap. The problem is that we live in a free-market economy and preventative medicine generally does not lead to a marketable product. That really leaves government and academic researchers study preventative medicine. Maybe we should encourage more federal and state money to be spent on it. However, it really isn’t fair of you to criticize the pharmaceutical industry for a lack of focus on preventative care. It’s completely out of the scope of our business.
Laurie
“Pharmolot is a spokesman for the pharmaceutical industry and not for the consumer.”
Hmmm….way off base with this one.
Jack2
Diet and exercise make the best preventative medicine.
A lot of people like to criticize the pharmaceutical industry (or universities, or docs, or the government - take your pick) for not mentioning that enough. However, I think the majority of Americans know they should eat a healthy diet (eat your fruits, veggies, and whole grains) and get exercise. If you haven’t heard that then you just aren’t paying attention. If you choose to do it is a whole different thing. You can blame the pharm industry (or the other authority of your choice from that list) that many Americans don’t do it, but (other than the few with a true genetic predisposition) I really see it as the fault and lifestyle choice of the individual. As for research, I know there’s a lot of unanswered questions, but what more do you want to know? You should eat a healthy diet and you should exercise, case closed. Until most people do that I see diminishing returns for looking much further.
Aside from diet and exercise you can make preventative medicines, and some exist. Lipitors sort of a preventative medicine. It’s just tougher to prove a preventative medicine is cost effective to a managed care organization, because you have to treat everyone for the few people that will go on to develop the disease.
And it is a grammar issue. We can only express ourselves in writing on this board. And if you can’t write so other people understand you it causes problems for everyone.
Chris
I can understand Lilli as well as some others’ shorthand. It’s a blog guys. And I suspect that Lilli’s first language is not English (I may be wrong) and so perhaps we should focus more on what she’s saying not how it’s been said.
Lilli
Thanj you you Chris. I am sure they understood what I was saying.
Lilli
Why don’t the people involved with pharmaceutical research give their opinion on The Patient Safety Act that was sponsered by State Sen. Joseph Vitale?
Lilli
Psych Working Group Again Rife with Conflicts of Interests
More than half the 28 new members of writers of the next edition of the American
Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM) have ties to the drug industry. The conflicts of interests were posted online by the
APA last week. They ranged from small to extensive. Leading the pack was William
Carpenter, Jr., director of Maryland Psychiatric Research Center at the University of
Maryland, who over the past last five years worked as a consultant for 13 drug companies,
including Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Wyeth, Merck, Astra Zeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. APA
President Carolyn B. Robinowitz claimed that “we have made every effort to ensure that
DSM-V will be based on the best and latest scientific research, and to eliminate conflicts
of interest in its development.” The fifth DSM, produced in conjunction with the National
Institute of Mental Health, will be published in 2012. It is used by mental health
professionals to classify mental illnesses.How frequently are journalists glossing over such conflicts? Gary Schwitzer, a professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, is the publisher of HealthNewsReview.org, a Web site that reviews health care news for balance, accuracy, and completeness. Schwitzer and his team of reviewers have looked at 544 stories from top outlets over the two-year period from April 2006 to April 2008. Journalists had to meet several criteria in order to receive a satisfactory score, among them: They had to quote an independent expert-someone not involved in the relevant research-and they had to make some attempt to report potential conflicts of interest. Half the stories failed to meet these two requirements, Schwitzer says.
Conflicts of interest abound even in unexpected places. A recent survey of academic medical centers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 60 percent of academic department chairs have personal ties to industry-serving as consultants, board members, or paid speakers, while two-thirds of the academic departments had institutional ties to industry. Such ties can be extremely lucrative. And according to these articles in the medical literature, researchers who receive funding from drug and medical-device manufacturers are up to 3.5 times as likely to conclude their study drug or medical device works than are researchers without such funding.
An equally clever way for companies to get out their marketing messages is to go through a consumer group. Drug companies often seed “pharm teams,” consumer groups that start out as legitimate advocacy organizations and are subtly manipulated by funding from pharmaceutical companies to convey the desired talking points. Unless reporters ask where groups and individual researchers get their money, they have no idea that their sources may be biased-and neither do their readers, viewers, and listeners.
Take the November 2006 NBC Nightly News story that asked, “Can lung scans really prevent cancer death?” Reporter Mike Taibbi, a former smoker, underwent scanning by Dr. Claudia Henschke, a professor of radiology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Henschke claimed on the show that early detection with lung scans could prevent 80 percent of deaths from lung cancer. Although Taibbi included another expert who said that Henschke’s claim was “outrageous,” viewers were left with little way to evaluate the two conflicting viewpoints. And Taibbi himself concluded that early detection was his “best chance.” At no point did viewers learn that Henschke’s research was funded by a tobacco company, which has an investment in making the risks of smoking appear to be manageable-or that many experts warn that more research is needed to determine whether the potential benefits of scanning outweigh its harms.
How frequently are journalists glossing over such conflicts? Gary Schwitzer, a professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, is the publisher of HealthNewsReview.org, a Web site that reviews health care news for balance, accuracy, and completeness. Schwitzer and his team of reviewers have looked at 544 stories from top outlets over the two-year period from April 2006 to April 2008. Journalists had to meet several criteria in order to receive a satisfactory score, among them: They had to quote an independent expert-someone not involved in the relevant research-and they had to make some attempt to report potential conflicts of interest. Half the stories failed to meet these two requirements, Schwitzer says.
Conflicts of interest abound even in unexpected places.
LILLI
HorusCat
Lilli,
I don’t agree with anything you say, but I have no trouble deciphering your posts. But Ed is right on the caps thing. It’s amazing that it really does feel like being yelled at. Weird.
Jack2,
Read Bremner’s recent blog on antioxidants (A and E) increasing CV events. Does this mean I have to stop eating carrots?