http://www.columbus-concept.com/aboutus/aboutus.php?cat_ID=2

The purposes of the SAB include:

•review and evaluate studies in progress funded by Belovo
•consider new proposals
•generate research proposals
•develop collaborative research
•review statements developed by Belovo for scientific accuracy (i.e. Common Statement)
•ensure that marketing is based on scientific concepts and principles
•establish an international network of scientists for the presentation of the scientific aspects of the Columbus Concept to the press

BNLfood Group (Belovo) produces foods such as eggs with a high Omega-3 content. So, naturally, BNLfood Group is interested in funding research on its products.

http://www.bnlfood.com/

So, Dr. de Lorgeril and Ms. Salen are apparently fine with studies funded by industries that they approve of.

COI requires a different approach from bias. For instance, the IOM(ish) answer to financial conflicts of interest on guidelines panels would be to avoid them entirely or barring that limit them (no more than 20% on panel say) and contain them (no chairmanships, no writing, maybe no voting).

The answer to bias on a guidelines panel, on the other hand, is to make sure that stakeholders are represented and that views are not suppressed by dominant players. This is to ensure that treatment options are preserved and that where science is lacking and viewpoints are divided the default is to clinical judgment and patient autonomy.

DOI Activist on minority side of medical debate in Lyme disease.

http://cardiobrief.org/2010/07/08/authors-of-jupiter-attack-committed-self-plagiarism/

Obviously you are not a frequent visitor to this site or you would know that Ed is certainly not in the employ of pharma companies. He is a journalist asking a very fair question, so no need to be so defensive.

I just noted an interesting dynamic on this site…someone questions something anti-pharma, they are labeled “shills for the industry”, but when the shoe is on the other foot, people are mounting the .50 cal.

The obvious solution (to questionable ‘research’ being proffered as novel and compelling) is to refuse to accept papers that were funded by vested interests. Advertising revenues for medical journals may suffer as a result but integrity is just like virginity, when it is lost, there is no recovery. Be in no doubt; several fake journals, published by Elsevier, were an indicator of pharmaceutical company intrusion into medical practice and clinical judgement.

Prospective authors, who are in the paid employ of pharmaceutical companies, should automatically forfeit their right to submit research to medical journals… by dint of a career choice which they have made by accepting honoraria and more, from the pharmaceutical industry.

As for the potential conflict of interest in holding a contrarian viewpoint… piffle! Where there is no opportunity for pecuniary gain, it is an irrelevance as to what school of thought a person subscribes. The hope is always that they will believe in the value of independent thought and testing their beliefs.

My D.O.I is that I am also a member of thincs.

A conflict of interest is something that might mean you are biased towards something due to financial pressure. However, it is hardly a conflict of interest for someone who does not believe in the diet/heart cholesterol hypothesis to write an article critical of the hypothesis. What are they supposed to do? Never write anything. Write articles in conflict with their own views?

As proposed at the start of this message. It may be of interest to people to know what the views of the author are, on the subject in hand.

But having a point of view is very different from being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by a company with a vested financial interest in a certain outcome