In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published.[8]But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to shift the focus from the drug’s intended effect to a secondary effect that seems more favorable.
This article from the New York Review of Books about how the doctors who lead medical tests on new drugs from big Pharma companies is particularly damning. I’m especially worried about how the medical doctors don’t seem to recognize that these are conflicts of interest – the fact that they receive thousands if not millions each year from the companies that produce the drugs they are supposed to be scientifically (read: without bias) testing. Yet another hole in our current medical system.
For anyone who might read this blog regularly I am preparing a series of posts on the information I’ve gained in the past few months about the US healthcare system. Nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary, but just trying to compile and sort out all the information in my head. I hope to start posting them over the weekend, once I get the drafts for every post completed.