January, 13, 2020 | 12 Comments


  1. BMJ (company)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search

    This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (February 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
    Parent company British Medical Association
    Founded 1840
    Country of origin United Kingdom
    Headquarters location London
    Publication types Medical journals
    Nonfiction topics Medicine
    No. of employees 480
    Official website
    BMJ (branded as BMJ Group until 2013)[1] is a provider of journals, clinical decision support, events and medical education. The company, legally the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. Established in 1840 with the publication of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal (later the first edition of the British Medical Journal), it is now a fully commercial organisation with about 550 staff and offices in several locations around the world.

    The company’s products and services also extend to offer rights and licensing, targeted advertising and sponsorship opportunities for pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, recruiters, and the general medical community.

    It is possible to edit this entry – shall we?

  2. I would highlight the last 2 paragraphs above and issue a warning that no longer should this publication be viewed as an informative medical journal. It is now a commercial enterprise whose raison d’étre is profit.

    • Just to add ANYBODY member of the public, whoever. can edit the entries in Wikipidia It is easy to do and names neednt be added but can be. Wikipidia itself has given a good clue where to start – and this is actually quite unusual.

  3. but I have found that medical readers do not relish the fire and brimstone approach.

    Whatever you do, I think that you should describe and leave to others to judge.

    But, the others find it hard to judge – and in other words, don’t make waves, don’t cause ripples and certainly don’t cause anyone else to have to think…

    Shrilliness; hardly a question to pass the smelling salts…

    ‘Where this leaves a clinician concerned to inform the consent of his or her patients, children or adults, would seem to be an interesting question.’

    This plays right in to the hands of Pharmaceutical Companies.
    They might see someone play around with figures and algorithms, but, they won’t see anybody actually fire an exocet missile in to their groins.

    Don’t people want courage and heroism, I think so, but, apparently not in the cloistered world of medical publishing.

    Peer Review Guidance:

    “Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the standards established for a given discipline, peer-reviewed articles that are accepted for publication exemplify the best research practices in a field.”

    “An overall, serious, thoughtful tone” …

    In the case of Study 329 there also appeared to be a desperate hunt for some box to tick that would make BMJ fireproof, some proof that the scurvy knaves behind the Restoration of Study 329 were adhering to some protocol that would make the results objective and definitive – exactly the opposite message to the message of the final article which is that the results are provisional and that objectivity as regards what these drugs do for good and for bad arises from having the data out there so they can be contested.

    Science involves getting data into the public domain where it can challenge beliefs. But decades ago BMJ and other journals gave up on any attempt to access the clinical trial data behind the claims being made.

    Now BMJ are signed up to an AllTrials coalition that includes GSK and is against Data Access.

    BMJ state that it takes on average 8 weeks from submission to publication of an article. The review process for Restoring Study 329 took a year, with a three month review process involving six reviewers to begin with, and then a further four reviews in a four month process, leading to a provisional acceptance in March that was withdrawn.

    Paul Scheffer

    Formindep is a non-lucrative association dealing with conflict of interests in Health

    On this topic, I find this conference from oct 2019 in Lyon University of Pr David Healy about the study 329 linked with large prescriptions of antidepressents to adolescents very worth seeing and sharing :

    Lyon, 2019

    David Healy – GSK 329 Talk – Lyon, October 15th, 2019 (sous-titres ENG et FR)

    The Educational Tract …

    • Annie,

      Thanks for the link to this riveting lecture. Really “edge of the seat” listening for an hour.

      I increasingly feel that prescribers have not, will not, and do not wish to either understand the devastation caused by AKATHISIA, or to learn how to recognise and manage this common, important, life threatening adverse drug reaction.

      What is the point of the “Choose Psychiatry” propaganda campaign coercing medical students to consider training in a “discipline” where differential diagnostic accuracy appears to be so neglected?

      Where casual and ill-conceived diagnostic labels destroy life, and all life’s hopes, dreams and aspirations?

      Where a series of incorrect diagnoses can never be revised and corrected. Where no one can ever say: “I’m sorry”?

      Now, if additional exposure to being taught in psychiatry produced graduates who could reliably differentiate akathisia from psychotic depression, distinguish a toxic delusion from a functional psychosis, and afford utmost priority to minimising the dreadful adverse reactions of the drugs given to those to “treat” misdiagnosed AKATHISIA: wouldn’t some of us be be delighted to support it?

      It would be preferable for clinical medical students to spend an invaluable hour watching and listening to this critically important lecture, wherever they choose to specialise after graduating.

      I did elect to commit to extra training in psychiatry as an undergraduate and found the time spent to be very valuable.

      I did not however, understand that so much of what I perceived to be the signs, symptoms and features of severe mental illness were in reality, drug induced brain, neurological and multi-systems, enforced, prescription drug injuries.

      It tragically takes personal or family experience of misdiagnosed akathisia to realise the individual suffering and societal cost of akathisia ignorance.

      • To get across to the public what AKATHISIA really is requires simplicity and visual intensity/correlation, words – especially techincal stuff – are not really good. The part that David nailed on this and can be slotted into twitter, facebook, instagram and the like is here:

    • Thank you, Annie, for the link to the Lyon talk. Wow, how it takes me back to the beginning of Shane’s problems in 2002 when we had no idea what on earth was going on with him and had no answers to his repeated questioning of “what is WRONG with me, what’s happening to me?”. Suddenly, along came Panorama and the Seroxat story with descriptions of exactly what we’d seen in Shane – the totally out of character behaviours, the pacing, the turmoil, the rage, the self harming, the suicidal thoughts – we’d witnessed it all.
      Fast forward to 2019 and here, at last, we have David putting in writing that, in his opinion, ‘most of Shane’s problems have been caused by what we in the mental health services have done to him rather than by any condition he has had.’
      If only we could turn back time! More disappointing still, of course, is the fact that this same talk still needs to be heard – that STILL there remains so many who are in the dark as far as adverse reactions to prescribed drugs are concerned. David, I only wish that we’d have had the facilities for you to present this talk when you came to Prestatyn in June as there seems to be a thirst here still for more information regarding the ‘goings on’ that you shared with us on both of your visits. Asking people to watch online is not quite the same as sharing face to face, however, I shall certainly point people in the direction of this talk on YouTube whenever I’m asked when it is that you’ll next visit us – a question asked on a fairly regular basis by the way!

  4. I read your article. Interesting that the editor thought dead children wasn’t worthy of a concerning tone. I didn’t find it polemic (hardly fire and brimstone) but rather stated the facts and that parties involved didn’t think more studies needed to be done. So Yes worth the dig indeed. Hard to believe these things but then people have been dying literally dying in the US for years because they can’t afford their insulin. People apparently don’t matter.

  5. A few years ago, when your crew were struggling to get that brilliant dissection of Paxil Study 329 published in the BMJ, it was fairly clear where the objections were coming from. At least on the editorial team.

    To wit: A celebrated, high-minded expert on “evidence-based medicine” with a career as a headache specialist that was tied by a thousand threads to GSK and its migraine drugs. (And a spouse in a ritzy New York law firm that was defending GSK all around the globe.)

    You guys did not hesitate to call her out and question her “conflict of interest.” I think you were right, too. It wasn’t a matter of wanting a pure and sterile “odour-free” appearance. It was a fight for free speech in the scientific community and beyond. And you won, too! It may not have blown the BMJ and the medical establishment wide open for all time. But I do not think it was a meaningless victory.

    So it’s hard to understand why you seem to think such efforts are sterile or meaningless now. Or what earthly good it would do us to have “more Elizabeth Loders, not less.” If they were really the only source of fresh ideas, you and the 329 team would not exist. But you do exist.

    I know that fighting “conflict of interest” is not the only fight, just as Doctor Loder was not your only foe. And merely “disclosing” conflicts of interest doesn’t do doodly-squat in a world where they have become so absolutely goddamn normal. And of course, you’ll find plenty of decent people doing GSK’s bidding from dawn till dusk without being personally bought off. Especially at the bottom of the food chain, and the middle too.

    But that does not change what is going on at the top. From what I can see, the first law of physics is still “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.” If you want a song about windmills, you can’t expect an oil company to write it. As long as they are in charge, all the songs will be about oil.

    • Jo

      I think the groundrules are changing. Just as the capitalists replaced the landowners, so too they are being replaced by those who hold the latest technique or algorithm. Holding the lastest technique confers power (and capital). But you can be poor little fucker, stumble on some magic beans and be more powerful than a Rothschild – see Zuckerberg. Its the same with Frontiers. They don’t mind if all articles are anti-pharma. The problems for us is the process is mindless – other than making money from the platform owners who can declare their virtue by saying they accept no pharma money and all their articles are open-access.

      We are moving into a world of technocrats and managers who won’t just be little Eichmann’s they will be un-prosecutable, and untouchable.


      • Well, I realize a lot of things are changing. Still, I can’t see the drug and device companies being reduced to helpless outsiders at the mercy of a mindless outfit like “Frontiers in Medicine.” They have lots of ways to stay in control.

        In an article on the future of the major-league medical journals last year, one expert said fewer and fewer doctors are reading them anyway, much less subscribing. They rely on “other sources of compiled information” to tell them who and what to trust. He named two: Official guidelines, and Cochrane Reviews. I suspect the third is commercial Continuing Medical Education (“CME”)—not just the posh conferences in Hawaii, but the webinars and the glossy trade mags like Psychiatry Advisor and its cousins.

        All three sources are pretty firmly under industry’s thumb, as I don’t have to tell you. Especially that third one. Drug company payments that are laundered through the CME Industry are exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Act – which is why so many of the nastiest KOL’s look so squeaky-clean on the Open Payments website. And their content is not just “credible” – it’s approved to satisfy the continuing-ed requirements of your boss, your College and your state licensing agency. Hell, why read anything else?

        Meanwhile, it seems like the “Frontiers” journals are rapidly being called out as purveyors of pseudo-science. And the nonsense they often publish serves as just another foil for a “War in Defense of Science” that allows doctors to blindly accept the latest conventional wisdom, refuse to listen to their patients … and feel like warriors in a sacred cause when they do it, rather than squirming even a little.

  6. One man, one battle cry …

    Molly’s dad has a campaign and right behind him is the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists –

    We’re calling on social media companies to hand over their data for research into the risks and benefits of social media.

    , chair of

    says it’s time for the Government to take action.

    Royal College of Psychiatrists

    Replying to

    Read our full report here: Press release is here: This story is being covered across the media, including as the top story on the BBC website: It was also the top story on the
    programme today.

    The single greatest cause of suicide and suicidality in young people is likely to be the medication they take.  But despite being repeatedly handed a story about how the entire literature on these pills is ghost-written and the data inaccessible and that regulators have approved drugs on the back of negative trials and Guidelines bodies like NICE recommend these same drugs despite knowing the trials are negative, the BBC have repeatedly flunked handling the story and the Guardian and other newspapers are as bad.

    Suicide: Are Old Media or New Media to Blame?

    January, 30, 2019 | 39 Comments

    The single greatest cause of suicide and suicidality in young people is likely to be the medication they take. 

Leave a Reply