Study 329: BMJ Transparency
Two weeks ago The BMJ ran an editorial by Richard Smith (former editor) and Fiona Godlee (current editor) on the retraction of a 1989 article by R K Chandra under the heading of A Major Failure of Scientific Governance.
While making money from the publication of pharmaceutical company trials, and in the face of a complete failure by industry to adhere to basic scientific norms and make data available, BMJ and other journals, although BMJ in particular, have run a series of articles on supposed Academic Fraud. These articles feature instances of fraud sometimes as bizarre as researcher claiming he cannot show the data as it was eaten by termites. A common theme, as with Chandra, is the academic community are held back from tackling the issue by fear the dude will sue. The universal feature is that these are academic studies and academic fraud is an issue in academia. Talks on this topic are often given by representatives of pharma such as Frank Wells for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).
A day after the editorial appeared, Leonie Fennell submitted a Rabid Response (RR) to the editorial that used several of the words of the editorial itself. This RR was posted. Then the response disappeared. A while later it was re-posted. This time it was there long enough for someone to like it and for the screenshot above to be taken. But establishing its reality by liking it was apparently not enough. It was removed again, and has not reappeared since.
This is a comment in limbo. Until recently many Irish believed that stillborn babies went to limbo and the vague promise their parents held on to was their children would be saved on the Last Day.
Share this:“To err is human, to cover up is unforgivable, and to fail to learn is inexcusable”. I agree with both BMJ editors (past and present) on the latter, yet I still have some concerns. Surely if the BMJ had actually learned from this, it would have been more proactive with Study 329, where scientific fraud has so obviously once again prevailed. Is the BMJ, as David Healy suggests, terrified when publishing anything that might make a pharmaceutical company uncomfortable? It’s interesting that an earlier article regarding Study 329 was reviewed and turned down by the BMJ (reviewers included the former editor in chief, Richard Smith).
The findings of Study 329, that Paroxetine was ‘safe and effective for adolescents’ led to the widespread medicating of children with Selective Serotonin ReUptake Inhibitors, subsequently causing many deaths. Saying that universities, authorities and the world of science have a chance to learn from the Chandra case is all well and good, but what have the BMJ actually done to right this latest, very evident wrong? Brown University, GSK and Keller et al are digging their heels in. The BMJ need to act now while there is still has time to put its own house in order. ‘Good men doing nothing’ is just not good enough. The BMJ’s current reputation as one of the leading medical journals is at stake here”.
Good Work, Leonie, No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency
As a veteran of many removed as well as unpublished BMJ Rapid Responses I can only remark that this exposes once again their sheer bad conscience – the letter points out their utter moral failure and they cannot even let it be said in their own columns. But what is demonstrated above all is the lethal whimsicality of public health policy. There may be some rules but the powerful appear to decide when and where it is expedient to observe them and where to cheat. I suspect it feeds their vanity as well as their purses.
I find this very worrying. The BMJ is supposed to be a trustworthy, unbiased source of information. A leading, respected journal.
How can any faith or trust be put in them if they do this ?
To the growing list of words and ideas Banned by the BMJ, let’s add this:
https://sectioneduk.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/banned-by-the-bmj/
The author was invited to give the “No” side in a public debate about whether to ban smoking in mental health wards. He was also asked to draft an article giving his “Service User” perspective on the question – and the broader question of how psych hospitalization can be a more positive experience for patients.
The project collapsed, however, when BMJ insisted on censoring every mention of serious mistreatment of patients – whether the author’s own experiences, or quotes from other “service user” bloggers! Due to legal considerations, they said, they could not print such allegations unless the staff members involved had been prosecuted or disciplined. BMJ’s proposed deletions would “reduce a piece on coercion in psychiatry to a sanitized grumble about poor food, thin curtains and the wrong type of tea.”
Here in the USA doctors and hospitals routinely cite the threat of patient medical-malpractice lawsuits to do what they want to do anyway: prescribe dodgy drugs, run dubious tests and do unnecessary procedures. All of which just happen to be very profitable. Med-Mal suits exist of course, but they’re nowhere near the deluge claimed – and in states like Texas where they’ve been clamped down on big-time, there’s been no reduction in expensive, inappropriate care.
Seems in the UK, the threat of Libel or Defamation lawsuits from patients has begun to function as the same type of excuse for doing what you want to do anyway. Mainly, to shut up and go along with the status quo. (See the hand-wringing from Pharma over “patient privacy” whenever demands to share their data are made.) Am I right?
I am horrified and lost for words.’ Disgusting’ is the only publishable one I can think of!
What has happened to democracy and the ‘right to reply’ for goodness sake?. This behaviour is on about the same level as the schoolyard bully’s treatment of his/her victim.
..
This a sequence of Rapid Responses that were removed in 2010.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/Purged%20BMJ%20thread%2025%20March%202010.pdf
Essentially it exposed that fact that something deeply unethical was happening with patients’ data being allowed to fall into the hands of a muck-raking journalist – by this time it was already pretty obvious BMJ were marshalling their forces with Brian Deer for a new attack on Wakefield’s integrity. I think the phrase used was that the letters were taken down “following a legal complaint”.
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/editorial-note
In fact the original letter from Dr F Edward Yazbak was allowed to remain but with this sentence, which could not possibly be libellous, excised:
“I must say that I am troubled that Mr. Deer was able to obtain the names and family backgrounds of the 12 original study patients.”
Of course, what was at stake was that they were exposing their own potential illegality if they proceeded with Deer, as they in fact did. Godlee and co are involved in very dark politics (I don’t have to tell you).
Fair play Leonie..
The BMJ seems not to know quite what to do when patients become activists, and then whenthey become patient advocates publications like the BMJ seem to get confused even more, particularly when these patient advocates speak out loudly against Big Pharma and their misdeeds…
I have found similar responses with my own awareness building..
I warned the minister of mental health in Ireland over ten years ago about the dangers of SSRI’s and psychiatric drugs, particularly in youth..
I really thought that I was getting somewhere..
Was anything done?
Nope…
When patients themselves have to do the job of regulators, Dept of health officials, and even the work of their own doctors you know you have a system which is absolutely and totally rotten and corrupted by pharma..
Sorry, sounds a bit like stalking, but I have noticed your presence today and in Leonie’s blog for a while now. I am good at reading and assimilating all of this movement despite how the system supports attempts to silence the individual.
I am not great with IT skills and as a ‘consumer’ of the much mentioned pharma-codology I don’t really know how to become an active participant so that my opinions can also be heard. Truthman are you Irish? my name is emblazoned
on this post, is there any way I could contact you directly. Like-minded individuals are thin on the ground. A close relative of mine is an editor of a national publication for the GP reading public, another works for a research institute in a National University. I am not going to find support when their jobs are at stake, obviously.
Please respond.
Hi Emer,
You can contact me on truthman30@gmail.com
In that spirit……
http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/11/study-329-bmj-transparency/
Meet joolie and jawge…….cool
I read a cheering bit of news in the Express today. Lloyds Pharmacy has barred its medical experts from prescribing the anti-malaria drug, Lariam, because of its “unpredictable side effects”, namely ‘dizziness, vivid and unpleasant dreams, memory loss and problems with anger management’ etc. Lariam ,it says, can cause neurotoxic poisoning. Could the tide be slowly turning? At least a tiny step in the right direction perhaps? Then I read the final sentence – ‘The chain will continue to honour GP prescriptions.’ Oh dear!
Mickey throws a Jefferson ‘Airplane’
http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2015/11/09/tom-jefferson-on-data-transparency/
329+s for RIAT…….
Twitter folk twittering with Ben Goldacre… GSK Transparency Defender
329+ reasons not to support #Alltrials..
BMJ…listen up..
Nick Campion @NickScribbler 6 hrs6 hours ago
@bengoldacre @adbeggs 2/2) this indicates how media could undo good research through one small element they can shriek about…
#alltrials
Twitter
1. 5h
ben goldacre ✔ @bengoldacre
My email @adbeggs Sad to see someone in such a position so odd on transparency #alltrials pic.twitter.com/DdmwBFT1Vz pic.twitter.com/oJ8734AAoG
•
• 5h
David Juurlink @DavidJuurlink
Very curious swipe at #alltrials in @guardian from academia. Thread https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/663662606268411904 … and Ben’s letter https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/663681652657422336 …
Retweeted by Carmelo
Hi @adbeggs what do you mean when you say #alltrials will “suppress legitimate research”?! http://www.alltrials.net
Hi @adbeggs what do you mean when you say #alltrials will “suppress legitimate research”?! http://www.alltrials.net
les crudités
http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/11/04/ciencia/1446636289_541618.html
~ials
Twitter
1. 2h
ben goldacre ✔ @bengoldacre
In El Pais today the medical director of European Medicines Agency comes out for #Alltrials.
Big snogs Hans Georg! http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/11/04/ciencia/1446636289_541618.html …
Retweeted by Nabucco Dream
2. 10m
Sense About Science @senseaboutsci
Great piece in @elpais_espana about #AllTrials. Interview with chief medic at @EMA_News. http://bit.ly/1MWkYLB pic.twitter.com/AVVmGkWHW0
Q. Do you support the initiative
Alltrials
A. I think the initiative Alltrials the sector has moved forward considerably.
They have been a great actor making us change.
3. 4h
Sense About Science @senseaboutsci
The chief medic at Europe’s medicines body @EMA_News supports #AllTrials 100%! Great interview in @elpais_espana http://bit.ly/1MWkYLB
Retweeted by jaci Mac
Ben Goldacre is the GSK Transparency Defender
There are litigants who are represented
http://www.fortitudelaw.uk/
http://www.fortitudelaw.uk/category/product-liability/
ANOTHER BIG PHARMA TRANSPARENCY MASQUERADE!
Women’s Hour, this morning on Radio 4.
Discussion on new HRT NICE clinical guidelines. Final question by Jenni Murray to Dr Melanie Davies, regarding potential conflict of interest, where NICE panel members have taken money from drug companies. Dr Davies, who has been in reciept of funding from a large drug company, positively squirmed. Good job she wasn’t visible…
It transpires that 50% (9 out of 18) of the NICE panel are in that dubious situation. If a woman visits her doctor, and is prescribed HRT, how on earth does that woman get to know any of this? “My doctor told me…”
Walter
The BMJ is a founder member of Alltrials
GSK pledges and Bloomberg gives GSK 100%
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2263/rr
http://fr.zenopa.com/news/801484345/glaxosmithkline-voices-support-for-bmj-data-transparency-pledge
Glaxo are among some drugmakers that have publicly committed to giving more public access to data than required under the law.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-12/drugmakers-kept-one-third-of-trial-results-secret-study-finds