Medical Mischief 2 Hide the Bribes

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Medical Mischief 2 Hide the Bribes

Postby Direct-MS » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:10 pm

It is well known that the majority of the CHIR committee members had received numerous financial favours from the pharmaceutical industry although it would seem that some of the committee probably failed to report their swag. As the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine notes, there is widespread corruption of the medical profession by industry money
Unfortunately persons with MS are victims of the massive corruption of the neurological community which is doing everything it can to prevent CCSVI treatment research and the availability of CCSVI treatment. Notably, the "on-the-take" neurologists control the policies of MS societies which are also working hard to stop any meaningful effort on CCSVI. The MSSOC announcement that a million dollars will be available IF a CCSVI trial is approved is the latest smoke and mirrors trick to pretend MSSOC is in favour of such research.
I can only repeat that every dollar that goes to an MS society is one more dollar which goes to the effort to stop CCSVI research and treatment availability.

Medical Industry Ties Often Undisclosed in Journals

Twenty-five out of 32 highly paid consultants to medical device companies in 2007, or their publishers, failed to reveal the financial connections in journal articles the following year, according to a study released on Monday.

The study compared major payments to consultants by orthopedic device companies with financial disclosures the consultants later made in medical journal articles, and found them lacking in public transparency.

"We found a massive, dramatic system failure," said David J. Rothman, a professor and president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University who wrote the study with two other Columbia researchers, Susan Chimonas and Zachary Frosch.

The study, published on the Web site of The Archives of Internal Medicine, focused on 32 medical doctors and doctoral researchers who were each paid at least $1 million in 2007 and published one or more journal articles the next year.

Most of the doctors and most of the orthopedic journal articles did not disclose their financial relationships with companies, the study found.

Professor Rothman called for stricter disclosure policies, including precise amounts of consulting payments. He said journal readers needed the information to consider the potential for bias.

Dr. Marcia Angell , a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine , who was not involved with the study, called it "an ingenious study, with unsurprising results." She added, "It is one more indication of the widespread corruption of the medical profession by industry money."

"The journals' lax enforcement of disclosure policies probably reflects the fact that journals, too, are dependent on industry support," Dr. Angell said in an e-mail to a reporter after reviewing the study.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, responding to criticism, has proposed better disclosure policies in the last two years. But each journal sets its own policy, and critics say many of them have still not gone far enough.

The Journal of Arthroplasty lacked disclosures in 17 of 24 articles in the study. Glen Campbell, head of health sciences journals for the publisher Elsevier , said it required disclosure. "We're impressed with the quality of research here which clearly shows a collective need for greater adherence by authors and encouragement by publishers to comply," he wrote in an e-mail.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, which disclosed the financial ties in seven of 10 articles in the study, said in a statement on Monday that it agreed on the need for improvement and planned to announce tighter policies next year.

"It is important to us that the readers of our research work are fully aware of the sources of support for this innovative research," the journal editor, Dr. Vernon T. Tolo, director of the orthopedic center at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, wrote.

The study was based on disclosures by five medical device companies, mostly forced by government investigations. The companies paid about $250 million to consultants in 2007, including royalties, the study says. Zimmer paid $87 million; DePuy Orthopaedics, $63 million; Stryker, $45 million; Biomet, $24 million.

Of that total, $114 million went to 41 doctors, the study said, of whom 32 wrote or were co-authors on orthopedic journal articles the next year. The study focused on a representative sample of 95 of those articles. It said 51 of them, or 54 percent, did not mention the financial relationship with a company. It showed that 25 of the 32 authors did not disclose some or all of the time.

The study does not identify individual doctors or their journal articles. Professor Rothman said he did not know how often the journals required disclosures in 2008, but he said the lack of results showed "a broken system" regardless of who was to blame.

Representatives from Stryker, Zimmer and DePuy had no immediate comment on Monday.

The research focused on doctors paid more than $1 million because that seemed a significant conflict-of-interest that should have been disclosed the next year, Professor Rothman said.

In a further criticism, he said none of the medical journals required authors to disclose exactly how much they had received, making it impossible to distinguish between payments ranging from $10,000 to $8.8 million.

"We've got accurate data out there," he said. "Why aren't we using it?"
User avatar
Direct-MS
Family Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: Medical Mischief 2 Hide the Bribes

Postby scorpion » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:18 pm

Direct-MS wrote:It is well known that the majority of the CHIR committee members had received numerous financial favours from the pharmaceutical industry although it would seem that some of the committee probably failed to report their swag. As the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine notes, there is widespread corruption of the medical profession by industry money
Unfortunately persons with MS are victims of the massive corruption of the neurological community which is doing everything it can to prevent CCSVI treatment research and the availability of CCSVI treatment. Notably, the "on-the-take" neurologists control the policies of MS societies which are also working hard to stop any meaningful effort on CCSVI. The MSSOC announcement that a million dollars will be available IF a CCSVI trial is approved is the latest smoke and mirrors trick to pretend MSSOC is in favour of such research.
I can only repeat that every dollar that goes to an MS society is one more dollar which goes to the effort to stop CCSVI research and treatment availability.

Medical Industry Ties Often Undisclosed in Journals

Twenty-five out of 32 highly paid consultants to medical device companies in 2007, or their publishers, failed to reveal the financial connections in journal articles the following year, according to a study released on Monday.

The study compared major payments to consultants by orthopedic device companies with financial disclosures the consultants later made in medical journal articles, and found them lacking in public transparency.

"We found a massive, dramatic system failure," said David J. Rothman, a professor and president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University who wrote the study with two other Columbia researchers, Susan Chimonas and Zachary Frosch.

The study, published on the Web site of The Archives of Internal Medicine, focused on 32 medical doctors and doctoral researchers who were each paid at least $1 million in 2007 and published one or more journal articles the next year.

Most of the doctors and most of the orthopedic journal articles did not disclose their financial relationships with companies, the study found.

Professor Rothman called for stricter disclosure policies, including precise amounts of consulting payments. He said journal readers needed the information to consider the potential for bias.

Dr. Marcia Angell , a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine , who was not involved with the study, called it "an ingenious study, with unsurprising results." She added, "It is one more indication of the widespread corruption of the medical profession by industry money."

"The journals' lax enforcement of disclosure policies probably reflects the fact that journals, too, are dependent on industry support," Dr. Angell said in an e-mail to a reporter after reviewing the study.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, responding to criticism, has proposed better disclosure policies in the last two years. But each journal sets its own policy, and critics say many of them have still not gone far enough.

The Journal of Arthroplasty lacked disclosures in 17 of 24 articles in the study. Glen Campbell, head of health sciences journals for the publisher Elsevier , said it required disclosure. "We're impressed with the quality of research here which clearly shows a collective need for greater adherence by authors and encouragement by publishers to comply," he wrote in an e-mail.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, which disclosed the financial ties in seven of 10 articles in the study, said in a statement on Monday that it agreed on the need for improvement and planned to announce tighter policies next year.

"It is important to us that the readers of our research work are fully aware of the sources of support for this innovative research," the journal editor, Dr. Vernon T. Tolo, director of the orthopedic center at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, wrote.

The study was based on disclosures by five medical device companies, mostly forced by government investigations. The companies paid about $250 million to consultants in 2007, including royalties, the study says. Zimmer paid $87 million; DePuy Orthopaedics, $63 million; Stryker, $45 million; Biomet, $24 million.

Of that total, $114 million went to 41 doctors, the study said, of whom 32 wrote or were co-authors on orthopedic journal articles the next year. The study focused on a representative sample of 95 of those articles. It said 51 of them, or 54 percent, did not mention the financial relationship with a company. It showed that 25 of the 32 authors did not disclose some or all of the time.

The study does not identify individual doctors or their journal articles. Professor Rothman said he did not know how often the journals required disclosures in 2008, but he said the lack of results showed "a broken system" regardless of who was to blame.

Representatives from Stryker, Zimmer and DePuy had no immediate comment on Monday.

The research focused on doctors paid more than $1 million because that seemed a significant conflict-of-interest that should have been disclosed the next year, Professor Rothman said.

In a further criticism, he said none of the medical journals required authors to disclose exactly how much they had received, making it impossible to distinguish between payments ranging from $10,000 to $8.8 million.

"We've got accurate data out there," he said. "Why aren't we using it?"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby ozarkcanoer » Sun Sep 19, 2010 5:37 pm

I like my MS neurologist very much. He is an advisor to the MS Society in my city. He also performs clinical trials for drug companies, and speaks at programs sponsored by drug companies. Yet I refuse to believe that he is "on the take". Before I left for my Liberation procedure in August he called me and wished me well. After I returned he called me again to see how I am doing. He is a caring and considerate doctor and I will continue to see him. It disturbs me that this CCSVI discussion has turned into and "us vs them" political fight. I have donated to many CCSVI research studies and to the CCSVI Alliance. I want CCSVI to be thoroughly studied. But I wish the talk about "neuros" was more civil. Remember that I am sitting here with two stents in my neck, left and right IJVs, but I will not turn CCSVI from a hypothesis into a theory until all the science is done.

ozarkcanoer
User avatar
ozarkcanoer
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Postby patientx » Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:28 pm

Ashton Embry has written much in recent times on the corruption of neurologists and the MS societies, especially in light of CCSVI. Now that he believes CCSVI to be the cause of MS, I'm wondering when he is going to write that he was wrong in insisting that the only cause of MS was dietary, and that by following his dietary guideline, the progression of multiple sclerosis could be stopped.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby HFogerty » Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:13 pm

If one visited Ashton's site and watched the videos, he NEVER said that that the cause of MS was dietary. He did indicate that by following his dietary guideline, people may see benefits. I tried, and it did.
User avatar
HFogerty
Family Member
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY

Postby cheerleader » Sun Sep 19, 2010 7:47 pm

Hey guys--

The situation in Canada is different than in the good ole' US. Canadians are frustrated because they are beholden to a medical panel (the CIHR) that is not allowing for any funding of treatment testing, and an expert panel (of mainly neuros) that had no experience or understanding of CCSVI. The CIHR panel report said that jugular veins work when we stand up and collapse when we are supine....which is bass-akwards. I mean, honestly. These are the "experts" they consulted for vascular research in Canada.

We have a very different situation in the US, where the vascular doctors are sharing info on the endovascular forum and SIRS, and are able to have clinical trials and test and treat. Believe me, I am a bleeding heart liberal, and this whole experience of watching socialized medicine in Canada has made me sing a new song. Not that I'm joining the tea party any time soon...but I've never been happier to be an American. And we are really fortunate in the states to have neuros and vascular doctors working together....there's more cooperation here, even with the Annals of Neurology hit squad.

Dr. Embry is doing a vital service in Canada...questioning authority, stirring the pot, and pointing out conflicts of interest. And if you don't want to read it, just skip his posts.
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby Jugular » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:21 pm

Keep in mind that fixing and imaging jugulars and such have also become a multiple-million dollar business. So those economically invested in CCSVI also have some clout in research to push back against big pharma and neurotic neuro's.

Plus CCSVI has become a populist movement. It is a rather unique situation where the afflicted are exerting a great deal of pressure in the research and treatment of their own disease.

Some neuro's may not like it, but CCSVI has gathered enough critical mass that it won't be easily swept under the research carpet. Simply put, it's not going away before it is thoroughly and fairly assessed. There are enough invested individuals who won't allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes.

I am sure that in the shady sinister inner sanctum of the boardrooms of Big Pharma, they are also exploring ways how they can make money off CCSVI. If not Pharma, then you can at least count on money eventually backing the winner.
User avatar
Jugular
Family Elder
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby HFogerty » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:52 pm

I have no problem with Big Pharma or whomever it may be aquiring stock or buying transportation companies to provide us with service to and from CCSVI treatment locataions.
User avatar
HFogerty
Family Member
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY

Postby Jugular » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:07 pm

HFogerty wrote:I have no problem with Big Pharma or whomever it may be aquiring stock or buying transportation companies to provide us with service to and from CCSVI treatment locataions.
What if they come up with a drug that will dilate veins draining the head without needing angioplasty? Or even a drug to prolong re-stenosis after angioplasty? What about a remyelination drug to repair damage caused by CCSVI?

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
User avatar
Jugular
Family Elder
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby HFogerty » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:12 pm

Obviously I and evereyone else would have no problem with that either.
User avatar
HFogerty
Family Member
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY

Postby MrSuccess » Sun Sep 19, 2010 11:43 pm

thanks once again .... for providing us with thought provoking information , Dr. Embry.

The public should be made aware of what is happening behind the scenes.

Thanks for the insight.




Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service