Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
MERCK HIRED WRITERS ... NOT SCIENTISTS ... FOR VIOXX COVER UP
MERCK HIRED WRITERS ... NOT SCIENTISTS ... FOR VIOXX COVER UP
Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal.
http :// ilenarose.blogspot,com
I feel thrilled to see this exposed. Merck's propaganda is everywhere.
It's very present on Usenet and these groups particularly.
The Merck Gardasil Pushers here on Usenet try to cover-up all the
problems, and repeat industry claims that have no scientific backing
whatsoever. They rely on small, recent 'studies' to make claims as to
Gardasil's effectiveness and safety. It's identical to the silicone
industry using tiny, manufacturer designed and purchased 'studies' to
claim breast implants are 'safe.'
I believe that Barrett and his Snake-oil Vigilantes push vaccinations
and attack and sue those of who concerned over vaccination safety.
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Stephen-Barrett
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Mark-Probert
Quackwatch and the related Health Frauds groups and blogs claim to be
'consumer protectors' ... yet where are their warnings and expose's on
Vioxx?
Barrett, a medical writer, goes ballistic over homeopathy ... suing
homeopaths and activists in the name of 'safety' ... but has no
trouble with the thousands of Vioxx related deaths.
These Healthfrauds go on massive media wars to discredit homeopaths,
chiropractors, scientists working to unravel the complicated MCS, and
fluoride and breast implant awareness activists ... suing us and
unleashing Snake-oil Vigilantes to smear our reputations ... yet are
blind deaf & dumb about the harm of Big Pharma.
It is exactly as if they were hired to run around various medium like
flak in Iraq ... taking attention from the dangerous drugs ... while
attacking activists and scientists they oppose.
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
http :// medheadlines,com /2008/04/16/hired-writers-not-scientists-behind-mercks-vioxx-studies/
In a new twist to the ethical issues Merck Inc, faces over Vioxx
(rofecoxib), the company’s one-time best seller that was pulled from
the market in 2004, because it became closely associated with patient
heart attacks, some argue that the company hired writers to fashion
the medical publications that their scientists are believed to have
written. Many of these publications claim to be based upon the same
scientific evidence which supposedly documented the safety of the drug
in order to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).
Ghostwriters and Vioxx researchIn what seems to be deceptive maneuvers
to many people in both the medical and the publishing fields, Merck
acknowledged that it has been known to hire outside professional
writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get
published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical
community. Critics are expressing doubt about the validity of the
research and about the actual involvement of the scientists listed as
authors of the papers. One especially galling example is that of the
paper being developed as solid academic research but the lead writer
is listed as “External author?”
Dr. Joseph S. Ross, of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, came
across the apparently ghostwritten research studies while reviewing
documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck. Because Ross has
served as plaintiffs’ consultant in some of the legal cases, he had
access to the millions of documents Merck supplied plaintiffs’ legal
teams.
Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle claims in tens of
thousands of lawsuits filed by people who once took Vioxx or their
surviving families.
Merck officials claim the practice is not uncommon throughout the
pharmaceutical industry and that Ross’s conclusion that the authors
named in these publications don’t actually participate adequately is
false. Merck’s claim is seconded by Dr. Steven H. Ferris, a psychiatry
professor at New York University, who is himself listed as author on a
Merck publication suspected of being ghostwritten. Ferris describes
Ross’s accusations as egregious and false.
An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) puts forth the question of whether Merck might have
deliberately manipulated dozens of seemingly academic published
documents in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.
Dr. Catherine D. DeAngels, editor of JAMA, says that journal published
a Vioxx study in 2002 that is now in question. This particular article
did list a Merck staff scientist as lead author but ghostwriters were
involved, too. DeAngelis considers it a dishonest move that the work
of the ghostwriters were not fully disclosed when the document was
submitted for publication.
Saying she feels the journal has been scammed, DeAngelis suggests than
an even less desirable practice is when a for-profit company hires a
for-profit writing firm to produce scientific research studies and
then finds a doctor willing to endorse it before publication.
In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered
internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical
study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the
company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In
others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the
report made substantial contribution to the research itself.
Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern deny
their lack of involvement or question the true nature of ghostwriting.
One neurologist, originally listed as “External author?” and then
listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the Unviversity of California, San
Diego, in the final draft died a year ago in an airplane crash.
The journal Neuropsychopharmacology published the Thal paper on
Alzheimer’s disease in 2005. Citing prohibitions against the practice
of substituting a well-known doctor’s name to research conducted by
others, the journal’s current editor, Dr. James H. Meador-Woodruff,
plans to investigation the allegations.
Merck officials said on Tuesday that even when outside authors are
listed for publication, they are in fact involved in the research
process as well as the drafting and final review of any paper which
bears their names. They also admitted that professional writers have
sometimes been hired to develop drafts early on but the final work
belongs to the doctor named as author. Merck lawyer James C.
Fitzpatrick says this practice doesn’t necessarily mean the final
product doesn’t reflect the listed author’s opinion of the work.
The Ross article includes a review of companies in the business of
medical writing, including Scientific Therapeutics of New York. Ross’s
research uncovered one of their memos to Merck dated 1999 in which the
status of eight separate reports was mentioned.
One of those eight reports was targeted for publication in JAMA. When
it was completed, it was indeed published in JAMA in January 2002. At
publication, the paper listed two outside academic physicians acting
as co-principal investigators and the lead author was identified as a
Merck employee. There was no mention of the role Scientific
Therapeutics played in writing the paper.
The JAMA editorial notes that editors of these journals bear some
responsibility by allowing companies, such as Merck, to manipulate
their publications.
Putting Merck in even more hot water is a second article in
Wednesday’s JAMA that is based on some of the same documents Ross
reviewed. Written by Drs. Bruce Psaty and Richard A. Kronmal, both of
the University of Washington, the paper claims Merck was not fully
candid when submitting data for review by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) during the time before Vioxx was recalled.
Calling the Psaty/Kronmal analysis misleading, Merck says the FDA knew
of cardiovascular risks linked to Vioxx and was involved with on-going
discussion of the matter with Merck.
Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal.
http :// ilenarose.blogspot,com
I feel thrilled to see this exposed. Merck's propaganda is everywhere.
It's very present on Usenet and these groups particularly.
The Merck Gardasil Pushers here on Usenet try to cover-up all the
problems, and repeat industry claims that have no scientific backing
whatsoever. They rely on small, recent 'studies' to make claims as to
Gardasil's effectiveness and safety. It's identical to the silicone
industry using tiny, manufacturer designed and purchased 'studies' to
claim breast implants are 'safe.'
I believe that Barrett and his Snake-oil Vigilantes push vaccinations
and attack and sue those of who concerned over vaccination safety.
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Stephen-Barrett
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Mark-Probert
Quackwatch and the related Health Frauds groups and blogs claim to be
'consumer protectors' ... yet where are their warnings and expose's on
Vioxx?
Barrett, a medical writer, goes ballistic over homeopathy ... suing
homeopaths and activists in the name of 'safety' ... but has no
trouble with the thousands of Vioxx related deaths.
These Healthfrauds go on massive media wars to discredit homeopaths,
chiropractors, scientists working to unravel the complicated MCS, and
fluoride and breast implant awareness activists ... suing us and
unleashing Snake-oil Vigilantes to smear our reputations ... yet are
blind deaf & dumb about the harm of Big Pharma.
It is exactly as if they were hired to run around various medium like
flak in Iraq ... taking attention from the dangerous drugs ... while
attacking activists and scientists they oppose.
www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
http :// medheadlines,com /2008/04/16/hired-writers-not-scientists-behind-mercks-vioxx-studies/
In a new twist to the ethical issues Merck Inc, faces over Vioxx
(rofecoxib), the company’s one-time best seller that was pulled from
the market in 2004, because it became closely associated with patient
heart attacks, some argue that the company hired writers to fashion
the medical publications that their scientists are believed to have
written. Many of these publications claim to be based upon the same
scientific evidence which supposedly documented the safety of the drug
in order to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).
Ghostwriters and Vioxx researchIn what seems to be deceptive maneuvers
to many people in both the medical and the publishing fields, Merck
acknowledged that it has been known to hire outside professional
writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get
published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical
community. Critics are expressing doubt about the validity of the
research and about the actual involvement of the scientists listed as
authors of the papers. One especially galling example is that of the
paper being developed as solid academic research but the lead writer
is listed as “External author?”
Dr. Joseph S. Ross, of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, came
across the apparently ghostwritten research studies while reviewing
documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck. Because Ross has
served as plaintiffs’ consultant in some of the legal cases, he had
access to the millions of documents Merck supplied plaintiffs’ legal
teams.
Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle claims in tens of
thousands of lawsuits filed by people who once took Vioxx or their
surviving families.
Merck officials claim the practice is not uncommon throughout the
pharmaceutical industry and that Ross’s conclusion that the authors
named in these publications don’t actually participate adequately is
false. Merck’s claim is seconded by Dr. Steven H. Ferris, a psychiatry
professor at New York University, who is himself listed as author on a
Merck publication suspected of being ghostwritten. Ferris describes
Ross’s accusations as egregious and false.
An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) puts forth the question of whether Merck might have
deliberately manipulated dozens of seemingly academic published
documents in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.
Dr. Catherine D. DeAngels, editor of JAMA, says that journal published
a Vioxx study in 2002 that is now in question. This particular article
did list a Merck staff scientist as lead author but ghostwriters were
involved, too. DeAngelis considers it a dishonest move that the work
of the ghostwriters were not fully disclosed when the document was
submitted for publication.
Saying she feels the journal has been scammed, DeAngelis suggests than
an even less desirable practice is when a for-profit company hires a
for-profit writing firm to produce scientific research studies and
then finds a doctor willing to endorse it before publication.
In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered
internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical
study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the
company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In
others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the
report made substantial contribution to the research itself.
Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern deny
their lack of involvement or question the true nature of ghostwriting.
One neurologist, originally listed as “External author?” and then
listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the Unviversity of California, San
Diego, in the final draft died a year ago in an airplane crash.
The journal Neuropsychopharmacology published the Thal paper on
Alzheimer’s disease in 2005. Citing prohibitions against the practice
of substituting a well-known doctor’s name to research conducted by
others, the journal’s current editor, Dr. James H. Meador-Woodruff,
plans to investigation the allegations.
Merck officials said on Tuesday that even when outside authors are
listed for publication, they are in fact involved in the research
process as well as the drafting and final review of any paper which
bears their names. They also admitted that professional writers have
sometimes been hired to develop drafts early on but the final work
belongs to the doctor named as author. Merck lawyer James C.
Fitzpatrick says this practice doesn’t necessarily mean the final
product doesn’t reflect the listed author’s opinion of the work.
The Ross article includes a review of companies in the business of
medical writing, including Scientific Therapeutics of New York. Ross’s
research uncovered one of their memos to Merck dated 1999 in which the
status of eight separate reports was mentioned.
One of those eight reports was targeted for publication in JAMA. When
it was completed, it was indeed published in JAMA in January 2002. At
publication, the paper listed two outside academic physicians acting
as co-principal investigators and the lead author was identified as a
Merck employee. There was no mention of the role Scientific
Therapeutics played in writing the paper.
The JAMA editorial notes that editors of these journals bear some
responsibility by allowing companies, such as Merck, to manipulate
their publications.
Putting Merck in even more hot water is a second article in
Wednesday’s JAMA that is based on some of the same documents Ross
reviewed. Written by Drs. Bruce Psaty and Richard A. Kronmal, both of
the University of Washington, the paper claims Merck was not fully
candid when submitting data for review by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) during the time before Vioxx was recalled.
Calling the Psaty/Kronmal analysis misleading, Merck says the FDA knew
of cardiovascular risks linked to Vioxx and was involved with on-going
discussion of the matter with Merck.
Re: MERCK HIRED WRITERS ... NOT SCIENTISTS ... FOR VIOXX COVER UP
On May 27, 12:25 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo,com > wrote:
> Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal.
>
> http :// ilenarose.blogspot,com
>
> I feel thrilled to see this exposed. Merck's propaganda is everywhere.
>
> It's very present on Usenet and these groups particularly.
>
> The Merck Gardasil Pushers here on Usenet try to cover-up all the
> problems, and repeat industry claims that have no scientific backing
> whatsoever. They rely on small, recent 'studies' to make claims as to
> Gardasil's effectiveness and safety. It's identical to the silicone
> industry using tiny, manufacturer designed and purchased 'studies' to
> claim breast implants are 'safe.'
>
> I believe that Barrett and his Snake-oil Vigilantes push vaccinations
> and attack and sue those of who concerned over vaccination safety.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Stephen-Barrettwww .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Mark-Probert
>
> Quackwatch and the related Health Frauds groups and blogs claim to be
> 'consumer protectors' ... yet where are their warnings and expose's on
> Vioxx?
>
> Barrett, a medical writer, goes ballistic over homeopathy ... suing
> homeopaths and activists in the name of 'safety' ... but has no
> trouble with the thousands of Vioxx related deaths.
>
> These Healthfrauds go on massive media wars to discredit homeopaths,
> chiropractors, scientists working to unravel the complicated MCS, and
> fluoride and breast implant awareness activists ... suing us and
> unleashing Snake-oil Vigilantes to smear our reputations ... yet are
> blind deaf & dumb about the harm of Big Pharma.
>
> It is exactly as if they were hired to run around various medium like
> flak in Iraq ... taking attention from the dangerous drugs ... while
> attacking activists and scientists they oppose.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
>
> http :// medheadlines,com /2008/04/16/hired-writers-not-scientists-behin...
>
> In a new twist to the ethical issues Merck Inc, faces over Vioxx
> (rofecoxib), the company’s one-time best seller that was pulled from
> the market in 2004, because it became closely associated with patient
> heart attacks, some argue that the company hired writers to fashion
> the medical publications that their scientists are believed to have
> written. Many of these publications claim to be based upon the same
> scientific evidence which supposedly documented the safety of the drug
> in order to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA).
> Ghostwriters and Vioxx researchIn what seems to be deceptive maneuvers
> to many people in both the medical and the publishing fields, Merck
> acknowledged that it has been known to hire outside professional
> writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get
> published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical
> community. Critics are expressing doubt about the validity of the
> research and about the actual involvement of the scientists listed as
> authors of the papers. One especially galling example is that of the
> paper being developed as solid academic research but the lead writer
> is listed as “External author?”
>
> Dr. Joseph S. Ross, of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, came
> across the apparently ghostwritten research studies while reviewing
> documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck. Because Ross has
> served as plaintiffs’ consultant in some of the legal cases, he had
> access to the millions of documents Merck supplied plaintiffs’ legal
> teams.
>
> Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle claims in tens of
> thousands of lawsuits filed by people who once took Vioxx or their
> surviving families.
>
> Merck officials claim the practice is not uncommon throughout the
> pharmaceutical industry and that Ross’s conclusion that the authors
> named in these publications don’t actually participate adequately is
> false. Merck’s claim is seconded by Dr. Steven H. Ferris, a psychiatry
> professor at New York University, who is himself listed as author on a
> Merck publication suspected of being ghostwritten. Ferris describes
> Ross’s accusations as egregious and false.
>
> An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical
> Association (JAMA) puts forth the question of whether Merck might have
> deliberately manipulated dozens of seemingly academic published
> documents in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.
>
> Dr. Catherine D. DeAngels, editor of JAMA, says that journal published
> a Vioxx study in 2002 that is now in question. This particular article
> did list a Merck staff scientist as lead author but ghostwriters were
> involved, too. DeAngelis considers it a dishonest move that the work
> of the ghostwriters were not fully disclosed when the document was
> submitted for publication.
>
> Saying she feels the journal has been scammed, DeAngelis suggests than
> an even less desirable practice is when a for-profit company hires a
> for-profit writing firm to produce scientific research studies and
> then finds a doctor willing to endorse it before publication.
>
> In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered
> internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical
> study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the
> company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In
> others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the
> report made substantial contribution to the research itself.
>
> Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern deny
> their lack of involvement or question the true nature of ghostwriting.
> One neurologist, originally listed as “External author?” and then
> listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the Unviversity of California, San
> Diego, in the final draft died a year ago in an airplane crash.
>
> The journal Neuropsychopharmacology published the Thal paper on
> Alzheimer’s disease in 2005. Citing prohibitions against the practice
> of substituting a well-known doctor’s name to research conducted by
> others, the journal’s current editor, Dr. James H. Meador-Woodruff,
> plans to investigation the allegations.
>
> Merck officials said on Tuesday that even when outside authors are
> listed for publication, they are in fact involved in the research
> process as well as the drafting and final review of any paper which
> bears their names. They also admitted that professional writers have
> sometimes been hired to develop drafts early on but the final work
> belongs to the doctor named as author. Merck lawyer James C.
> Fitzpatrick says this practice doesn’t necessarily mean the final
> product doesn’t reflect the listed author’s opinion of the work.
>
> The Ross article includes a review of companies in the business of
> medical writing, including Scientific Therapeutics of New York. Ross’s
> research uncovered one of their memos to Merck dated 1999 in which the
> status of eight separate reports was mentioned.
>
> One of those eight reports was targeted for publication in JAMA. When
> it was completed, it was indeed published in JAMA in January 2002. At
> publication, the paper listed two outside academic physicians acting
> as co-principal investigators and the lead author was identified as a
> Merck employee. There was no mention of the role Scientific
> Therapeutics played in writing the paper.
>
> The JAMA editorial notes that editors of these journals bear some
> responsibility by allowing companies, such as Merck, to manipulate
> their publications.
>
> Putting Merck in even more hot water is a second article in
> Wednesday’s JAMA that is based on some of the same documents Ross
> reviewed. Written by Drs. Bruce Psaty and Richard A. Kronmal, both of
> the University of Washington, the paper claims Merck was not fully
> candid when submitting data for review by the US Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) during the time before Vioxx was recalled.
>
> Calling the Psaty/Kronmal analysis misleading, Merck says the FDA knew
> of cardiovascular risks linked to Vioxx and was involved with on-going
> discussion of the matter with Merck.
I thought it was well known by now; all drug companies have a staff of
scientific writers both internal and external who write papers for the
MDs who serve as principal researchers; as well as a staff of
statisticians, etc. who do the data crunching. Typically all the MD
need provide is a site, a supply of eligible subjects, and the hands-
on treatment, as well as a reputable name. For which they receive a
pretty sizable payment, as well as the credit for the final
publication, which serves to add to their reputation.
But that's not necessarily bad; the folks who do this work for the
drug companies are among the best at their jobs and in general tend to
be upright, moral and ethical, after putting in a lot of years
training. The possibility is there for bias but in the vast majority
of cases the writers withstand the pressures of the marketing folks.
The way things are set up, there isn't much alternative to trusting
the integrity and talent of the pharmaceutical company paper-
generating staff. Without them, applied medical research would just
collapse; unlike basic research it's too expensive for educational
instutitions funded by the government to run it.
Of course, this isn't that much different from the higher level
academic researcher, whose research is done and papers written by his
staff without his direct participation. As observed in the occasional
case of fraud, if one of those underlings decides to perpetrate a
fraud, nobody catches them until a lot later (if ever....). The whole
system depends on the integrity of the average researcher/author,
privately or publicly funded. Which, luckily, seems to be higher, on
the whole, than the integrity of the average lawyer, plumber,
fishmonger, auto mechanic, etc.....
On May 27, 12:25 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo,com > wrote:
> Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal.
>
> http :// ilenarose.blogspot,com
>
> I feel thrilled to see this exposed. Merck's propaganda is everywhere.
>
> It's very present on Usenet and these groups particularly.
>
> The Merck Gardasil Pushers here on Usenet try to cover-up all the
> problems, and repeat industry claims that have no scientific backing
> whatsoever. They rely on small, recent 'studies' to make claims as to
> Gardasil's effectiveness and safety. It's identical to the silicone
> industry using tiny, manufacturer designed and purchased 'studies' to
> claim breast implants are 'safe.'
>
> I believe that Barrett and his Snake-oil Vigilantes push vaccinations
> and attack and sue those of who concerned over vaccination safety.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Stephen-Barrettwww .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Mark-Probert
>
> Quackwatch and the related Health Frauds groups and blogs claim to be
> 'consumer protectors' ... yet where are their warnings and expose's on
> Vioxx?
>
> Barrett, a medical writer, goes ballistic over homeopathy ... suing
> homeopaths and activists in the name of 'safety' ... but has no
> trouble with the thousands of Vioxx related deaths.
>
> These Healthfrauds go on massive media wars to discredit homeopaths,
> chiropractors, scientists working to unravel the complicated MCS, and
> fluoride and breast implant awareness activists ... suing us and
> unleashing Snake-oil Vigilantes to smear our reputations ... yet are
> blind deaf & dumb about the harm of Big Pharma.
>
> It is exactly as if they were hired to run around various medium like
> flak in Iraq ... taking attention from the dangerous drugs ... while
> attacking activists and scientists they oppose.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
>
> http :// medheadlines,com /2008/04/16/hired-writers-not-scientists-behin...
>
> In a new twist to the ethical issues Merck Inc, faces over Vioxx
> (rofecoxib), the company’s one-time best seller that was pulled from
> the market in 2004, because it became closely associated with patient
> heart attacks, some argue that the company hired writers to fashion
> the medical publications that their scientists are believed to have
> written. Many of these publications claim to be based upon the same
> scientific evidence which supposedly documented the safety of the drug
> in order to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA).
> Ghostwriters and Vioxx researchIn what seems to be deceptive maneuvers
> to many people in both the medical and the publishing fields, Merck
> acknowledged that it has been known to hire outside professional
> writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get
> published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical
> community. Critics are expressing doubt about the validity of the
> research and about the actual involvement of the scientists listed as
> authors of the papers. One especially galling example is that of the
> paper being developed as solid academic research but the lead writer
> is listed as “External author?”
>
> Dr. Joseph S. Ross, of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, came
> across the apparently ghostwritten research studies while reviewing
> documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck. Because Ross has
> served as plaintiffs’ consultant in some of the legal cases, he had
> access to the millions of documents Merck supplied plaintiffs’ legal
> teams.
>
> Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle claims in tens of
> thousands of lawsuits filed by people who once took Vioxx or their
> surviving families.
>
> Merck officials claim the practice is not uncommon throughout the
> pharmaceutical industry and that Ross’s conclusion that the authors
> named in these publications don’t actually participate adequately is
> false. Merck’s claim is seconded by Dr. Steven H. Ferris, a psychiatry
> professor at New York University, who is himself listed as author on a
> Merck publication suspected of being ghostwritten. Ferris describes
> Ross’s accusations as egregious and false.
>
> An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical
> Association (JAMA) puts forth the question of whether Merck might have
> deliberately manipulated dozens of seemingly academic published
> documents in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.
>
> Dr. Catherine D. DeAngels, editor of JAMA, says that journal published
> a Vioxx study in 2002 that is now in question. This particular article
> did list a Merck staff scientist as lead author but ghostwriters were
> involved, too. DeAngelis considers it a dishonest move that the work
> of the ghostwriters were not fully disclosed when the document was
> submitted for publication.
>
> Saying she feels the journal has been scammed, DeAngelis suggests than
> an even less desirable practice is when a for-profit company hires a
> for-profit writing firm to produce scientific research studies and
> then finds a doctor willing to endorse it before publication.
>
> In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered
> internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical
> study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the
> company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In
> others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the
> report made substantial contribution to the research itself.
>
> Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern deny
> their lack of involvement or question the true nature of ghostwriting.
> One neurologist, originally listed as “External author?” and then
> listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the Unviversity of California, San
> Diego, in the final draft died a year ago in an airplane crash.
>
> The journal Neuropsychopharmacology published the Thal paper on
> Alzheimer’s disease in 2005. Citing prohibitions against the practice
> of substituting a well-known doctor’s name to research conducted by
> others, the journal’s current editor, Dr. James H. Meador-Woodruff,
> plans to investigation the allegations.
>
> Merck officials said on Tuesday that even when outside authors are
> listed for publication, they are in fact involved in the research
> process as well as the drafting and final review of any paper which
> bears their names. They also admitted that professional writers have
> sometimes been hired to develop drafts early on but the final work
> belongs to the doctor named as author. Merck lawyer James C.
> Fitzpatrick says this practice doesn’t necessarily mean the final
> product doesn’t reflect the listed author’s opinion of the work.
>
> The Ross article includes a review of companies in the business of
> medical writing, including Scientific Therapeutics of New York. Ross’s
> research uncovered one of their memos to Merck dated 1999 in which the
> status of eight separate reports was mentioned.
>
> One of those eight reports was targeted for publication in JAMA. When
> it was completed, it was indeed published in JAMA in January 2002. At
> publication, the paper listed two outside academic physicians acting
> as co-principal investigators and the lead author was identified as a
> Merck employee. There was no mention of the role Scientific
> Therapeutics played in writing the paper.
>
> The JAMA editorial notes that editors of these journals bear some
> responsibility by allowing companies, such as Merck, to manipulate
> their publications.
>
> Putting Merck in even more hot water is a second article in
> Wednesday’s JAMA that is based on some of the same documents Ross
> reviewed. Written by Drs. Bruce Psaty and Richard A. Kronmal, both of
> the University of Washington, the paper claims Merck was not fully
> candid when submitting data for review by the US Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) during the time before Vioxx was recalled.
>
> Calling the Psaty/Kronmal analysis misleading, Merck says the FDA knew
> of cardiovascular risks linked to Vioxx and was involved with on-going
> discussion of the matter with Merck.
I thought it was well known by now; all drug companies have a staff of
scientific writers both internal and external who write papers for the
MDs who serve as principal researchers; as well as a staff of
statisticians, etc. who do the data crunching. Typically all the MD
need provide is a site, a supply of eligible subjects, and the hands-
on treatment, as well as a reputable name. For which they receive a
pretty sizable payment, as well as the credit for the final
publication, which serves to add to their reputation.
But that's not necessarily bad; the folks who do this work for the
drug companies are among the best at their jobs and in general tend to
be upright, moral and ethical, after putting in a lot of years
training. The possibility is there for bias but in the vast majority
of cases the writers withstand the pressures of the marketing folks.
The way things are set up, there isn't much alternative to trusting
the integrity and talent of the pharmaceutical company paper-
generating staff. Without them, applied medical research would just
collapse; unlike basic research it's too expensive for educational
instutitions funded by the government to run it.
Of course, this isn't that much different from the higher level
academic researcher, whose research is done and papers written by his
staff without his direct participation. As observed in the occasional
case of fraud, if one of those underlings decides to perpetrate a
fraud, nobody catches them until a lot later (if ever....). The whole
system depends on the integrity of the average researcher/author,
privately or publicly funded. Which, luckily, seems to be higher, on
the whole, than the integrity of the average lawyer, plumber,
fishmonger, auto mechanic, etc.....
Re: MERCK HIRED WRITERS ... NOT SCIENTISTS ... FOR VIOXX COVER UP
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail,net > wrote in message
news:5e622ebb-1fcf-4495-95e6-e741f64eca6f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
On May 27, 12:25 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo,com > wrote:
> Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal.
>
> http :// ilenarose.blogspot,com
>
> I feel thrilled to see this exposed. Merck's propaganda is everywhere.
>
> It's very present on Usenet and these groups particularly.
>
> The Merck Gardasil Pushers here on Usenet try to cover-up all the
> problems, and repeat industry claims that have no scientific backing
> whatsoever. They rely on small, recent 'studies' to make claims as to
> Gardasil's effectiveness and safety. It's identical to the silicone
> industry using tiny, manufacturer designed and purchased 'studies' to
> claim breast implants are 'safe.'
>
> I believe that Barrett and his Snake-oil Vigilantes push vaccinations
> and attack and sue those of who concerned over vaccination
> safety.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Stephen-Barrettwww .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Mark-Probert
>
> Quackwatch and the related Health Frauds groups and blogs claim to be
> 'consumer protectors' ... yet where are their warnings and expose's on
> Vioxx?
>
> Barrett, a medical writer, goes ballistic over homeopathy ... suing
> homeopaths and activists in the name of 'safety' ... but has no
> trouble with the thousands of Vioxx related deaths.
>
> These Healthfrauds go on massive media wars to discredit homeopaths,
> chiropractors, scientists working to unravel the complicated MCS, and
> fluoride and breast implant awareness activists ... suing us and
> unleashing Snake-oil Vigilantes to smear our reputations ... yet are
> blind deaf & dumb about the harm of Big Pharma.
>
> It is exactly as if they were hired to run around various medium like
> flak in Iraq ... taking attention from the dangerous drugs ... while
> attacking activists and scientists they
> oppose.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
>
> http :// medheadlines,com /2008/04/16/hired-writers-not-scientists-behin...
>
> In a new twist to the ethical issues Merck Inc, faces over Vioxx
> (rofecoxib), the company’s one-time best seller that was pulled from
> the market in 2004, because it became closely associated with patient
> heart attacks, some argue that the company hired writers to fashion
> the medical publications that their scientists are believed to have
> written. Many of these publications claim to be based upon the same
> scientific evidence which supposedly documented the safety of the drug
> in order to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA).
> Ghostwriters and Vioxx researchIn what seems to be deceptive maneuvers
> to many people in both the medical and the publishing fields, Merck
> acknowledged that it has been known to hire outside professional
> writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get
> published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical
> community. Critics are expressing doubt about the validity of the
> research and about the actual involvement of the scientists listed as
> authors of the papers. One especially galling example is that of the
> paper being developed as solid academic research but the lead writer
> is listed as “External author?”
>
> Dr. Joseph S. Ross, of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, came
> across the apparently ghostwritten research studies while reviewing
> documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck. Because Ross has
> served as plaintiffs’ consultant in some of the legal cases, he had
> access to the millions of documents Merck supplied plaintiffs’ legal
> teams.
>
> Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle claims in tens of
> thousands of lawsuits filed by people who once took Vioxx or their
> surviving families.
>
> Merck officials claim the practice is not uncommon throughout the
> pharmaceutical industry and that Ross’s conclusion that the authors
> named in these publications don’t actually participate adequately is
> false. Merck’s claim is seconded by Dr. Steven H. Ferris, a psychiatry
> professor at New York University, who is himself listed as author on a
> Merck publication suspected of being ghostwritten. Ferris describes
> Ross’s accusations as egregious and false.
>
> An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical
> Association (JAMA) puts forth the question of whether Merck might have
> deliberately manipulated dozens of seemingly academic published
> documents in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.
>
> Dr. Catherine D. DeAngels, editor of JAMA, says that journal published
> a Vioxx study in 2002 that is now in question. This particular article
> did list a Merck staff scientist as lead author but ghostwriters were
> involved, too. DeAngelis considers it a dishonest move that the work
> of the ghostwriters were not fully disclosed when the document was
> submitted for publication.
>
> Saying she feels the journal has been scammed, DeAngelis suggests than
> an even less desirable practice is when a for-profit company hires a
> for-profit writing firm to produce scientific research studies and
> then finds a doctor willing to endorse it before publication.
>
> In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered
> internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical
> study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the
> company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In
> others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the
> report made substantial contribution to the research itself.
>
> Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern deny
> their lack of involvement or question the true nature of ghostwriting.
> One neurologist, originally listed as “External author?” and then
> listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the Unviversity of California, San
> Diego, in the final draft died a year ago in an airplane crash.
>
> The journal Neuropsychopharmacology published the Thal paper on
> Alzheimer’s disease in 2005. Citing prohibitions against the practice
> of substituting a well-known doctor’s name to research conducted by
> others, the journal’s current editor, Dr. James H. Meador-Woodruff,
> plans to investigation the allegations.
>
> Merck officials said on Tuesday that even when outside authors are
> listed for publication, they are in fact involved in the research
> process as well as the drafting and final review of any paper which
> bears their names. They also admitted that professional writers have
> sometimes been hired to develop drafts early on but the final work
> belongs to the doctor named as author. Merck lawyer James C.
> Fitzpatrick says this practice doesn’t necessarily mean the final
> product doesn’t reflect the listed author’s opinion of the work.
>
> The Ross article includes a review of companies in the business of
> medical writing, including Scientific Therapeutics of New York. Ross’s
> research uncovered one of their memos to Merck dated 1999 in which the
> status of eight separate reports was mentioned.
>
> One of those eight reports was targeted for publication in JAMA. When
> it was completed, it was indeed published in JAMA in January 2002. At
> publication, the paper listed two outside academic physicians acting
> as co-principal investigators and the lead author was identified as a
> Merck employee. There was no mention of the role Scientific
> Therapeutics played in writing the paper.
>
> The JAMA editorial notes that editors of these journals bear some
> responsibility by allowing companies, such as Merck, to manipulate
> their publications.
>
> Putting Merck in even more hot water is a second article in
> Wednesday’s JAMA that is based on some of the same documents Ross
> reviewed. Written by Drs. Bruce Psaty and Richard A. Kronmal, both of
> the University of Washington, the paper claims Merck was not fully
> candid when submitting data for review by the US Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) during the time before Vioxx was recalled.
>
> Calling the Psaty/Kronmal analysis misleading, Merck says the FDA knew
> of cardiovascular risks linked to Vioxx and was involved with on-going
> discussion of the matter with Merck.
I thought it was well known by now; all drug companies have a staff of
scientific writers both internal and external who write papers for the
MDs who serve as principal researchers; as well as a staff of
statisticians, etc. who do the data crunching. Typically all the MD
need provide is a site, a supply of eligible subjects, and the hands-
on treatment, as well as a reputable name. For which they receive a
pretty sizable payment, as well as the credit for the final
publication, which serves to add to their reputation.
But that's not necessarily bad; the folks who do this work for the
drug companies are among the best at their jobs and in general tend to
be upright, moral and ethical,
Wow, man what a false statement.
But-then-considering your posting history.
I am not surprised.
after putting in a lot of years
training. The possibility is there for bias but in the vast majority
of cases the writers withstand the pressures of the marketing folks.
The way things are set up, there isn't much alternative to trusting
the integrity and talent of the pharmaceutical company paper-
generating staff. Without them, applied medical research would just
collapse; unlike basic research it's too expensive for educational
instutitions funded by the government to run it.
Of course, this isn't that much different from the higher level
academic researcher, whose research is done and papers written by his
staff without his direct participation. As observed in the occasional
case of fraud, if one of those underlings decides to perpetrate a
fraud, nobody catches them until a lot later (if ever....). The whole
system depends on the integrity of the average researcher/author,
privately or publicly funded. Which, luckily, seems to be higher, on
the whole, than the integrity of the average lawyer, plumber,
fishmonger, auto mechanic, etc.....
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail,net > wrote in message
news:5e622ebb-1fcf-4495-95e6-e741f64eca6f@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups,com ...
On May 27, 12:25 pm, Ilena Rose <B...@mundo,com > wrote:
> Note from Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal.
>
> http :// ilenarose.blogspot,com
>
> I feel thrilled to see this exposed. Merck's propaganda is everywhere.
>
> It's very present on Usenet and these groups particularly.
>
> The Merck Gardasil Pushers here on Usenet try to cover-up all the
> problems, and repeat industry claims that have no scientific backing
> whatsoever. They rely on small, recent 'studies' to make claims as to
> Gardasil's effectiveness and safety. It's identical to the silicone
> industry using tiny, manufacturer designed and purchased 'studies' to
> claim breast implants are 'safe.'
>
> I believe that Barrett and his Snake-oil Vigilantes push vaccinations
> and attack and sue those of who concerned over vaccination
> safety.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Stephen-Barrettwww .BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm/Mark-Probert
>
> Quackwatch and the related Health Frauds groups and blogs claim to be
> 'consumer protectors' ... yet where are their warnings and expose's on
> Vioxx?
>
> Barrett, a medical writer, goes ballistic over homeopathy ... suing
> homeopaths and activists in the name of 'safety' ... but has no
> trouble with the thousands of Vioxx related deaths.
>
> These Healthfrauds go on massive media wars to discredit homeopaths,
> chiropractors, scientists working to unravel the complicated MCS, and
> fluoride and breast implant awareness activists ... suing us and
> unleashing Snake-oil Vigilantes to smear our reputations ... yet are
> blind deaf & dumb about the harm of Big Pharma.
>
> It is exactly as if they were hired to run around various medium like
> flak in Iraq ... taking attention from the dangerous drugs ... while
> attacking activists and scientists they
> oppose.www .BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
>
> http :// medheadlines,com /2008/04/16/hired-writers-not-scientists-behin...
>
> In a new twist to the ethical issues Merck Inc, faces over Vioxx
> (rofecoxib), the company’s one-time best seller that was pulled from
> the market in 2004, because it became closely associated with patient
> heart attacks, some argue that the company hired writers to fashion
> the medical publications that their scientists are believed to have
> written. Many of these publications claim to be based upon the same
> scientific evidence which supposedly documented the safety of the drug
> in order to obtain approval from the US Food and Drug Administration
> (FDA).
> Ghostwriters and Vioxx researchIn what seems to be deceptive maneuvers
> to many people in both the medical and the publishing fields, Merck
> acknowledged that it has been known to hire outside professional
> writers to develop research-related documents that eventually get
> published under the name of reputable leaders in the medical
> community. Critics are expressing doubt about the validity of the
> research and about the actual involvement of the scientists listed as
> authors of the papers. One especially galling example is that of the
> paper being developed as solid academic research but the lead writer
> is listed as “External author?”
>
> Dr. Joseph S. Ross, of New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine, came
> across the apparently ghostwritten research studies while reviewing
> documents related to lawsuits filed against Merck. Because Ross has
> served as plaintiffs’ consultant in some of the legal cases, he had
> access to the millions of documents Merck supplied plaintiffs’ legal
> teams.
>
> Merck has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle claims in tens of
> thousands of lawsuits filed by people who once took Vioxx or their
> surviving families.
>
> Merck officials claim the practice is not uncommon throughout the
> pharmaceutical industry and that Ross’s conclusion that the authors
> named in these publications don’t actually participate adequately is
> false. Merck’s claim is seconded by Dr. Steven H. Ferris, a psychiatry
> professor at New York University, who is himself listed as author on a
> Merck publication suspected of being ghostwritten. Ferris describes
> Ross’s accusations as egregious and false.
>
> An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical
> Association (JAMA) puts forth the question of whether Merck might have
> deliberately manipulated dozens of seemingly academic published
> documents in order to promote Vioxx under false pretenses.
>
> Dr. Catherine D. DeAngels, editor of JAMA, says that journal published
> a Vioxx study in 2002 that is now in question. This particular article
> did list a Merck staff scientist as lead author but ghostwriters were
> involved, too. DeAngelis considers it a dishonest move that the work
> of the ghostwriters were not fully disclosed when the document was
> submitted for publication.
>
> Saying she feels the journal has been scammed, DeAngelis suggests than
> an even less desirable practice is when a for-profit company hires a
> for-profit writing firm to produce scientific research studies and
> then finds a doctor willing to endorse it before publication.
>
> In about 96 journal publications, Ross and his colleagues discovered
> internal Merck documents and e-mail messages pertaining to clinical
> study reports and review articles, some of which were developed by the
> company’s marketing department, not its scientific department. In
> others, there is little evidence that the authors recruited for the
> report made substantial contribution to the research itself.
>
> Some of the authors listed in the Merck study reports of concern deny
> their lack of involvement or question the true nature of ghostwriting.
> One neurologist, originally listed as “External author?” and then
> listed as Dr. Leon J. Thal, of the Unviversity of California, San
> Diego, in the final draft died a year ago in an airplane crash.
>
> The journal Neuropsychopharmacology published the Thal paper on
> Alzheimer’s disease in 2005. Citing prohibitions against the practice
> of substituting a well-known doctor’s name to research conducted by
> others, the journal’s current editor, Dr. James H. Meador-Woodruff,
> plans to investigation the allegations.
>
> Merck officials said on Tuesday that even when outside authors are
> listed for publication, they are in fact involved in the research
> process as well as the drafting and final review of any paper which
> bears their names. They also admitted that professional writers have
> sometimes been hired to develop drafts early on but the final work
> belongs to the doctor named as author. Merck lawyer James C.
> Fitzpatrick says this practice doesn’t necessarily mean the final
> product doesn’t reflect the listed author’s opinion of the work.
>
> The Ross article includes a review of companies in the business of
> medical writing, including Scientific Therapeutics of New York. Ross’s
> research uncovered one of their memos to Merck dated 1999 in which the
> status of eight separate reports was mentioned.
>
> One of those eight reports was targeted for publication in JAMA. When
> it was completed, it was indeed published in JAMA in January 2002. At
> publication, the paper listed two outside academic physicians acting
> as co-principal investigators and the lead author was identified as a
> Merck employee. There was no mention of the role Scientific
> Therapeutics played in writing the paper.
>
> The JAMA editorial notes that editors of these journals bear some
> responsibility by allowing companies, such as Merck, to manipulate
> their publications.
>
> Putting Merck in even more hot water is a second article in
> Wednesday’s JAMA that is based on some of the same documents Ross
> reviewed. Written by Drs. Bruce Psaty and Richard A. Kronmal, both of
> the University of Washington, the paper claims Merck was not fully
> candid when submitting data for review by the US Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) during the time before Vioxx was recalled.
>
> Calling the Psaty/Kronmal analysis misleading, Merck says the FDA knew
> of cardiovascular risks linked to Vioxx and was involved with on-going
> discussion of the matter with Merck.
I thought it was well known by now; all drug companies have a staff of
scientific writers both internal and external who write papers for the
MDs who serve as principal researchers; as well as a staff of
statisticians, etc. who do the data crunching. Typically all the MD
need provide is a site, a supply of eligible subjects, and the hands-
on treatment, as well as a reputable name. For which they receive a
pretty sizable payment, as well as the credit for the final
publication, which serves to add to their reputation.
But that's not necessarily bad; the folks who do this work for the
drug companies are among the best at their jobs and in general tend to
be upright, moral and ethical,
Wow, man what a false statement.
But-then-considering your posting history.
I am not surprised.
after putting in a lot of years
training. The possibility is there for bias but in the vast majority
of cases the writers withstand the pressures of the marketing folks.
The way things are set up, there isn't much alternative to trusting
the integrity and talent of the pharmaceutical company paper-
generating staff. Without them, applied medical research would just
collapse; unlike basic research it's too expensive for educational
instutitions funded by the government to run it.
Of course, this isn't that much different from the higher level
academic researcher, whose research is done and papers written by his
staff without his direct participation. As observed in the occasional
case of fraud, if one of those underlings decides to perpetrate a
fraud, nobody catches them until a lot later (if ever....). The whole
system depends on the integrity of the average researcher/author,
privately or publicly funded. Which, luckily, seems to be higher, on
the whole, than the integrity of the average lawyer, plumber,
fishmonger, auto mechanic, etc.....
Next: IMPORTANT READ: Psychiatry Continues to Harm
Previous: Though approved by FDA, microchip implants linked to cancer in animal studies...
