Media List Of Medical Experts Who Aren't Pharma Whores Goes Public, Controversy Ensues
July 29, 2008
Many of you already know the work of journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, who among other things authored this lovely takedown of "The Infinite Mind" radio show a few months ago (I was also critical of conflicts of interest in guests on the show who appeared to praise anti-depressants and deny that there was suicidality attached to their use). Around the same time, the pair put together a list of 100 medical experts who hadn't received funding from Big Pharma in five years or who separately pretty much were critical of pharma despite having gotten money from them within five years. The list was intended for media sorts only, the pair's way of getting the pharma influence out of health stories in the American media.
Now the list has gone public through the British Medical Journal, for whom the two sometimes write. The list went public basically to blunt criticism of who was on it and who wasn't by some in the medical community as well as by pharma defenders in the blogosphere.
Before I go further and since this whole affair is about conflicts, I should probably clear the decks concerning possible ones on this end. I was a fairly early recipient of the list, defended the hell out of the pair when they were criticized over their criticism of the radio show and am friendly with both in a journalists trading emails every so often sort of way. As a journalist, I was heartened to see some of my colleagues try to provide others in the field with a list of medical experts who wouldn't be tainted by questions of pharma influence and whom, in turn, the public could rely on to at least have clean hands (their medical opinions likely vary in quality, but that's almost beside the point). I can assure you that a list like this is handy to have especially for reporters on deadline and for reporters who are trying to get unbiased views of medical treatments.
--MORE--
Many of you already know the work of journalists Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, who among other things authored this lovely takedown of "The Infinite Mind" radio show a few months ago (I was also critical of conflicts of interest in guests on the show who appeared to praise anti-depressants and deny that there was suicidality attached to their use). Around the same time, the pair put together a list of 100 medical experts who hadn't received funding from Big Pharma in five years or who separately pretty much were critical of pharma despite having gotten money from them within five years. The list was intended for media sorts only, the pair's way of getting the pharma influence out of health stories in the American media.
Now the list has gone public through the British Medical Journal, for whom the two sometimes write. The list went public basically to blunt criticism of who was on it and who wasn't by some in the medical community as well as by pharma defenders in the blogosphere.
Before I go further and since this whole affair is about conflicts, I should probably clear the decks concerning possible ones on this end. I was a fairly early recipient of the list, defended the hell out of the pair when they were criticized over their criticism of the radio show and am friendly with both in a journalists trading emails every so often sort of way. As a journalist, I was heartened to see some of my colleagues try to provide others in the field with a list of medical experts who wouldn't be tainted by questions of pharma influence and whom, in turn, the public could rely on to at least have clean hands (their medical opinions likely vary in quality, but that's almost beside the point). I can assure you that a list like this is handy to have especially for reporters on deadline and for reporters who are trying to get unbiased views of medical treatments.
--MORE--