<< Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Bibliography (page 11 of 13) Willman, D. (2001). Risk Was Known as FDA OKed Fatal Drug. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. March 11, 2001.       The article chronicles Warner-Lambert's push and subsequent approval of the kidney drug Rezulin. Although liver damage was apparent in the clinical trial, Warner-Lambert's "partnership" with the FDA allowed for swift authorization. This should be a warning to all regulatory bodies about attaching themselves too closely to studies. Willman, D. (2003). Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Government Medical Research. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles: A1, A32. December 7, 2003.      Some of the National Institutes of Health's top scientists are also collecting paychecks and stock options from biomedical firms. Increasingly, such deals are kept secret. Willman, D. (2004). The National Institutes of Health: Public Servant or Private Marketer? Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA: A29. December 22, 2004.       Another in a series of Willman's articles that deals with conflicts of interest. This one points out key scientists in the NIH with blatant COIs and the effect this has on research. Willman, D. (2005). NIH to Ban Deals With Drug Firms. Los Angeles Times. LA, CA: A1, A17. February 1, 2005.       After initially breaking the COIs at the NIH, Willman announced the ban placed on industry-physician consulting relationships as well as other financial interests. These two Willman pieces on the NIH were monumentally influential in bringing to light gross inconsistencies in policy and their negative effects on the public. Ziegler, M., P. Lew, et al. (1995). "The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical sales representatives." JAMA 273(16): 1296-8.       To provide quantitative data about the accuracy of the information about drugs presented to physicians by pharmaceutical sales representatives the authors investigated. one hundred six statements about drugs made during 13 presentations by pharmaceutical representatives. Statements were rated inaccurate if they contradicted the 1993 Physicians' Desk Reference or material quoted or handed out by the sales representative. They found that twelve (11%) of 106 statements about drugs were inaccurate. All 12 inaccurate statements were favorable toward the promoted drug, whereas 39 (49%) of 79 accurate statements were favorable. None of 15 statements about competitors' drugs were favorable, but all were accurate, significantly differing from statements about promoted drugs. In a survey of 27 physicians who attended these presentations, seven recalled a false statement made by a pharmaceutical representative, and 10 said information from the representatives influenced the way they prescribed drugs. They claim that eleven percent of the statements made by pharmaceutical representatives about drugs contradicted information readily available to them. Physicians generally failed to recognize the inaccurate statements. Brennan, T. A., D. J. Rothman, et al. (2006). "Health Industry Practices That Create the physician's roles Conflicts of Interest: A Policy Proposal for Academic Medical Centers." JAMA 295(4): 429-433.       Conflicts of interest between physicians' commitment to patient care and the blandishments that pharmaceutical companies and their representatives lavish on them impair professionalism in medicine. Although the involved groups, including the Federal government have instituted self-regulation of marketing, research into gift receipt and giving indicates that current controls will not satisfactorily protect the interests of patients. More stringent regulation is necessary, including the elimination or modification of common practices. They propose a policy for academic medical centers to take the lead in eliminating these conflicts of interest that impair patient care. Stossel, T. (2005). Mere Magazines. The Wall Street Journal. Washington, DC: A16. December 30, 2005.      In this brief article Dr. Stossel raises important questions about the arrogance of major medical journals and their persistent negative attitude towards the companies that are responsible for all the advances in medicine that we have seen over the past half-century. Whether or not you end up agreeing with the arguments, this is a refreshing contrast with the uniformity of the beating big Pharma has been taking in the medical literature and the media. << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Chapter 4 Quick Links Conflicts of Interest (COI) Definitions Consequences of a COI Government Intervention Industry Sponsorship Professional Societies Clinical Practice Guidelines Other Initiatives COI in Financial Consulting Cases Bibliography Chapter 4 Download (PDF)