-
They choose what is released when they don’t publish negative studies.
-
They choose what is released when they don’t register or report their trials as required.
-
They choose what is released when they have guest authors signing on to their articles.
-
They choose what is released when they hire medical writing firms to write papers.
-
They choose what is released when they use the tools of analysis to obscure.
-
They choose what is released when they monitor the publication from start to finish.
I just erased several paragraphs that reiterated the various proposals of GSK, of the EFPIA, of Neal Parker of AbbVie, etc. They are filled with reasons for the pharmaceutical companies to object to data transparency or to try to pass off data sharing in its place – some are forced rationalizations, some are faux humanitarian arguments, and some actually reasonable concerns. I erased them because I’ve decided that it’s a trap to even argue. So long as their reasons lead to the conclusion that…
The pharmaceutical company itself chooses what is to be released
… it’s an unacceptable argument, no matter whether it’s reasonable or not, simply because it leaves them with the perogative to continue to cheat and distort without anyone being able to check their work. There are plenty of ways to protect the interests of research subjects and protect the company’s business interests that don’t leave them the option of continuing to flood our literature with distorted Clinical Trial reports signed by non-participating academic key opinion leaders [whose medical licenses should have been revoked some time ago].
So when you read these various counter proposals or listen to the likes of Neal Parker of AbbVie, simplify things for yourself. If the bottom line is …
The pharmaceutical company itself chooses what is to be released
Nice job Mickey.
There is an old concept in sales called diversion. Here the person doing the selling tries to divert the conversation and focus the time of those involved on an issue they either cannot win or is not important. Pharma is a sales based industry and will return to its roots when dealing with a problem.
They will claim to be dealing in good faith all the while ignoring the real issues. These people bottom line everything and there is no emotion to any decision. When people die or are injured it is their fault. When the drug does not work the problem is they need a higher dose.
People dealing with pharma need to understand that they do not care, it is all about sales and how do I get my bonus. Money is how you keep score and until someone is put in jail they will continue what they feel is a winning strategy.
Steve Lucas
“The pharmaceutical company itself chooses what is to be released.” Mickey
This conflict of scientific objectivity vs fabricated “evidence” was inevitable and will continue to be an issue in the future. The money simply won’t substitute the data.