'

DrugWonks on Twitter

DrugWonks on Facebook

CMPI Videos


Video Montage of Third Annual Odyssey Awards Gala Featuring Governor Mitch Daniels, Montel Williams, Dr. Paul Offit and CMPI president Peter Pitts


Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels


Montel Williams, Emmy Award-Winning Talk Show Host


Paul Offit, M.D., Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for Leadership in Transformational Medicine


CMPI president Peter J. Pitts


CMPI Web Video: "Science or Celebrity"

Social Networks



Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS




Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites
Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory

Tabloid Medicine

Please Check out the latest book by
Dr. Robert Goldberg Ph.D.
"Tabloid Medicine"

Check Out CMPI's Book

Physician Disempowerment:
A Transatlantic Malaise

Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version
Here

CMPI Events

Donate

CMPI Reports

Blog Roll

Alliance for Patient Access Alternative Health Practice
AHRP

Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum

Club For Growth
CNEhealth.org

Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare

Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst

The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog
 


JAMA Publishes Fake Science Study of Industry Influence of Patient Groups

2017-01-20 | Robert Goldberg
A report published in JAMA Internal Medicine entitled “Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest” Susannah L. Rose, PhD1,2; Janelle Highland, MA3; Matthew T. Karafa, PhD4; et al  is a textbook example of fake science.
 
Here’s the article abstract:
 
Question What is the nature of industry funding of patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) in the United States?
 
Findings This survey study found that 6 percent of a national sample of patient advocacy organizations, virtually all of which were not for profit, reported receiving funding from for-profit companies. Twelve percent received more than half of their funding from industry; a median proportion of 45 percent of industry funding was derived from the pharmaceutical, device, and/or biotechnology sectors.
 
Why is this fake science?
 
 The authors skew the survey results to prove that industry contributions to patient advocacy organizations are a conflict of interest.   Here’s how the survey results are presented in the article: 


 
 
At first glance, the results do not reflect the assertion that “evil company” money is corrupting patient groups.  In fact, less than 20 percent of groups reported receiving ANY funding from evil private companies.   Here’s the survey data formatted to reflect this fact.
 

 
As the chart below shows, most of the patient advocacy organizations received less than 25 percent of their revenue from companies.
 

 
 
The authors then go on to conclude from this data that companies have undue influence on patient groups.  Yet the survey shows that only 7.7 percent felt pressure to conform to a specific policy position (which are not provided by the survey). 
 
From this anthill of evidence, the authors conclude:
 
“Such dependence on the financial support of companies whose interests may not always align with those of the organizations’ constituents has important implications for PAO.”
 
Nowhere do the authors identify what those interests are and how they may diverge with industry positions.  Rather, the proof they provide is this claim:
 
Some groups have “been the focus of media investigations regarding their ties to industry and the integrity of their activities.” 
“Their large numbers and credibility with policymakers and the public likely give even small PAOs extensive influence in specific disease areas. At the other end of the spectrum, large PAOs that receive considerable for-profit support and have sophisticated public relations and government affairs departments likely have a substantial effect on policies relevant to their industry sponsors.” 
Again, no evidence.
 
For instance, the 21st Century Cures Act was developed by Fred Upton and Diane Degette.  Only after the legislation was drafted did the two legislators seek out the support of a small group of patient organizations.  Where is the evidence that patient groups took their lead from evil companies?  And how statistically significant is that association given that more than 80 percent of funding for all groups comes from bake sales, individual contributions, etc.?
 
No matter.  The article concludes that: “Financial relationships between PAOs and industry demand effective steps to ensure that these groups serve their constituents’ interests while minimizing risks of undue influence and bias. “
 
The JAMA article is fake science AND fake news.  It is an exercise in confirmation bias against industry support of patient groups.  It is not evidence.  It is closer to libel than it is truth.