Last March (March 4th to be exact) drugwonks.com commented on the hypocritical disconnect between what medical journals were writing about medical journalism conflict-of-interest and what they were practicing (“New Realism Redefined”) -- “There seems to be a lot of "do as I say not as I do" going on these days.”
A few months later (August 25th), Steve Usdin of BioCentury weighted in on the same topic. His article, “Sacred vs. Profane,” began as follows:
“Medical journal editorials routinely attack the pharmaceutical industry, alleging drug companies corrupt the practice of medicine through inappropriate and overly aggressive marketing, while also criticizing doctors for allowing themselves to be influenced. The journal publishers themselves, however, play a key role in encouraging the behaviors their editors criticize via advertising, sponsored subscriptions and the promotion of reprints of company-sponsored clinical trials.”
(It should also be noted that both JAMA and NEJM declined Usdin’s requests for interviews.)
So it comes as somewhat of a surprise (Really? No.) that in the current edition of the British Medical Journal (19 November 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2535), much of the same ground is covered – but minus any mention of the sins of medical journals!
Maybe not.
