4 ms·

Study what? Even the New England Journal of Medicine is full of articles funded by drug companies. And for good reason -- the results of drug trials should be c

Study what? Even the New England Journal of Medicine is full of articles funded by drug companies. And for good reason -- the results of drug trials should be communicated to physicians. Buying them lunch may be less prestigious, but it's essentially the same thing. Merck, Dec 2021: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116044 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116044 AstraZeneca, Jan 2022: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2112431 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2112431

matheusmoreira 5y ago
There's more material available, not just scientific journal articles. The medical specialty associations periodically release detailed guidelines covering new criteria, methods, treatments. For example: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15026 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.... There are courses available if you wish to be taught. There are events where people present new developments. There are paid sites like UpToDate. Even textbooks eventually get new editions and there's always plenty of fundamental science in them that doesn't change
- listenallyall 5y ago
  Did you check the Disclosures section of your article? Are there any drug companies NOT included there? Like it or not, private companies fund the vast majority of medical research in the U.S., and any doctor who wants to stay up to date cannot (and should not) ignore it all. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare, but declare lecture honoraria or consulting fees as follows: T.U., Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hexal, Vifor Pharma; C.B., Servier, Menarini, Merck Pharma, Novartis, Egis, Daichy Sankyo, Gilead; N.R.P., Servier, Pfizer, Sanofi, Eva Pharma; D.P., Torrent Pharmaceuticals; M.S., Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Servier, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim; G.S.S., AstraZeneca, Menarini, Pfizer, Servier; B.W., Vascular Dynamics USA, Inc, Relypsa, Inc, USA; Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Servier, Novartis, Menarini, Omron; A.E.S., Omron, Novartis, Takeda, Servier, Abbott.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    I did see that. I don't see that as a reason to doubt the recommendations of this particular article. I thought we were talking about direct marketing by pharmaceutical company representatives by the way. It is of course impossible to separate modern medicine from the pharmaceutical industry since many therapies depend directly on them. It's still the doctor's job to figure out which medicines are actually good and what's merely some salesman's product.
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      Why is "direct marketing" (drug reps) verboten but an article paid for by the same company is legitimate? What if the reason for the drug rep's visit is to bring a copy of the article to the doctor?
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > Why is "direct marketing" (drug reps) verboten but an article paid for by the same company is legitimate? Scientific articles are published and read by the community. There are, for example, social media and messaging groups where doctors will post and discuss articles, including their methododology and limitations. There's always the possibility that the study could actually be relevant. Drug company representatitives talk to doctors in private in order to try and convince them to prescribe drugs. Like all marketing, there's an inherent dishonesty to it. You always assume they're overstating the positives, downplaying the negatives and ignoring alternatives. Doing this is actually the doctor's job. It's our job to pick these claims apart and figure out what's true and what isn't so that patients don't have to do it. Doctor-drug industry relationship is at its healthiest when they're just giving doctors free samples of the drugs they were already going to prescribe anyway. Doesn't change the doctor's conduct and helps patients with free medicine. Doctors are already going to prescribe angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension, drug company representatives won't change that. They can and should provide free samples though, free medication helps everyone.
        5y ago

matheusmoreira 5y ago

There's more material available, not just scientific journal articles. The medical specialty associations periodically release detailed guidelines covering new criteria, methods, treatments. For example: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15026 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.... There are courses available if you wish to be taught. There are events where people present new developments. There are paid sites like UpToDate. Even textbooks eventually get new editions and there's always plenty of fundamental science in them that doesn't change

listenallyall 5y ago
Did you check the Disclosures section of your article? Are there any drug companies NOT included there? Like it or not, private companies fund the vast majority of medical research in the U.S., and any doctor who wants to stay up to date cannot (and should not) ignore it all. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare, but declare lecture honoraria or consulting fees as follows: T.U., Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hexal, Vifor Pharma; C.B., Servier, Menarini, Merck Pharma, Novartis, Egis, Daichy Sankyo, Gilead; N.R.P., Servier, Pfizer, Sanofi, Eva Pharma; D.P., Torrent Pharmaceuticals; M.S., Medtronic, Abbott, Novartis, Servier, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim; G.S.S., AstraZeneca, Menarini, Pfizer, Servier; B.W., Vascular Dynamics USA, Inc, Relypsa, Inc, USA; Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Servier, Novartis, Menarini, Omron; A.E.S., Omron, Novartis, Takeda, Servier, Abbott.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  I did see that. I don't see that as a reason to doubt the recommendations of this particular article. I thought we were talking about direct marketing by pharmaceutical company representatives by the way. It is of course impossible to separate modern medicine from the pharmaceutical industry since many therapies depend directly on them. It's still the doctor's job to figure out which medicines are actually good and what's merely some salesman's product.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    Why is "direct marketing" (drug reps) verboten but an article paid for by the same company is legitimate? What if the reason for the drug rep's visit is to bring a copy of the article to the doctor?
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > Why is "direct marketing" (drug reps) verboten but an article paid for by the same company is legitimate? Scientific articles are published and read by the community. There are, for example, social media and messaging groups where doctors will post and discuss articles, including their methododology and limitations. There's always the possibility that the study could actually be relevant. Drug company representatitives talk to doctors in private in order to try and convince them to prescribe drugs. Like all marketing, there's an inherent dishonesty to it. You always assume they're overstating the positives, downplaying the negatives and ignoring alternatives. Doing this is actually the doctor's job. It's our job to pick these claims apart and figure out what's true and what isn't so that patients don't have to do it. Doctor-drug industry relationship is at its healthiest when they're just giving doctors free samples of the drugs they were already going to prescribe anyway. Doesn't change the doctor's conduct and helps patients with free medicine. Doctors are already going to prescribe angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension, drug company representatives won't change that. They can and should provide free samples though, free medication helps everyone.
      - 5y ago