Wow. But it may just be a symptom of a much larger, much more insidious problem. THIS is a link you'll reach by clicking through from that Boing Boing item:
Laika?s MedLibLog: In fact, pharma-sponsored trials rarely produce results that are unfavorable to the companies' products ... For instance, none of the published 56 trials of NSAIDs in arthritis ... had outcomes that were unfavorable to the company that sponsored the trials. Another study showed that studies funded by a company were four times more likely to have results favorable to the company than studies funded from other sources ...But what of "studies" appearing in mainline journals?
Ghostwriters, who write articles that are officially credited to another person, are part of the tactics. Ghostwriters may be hired by companies to write articles for medical journals that appear under the names of scientists who didn?t substantially contribute to the paper. In extreme cases pharmaceutical companies and their agents control or shape multiple steps in the research, analysis, writing, and publication of articles. This so called ghost management can be outsourced to MECC?s, medical education and communication companies. [see source link for references cited]
In my opinion we have to fear more from the strategic publication planning of the MECCs in authentic journals then the fake Australian Excerpta series. Firstly, because the known Journals are far more trustworthy and have far more impact than the throwaways. Secondly because the phenomenon of ghostwriting is widespread, also among "first class Journals". A conservative benchmark for ghostwriting of papers published in biomedical journals is roughly 10% ..., but in particular cases the percentage may be much higher .... This has caused Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ to sigh that ?Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies." [see source link for references cited]Lesson? When hearing reports on medical research by Katie Couric, on the PBS News Hour, or whatever--whether they cite suspicious publications or mainline ones--treat them very skeptically.
