Re: WSJ: NEJM Misses Vioxx Warning Signs

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

Reporters, like lemmings, appear to follow each other in odd 
directions. Therefore I can only guess that, wanting not to be 
outdone, the WSJ decided to one-up the New York Times's bizarre 
and uninformed article by Lawrence Altman suggesting that fraud 
is almost routine in medical journals.

Of all the parties involved in the Vioxx mess, medical journals 
would seem to have the least blame. Top honors would go to 
Merck's aggressive marketing department, the asleep-at-the-wheel 
regulators at the FDA, and authors who did not fully disclose 
negative data.  Eric J. Topol wrote a comprehensive review of the 
chronology of events regarding Vioxx (see 
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/17/1707). Note that 
this was published in the New England Journal itself, making it 
the only party to have been transparent about its role in the 
fiasco.

Note also that, contrary to the view that medical journals stood 
idly by while the disaster unfolded, JAMA published a clear 
warning about the potential cardiotoxicity of Vioxx in 2001--a 
full 3 years before the drug was finally withdrawn (see 
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/8/954?ijkey=0c6a7caca768d4d8655a428a05ab3f8da42a55ce&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha). 
Neither FDA nor Merck followed up on JAMA's clear warning. Nor, 
it seems, did the Wall Street Journal or any other major news 
outlet take note of this story and warn its readers.

Many parties are responsible for Vioxx, and to lay blame on the 
New England Journal is reckless and irresponsible, but sadly all 
too predictable in this time of ignorance about medical 
publishing.

Peter Banks
Publisher

>>> Michele_Masterson@simbanet.com 05/15/06 9:02 PM >>>

I am writing an article an article concerning today's story in 
the WSJ, "Bitter Pill: How the New England Journal Missed Warning 
Signs on Vioxx." I would like to get input/reactions from STM 
societies/publishers as soon as possible. Please feel free to 
e-mail me privately if you do not want your posts stated 
publicly. I am deadline, so I would appreciate responses as soon 
as possible, thanks.

The article reports some very troubling news, alleging that the 
"medical weekly waited years to report flaws in article that 
praised pain drug." In a summary, a blog on the Pharma Marketing 
News Web site stated:  We were hoodwinked!

http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2006/05/we-were-hoodwinked.html

michele_masterson@simbanet.com
Michele Masterson
Editor/Analyst
Simba Information
www.simbanet.com