Skip to content

    Announcements

    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!


    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Doctors are not drug company drones afterall!
    avatar
    iride6606 posted:
    For he benefit of those here and their concern over doctors and bias,


    Just revisiting a blog from a researcher I'm very familiar with. I love this guy's perspective;




    His perspective of those that are ruled by their beliefs (supports of CAM thinking) and not science based medicine;




    If there's another aspect to the tactics of those hostile to science-based medicine, it's that they really, really don't like big pharma. Indeed, I can't recall how many times, I've been called, in a typical knee-jerk fashion, a tool or minion of big pharma for pointing out that this CAM modality or other is without a basis in science, so much so that I even coined a term for it: the pharma shill gambit . None of this is to say that big pharma is not guilty of abuses of science. I've written about them. Steve Novella's written about them . Our friend Ben Goldacre, who is well known as a critic of unscientific medicine, writes about them regularly and just released a book about them entitled Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients . Other SBM bloggers and skeptics have written about them. Still, CAM proponents try to make this label stick to their critics as an ad hominem attack that ignores whether our arguments have validity in favor of poisoning the well; it's a particularly favored tactic of antivaccinationists.




    Admittedly, however, Steve, Ben, our SBM bloggers, and I are not typical physicians. We are active in the skeptical movement and spend considerable time and effort writing and speaking about issues of skepticism, science-based medicine (SBM), and bad science. What about more typical physicians? How do they view these issues? CAM supporters like to paint a picture of doctors as mindless drones who do whatever their big pharma paymasters tell them to do, prescribe what they're told to prescribe, and shun "alternative medicine" and CAM, just as they're told to do. (If you don't believe me, just peruse Mike Adams' NaturalNews.com or Joe Mercola's website for a while.) That's why I was particularly amused by a study that's hot off the presses in the New England Journal of Medicine by Kesselhem et al. entitled A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures .




    It's a interesting discussion based on a study with made up drugs and trial results to see how doctor's perceive industry bias. The results will disappoint some;




    We found clear associations between the funding disclosure variations and physicians' perceptions of a trial's rigor and results. Regardless of the actual study design, physicians were less likely to view a trial as having a high level of rigor if funding by a pharmaceutical company was disclosed than if no disclosure statement was included (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P=0.006) Similarly, in comparisons with trials for which no funding was listed and regardless of the study design, physicians were less likely to have confidence in the results of trials funded by industry (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.04) (Figure 2B) and were less willing to prescribe drugs described in such trials (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P=0.02) (Figure 2C). These effects were even greater when industry-funded trials were compared with trials described as having NIH support.




    This guy is a big picture thinker and points out the danger of being bound by one's beliefs. He should be read more often!




    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/news-flash-doctors-arent-all-compliant-pharma-drones/
    Reply
     
    avatar
    iride6606 responded:
    Here are the conclusions of the study to measure doctor compliance to drug company studies;


    Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.


    The link;


    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1202397


    I just finished reading the entire study, it should be viewed by everyone as it is contrary to popular opinion about doctors.


    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    Statin use is generally safe, and NOT associated with cancer and myopathy
    This network meta-analysis study provides evidence on the comparative tolerability and harms of individual statins. Overall, statins as a ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    1 of 2 found this helpful

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.