Glad to see Naomi Freundlich on Maggie Mahar’s Health Beat Blog address a column that the New York Times published last month, “Not All Drugs Are The Same.”
Freundlich points out, appropriately, that:
“The “controversy” over generic drugs is really less than meets the eye. There have been scattered concerns–some based on patient or doctor reports, others from proprietary drug makers–about generics not being biologically close enough (bioequivalent) to name brand meds. But the issue is mired in complexity and misinformation. For example, many doctors accept significant payment from drug companies to promote their name brand drugs–especially cardiologists and psychiatrists. It can be hard to remain unbiased when a pharmaceutical company is paying the tab on research.”
She quotes Aaron Kesselheim, an instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School who has authored studies comparing generic and name-brand drugs saying the NYT column was “pretty irresponsible” because it doesn’t reflect the body of evidence supporting the use of generics. “For the vast, vast, majority of pills and the vast, vast majority of patients there is no evidence of problems substituting generics for brand name drugs,” he said.
I heard similar complaints about the column from Larry Sasich, consultant to the Public Citizen Health Research Group and co-author of “Worst Pills, Best Pills” — and from Dr. Stephen Schondelmeyer of the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy. Sasich wrote me: “The journalist covered the science but then used the experience of a patient and a physician as rebuttal to the evidence that there has been no credible evidence that generic drugs harm patients. This seems counter to good scientific journalism as uncontrolled observations were evidence that generics can cause harm.” Schondelmeyer has told me for years that he continues to be perplexed by people who continue to breathe life into the “generics aren’t safe or aren’t equal” arguments.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like