“The reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.”
That’s the conclusion of a study published in this week’s JAMA.
Spin that however you want, it adds to the growing evidence, as the paper notes of:
a positive relation between financial ties and favorable conclusions stated in trial reports.
discrepancies between results and their interpretation in the Conclusions sections of published papers.
for-profit funding of meta-analyses associated with favorable conclusions but not favorable results.
the Discussion sections of articles often lacked a discussion of limitations.
About 20 months ago, MedPageToday.com reported on more of this work reviewing spinning of trial results.
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.
Sharon Kramer
June 1, 2010 at 1:45 pmGary,
I found your cite via GoozNews. Excellent information. I have a degree in marketing and have been tracking the spin over the mold issue for about five years. It has been so pervasive that the University of California’s name has been on a US Chamber of Commerce publication that makes the statement all claims of illness from the toxic components of mold have been scientifically proven to only be made because of “trial lawyers, media, and junk science” – and no one will do a damn thing about the conflicts of interest from this situation.
Below is a link to a letter recently sent to the Regents of the UC as this Chamber publication is now a legal document being used to deny insurer liability for the death of two new born infants – with the UC name applied in implied endorsement. The letter was sent from physicians, scientists, etc.
http://freepdfhosting.com/e88548fd20.pdf
And below is a link to a WSJ article of 2007, describing how the UC physician that is the “causative agent” of why the UC name is on the US Chamber publication in the first place, serves as a prolific expert defense witness over the matter.
http://drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf
What is NOT in the WSJ article is the little discussed fact that when employees of universities serve as expert witnesses in court, the monies actually go to the universities with the employee receiving only a percentage. Nationwide, the monies involved in the expert witnessing on behalf of industry by university affiliates serves as a tremendous source of income for the universities, including the UC.
With regard to environmental illnesses, the conflict of interest is blatant and pervasive. This is because universities often times receive federal funding to advance the understanding of certain environmental illnesses, while simultaneously generating income via expert witness fees denying industries (insurer) liability for causation of the exact same illnesses. I call these expert witness fees “Do Not Research” grants.
Something really needs to change over this arrangement. It is detrimental to the health and safety of the public.
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