Associated Press. Reuters. It really does not matter who may have composed such a press release, but in my opinion, they are overall nothing short of a well-constructed sales pitch. It’s public relations for the sponsor of the embellished results reported that are designed to attract favorable media attention not only regarding the results, but towards the corporation involved as well, who is the sponsor of the press release. Mass media receiving press releases are transformed into front groups to offer third party legitimacy for the content of the press release, which is biased by design.

An example is an anonymous press release posted on the Medical News Today website from March of 2006. The title: “Cymbalta Safely and Effectively Treats core anxiety symptoms associated with generalized anxiety disorder.” Clearly, this title included words associated with relief or elation, which are subjective and not objective elements.

The first paragraph repeats the results mentioned in the title of this article, but also stated Cymbalta offering relief of painful symptoms associated with anxiety, as well as improved functional impairment, also claimed to be associated with anxiety.

Cymbalta was not approved for anxiety or any of the symptoms associated with this condition. In fact, cymbalta was not filed to the FDA for this speculated new indication desired by Eli Lilly until May of 2006. By definition, this press release is clear off-label promotion and misbranding.

Shortly before the lightly stated disclaimers about Cymbalta were annotated in this press release, testimonials were intentionally created, I surmise, and were spoken about Cymbalta. The first one was from the lead author, who expanded the claims made initially with various medical terms included, followed by his hope about the potential of Cymbalta based on this study, which was planned to be shortly announced soon after this press release at a national anxiety association meeting. The second testimonial was Eli Lilly’s Medical Advisor expressing his elation about what the lead author just stated, followed by how much he was encouraged by these results.

What was not discussed in this press release was the devastating post-marketing adverse events correlated with Cymbalta, which include what is termed discontinuation syndrome, along with suicidal ideation as well as cases of suicide by those on Cymbalta. There are more, but these are the most concerning to others, yet not stated overtly in the press release.

As with any healthcare journalism, objectivity has to be a necessary requirement with any publishing that is exposed to so many- with medical issues in particular. Because these so many are in fact us- public citizens who deserve much more than half truths from those whose purpose is supposed to be the sharing of complete and unbiased information.

Dan Abshear

——————————————————————————–
New MapQuest Local shows what’s happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!

Clause 19.1 is explicit: “Hospitality must be strictly limited to the main purpose of the event and must be secondary to the purpose of the meeting: ie subsistence only. The level of subsistence offered must be appropriate and not out of proportion to the occasion. The costs involved must not exceed that level which the recipient would normally adopt when paying for themselves.” The guidance also states that: “…Companies should only offer or provide economy air travel to delegates sponsored to attend meetings.”

Ben should send his complaint to: complaints@pmcpa.org.uk. Although adherence to the code is voluntary, pharma companies do take sanctions from the committee very seriously – heads have been known to roll following more serious transgressions!

It’s pretty commonplace in travel journalism for the journalist’s flight and accommodation to be paid for by the holiday company.

Seems to me there’s a significant difference between a perk that a reasonably cynical person could infer from the content of the article, and one that is effectively ‘invisible’ to the reader.

People may claim that they don’t trust journalists, but still believe the things they read in the paper. It’s not logical but it’s plausible… most of us employ a certain amount of doublethink all the time.

Are these surveys a true indication of people’s beliefs and behaviour?

I have much less faith in these surveys than I used to. I was filling in time on a bus one day, and took one of those “self-assessment” quizzes in a magazine, I think it was about health. I wasn’t paying a huge amount of attention, I just filled it in (how many portions of fruit and veg do you eat, how often do you drink, and so on). I later found the magazine when I was emptying my bag and was shocked to see how much I had lied on it! I hadn’t intended to lie, but upon rereading my answers I realised I had said things that I thought people would want to hear.

Does anyone know if there are studies investigating the relationship between the answers people give on these surveys and their actual opinions/behaviour? Sorry for the digression, but it seems to me that a large percentage of the general public do trust what they read in newspapers, and so that makes this discussion important.

Certainly it would seem to me that the IT/technology publications (the sector I know about) are almost 90% polluted with PR guff turned into factoid stories…

If I were a hand-to-mouth free-lancer, or a lowly reporter for a trade paper, I don’t doubt I would never get to such a gig on my paper’s tab (no money).

But the idea that respected high profile people who write for the nationals are being comped and freebied to Pharma’s junkets does stick in the craw somewhat.

But then… I’ve rarely ever met a medic who paid to go to a big conference out of their own research grant money, or even slush fund. They almost invariably go on the PharmaCo tab, as Ben alludes to in the article. This is partly why BMJ articles now often have such a startlingly long list of “Authors’ Potential Conflict of Interest” at the end.

Which may (or may not) explain your docs disinterest.

And, BTW, ANYONE can report adverse effects on the MHRA website – go to www.mhra.gov.uk and follow the yellow colour coded links.

“The journalist would have been laided but professional ethics had gotted in the way.”

See how sensible that sounds?

…

But I don’t know what the point of that would be. Ah well, back to writing my thesis…

“if you want a good review, you take the journalists out, get them p***ed and get them l***ed”….

“l***ed” ???
are there too many stars here? different spelling?
i’m stuck

Another consonant, Bob/Ben?

exactly. this all relates back to the column Ben did recently about our expectations of pharma being higher than for other industries.

i have (obliquely) dealt with PR firms who work for pharma, and you can bet they all have a stable of tame journos they feed stories out to, invite to press releases etc.

maybe newspapers should publish journalists expenses claims and who paid them

when you read a review of a new car in the paper, do you think the journo flew out to the location on their own money, rented the car and found all the facts and figures on wikipedia, or do you know that the car company flew ‘em out, handed them the press pack with all the guff in it, gave them a nice lunch, then handed them the keys for the afternoon.

do you think when you read about a pleasant holiday destination the newspaper spent all day on lastminute.com booking flights and accomm – or did they go as the guest of tourist board, holiday company and airline?

in terms of marketing is a pill any different from a car? The companies job is to create demand for the product and sell in order to maximise profit.

that anyone should expect a drug company to be more or less ethical than a car company is a complete mystery.