|
|
(more...)
, (less...)
Add to My Group(s)
Add to My Group(s)
By Robert Fiddaman Dip.Couns MOC & MSFTR (about the author)
Become a Fan -- Page 3 of 3 page(s)
Most readers of my blog, Seroxat Sufferers, will already know about Paxil Study 329 - most will already know of Prof. Martin Keller.
I do hope word gets around to Messrs Wager & Jacobs - I do hope that they read this.
I have some questions for them.
1. Exactly what is the EMWA?
2. Why is the EMWA 'supported' by the MHRA?
3. Do you believe scientific fraud is a good thing?
4. Jacobs thinks authors should not have to verify results, is this the position of EMWA as well?
Dr Aubrey Blumsohn has a great article entitled ' Who is the beast? The merger of medical journals and ghostwriters'
He writes: With publication last week of a strange article about the Gillberg affair by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the dumbing-down is increasingly obvious (read the article and the responses - or at least those which were allowed). The upshot of this BMJ commissioned piece is that researchers faced with questions over the integrity of their data analysis should simply destroy that data. Great advice! News today adds to the concerns. The BMJ have apparently (yet again) declined to publish a paper (about ghostwriting and data misrepresentation of Paxil study 329) involving one of their advertisers (GSK) because "they feel they don't have the resources for the legal work required to check it all". That seems to have become a regular excuse.
I'm still scratching my head at the MHRA for sending me the link. Did they want me to attend the symposium?
It all smacks of one big game for the boys and it's high time this game was put to an end.
Fid
**This article will be sent to the MHRA.
I don't expect them to make any sort of comment on this either!
Become a Fan -- Page 3 of 3 page(s)
I do hope word gets around to Messrs Wager & Jacobs - I do hope that they read this.
I have some questions for them.
1. Exactly what is the EMWA?
2. Why is the EMWA 'supported' by the MHRA?
3. Do you believe scientific fraud is a good thing?
4. Jacobs thinks authors should not have to verify results, is this the position of EMWA as well?
Dr Aubrey Blumsohn has a great article entitled ' Who is the beast? The merger of medical journals and ghostwriters'
He writes: With publication last week of a strange article about the Gillberg affair by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the dumbing-down is increasingly obvious (read the article and the responses - or at least those which were allowed). The upshot of this BMJ commissioned piece is that researchers faced with questions over the integrity of their data analysis should simply destroy that data. Great advice! News today adds to the concerns. The BMJ have apparently (yet again) declined to publish a paper (about ghostwriting and data misrepresentation of Paxil study 329) involving one of their advertisers (GSK) because "they feel they don't have the resources for the legal work required to check it all". That seems to have become a regular excuse.
I'm still scratching my head at the MHRA for sending me the link. Did they want me to attend the symposium?
It all smacks of one big game for the boys and it's high time this game was put to an end.
Fid
**This article will be sent to the MHRA.
I don't expect them to make any sort of comment on this either!
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) - The FDA's equivalent in the UK - need a thorough impartial investigation. Their own Chief Executive refuses to budge on his stance that Seroxat (Paxil) is safe.
See (more...)
See (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
Comments
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.
| No comments |