US opioid prescribing: the federal government advisers with recent ties to big pharma

Schwab, Tim

doi:10.1136/bmj.l5167

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the main factors leading to regulatory capture in public health is the conflicts of interest of officials who serve simultaneously as researchers and consultants on behalf of pharmaceutical companies (DeLong, 2012;Rogers, 2019). It seems that the prevalence and the magnitude of such conflicts of interest (COls) have only increased over the years (Bekelman et al, 2003;Boyd et al, 2003;Gøtzsche, 2013;Schwab, 2019).…”

Section: Retraction Of Papers On Vaccinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research

Elisha

Guetzkow

Shir-Raz

et al. 2021

Critical Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The controversy over vaccines, which has recently intensified following the COVID-19 pandemic, provokes heated debates, with both advocates and opponents raising allegations of bias and fraud in research. Researchers whose work raises doubts about the safety of certain vaccines claim to be victims of discriminatory treatment aimed at suppressing dissent, including the unjustified retraction of their published research. Such practices have previously been discussed in other controversial fields in science (e.g., AIDS, the environment, and water fluoridation) but not in the field of vaccines. The purpose of this study was to analyze, for the first time, the subjective views of researchers whose papers were retracted. Study participants are active researchers, most with international reputations in their respective fields. They perceived retraction as a means of censoring and silencing critical voices with the aim of preserving the pro-vaccination agenda of interested parties. Participants also reported additional measures aimed at harming them personally and professionally. These findings point to the need for a fair, open, and honest discourse about the safety of vaccines for the benefit of public health and the restoration of trust in science and medicine.

show abstract

Section: Retraction Of Papers On Vaccinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research

Elisha

Guetzkow

Shir-Raz

et al. 2021

Critical Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent article in the BMJ expressed concern that the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)—an NGO established by federal statute with the express purpose of providing independent advice to the federal government in the United States—had received millions of dollars from several pharmaceutical companies (including opioid manufacturers), as well as gifts from members of the Sackler family (Schwab 2019 ). The article also expressed concern that members of NASEM panels, including one commissioned to advise policymakers on clinical practice guidelines for prescribing opioids, had received payments from opioid companies (in the form of research funding, consultancy fees, and advisory board retainers).…”

Section: Influencing Patient Advocacy Organizations Professional Socmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons from Corporate Influence in the Opioid Epidemic: Toward a Norm of Separation

Marks

2020

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is overwhelming evidence that the opioid crisis—which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (and counting)—has been created or exacerbated by webs of influence woven by several pharmaceutical companies. These webs involve health professionals, patient advocacy groups, medical professional societies, research universities, teaching hospitals, public health agencies, policymakers, and legislators. Opioid companies built these webs as part of corporate strategies of influence that were designed to expand the opioid market from cancer patients to larger groups of patients with acute or chronic pain, to increase dosage as well as opioid use, to downplay the risks of addiction and abuse, and to characterize physicians’ concerns about the addiction and abuse risks as “opiophobia.” In the face of these pervasive strategies, conflict of interest policies have proven insufficient for addressing corporate influence in medical practice, medical research, and public health policy. Governments, the academy, and civil society need to develop counterstrategies to insulate themselves from corporate influence and to preserve their integrity and public trust. These strategies require a paradigm shift—from partnerships with the private sector, which are ordinarily vehicles for corporate influence, to a norm of separation.

show abstract

“…In the Lancet, an editorial describes the updated American College of Physicians COI procedure during clinical guideline development, with a continuous disclosure policy and severity grading of COIs with corresponding mitigating actions taken. 2 The BMJ reported that an advisory body on opioid policies for the US Food and Drug Administration did not publicly disclose that one of its presidents (and a number of panel members) had recent industry links, 3 although it should be noted that said advisory body 4 and president 5 have responded.…”

Section: Lettersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicts of Interest in Academic Publishing: When in Doubt, Declare!

Graham

2019

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

US opioid prescribing: the federal government advisers with recent ties to big pharma

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research

Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research

Lessons from Corporate Influence in the Opioid Epidemic: Toward a Norm of Separation

Conflicts of Interest in Academic Publishing: When in Doubt, Declare!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About