Merck Created Phony Peer-Review Medical Journal 213
Hugh Pickens writes "Don't believe everything you read on the internet is a good rule to follow, but it turns out that you can't even believe a 'peer reviewed scientific journal' as details emerge that drug manufacturer Merck created a phony, but real sounding, peer-review journal titled the 'Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine' to publish data favorable to its products. 'What's sad is that I'm sure many a primary care physician was given literature from Merck that said, "As published in Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, Fosamax outperforms all other medications...."' writes Summer Johnson in a post on the website of the American Journal of Bioethics. One Australian rheumatologist named Peter Brooks who served as an 'honorary advisory board' to the journal didn't receive a single paper for peer-review in his entire time on the board, but it didn't bother him because he apparently knew the journal did not receive original submissions of research. All this is probably not too surprising in light of Merck's difficulties with Vioxx, the once $2.5 billion a year drug that was pulled from the market in September 2004, after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in long-term users resulting in payments by Merck of $4.85 billion to settle personal injury claims from former users, but it bears repeating that 'if physicians would not lend their names or pens to these efforts, and publishers would not offer their presses, these publications could not exist.'"
Re:Holy crap. (Score:5, Funny)
This comment is Funny (Score:0, Funny)
Considering the fact that all the previous comments were immediately moderated Funny, I suppose this one will be also.
Do Merck shills lurk on Slashdot trying to douse peoples' karma?????
I'm feeling cynical (Score:3, Funny)
Corporations are people like you and I with a right to free speech. Merck is just presenting the scientific facts that are important to them. The so-called scientific method is just a cultural idea, not the final arbiter of 'Truth.' What is truth? Isn't it 'true' that Vioxx may have helped people? Isn't it 'true' that it didn't kill everyone?
The doctors are just looking out for themselves, and if they didn't do it, someone else would. And people's lives? Really now. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. So some people died.
Who is the government to tell people what they can and can't sell? People die all the time, but markets and corporations are eternal. Who is the government to tell people what they can and can't imbibe? Alcohol kills people, cigarettes kill people?
People die all the time, but markets and corporations are eternal. Doesn't that mean they are better than us? Who are we to tell them what to do? Oh sure, they are made up of people, but we're made up of cells. I know I don't care too much when I get a cut and a few skin and red blood cells sacrifice themselves for my well being.
In the end, a few people died so a corporation could grow. Is that so bad?
Re:I sense a serious hand-slapping in Merck's futu (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently the mods had a good night out.. Every single comment so far has been moded "Funny". And I'm pretty sure most of them weren't. A poster further down suggests that we may be dealing with shills.. But I shudder to think that slashdot is such a high-profile news site for drug companies, that they'd bother. So I'm going with drunk/stoned or otherwise giddy mods getting their rocks off.
Hmm.. "2009 A H1N1 flu" (or whatever it is that they've decided to call it) doesn't mess with your brain like that, right? Heh, not to worry -- if they are infected, I'm sure it won't spread.. Who're they gonna infect from their Mom's basement anyway? (bad taste? too soon? ok, I apologize.. carry on)
Re:I sense a serious hand-slapping in Merck's futu (Score:3, Funny)
My Mom's house doesn't have a basement, you inconsiderate clod! I live in her den!
Re:I sense a serious hand-slapping in Merck's futu (Score:5, Funny)
Your mom's a furry?
Re:I sense a serious hand-slapping in Merck's futu (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, now where are all the funny funny modding moderators?
Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine? (Score:5, Funny)
I was skeptical about this this periodical since their "Bestiality" issue, which had the title headline: "Give a dog a bone."
Bones? Joints?
Oh, never mind, make up your own jokes.
Re:Does it ever work? (Score:5, Funny)
Has any company ever gotten away with stuff like this in recent times?
Yes, I established an advertisement disguised as a medical journal for my company that hasn't yet been outed as a shill. It's called...
Wait... you clever bastard, you almost had me with that one.
Re:Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (Score:5, Funny)
Publishers shouldn't censor, they should just publish.
Damn straight.
And on that subject, don't miss the newest issue of Elsevier's Journal of Holistic Electromagnetic Medicine, where my peer-reviewed article "Correlation Between H1N1 Swine Flu Propagation and Near-Field WiFi Radiation from Linux-Based Routers" just came out. I understand it's already garnering favorable attention in Stockholm.
Re:Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Holy crap. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (Score:3, Funny)
No, publishers should and do exercise editorial and quality controls over the content that they publish. CNN is a publisher. If I write a news article, should I be able to get it published as news if I pay them enough money?
Never happen. Fox would sue them for infringement of their business methods.
But you're right - the publisher hires the editor(s), contracts with printers and distributors, etc.
Ca-ching! (Score:2, Funny)
Astroturfing is apparently done now by hiring a company with shills established where you want to have a say, not by specific companies engaging the forums directly.
No it isn't. Also, be sure to drink your Ovaltine (TM).
Re:Misleading or Deceptive Conduct (Score:3, Funny)
There,fixed it for you.