corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19670

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Electronic Source

Husten L
ACC CEO Jack Lewin Provides The Argument Against Industry Money
Cardio Brief 2011 May 6
http://cardiobrief.org/2011/05/06/acc-ceo-jack-lewin-provides-the-argument-against-industry-money/


Full text:

The ACC’s CEO Jack Lewin may have put forth the single best and most concise argument against industry funding of medical societies. Here’s what Lewin told ProPublica:
The “circus element” of the exhibit booths doesn’t unduly influence attendees, Lewin said. “I don’t buy a soft drink just because of the advertising… I buy it because I like it.”
Now we know that Lewin actually supports industry funding, but any thoughtful reflection about this statement will lead to the inevitable conclusion that people do buy soft drinks because of advertising and that the circus atmosphere of exhibit booths does influence attendees. Neither Coke nor Medtronic are idiots and they certainly don’t waste their money.
In fact, every defense of industry funding relies on this sort of double think:
Advertising doesn’t affect me.
Money can’t influence my medical decisions.
But it’s not true. It’s not even possible, because it’s impossible to fully understand and appreciate our ability to deceive ourselves. And it’s for precisely this reason that we rely on the scientific method to achieve an accurate understanding of our world and ourselves. And it’s for precisely this reason why medical societies like the ACC, if they want to retain the aura of scientific integrity, need to divest themselves of industry influence.
It shouldn’t even need to be said. Here’s how one well-known physician responded to Lewin’s statement:
“If it weren’t influencing the doctors, they wouldn’t be doing it,” said Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a health policy expert at McMaster University in Ontario.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963