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: 11838

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: Journal Article

Light D.
Misleading Congress about Drug Development
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2007 Oct; 32:(5):895-913
http://web.archive.org/web/20090610012035/http://www.bioethics.upenn.edu/People/?last=Light&first=Donald


Notes:

A review of:
Congressional Budget Office. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry-A CBO Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, 2006. www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7615&sequence=0.


Full text:

Members of the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and European and Canadian parliaments depend on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as an internationally respected body to provide rigorous, objective, and critical assessments of important policy issues. The purpose of the CBO is to establish authoritative figures and facts for bills and other actions. Thus one is surprised to find that the C130 study into pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) uses widely criticized figures without qualification and fails to review objectively the range of evidence about pharmaceutical R&D or its quality. It relies almost entirely on figures from studies by researchers supported by the industry, without assessing for nonspecialists how reliable they are. As a result; the CBO uncritically reiterates the industry-endorsed “facts” and the story of huge R&D costs,
modest and precarious profits, and prices that represent good value. This new study of pharmaceutical R&D therefore comes close to reading as if it were written by the industry for its lobbying efforts…

 

  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