Thanks for this research. I got a referral to your substack from John Mandrola.
Quantifying the relationships between industry and medical practitioners is a necessary foundation for a critic (such as me), a legislator, or any other interested party to base a counterposition against these practices. (Your JAMA article is behind a paywall, so I hadn't been able to study the content carefully. I think your summary here is most helpful.)
I'd bet that the physicians at the higher end of the skew are also 'opinion leaders' in their respective fields who shape the wider perception of their paymasters' products. I am extremely skeptical that their motivation is 'for the benefit of society' rather than their bank accounts.
Your observation that attendees at medical conferences give a standing ovation for a new product is a rich dish for a cynic such as me. Imagine this: A stray pedestrian stumbles into one of these medical conference halls and believes he crashed a multi-level marketing banquet for vacuum cleaner salesmen when they exceed their quarterly sales quota. There's hardly a difference!
Where is the critical thinking? Audience skepticism? Tough questioning?
It would also be beneficial to document payments to non-clinicians and break it down by categories. e.g., administrators, researchers, government appointees whether physicians or others.
Dr Foy,
Thanks for this research. I got a referral to your substack from John Mandrola.
Quantifying the relationships between industry and medical practitioners is a necessary foundation for a critic (such as me), a legislator, or any other interested party to base a counterposition against these practices. (Your JAMA article is behind a paywall, so I hadn't been able to study the content carefully. I think your summary here is most helpful.)
I'd bet that the physicians at the higher end of the skew are also 'opinion leaders' in their respective fields who shape the wider perception of their paymasters' products. I am extremely skeptical that their motivation is 'for the benefit of society' rather than their bank accounts.
Your observation that attendees at medical conferences give a standing ovation for a new product is a rich dish for a cynic such as me. Imagine this: A stray pedestrian stumbles into one of these medical conference halls and believes he crashed a multi-level marketing banquet for vacuum cleaner salesmen when they exceed their quarterly sales quota. There's hardly a difference!
Where is the critical thinking? Audience skepticism? Tough questioning?
It would also be beneficial to document payments to non-clinicians and break it down by categories. e.g., administrators, researchers, government appointees whether physicians or others.