• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Hyderus

Hyderus Cyf and Hyderus Teoranta

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • medium
  • Home
  • Tell the Truth
    • Videos
  • About us
    • Access to innovative medicines
    • New Work in India
    • Mark Chataway
    • We pay our taxes
    • Our approach to managing risk perception and crises
    • African journalists we respect
  • Customers
  • Expertise
    • Development and Politics
      • Assessing science policy in 48 African countries
      • The future of European development funding
      • The link between family planning and climate change
      • What are the influence networks in health?
    • Knowledge Transfer and Capacity Building
      • For senior executives
      • For the online world
      • To manage international politics
    • Public Health
      • Drivers and barriers for new vaccines
    • Strategic Planning
      • Avoiding a crisis in the Middle East
      • Developing BRICS countries as donors
      • For an international organisation in India
      • Increasing immunization coverage in central India
      • Setting up systems for issues management
    • Treatment Decisions
      • How to get healthcare systems to care for older women
      • Immunisation for adults
      • Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility
  • Contact
  • Blog
    • What we’re thinking
    • Our World
    • Staff blog
  • Flexible Pricing Plan

Britain’s medical press: a tabloid mentality or a tool in bargaining by doctors?

May 20, 2014 by Mark Chataway Leave a Comment

In yet another messy spat, a leading British journal has had to promise to investigate findings that it had originally published along with a blast of press releases and self-important interviews. This is the latest in a long series of mistakes by both the BMJ and The Lancet that generated headlines at first and embarrassment later.

Why do the British journals do it? The simple explanation is that they are trying for “appointment to read” journalism in an era when doctors rely on Google searches. A more  worrying thought is that the behaviour of the BMJ and the Lancet may be part of a culture of indolence and arrogance that arises out of the UK’s distinctive healthcare system.

The controversy this time focuses on statins. Seven months ago, the BMJ published a controversial paper by Abramson and colleagues (BMJ 2013;347:f6123, doi:10.1136/bmj.f6123) that made a series of basic errors. The Abramson paper said that an earlier study by Zhang et al had found that 18% of patients had side -effects from statins and that the same number had withdrawn, at least temporarily, from treatment, because of side effects. In fact, the Zhang study was not placebo controlled; its  authors had highlighted the limitations and; the study had not said that 18% had  discontinued therapy but said that it might be “up to 9%”. As if all this weren’t enough, Abramson et al made dismissive references the vast number of randomised, placebo-controlled studies that show no difference between the side effects from statins and those from placebos

None of this amused Professor Sir Rory Collins of Oxford University, a world authority on preventing heart disease. He told the Guardian that the reporting was creating a situation which had echoes of the MMR vaccine controversy. (In that episode, the Lancet published a series of papers which alleged links between MMR vaccines and autism — the papers were later shown to have been thoroughly fraudulent and probably motivated by a corrupt link between the researchers and those seeking to bring lawsuits over false damages claims).   On the BMJ statin story,  Collins told the BBC , “it is a serious disservice to British and international medicine.” Millions might stop taking statins and thousands might suffer from strokes or heart attacks, he said.

Back in March,  the BMJ’s editor, Dr Fiona Godlee, defended the articles, saying conventional  research understated the risks of side-effects. “The randomised control trial data is notoriously poor at reporting adverse events. So I think it’s extremely important that the public understand when we’re talking about extending statins to people at low risk, that the balance between benefits and harms becomes much more important,” she said. With that grand, sweeping statement, several of the principles of modern medical research appear to have been dismissed by Dr Godlee.

Now the BMJ has taken back the inaccurate statements and convened an independent panel to consider whether to withdraw the articles altogether. Professor Collins worries that it will not be really independent.

The BMJ has form, of course. It has frequently published the paranoid ramblings of Dr Jacob  Pulliyel, one of India’s most notorious vaccine deniers who claims (among other things) that pentavalent vaccines used around the world are uniquely dangerous in South Asian children and that the Government of India is engaged in a vast cover-up on the true number of polio cases in the country (although, to be fair to the BMJ, even it has not published that latest outburst — the link is to a Facebook page)

Why do the BMJ and the Lancet do it? The obvious explanation is that they are increasingly irrelevant. Students used to do their research by poring through back copies of medical journals. Doctors had bound volumes in book cases lining their offices. Now, everyone just looks at Google on their iPads. Unless the journals do sexy, newsworthy stuff, they will  be forgotten about and — more important — their advertisers will disappear. That is, no doubt, part of the story.

The British journals also, though, reflect British medical culture. The UK’s GPs are mostly self-employed and almost all paid by the state on  a capitation basis. In other words, they get a set sum of money for every patient on their books whether they ever see the patient or not. To try to address the UK’s place at the bottom of most cardiovascular disease league tables, there are now various government targets with rewards and penalties in place for diagnosing and treating older at-risk patients (just as there are for immunisation and for stopping smoking) but the GPs resent these. They should, they think be allowed to carry on as Europe’s best-paid GPs without any special obligations to improve public health. It may just be that the BMJ is doing its job as the trade magazine of the British Medical Association, doctors’ trade union: it is arguing that members should continue to be paid whether they do their jobs or not. Calling in patients to prescribe statins or give injections is just another unreasonable employer demand to be resisted.

bmj

 

Filed Under: Featured Tagged With: bmj, medical journals, statins, vaccination

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Featured (176)
  • Our craft (13)
  • Staff blog (51)
access to medicines Africa China Chris Nial climate change communications consultancy crisis management Development Donald Trump environment foreign policy Global Health Progress global warming green energy health healthcare health policy HIV Hyderus india Mark Chataway ODA patents pharmaceutical industry project management public health vaccination vaccines wales WHO

Hyderus on Twitter

Tweets by Hyderus

Hyderus on Facebook

Videos

The Three Commitments
Why Consultants end up not telling the truth
The worst kind of market research interviewing technique ever
Why bright people can’t explain themselves
More videos

Clients

 
 
 

Footer

Looking For?

  • Our World
  • Contact us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use

Recent Posts

  • US malaria donations saving two million children?
  • Brexit uncertainty, blocking both medicines and migrants?
  • Hyderus participates in study on whether EU funding has helped people with poverty related diseases

Copyright © 2019 Hyderus. All rights reserved. Sitemap

  • Home
  • Tell the Truth
    ▼
    • Videos
  • About us
    ▼
    • Access to innovative medicines
    • New Work in India
    • Mark Chataway
    • We pay our taxes
    • Our approach to managing risk perception and crises
    • African journalists we respect
  • Customers
  • Expertise
    ▼
    • Development and Politics
      ▼
      • Assessing science policy in 48 African countries
      • The future of European development funding
      • The link between family planning and climate change
      • What are the influence networks in health?
    • Knowledge Transfer and Capacity Building
      ▼
      • For senior executives
      • For the online world
      • To manage international politics
    • Public Health
      ▼
      • Drivers and barriers for new vaccines
    • Strategic Planning
      ▼
      • Avoiding a crisis in the Middle East
      • Developing BRICS countries as donors
      • For an international organisation in India
      • Increasing immunization coverage in central India
      • Setting up systems for issues management
    • Treatment Decisions
      ▼
      • How to get healthcare systems to care for older women
      • Immunisation for adults
      • Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility
  • Contact
  • Blog
    ▼
    • What we’re thinking
    • Our World
    • Staff blog
  • Flexible Pricing Plan

Cookies

This site uses cookies: Find out more.