Ghost Authors Common in Medical Research Papers: Study

Drug companies initiating clinical trials often use ghost authors and medical writers whose contributions are not credited in the research papers, Danish scientists said on Tuesday.
This practice could be reduced by greater transparency and stricter rules that insist everyone who has worked on or contributed to a medical trial is named.
"Ghost authorship is common but it is often kept secret because it is in the interest of both the industry and the academic authors who lend their names to papers they have had very little or, in some cases, nothing to do with," Peter Gotzsche, of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark, said in an interview.
The names of authors and researchers are omitted from the published research papers because this may serve the commercial interests of the company sponsoring the trial.
"We have seen again and again that the conclusions in trial reports and other types of articles are given a spin by industry so that the conclusions are too positive compared to the data presented," Gotzsche said.
"It is very important for the industry to get messages out that are useful for their marketing departments," he added.
Lending their name to a study can be beneficial for researchers because it raises their profile and the number of published studies they are linked to. Gotzsche and a team of international researchers believe that unless the role of all the authors is set out in the research paper, people reading the study will not be able accurately to judge or trust its conclusions.
The scientists analysed 44 trials approved by Danish ethics committees in 1994-1995 in the first systematic examination of ghost authorship. One of the studies had been initiated by a local company and 43 by one of 26 multinational drug companies.
The researchers identified 33 trials with ghost authors. In 31 of them the ghost writer was a statistician -- the person who analysed the trial data.
__________________________
Gary Moller comments:
These sorts of appalling practices help to explain why "research" that shows favourable results for commercial products always seem to be far more numerous than those reports that are less than favourable. Coupled with massive publicity machines behind them these reports of questionable repute then receive incredible publicity in the media - propaganda dressed up as news!

Menawhile, the free or cheap, self-help methods for keeping healthy, or regaining health are largely ignored. For example, if a drug was discovered that was shown to reduce cancer risk by as much as 50% it would be a news sensation. The discoverers would not only become incredibly wealthy, they would also be Nobel Prize winners. Or would they?

Well there is a drug that has been discovered that does just that - sunlight. Sadly, because sun is free it receives little in the way of recognition for its cancer preventing qualities. In fact, we are taught by the establishment to fear the sun. Some might think there is some kind of conspiracy going on here. Or is it just a case of willful neglect aided and abetted by powerful commercial interests?

Read more!

Link

Sunlight reduces the risk of 16 types of cancer

Tuesday, August 1, 2006: "A study published this week in Anticancer Research confirms that solar UVB irradiance is associated with reduced risk of 16 sites of cancer, apparently through production of vitamin D. These cancers include 6 sites of gastrointestinal cancers, 3 cancers of female sites, 3 urogenital cancers, 2 types of lymphomas, and 2 upper aerodigestive tract cancers.

....According to co-author Cedric Garland, Dr.P.H., “Enhancing vitamin D status appears to be the single most important single simple thing that people can do to reduce their risk of cancer, apart from avoiding tobacco and moderation in intake of alcohol.

According to William Grant, Ph.D. “Other recent studies recently found that it takes 1000 to 1500 International Units (I.U.) of vitamin D per day to reduce the risk of cancer incidence and death by 30-50%. In the U.S., dietary sources provide only 250 to 300 I.U. per day. People with fair skin living in the sunnier regions of the country can make 1500 I.U. of vitamin D in about 20 minutes near solar noon with 10-20% of their body exposed, i.e., arms and back in women and back or chest in men. Those with darker skin require 2-4 times as much time or body exposed for the same vitamin D production. This may help explain why black Americans have higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than white Americans, which was described recently in the Journal of the National Medical Association.”

Cedric Garland added, “Briefly exposing a large enough area of skin for adequate vitamin D synthesis is more effective than increasing the amount of time spent in the sun. Protracted exposures to the sun are counterproductive after the 20-30 minutes at most when vitamin D synthesis for the day is complete. People of all ages should wear a hat whenever spending more than a few minutes in the sun, and should spend the time walking or otherwise in motion.”
William Grant added “The public receives a steady barrage of public service messages to avoid the sun and wear sunscreens in order to reduce the risk of skin cancer and melanoma.

Unfortunately, such messages do not mention that these risks are counterbalanced to a substantial degree by the advantages of producing vitamin D from solar UVB irradiance. Insufficient UVB irradiance and vitamin D costs society about 10 times what excess solar UVB does, and excess UVB irradiance is not required for optimal vitamin D production.” Cedric Garland said “vitamin D in the appropriate dose is giving society new hope in the fight to prevent cancer.”
________________________________
Gary Moller Comments:
This article is a wonderful summary of the situation, as I see it, and shows how far out of step public health messages are getting with where research is heading. It is time for change.

30-50% reduction in cancer incidence just by getting a little sunshine!!!

If a large pharmaceutical company were to develop a drug with the power of Vitamin D (at the cost a billion $$$), the news would surely be sensational. Is there hardly any publicity and reluctance to change because there is no money to be made? If the news got out might it hurt some pockets by undermining the sales of outrageously expensive drugs like Herceptin - a drug that only improves survival rates by 2-4% (Go here for more information), while causing heart damage in 28% of users (Go here for more information)?

Something is very wrong and needs to be put right urgently.

Read more!

Link