What started as an academic dispute regarding disclosure of conflict of interest is now snowballing into the mainstream media, due to the over-reaction by JAMA editors as reported in this Wall Street Journal blog post, JAMA editor calls Critic a “Nobody and a Nothing”
In summary, Dr. Jonathan Leo, the “Critic”, dared to draw attention to 2 important points regarding a study comparing the efficacy of therapy vs. medication published in the Journal of the American Academy of Medicine (JAMA) — one of the most prestigious scientific publications:
1) The study results were presented and reported in a biased way, since they favored one specific intervention, a drug, while ignoring another one, therapy-based, that had equally statistically significant effects.
2) Both the lead author of the study and one of the main experts asked to comment on the study in several media outlets had undisclosed and unreported conflicts of interest. JAMA could have done a 5‑minute Google search to identify and report the conflict of interest of the lead author (received a variety of revenues from the drugmaker).
Dr. Leo has summarized the continuing matter in several impressive letters. The 2 main ones, in chronological order:
- “Central to the idea of evidence-based medicine is that the choices made by patients and doctors to use a certain treatment should at least in part be based on scientific studies published in peer reviewed academic journals. For a patient diagnosed with [Read more…] about Therapy vs. Medication, Conflicts of Interest, and Intimidation