Imagine if your car mechanic took $10,000 a year from Michelin tyres for “consulting” and then tended to recommend their tyres over Pirelli – even if the latter are on sale or better quality or both.
Imagine if your Governor took campaign contributions from Panera bread and then strangely exempted Panera bread from the new minimum wage law.
Imagine if your cancer doctor took money from Karyopharm and then prescribed the toxic poison selenexor (studied in the unethical trial Boston) over safer and cheaper alternatives.
To my knowledge, the first example didn’t happen. The second example is why people think Politicians are sleazy, and the last example is the norm in medicine.
Each year, cancer doctors – particularly academic doctors – take tens of millions in pharma payments while simultaneously writing guidelines that mandate the use of these drugs and simultaneously prescribing them to desperate sick patients who want an objective opinion, but get a biased one instead.
85% of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines writers take pharma payments, and professional organisations are awash in Pharma cash. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (“ASCO”) – our annual meeting – is less about the objective appraisal of science and more a marketing conference for Pharma.
I don’t want to rehash the data showing taking money from Pharma is associated with greater, inappropriate, off-label prescribing, hype, spin and editorials favourable to the sponsor. There is a lot of literature there, and I have written about it extensively. Here, I want to address three things doctors who take personal payments say in rebuttal.
Hellbound and Down 