I read through Ms. Angell’s article, but came away with something different. She doesn’t really review the books, but instead summarizes some key points that support the nearly universal idea that Big Pharma is corrupt. Then towards the end she also includes, “physicians, medical schools, and professional organizations…” as all guilty of wrongdoing along with the drug companies. While I don’t dispute any of that, I do see a glaring omission from the list of guilty parties: The medical publishing industry.

Her headline-grabbing quote is that it’s “no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is PUBLISHED…”

And there is the key word. Published.

Here’s the way I see it. Research needs to get published to be considered valid. The act of publishing confers validity and authority to the research. Therefore it is the publisher that legitimizes the research. And who makes the decisions about what submitted research gets published? The editors. People just like Ms. Angell.

The medical media are our trusted gatekeepers of medical knowledge. Is it not the medical media’s responsibility to publish accurate information? If they can NOT be trusted to do that, then what is the purpose of their existence? Put another way, how are we, as believers in Participatory Medicine, going to save our lives and the lives of our loved ones, if we cannot believe the articles that these prestigious medical journals deign to publish and legitimize?

Again, I’m new here and in no position to start throwing stones. But I have 20 years experience in the media business (and five years experience managing my wife’s cancer healthcare). Publishing and producing medical information is a very big business, and I’m pretty sure that medical information workers are just as human as other healthcare workers. So head’s up!

The legitimacy of the medical information delivery system is a critical topic that we would be ill-advised to ignore.

I entered this field a couple of years ago with, like most people, a blind faith in the scientific probity and wisdom of the medical community. It seems that I am everyday confronted with conclusions based on insufficient evidence, often biased by vested interests, and a resistance to measuring what actually works and what does not. With open communications a consumer backlash is inevitable in my opinion. We had better start measuring things properly and fast.

“R.Smith (BMJ) concurs w/M.Angell (NEJM) in launch of J. Partic Med: ‘most of what appears in peer reviewed journals is scientifically weak’”

“Peer review must be job of the many rather than the few. This must, indeed, be part of participatory medicine’s philosophy. R. Smith”

(Smith was editor of British Medical Journal for 25 years.)

The first edition of the Journal will go live (online) next week. Subscribe/register (free, open access) here.