Is Big Pharma Bribing Medical Journals?

Has Big Pharma been greasing a few palms? Recently, many top medical journals have been accused of publishing articles based on money over merit. In an article in Medium, published on April 10, 2018, Dr. Jason Fung, nephrologist and founder of Intensive Dietary Management Program, claims some of even the most highly regarded medical journals are taking money to make medications appear more effective or safer than they actually are. Even worse, could Big Pharma be the ones bribing them?

Dangerously Selective

According to Dr. Fung, pharmaceutical companies have long been suppressing studies that could affect the commercial success of their drugs. Because they invest so much in their development, companies have much to lose with the publication of studies that don’t back their claims. By extending a financial incentive to publish some studies over others, companies have learned they can rig the system.

Kickbacks and Reprints

One of the biggest ways medical journals make money is through the sale of reprints. According to Dr. Fung, reprints are a strong incentive to give pharmaceutical companies what they want in terms of publication. Favorable studies work much like paid advertisements, and pharmaceutical companies will often buy copies of the journals in the hundreds of thousands so they can distribute them to doctors and other professionals --- copies they will only buy if the published studies benefit their drug sales. One report showed the American Medical Association made about 53% of its revenue through reprinting fees.

Allegations also exist of some editors taking tens of thousands of dollars directly in bribe money, often simply marked as “research” dollars. In addition to rejecting unfavorable studies, editors have been accused of biasing results through selections of corrupt peer-review panels --- the journals’ fact-checking gatekeepers.

Skewed Results?

When studies are published based on salability rather than content validity, you end up with a flood of published results that solely benefit those providing (and potentially taking) the money. For example, when Fung looked at reports about studies on antidepressant drugs, he noticed that far more studies with positive findings were published in journals than those that were negative. In fact, out of 37 studies that were published, 36 were positive. Yet, 22 unpublished studies from clinical trial results with a negative slant remained unpublished in peer reviewed journals. So although nearly half of the overall clinical trials that were done showed negative findings, people reading only these journals could be led to believe 94% of all studies showed positive results. This does not benefit the average consumer concerned about their health (who may be taking these drugs in good faith) or the doctor who is prescribing the medications to their patients.

So, who does it benefit? You be the judge of that.