The drug company paid Elsevier to produce several volumes of a publication
made to look like a peer-reviewed medical journal, with no disclosure of
company sponsorship
By Bob Grant [30th April 2009]
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55671/
(requires free registration)
Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of a
publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but
contained only reprinted or summarized articles--most of which presented
data favorable to Merck products--that appeared to act solely as marketing
tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.
[SNIP]
The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which was published by
Exerpta Medica, a division of scientific publishing juggernaut Elsevier, is
not indexed in the MEDLINE database, and has no website (not even a defunct
one). The Scientist obtained two issues of the journal: Volume 2, Issues 1
and 2, both dated 2003. The issues contained little in the way of
advertisements apart from ads for Fosamax, a Merck drug for osteoporosis,
and Vioxx.
[SNIP]
The claim that Merck had created a journal out of whole cloth to serve as a
marketing tool was first reported by The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311725-5013871,00.html
about three weeks ago. It came to light in the context of a civil suit
filed by Graeme Peterson, who suffered a heart attack in 2003 while on
Vioxx, against Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp & Dohme
Australia (MSDA).
Tom Baxter
Reference Librarian
Office of the Attorney General of Florida
PL-01 The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9752
850-414-3376
FAX 850-921-5784
Tom.Baxter@MyFloridaLegal.com
Please note that Florida has a broad public records law, and that all
correspondence to me via email may be subject to disclosure.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 05 2009 - 07:00:06 PDT