Clinical Trials Controversy

I very much appreciated the article in the July 16 issue titled“ Clinical Trials Controversy Spotlights Flawed System.” I concur that the problem also exists in medical specialties other than psychiatry. The first three paragraphs of the article do indeed echo the feelings of clinicians like me (“in the trenches,” as the article states) about the lack of reliability of data from pharmaceutical companies, causing us to “wonder what we really know, or perhaps don't know... [and] seriously challenges physicians' comfort level with prescription drugs....”

These three carefully worded paragraphs do not point blame at individuals. In fact, the article makes a show of even-handedness in its reference to the article in the April Lancet by Jon Jureidini, M.D., of Australia, who blew the whistle on this latest example of egregious behavior.

In contrast to the Aussie proclivity for bluntness, the article states:“ At best, Jureidini's conclusions were direct and to the point, but by some people's estimation the conclusions seemed inflammatory, with abundant references to the individuals who led the research or wrote the articles, rather than to the research methods, data analysis, or conclusions.”

Come on. When individuals signed their names to misleading material, why shouldn't they be named in a rebuttal? It is a cheap shot to label this kind of directness “inflammatory.” I say three cheers for the Aussies, who, after all, have their heads on right side up.