Monday, September 15, 2008

The continuing assault on industry supported CME

This time Dr. Arnold Relman takes a stab in JAMA. For years Relman has been on a crusade to eliminate all forms of industry supported CME and these are his usual talking points. The piece is full of opinion about what should or ought to happen but offers no evidence to support its claims.

Via Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

4 comments:

w.h.a.t.s.y.e.l.l.o.w.a.n.d.g.r.e.e.n.a.n.d.e.a.t.s.n.u.t.s@gmail.com said...

Interesting how you were pro-Relman 2 years ago when you posted that 1999 video debate against Andrew Weil, but as soon as he touches a topic that you have (apparently) a vested interest in maintaining, he's your enemy. Very interesting.

I assume that it's impossible to make ends meet as a hospitalist in Arkansas without being a shill of Big Pharma. Given what I know about Arkansas, that's hardly surprising.

Of course most private practitioners would argue that being a hospitalist alone already makes you part of the problem, since many hospitals are badly-run, and nearly half of them in this country are for-profit institutions. I'm guessing that yours is. To be a hospitalist, then, is already to be a shill.

w.h.a.t.s.y.e.l.l.o.w.a.n.d.g.r.e.e.n.a.n.d.e.a.t.s.n.u.t.s@gmail.com said...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=60

Dr. Crislip, who I have much more respect for than you, pretty much shoots you down wholesale.

Your entire blog sounds to me like a curious combination of refuting obvious quackery to gain credibility, and then using that credibility to prop up Big Pharma. Despite mountains of evidence which contradict your ideology that industry influence in CME or anywhere else is okay, you consistently pick the strawest of arguments to address, and the only time you offer a conrary viewpoint on this matter, say from other bloggers, is when they're embarrassing themselves.

Well I say you're embarrassing yourself on this matter, and should decide whether your soapbox here is going to remain tenable.

R. W. Donnell said...

Interesting how you were pro-Relman 2 years ago when you posted that 1999 video debate against Andrew Weil, but as soon as he touches a topic that you have (apparently) a vested interest in maintaining, he's your enemy. Very interesting.

My enemy? Not at all. I have no personal feelings whatsoever about Dr. Relman. Neither pro-Relman nor anti-Relman. I happen to agree with him about CAM. I don't agree with his position on industry support of CME. I base my postings on the merits of arguments, not personal attacks.


I assume that it's impossible to make ends meet as a hospitalist in Arkansas without being a shill of Big Pharma. Given what I know about Arkansas, that's hardly surprising.

I have no ties with industry. I receive no income from industry sources. Your assumptions are curious. I'd be happy to examine any evidence you have to support them.

Of course most private practitioners would argue that being a hospitalist alone already makes you part of the problem, since many hospitals are badly-run, and nearly half of them in this country are for-profit institutions. I'm guessing that yours is. To be a hospitalist, then, is already to be a shill.

Nope. My institution is non-profit. That would have been easy enough for you to research.

R. W. Donnell said...

Dr. Crislip, who I have much more respect for than you, pretty much shoots you down wholesale.

I read Crislip's post some time ago.
I agree with that post. I have examined all the evidence he cites. Yes, it's out there. He also said that, concerning evidence of adverse outcomes related to pharmaceutical promotion, there isn't any. That's my point.