Yes, I'd note that the author has some, uh, heterodox views on things like cancer, diet, salt, etc
-
-
Which author? The article of the blog or the author of the BMJ article that gives these numbers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The blog post. Have a look at some of the other work on there
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes. That's what my "If..." was relating to.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
You both seem to be implying that the information in my tweet isn’t trustworthy. But the numbers correspond to what is presented in the BMJ article, the original source
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MaartenvSmeden @dnunan79 and
Just for posterity: the numbers for "JACC" in that Table are technically correct but wildly misleading. One person that started a company and received 10.9 million from the sale of the company (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/ethics/52731 …)
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @ADAlthousePhD @MaartenvSmeden and
So the vast majority of the JACC editors were in the more-standard "couple thousand dollars in meals and speaking fees" range but the "average" presented without any context makes it appear as though each editor walked off with half a million.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @ADAlthousePhD @MaartenvSmeden and
I also think the quotations around 'research' are a clear indication of the biases here - this is literally research funding that wasn't paid to the individual! You may not like pharma funding, but implying that this money wasn't used for research is...problematic
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @MaartenvSmeden and
That's an important point, but now that I looked a bit harder, the main driver of this was the big sale of a company. As
@mikejohansenmd says, you always gotta check the supplementary appendix:pic.twitter.com/gAI3Rvzc2I
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @ADAlthousePhD @GidMK and
It is pretty funny to see that the blog post heavily implies that "each" editor is on the take for these massive sums when the truth is most of them got a few thousand and the one big lump sum accounting for 2/3 of the money was proceeds from the sale of a company.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
Yeh I think looking at the overall table here from the BMJ paper is quite elucidating. Median of $0 for about 50% of all editors means that 50%+ of journal editors receive NO pharma money. Median for almost every specialty is below 1,000pic.twitter.com/VHtemP5c1h
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
In fact, if you read the results vs conclusion of the BMJ study, I think they've wildly mischaracterized the evidence here - most editors receive no/almost no payments, but the means are skewed upwards by a scant few who get paid a lotpic.twitter.com/RAmwNIwBvJ
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
I'm not sure how you can find that the majority of journal editors receive $0 of pharma money, and >75% get less than $3,000, and then say that industry payments are "common and often large"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.