Reply #6: A few points

[Celebration]

A study may be valid and completely okay notwithstanding a researcher's ties to a pharmaceutical company. Howevever, there is certainly a reason to go over the results and methods with a fine tooth comb. At the very least there is a motivation for skewing the results. Speaking for myself, I am much more interested in the safety issues. Any data that is thrown out, or stopped early, or whatever, is suspect. Also conclusions drawn may be overly broad. Suffice it to say that there are various ways, subtle and not so subtle, that a study may not reflect the reality of the situation. Therefore, it is IMPERITIVE that we know the financial ties of the researchers.

JAMA and others DO publish the financial ties. That is a step forward. Researchers are required to disclose their financial ties. However, there is now NO MEAT behind this. If researchers choose to lie, and not disclose their financial ties, other than pulishing them in a later edition, THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES.

Do you get that?

There are no consequences for the researchers lying and saying there are no financial ties when there actually are.

Do you ACTUALLY TRUST a study done by researchers that LIE about their financial ties?

Wouldn't it be much better if JAMA and other journals would refuse to publish the studies done by proven liars? That is the whole point.