Truth in Medical Journal Advertising? Not!

There are hundreds of medical journals published today. Every conceivable specialty, every body organ, every possible type of medical practice is represented by its own very unique journal. Ostensibly, the purpose of these specialty magazines is to publish research papers, advances in the respective fields of medicine, to put forth the latest equipment and to offer a voice for the practicing surgeons or specialists of that particular branch of endeavor.

As in most of today's periodicals, medical journals too are rife with full colour, glossy advertisements. Advertising is as common to any form of print media as are the articles. Medical journals are no exception. Large, full-page ads abound. These ads are just as clever, just as colourful and full of hype as you'll find in any supermarket magazine. But the real difference is that, unlike the drug ads in the supermarket magazines which are aimed at consumers, these ads are appealing to the doctors that prescribe these medications, and each is trying to get an edge. The monetary value of this market is almost incalculable.

One would think that medical journals are devoted to discovering and reporting only fact and honest research. Perhaps that is mostly the case, except, it seems, in their advertising content. It is bad enough that most of our daily exposure to the various media is loaded with exaggeration, overstatement and hyperbole, especially the ads. But then, how far wrong can you go reading or listening to an ad for, say, dish soap? Or blue jeans? But when your doctor reads an ad in a respectable medical journal, don't you want to think that that ad, which may influence his/her next prescription patterns, should be truthful? I would hope so; however, that seems not to be the case.

A recent study, reported in the November 2003 edition of The Back Letter, randomly examined 50 advertisements in 6 of the main orthopedic medical journals. From these 50 ads, the authors chose a claim or statement that the various companies had made in the ads. Next, the authors of the study challenged the companies to back up their claims. Guess what? Only 14% of the validating information offered was considered “clearly valid”. 34% was considered “possibly valid”. Over half the statements or claims made in these ads were completely unsupported. Rubbish, in other words.

I would expect better of the dish-soap people. What are being advertised in these esteemed journals are potentially life-or-death products, mostly drugs. If you can con a physician with slick copy ads, what of the rest of us? These physicians are purported, by themselves mostly, to be scientific, rational and objective individuals. Surely you ask, they are above the wiles of the advertising moguls? Apparently not, otherwise why would these companies spend huge dollars to flog their products (read drugs) in these journals?

And what does this study say about the journals? Like all magazines, advertising rates are extremely expensive. Perhaps the pursuit of truth takes second place to the profitability of the journal. I hate to sound cynical here, but what other conclusion could one draw? Allowing advertising of drugs to the public is bad enough, but to deliberately set out to influence doctors with deceitful and fraudulent claims is reprehensible at best, criminal at worst.

Author Contact Info: David L. Phillips, D.C.
http://miltonchiropractic.chiroweb.com/