Discussion about this post

User's avatar
CMaryG's avatar

I thought I was prescribed the best treatment after a stent and now I find the science for approval was not gold standard but accepted by the regulators/commercial big pharma consortium

In whom we trust…

Thanks Maryanne for your vigilant reporting - sad media big pharma and regulators appear to love $$$ too much

Expand full comment
Chris's avatar

Interesting - Newspapers print retractions or corrections when they have found to have reported incorrectly. I would think that one of the reasons behind this is to uphold their reputation for ensuring only accurate and correct reporting occurs (apart from legal concerns).

Circulation, by utterly failing to provide any guidance to its readers in this case shows it has no ethics and that any future articles/papers/editorials should be treated with total suspicion. In fact I would go so far as to say that anybody who now reads Circulation is deluded if they believe they can trust any of the content.

Years ago I ceased reading the "New Scientist" (probably better named the "Non Scientist") after its recklessly politically based reporting on covid and climate change for this same reason, as countless articles could easily be seen to be false or reporting on basically fraudulent studies.

There is a business opportunity here for the journals. Report accurately and fearlessly , and issue retractions and warnings - but basically become the "go to" place if one wants trusted reporting. Food for thought...

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts