logical fallacies

We have repeatedly discussed the adverse effects of conflicts of interest on health care.  Recently, I argued that the most pernicious are conflicts of interest created as an incentive for trusted health care leaders, usually respected health care professionals or academics, to promote the vested interests of those who pay them, in the guise of the leaders' professional roles.  In this capacity, the leaders are often dubbed "key opinion leaders" by those who employ them, but may be rega

I first became dimly aware of how dysfunctional health care had become in the US after seeing, up close and personal, a case of attempted suppression of medical research because its content offended vested interests.  (See "Academic Freedom and the Corporate University" by Jennifer Washburn here.)  We have since blogged frequently about suppression of research, other threats to

Despite increasing recognition of the adverse effects of health care professionals' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest on health care, such financial relationships continue to have their prominent defenders.  The latest example was an article in Medscape General Surgery by Frank J Veith MD, entitled "Physicians and Industry: Fi

We recently posted about the latest example of generously paid health care leaders, million dollar plus hospital CEOs in the Baltimore area (here).  Such stories are appearing more often in the media, and increasingly generating skeptical, anguished, or angry responses. 

Defending Millionaire Hospital CEOs

Josephine P. Briggs, M.D.
Director, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Dear Dr.

Briggs,

We have tried to argue why comparative effectiveness research is a good idea. To cut and paste what I wrote in a previous post,

The latest version of the argument that we are all getting too worked up over conflicts of interest in health care has appeared, this time in a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal.

(Hirsch LJ. Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publishing: the tort bar and editorial oversight in medical journals.

Mayo Clinic Proc 2009; 84: 811-821.

Earlier this year, a remarkable commentary in JAMA suggested major reconsideration of the relationships among professional medical associations (PMAs) and health care corporations.(1) Because of the influence of PMAs on clinical care, education, research, and policy, Rothman et al suggested that these organizations sever most of their financial ties to corporations such as pharmaceutical, device, and biotechnology companies.

We have tried to argue why comparative effectiveness research is a good idea. To cut and paste what I wrote in a previous post,

It seems to be the season for defenses of financial relationships among medical academics and health care corporations to appear in the media.

The latest example appeared last week in the Boston Globe as an op-ed [Shaywitz DA, Auseillo DA.

Scientific research with an asterisk. April 29, 2008.]

Like other articles in this genre, the authors incorporated a number of logical fallacies into their arguments.