Pseudo-Evidence Based Medicine Should be a Global Health Concern

We have frequently advocated for evidence-based medicine (EBM) , that is, medicine based on judicious use of the best available evidence from clinical research, critically reviewed and derived from systematic search, combined with biomedical knowledge and understanding of patients' values and preferences.  However, EBM risks being turned into pseudo-evidence based medicine due to systematic manipulation and distortion of the clinical research evidence base.  Dr Wally Smith wrote about pseudo-evidence based medicine, which he defined as "the practice of medicine based on falsehoods that are disseminated as truth," in the British journal Clinical Governance (Smith WR. Pseudoevidence-based medicine: what it is, and what to do about it. Clinical Governance 2007; 12: 42-52. Also see this post).  

Now it appears that this issue is causing concern in the Cochrane Collaboration, the main voluntary international group promoting EBM.  An article from December, 2011 in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics outlined why we need to question the trustworthiness of the global clinical evidence base.  (See Tharyan P. Evidence-based medicine: can the evidence be trusted.  Ind J Med Ethics 2011; 8: 201-207.  Link here.)  It merits further review.

The Role of Vested Interests

Dr Tharyan, its author, emphasized that a major threat to the integrity of the clinical research data base is the influence on clinical research of those with vested interests in marketing particular products, e.g., drugs, devices, etc.

The motives for conducting research are often determined by considerations other than the advancement of science or the promotion of better health outcomes. Many research studies are driven by the pressure to obtain post-graduate qualifications, earn promotions, obtain tenured positions, or additional research funding; many others are conducted for financial motives that benefit shareholders, or lead to lucrative patents.

The Importance of Pervasive Conflicts of Interest

Early on, the author discussed how the distortion of the clinical research data base arises from the pervasive web of conflicts of interest in medicine and health care:

This hijacked research agenda perpetuates further research of a similar nature that draws more researchers into its lucrative embrace, entrenching the academic direction and position statements of scientific societies and academic associations. Funders and researchers are also deterred from pursuing more relevant research, since the enmeshed relationship between academic institutions and industry determines what research is funded (mostly drugs at the expense of other interventions), and even how research is reported; thus hijacking the research agenda even further away from the interests of science and society.

The article then goes on to show how the influence of vested interests may distort the design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of research.

Distortion of Research Design and Implementation

The Research Question

Dr Tharyan noted

The majority of clinical trials conducted world-wide are done to obtain regulatory approval and a marketing licence for new drugs. These regulations often require only the demonstration of the superiority of a new drug over placebo and not over other active interventions in use. It is easier and cheaper to conduct these trials in countries with lower wages, lax regulatory requirements, and less than optimal capacity for ethical oversight. It is therefore not surprising that the focus of research does not reflect the actual burden of disease borne by people in the countries that contribute research participants, nor address the leading causes of the global burden of disease. Some 'seeding' trials, conducted purportedly for the purpose of surveillance for adverse effects, are often only a ploy to ensure brand loyalty among participating clinician-researchers.

Insufficient Sample Size

The article stated,

Many trials do not report calculations on which the sample size was estimated, often leading to sample sizes insufficient to detect even important differences between interventions (for primary, let alone secondary outcomes)

I would add that such small trials are particularly bad at detecting important adverse effects of the interventions being promoted.

Excessively Stringent Enrollment Criteria

As Dr Tharyan wrote,

Most RCTs funded by industry and academia are designed to demonstrate if a new drug works, for licensing and marketing purposes. In order to maximise the potential to demonstrate a 'true' drug effect, homogenous patient populations; placebo controls; very tight control over experimental variables such as monitoring, drug doses, and compliance; outcomes addressing short term efficacy and safety; and methods to minimise bias required by regulatory agencies are used to demonstrate if, and how, the drug works under ideal conditions.

The problem is that very few patients in clinical practice resemble those enrolled in such trials, so the generalizability of the trials' results is actually dubious. Ideally, clinicians practicing evidence-based medicine could refer to trials that include patients similar to those for whom they care.

Practical or pragmatic clinical trials are designed to provide evidence for clinicians to treat patients seen in day-to day clinical practice, and evaluate their effectiveness under 'real-world' conditions. These trials use few exclusion criteria and include people with co-morbid conditions, and all grades of severity. They compare active interventions that are standard practice, and in the flexible doses and levels of compliance seen in usual practice. They utilise outcomes that clinicians, patients, and their families consider important, such as satisfaction, adverse events, return to work, and quality of life). Recommendations exist on their design and reporting , but such trials are rare.

Comparisons to Placebo, not the Other Interventions Clinicians Might Realistically Consider

Per the article,

Industry sponsored trials rarely involve head-to head comparisons of active interventions, particularly those from other drug companies, thus limiting our ability to understand the relative merits of different interventions for the same condition.

The result may thus be a number of studies showing particular interventions appear to be better than nothing, but few if any studies that would help clinicians decide which intervention would be best for a particular patient.

Inappropriate Comparators

However,when studies are done comparing the intervention of interest to other active interventions, the details of the choice of comparators are often managed so that the comparators are likely to appear to be worse.

Even if active interventions are compared in industry-sponsored trials, the research agenda has devised ways in which the design of such trials is manipulated to ensure superiority of the sponsor’s drug. If one wants to prove better efficacy, then the comparator drug is a drug that is known to be less effective, or used in doses that are too low, or used in non-standard schedules or duration of treatment. If one wants to show greater safety, then the comparator is a drug with more adverse effects, or one that is used in toxic doses. Follow up, also, is typically too short to judge effectiveness over longer periods of time.

Meaningless Outcomes

A favorite tactic used in the design of trials influenced by vested interests is to choose outcomes that are likely to show results favorable to the product being promoted, but have no meaning for patients or clinicians. There are three ways this is commonly done.

The first is to use rating scales that are very sensitive to small perturbations, but not meaningful in terms of how patients feel or function:

The choice of outcome measures used often ensures statistically significant results in advance, at the expense of clinically relevant or clinically important results. Outcomes likely to yield clinically meaningless results include the use of rating scales (depression, pain, etc.). These scales yield continuous measures usually summarised by means and standard deviations, rather than the dichotomous measures clinicians use such as: clinically improved versus not improved. These rating scales, however extensively validated, are hardly ever used in routine clinical practice. A difference of a few points on these scales results in statistically significant differences (low p values), that have little clinical significance to patients.

Another is to use surrogate outcomes,

Other outcomes commonly used are surrogate outcomes; outcomes that are easy to assess but serve only as proxy indicators of what ought to be assessed, since the real outcome of interest may take a long time to develop. These are mostly continuous measures that require smaller sample sizes (blood sugar levels, blood pressure, lipid levels, CD4 counts, etc.). These measures easily achieve statistical significance but do not result in meaningful improvements (reduction in mortality, reduction in complications, improved quality of life) in patients’ lives, when the interventions are used (often extensively) in clinical practice.

Finally, there are composite outcomes,

The use of composite outcomes, where many outcomes (primary, secondary and surrogate outcomes) are clubbed together (e.g.: mortality, non-fatal stroke, fatal stroke, blood pressure, creatinine values, rates of revascularisation) as a single primary outcome, can also mislead. Such trials also require smaller sample sizes, and increase the likelihood of statistically significant results. However, if the composite outcome includes those of little clinical importance (lowered blood pressure, or creatinine values), the likelihood of real benefit (reduction in mortality, or strokes, or hospitalisation) and the potential for harm (increase in non-fatal strokes or all-cause mortality) are masked.

Distortion of Analysis

Relative Instead of Absolute Risks

A favorite trick is to emphasize relative risks rather than absolute risks. For example if a trial reduces the risk of a bad outcome from 2 of 10,000 patients (0.02%) to 1 of 10,000 patients (0.01%), the relative risk reduction is 50%, but only 1 of 10,000 patients experienced a benefit.

The use of estimates of relative effects of interventions, such as relative risks (RR) and odds ratios (OR) with their 95% confidence intervals, provides estimates of relative magnitudes of the differences and whether these exclude chance, as well as if these differences were nominal or likely to be clinically important.

However, even relative risks can be misleading since they ignore the baseline risk of developing the event without the intervention. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) is the difference in risk of the event in the intervention group and the control group, and is more informative since it provides an estimate of the magnitude of the risk reduction, as well the baseline risk (the risk without the intervention, or the risk in the control group). Systematic enquiry demonstrates that on average, people perceive risk reductions to be larger and are more persuaded to adopt a health intervention when its effect is presented as relative risks and relative risk reduction (a proportional reduction) rather than as absolute risk reduction; though this may be misleading.

Sub-Group Analysis

Another statistical trick used to present favourable outcomes for interventions is the use of spurious subgroup analyses, where observed treatment effects are evaluated for differences across baseline characteristics ( such as sex, or age, or in other subpopulations). While they are useful, if limited to a few biologically plausible subgroups, specified in advance, and reported as a hypothesis for confirmation in future trials; they are often used in industry-sponsored trials to present favourable outcomes, when the primary outcome(s) are not statistically significant.

A major statistical point is that the more ways one subdivides the study population, the more likely it is to find a difference between those receiving different interventions by chance alone.

Distortion of Dissemination

Poor Exposition

As noted by Dr Tharyan,

Evidence also shows that the published reports are not always consistent with their protocols, in terms of outcomes, as well as the analysis plan, and this again is determined by the significance of the results. Harms are very poorly reported in trials compared to results for efficacy; and are also often suppressed or minimised.

Ghost-Writing

Also, those with vested interests may try to ensure maximally favorable dissemination by employing ghost-writers,

Other tactics used to influence evidence-informed decision making include ghost-writing, where pharmaceutical companies hire public-relations firms who 'ghost-write' articles, editorials, and commentaries under the names of eminent clinicians; a strategy that was detected by one survey in 75% of industry-sponsored trials, where the ghost author was not named at all, and in 91% when the ghost author was only mentioned in the acknowledgement section. Detecting such conflicts of interest is difficult, since they are rarely acknowledged due to the secrecy that shrouds the nexus between academia and industry in clinical trials.

Industry-sponsored trials often place various constraints on clinical investigators on publication of their results; these publication arrangements are common, allow sponsors control of how, when, and what is published; and are frequently not mentioned in published articles.

Ghost-writers under the direct control of those with vested interests could more efficiently bias their writing in favor of their sponsors than could even academics constrained by contractual obligations to sponsors.

Suppression of Research

When all else fails, the most crude example of distorted dissemination is suppression of studies that despite all the manipulations noted above fail to produce favorable results for the product being promoted:

A considerable body of work provides direct empirical evidence that studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published; and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported, particularly in industry funded trials.

By the way, the latest demonstration of suppression of research was a study by Turner et al (Turner EH, Knoepflmacher D, Shapley L. Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database. PLoS Medicine 2012; 9(3): e1001189. Link here) It showed that of 24 trials of atypical antipsychotics registered in the US FDA database, 15/20 (75%) of the published trials were positive, that is, had results in favor of the sponsors' drugs according to the FDA review, but only 1/4 (25%) of the unpublished trials were positive. In other words, 15/16 of positive trials were published, but only 5/8 non-positive ones were.

Summary

Thus, Dr Tharyan provided a nice summary of many of the ways that the clinical research data base can be manipulated or distorted to serve vested interests. Such distortions risk the transformation of evidence-based medicine into pseudo-evidence based medicine.

We have repeatedly discussed (see links above) most of these issues. Because we are located in the US, and speak mainly English, this blog may have given the impression that the lack of trustworthiness of the clinical research evidence base is primarily a US problem. The article by Tharyan emphasizes, however, that it is a global problem.

While this problem now seems to have the attention of the Cochrane Collaboration, it seems to be relatively anechoic in global health circles. It appears to be no more prominent on the agendas of global health organizations than is health care corruption (look here.) Yet the two issues are highly related. Most of the distortions in the global clinical evidence database may be driven by conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are risk factors for corruption. Distortions of the global clinical research data base that lead to use of expensive, but ineffective or dangerous interventions when other options would work as well or better leads to needless suffering and death, and by unnecessarily raising the costs of care, decreases access, especially for the poor.

Also note that conflicts of interest may be one reason that all these problems remain so anechoic (look here).

True global health care reform requires addressing health care corruption, but also conflicts of interest and their role in the distortion and manipulation of the clinical research data base. I still live in hope that that some academic health care institutions, professional societies, health care charities and donors, and patient advocacy groups will gain enough fortitude to stand up for accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty in health care.

The Texas TMAP Trial as Illustration of a Systematic Stealth Marketing Campaign

Before it was abruptly ended by a sudden settlement for $158 million, the trial in Texas of a suit alleging unethical marketing of the drug Respirdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson opened yet another window on organized stealth marketing campaigns in health care. (Note that we first discussed this case here in 2006, and that this trial and the case was ably covered in detail on the 1BoringOldMan blog.) 

Even so, given all the recent attempts to dismiss critics of the pharmaceutical industry as "pharmascolds," (e.g., here), and to otherwise uphold the current status quo in our dysfunctional health care system, I thought it would be useful to rediscuss this case to show how systematic stealth marketing threatens the ideals of rational, evidence-based health care.

Evidence-based medicine may simply be viewed as medicine based on evidence and logic tempered with humanity. A slightly longer definition is practice based on the best evidence from clinical research derived from systematic searches, critically reviewed, used to maximize individual patients' benefits and minimize their harms according to their values.

In contrast, brief summaries of sworn testimony during the trial, and of a key report by an expert witness suggested how a commercial health care organization, in this case, the Jennssen subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, could organize a stealth marketing campaign to promote practice based on deception and falsehoods, entangled in illogic and emotional and psychological manipulation. This was all done to market a product which could not so easily be supported by evidence and logic.

Deception and Falsehoods: Suppression of Medical Research

A Bloomberg report of the last day of the trial showed how the Respirdal stealth marketing campaign used the now classic mechanism of suppression of medical research:

Johnson & Johnson officials hid three studies showing some patients using Risperdal developed diabetes while claiming the antipsychotic drug didn’t cause the disease, a witness testified.

As early as 1999, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit had researchers’ findings that about half the patients taking Risperdal in a study comparing its risks to those of Eli Lilly & Co.’s Zyprexa antipsychotic drug developed diabetes after a year on the medication, Joseph Glenmullen, a psychiatrist and Harvard Medical School instructor, told a Texas jury yesterday.

That study concluded Risperdal caused 'medically serious weight gain' that led study subjects to develop diabetes, Glenmullen testified in the trial of the state of Texas’s lawsuit over Janssen’s marketing of the drug. At the same time, Janssen salespeople were telling doctors that researchers concluded the drug didn’t cause the disease, Glenmullen added.

In particular,

Glenmullen, testifying as an expert for the state, told jurors Janssen officials didn’t turn over Study 113, which found Risperdal posed a higher diabetes risk than Zyprexa, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when regulators began probing links between anti-psychotic medications and the disease in 2000.

The drugmaker also didn’t turn over the results of two other later studies that found Risperdal and Zyprexa posed comparable diabetes risks to the FDA.

Suppression of research is a severe threat to evidence-based medicine because it can severely bias the clinical evidence base on which it depends.
Deception and Falsehood: Ghostwriting

A summary of the 86 page report by Professor David Rothman commissioned by the Texas Attorney General published in the Houston Press provided this example of ghostwriting:

A member of J&J's Speakers Bureau, [University of Texas Professor of Psychiatry Dr Alexander] Miller collected at least $82,000 from Janssen and its contractors. He declined to comment for this story, saying he may be called as a witness in the lawsuit.

Miller was a 'guest author' for one of Janssen's ghostwritten articles. Upon receiving the manuscript, Miller wrote, 'Yes, I am happy to be included as a co-author. I made a few minor edits and comments in the manuscript.'

In addition, another article in the Houston Press summarizing the issues before the trial provided this overview of the ghostwriting process:

As described in the AG's expert witness report, a company called Excerpta Medica was hired to draft some of Janssen's Risperdal articles.

In 2003, according to Rothman, Excerpta Medica issued 'Risperidone Publication Program Status Reports,' indicating that 30 of the 145 articles to be published had authors listed as 'to be determined.'

Rothman also examined what he considered a signature ghostwritten piece meant to boost Risperdal's pediatric profile; the study is included in the 2010 parameters.

Rothman cited a barrage of e-mails between Excerpta Medica and J&J in crafting the article. At one point, an Excerpta Medica employee wrote, 'It would be very helpful to receive some guidance in relation to the flow, format and subject in this paper and whether you think this is too marketing oriented or not, in order to prepare a next draft. Besides that we would like [to] have some suggestions for external authors on this paper. Maybe [a] U.S. and a European KOL? Your input will be much appreciated.''

The article eventually appeared in a 2007 volume of the European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. For a lead author, J&J scored a heavy hitter: Dr. Peter Jensen, former associate director of child and adolescent research at the National Institute of Mental Health, and the founding director of the Center for the Advancement of Children's Mental Health at Columbia University. Now with the Mayo Clinic, Jensen declined to comment for this story.

This indicates the scope of this particular ghostwriting initiative: 145 articles were planned.  Thus, ghostwritten articles could comprise a major proportion of the apparently scholarly literature relevant to Risperdal.  Ghostwriting is fundamentally deceptive because it allows marketing to appear in the guise of scholarly work.  Ghostwritten reviews can deceptively shift the focus from the questions that need to be addressed by the evidence-based process to benefit patients to those whose answers would benefit marketers.


Deception and Falsehoods: Key Opinion Leaders
Emotional and Psychological Manipulation: Creation of Conflicts of Interest

An important element of most stealth marketing campaigns is the creation of key opinion leaders.  These are academics or professionals who can promote products in the guise of unbiased expertise. 

A summary of the 86 page report by Professor David Rothman commissioned by the Texas Attorney General published in the Houston Press provided the example of Dr Steven Shon:

As the head of the state's mental health agency, Shon was perhaps Janssen's most crucial key opinion leader; his influence in pushing ­Risperdal was invaluable.

He accepted at least $47,000 from Janssen and its medical ghostwriter, Excerpta Medica, and signed an agreement to be a member of Johnson & Johnson's Speakers Bureau. Rothman writes, 'The medical director of the state's mental health agency should not be serving as an official spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company whose product state agencies are purchasing.'

The company paid for his trips across the country, and even overseas, to promote ­Risperdal as a safe and effective medication. (But the romance between Janssen and Shon was not without its bumps; Shon would get 'upset' if the checks he accepted from Janssen were made out to the MHMRA instead of directly to him. Apparently, those were more difficult to funnel into his personal account.)

Shon retired in 2005, allowing him to collect his taxpayer-funded pension. He moved to Las Vegas, where he's the director of psychiatry for a mental health and substance abuse clinic called Harmony Healthcare.

Shon was so influential that Janssen grew paranoid and possessive when it learned that other companies sought his partnership as well. When J&J employee Yolanda Roman heard that Eli Lilly had flown him to their headquarters on a private jet, she wrote, "Steve I suppose is enjoying the vast attention and response he can command from Industry...Obviously, Steve has the right to be served by all Industry, let's hope he remains fair [and] balanced and remembers who PLACED HIM ON THE 'TMAP' MAP."

Meanwhile, another employee busted out the caps-lock to warn that "WE WILL NOT LET LILLY OR PFIZER PREVAIL WITH OUR MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC SECTOR THOUGHT LEADER."

Similarly, a Bloomberg report of Dr Shon's trial testimony included:

Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit paid a Texas mental health official to speak around the U.S. about state guidelines on prescribing antipsychotic drugs that gave preference to medicines like the company’s Risperdal, the official said.

Steven Shon accepted honorariums to fly to Arizona, Florida and New Jersey to discuss Texas guidelines developed in 1999 advising doctors that a newer class of drugs like Risperdal were a “first choice or option” for schizophrenia, he testified today in state court in Austin.

Also,

Attorneys for Jones questioned Shon, who served as medical director of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation until he involuntarily retired in 2006.

Shon testified that he served on Janssen advisory boards, was a board member of a Janssen publication called 'Mental Health Issues Today' and was a continuing medical education speaker in programs sponsored by the company.

Shon was asked about six trips in which he got honorariums of $3,000 from Janssen to discuss the TMAP project. In several cases, he kept those payments, he said.

In testimony yesterday, a Texas Medicaid investigator said Shon signed several consulting agreements with Janssen, and the company paid him $47,587 over several years.

Dr Shon's value to Janssen derived from his position as the respected leader of the state's mental health agency. While he was apparently paid by Janssen marketers who saw him as an ally, his marketing was all the more effective because it seemed to come from an unbiased expert. As such it was deceptive.

The Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest defined them as "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." The report, and indeed much of the discussion of conflicts of interest in health care assumes that most secondary interests are "-within limits - legitimate and even desirable goals." For example, an academic physician who also was a basic scientist could be paid by a pharmaceutical company to do a specific assay on samples used in research. In that case, the payments could conceivably create a risk that the academic's professional judgment in a clinical setting would be unduly favorable to the products of the company. However, the relationship hardly seems intended to cause such a bias. Notions that conflicts of interest are "inevitable" but "manageable" may stem from consideration of conflicts of interest like this.

However, conflicts of interest deliberately created as perverse incentives may be much more consequential, and as this example shows, perhaps not rare. It appears that Janssen paid Dr Shon not to do some task that was unrelated to how he fulfilled his primary entrusted responsibilities as director of mental health, but in order to influence how he fulfilled them. We have noted previous examples in which corporate marketers consider paid key opinion leaders as sales people (see posts here and here). Such conflicts are deliberately created so that the recipient of payments uses his or her entrusted responsibilities to serve the vested interests of the payer may be deceptive, as noted above.  Furthermore, by being intended to induce changes in how the payee performs his or her primary responsibilities, these conflicts are particularly likely to lead to abuse of these entrusted responsibilities. Given that the Transparency International definition of corruption is abuse of entrusted power for private gain, we need a new and more incisive term to described this variety of conflicts of interest.

The motivation of key opinion leaders by created conflicts of interest can result in powerful manipulation of the key opinion leaders, but more importantly of their audience. 

Emotional and Psychological Manipulation: Intimidation

Another Bloomberg report included testimony about how someone who attempted to blow the whistle about the Respirdal stealth marketing campaign was intimidated:

Allen Jones testified yesterday in state court in Austin, Texas, that he was an investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General in 2002 when he looked into an unregistered bank account run by Steven Fiorello, the pharmacist. Fiorello was on a Pennsylvania committee weighing whether to require doctors to give priority to newer, more expensive drugs like Risperdal in state-funded treatment of mental-health patients, Jones said.

Jones, 57, said he found a $4,000 check from J&J’s Janssen unit to Harrisburg State Hospital that was sent “\'to the attention of' Fiorello. The check covered a Fiorello trip to New Orleans to discuss Pennsylvania’s drug guidelines. Another check for $1,766 to the hospital account was sent 'in care of' of Fiorello, Jones said. Fiorello controlled the account and didn’t register it with the state, Jones said.

'The account was used to deposit money from drug companies,' Jones said yesterday in the trial’s third day of testimony. 'There were real problems here. On many levels, the account was improper.'

Janssen also paid $2,000 directly to Fiorello as an honorarium for his speaking at a company-sponsored event in 2002, Jones said. Jones said he followed the money trail and explored efforts by Janssen to promote, on a state-by-state basis, Texas guidelines favoring drugs like Risperdal. The funds sent to the hospital account helped pay travel expenses for programs related to setting up the Texas guidelines in Pennsylvania, he said.

The state adopted the guidelines that favored Risperdal in 2003, Jones said.

Note that this testimony appears to be about yet another KOL paid to promote guidelines that would in turn promote the marketing of Respirdal. So this is yet another case of a conflict of interest apparently deliberately created to influence the individual's primary responsibility.

However, then

Jones said his boss told him to ease off his probe. He said he was told, 'Stay away from the drug companies. This is a personnel issue. Stay away from the drug companies, stay away from TMAP.


Jones said his boss said, 'Drug companies write checks to both sides of the aisle. Stay away from it.' His boss told him that 'morally and ethically I was correct, but politically, this was dead.'

Jones said that later he was removed as the lead investigator from the case, and he was 'marginalized completely.' He continued to pursue the case on his own time, and spoke to the New York Times for a story that ran Feb. 1, 2004. He said he was fired for talking to the newspaper.

So Jones was intimidated to the extent that he lost his job. Note further that the implication is that this intimidation stemmed from yet more conflicts of interest created by Janssen, payments to politicians. This underlines how stealth marketing campaigns become complex systems.

Note further that in retrospect, Jones' complaints were deemed true by a court of law and a state commission:

Fiorello, once the chief pharmacist for Pennsylvania’s public welfare department, was convicted in December 2008 of felony conflict-of-interest charges for taking payments from drug companies, including Janssen and Pfizer Inc. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation and fined $3,000. He also paid more than $27,000 in civil fines after the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission cited him.

In a sense, intimidation and created conflicts of interest are two sides of the same coin.  Both involve the deliberate imposition of incentives, either positive or negative.  These incentives are designed to further marketing aims and organizational interests, not to improve patient care or public health, or advance science.  Thus they are powerful tools of emotional and psychological manipulation.
Summary

Note that even the brief summaries of trial evidence suggested how systematic the campaign was, and how within it, the elements of deception and falsehoods (instead of evidence), and emotional and psychological manipulation (instead of logic and humanity) were predominant. This should be added to previous discussion of stealth marketing campaigns, including such examples as that of Neurontin here).

Stealth marketing campaigns are complex examples of how behavior meant to further vested interests may directly threaten evidence-based practice, physicians' professionalism, and ultimately patients' and the public's health.

There have been many calls (e.g., see recent posts here and here) for increased "collaboration" among health professionals and academics and industry.  Often they are justified by the need for "innovation," while resulting conflicts of interest are deemed "manageable."  The current examples show how the vested interests of health care organizations operating within a laissez faire, anything goes environment may make such collaboration poisonous.