↓ Skip to main content

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 1,005)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
139 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald W. Light, Joel Lexchin, Jonathan J. Darrow

Abstract

Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA's prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication; independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few, if any, new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 117 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Other 13 11%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 28%
Social Sciences 18 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 35 28%
Unknown 16 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 128. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2021.
All research outputs
#185,584
of 17,469,628 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#11
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,830
of 177,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,469,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them