↓ Skip to main content

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

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,177)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
359 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
The 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 359 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 151 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 145 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 19%
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Other 13 9%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 25%
Social Sciences 21 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 45 30%
Unknown 27 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 288. 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 30 November 2022.
All research outputs
#98,300
of 22,590,459 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#8
of 1,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,531
of 493,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#2
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,590,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 493,941 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.