Policy Forum

Policy Forum Policy Forum articles provide a platform for health policy makers from around the world to discuss the challenges and opportunities in improving health care to their constituencies.

See all article types »

The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT”

  • Adriane J. Fugh-Berman mail

    Affiliation: Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C., United States of America

  • Published: September 07, 2010
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000335
  • Featured in PLOS Collections

Reader Comments (8)

Post a new comment on this article


Posted by pslee on 18 Sep 2010 at 20:18 GMT

I am surprised this editorial opinion piece was accepted after peer-reviewed. If published papers were the "problem" that "sold" HRT, shouldn't the editors and reviewers of the journals bear the most responsibility? Shouldn't the academic experts who put their names on the paper bear the responsibility? What are we saying here? "It's not my fault" ? Placing the sole blame on pharma only serve one purpose: to extract money from the most wealthy. I am stunned a highly respected journal like PLoS Med would chose to publish this that has no causality data, yet blatantly declare a unsupported conclusion in its title. Lastly, if guilt by association is sufficient to judge, how do we interpret "Dr. Fugh-Berman was a paid expert witness on behalf of plaintiffs in the litigation referred to in this paper." ?

No competing interests declared.