Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 04 2017, @03:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the content-and-context dept.

Researchers have found that a one paragraph letter to the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 was "uncritically cited as evidence that addiction was rare with long-term opioid therapy" [emphasis in original retained]:

Canadian researchers have traced the origins of the opioid crisis to one letter published almost 40 years ago.

The letter, which said opioids were not addictive, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1980.

Dr David Juurlink says the journal's prestige helped fuel the misguided belief that opioids were safe.

His research found that the letter was cited more than 600 times, usually to argue that opioids were not addictive.

On Wednesday, the NEJM published Dr Juurlink's rebuttal to the 1980 letter, along with his team's analysis of the number of times the letter was cited by other researchers.

The two names to blame? Dr. Hershel Jick and his assistant Jane Porter. Dr. Jick did not anticipate the misuse of his short letter:

Jick still works at Boston University School of Medicine. He told the Associated Press this week that he is "essentially mortified that that letter to the editor was used as an excuse to do what these drug companies did."

"They used this letter to spread the word that these drugs were not very addictive," he said. Jick noted that he testified as a government witness in a lawsuit some years ago concerning the marketing of pain drugs.

A 1980 Letter on the Risk of Opioid Addiction (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1700150) (DX)

Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics (DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198001103020221) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:46PM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 04 2017, @04:46PM (#520261) Journal

    The letter seems to cover it's bases fairly well. First, the professional environment when the letter was written tended to discourage the prescription of potentially addictive drugs. Not ban them, nothing like that, it just discouraged any unnecessary prescriptions. Bearing that in mind, the letter goes on to stipulate that properly monitored patients, in hospital, seldom developed addictions.

    Maybe Jick "contributed" to some small degree to today's crisis. Maybe Jick should have emphasized the limitations of his stufy. Maybe Jick was less than 100% responsible. But, Jick didn't twist the pharmaceutical company's arms to wage a sales campaign, pushing the drugs.

    Someone is looking for a scapegoat is all I see here. We had a related discussion recently, which exposed Big Pharma's culpability in this. https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=19639&page=1&cid=513377 [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @05:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @05:49PM (#520294)

    Can't trust scientists. that's the take home message. Contradictions, retractions, arguments over many decades. Shh, there there, be calm. It's time to let the Leader lead. That's why Jeff Sessions will be introducing draconian punishment for all drug offenses. And mandatory minimums because you can't trust judges either.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:36PM (#520373)

    Maybe Jick "contributed" to some small degree to today's crisis. Maybe Jick should have emphasized the limitations of his stufy. Maybe Jick was less than 100% responsible.

    Or, maybe not. Really hard to judge, when Runaway opines on opiates.