Rapid Responses to:

HEAD TO HEAD: Wendy Garlick Should drug companies be allowed to talk directly to patients?: NO BMJ 2003; 326: 1302-a-1303-a [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Back in the real world

Adam Jacobs   (20 June 2003)

So who should we trust? It's obvious!

David F Danson, Dr William Tong, Trevor Clark   (25 August 2003)

Back in the real world 20 June 2003
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ Send response to journal: Re: Back in the real world	Wendy Garlick tells us that 'There should be one central, independent, and impartial source of information on medicines and treatments which is stripped of any commercial or political bias and which the public can rely on to provide or direct them towards accurate and current information. ' I agree absolutely. There should be. And in an ideal world, there would be, just as there would be no famine or poverty, and Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley would be seen sharing a few jokes over a pint or two of Guinness (in a smoke-free pub, of course). On the other hand, an ideal world would have no disease, so such a resource would be unnecessary. Back to the real world for a moment, who is going to pay for this wonderful information source? I don't see governments queuing up to fund it. Even if they did, would it really be 'stripped of any commercial or political bias'? The government tried to give impartial advice on MMR vaccine, and in my own view made a reasonable job of it, but they were still widely distrusted. Can we be sure that advice sponsored by government would always be completely impartial, and not influenced by whatever this week's political dogma happens to be? While we are waiting for the ideal world to materialise, wouldn't it be better to have information sponsored by industry than no information at all? Competing interests:   My company provides medical communication services. If large amounts of money were spent, whether by industry or government, on providing medical information, some of it could conceivably come our way.
So who should we trust? It's obvious! 25 August 2003
David F Danson, Marketing Manager MyGeneralPractice Ltd RG42 4EZ, Dr William Tong, Trevor Clark Send response to journal: Re: So who should we trust? It's obvious!	So the Consumers Association conducted a survey in June 2002, which showed that only 25% of the public would trust drug companies to provide them with impartial information. A survey conducted by a Berkshire general practice, (and still open to patient input) shows that only 0.6% of patients rarely trust information from their GP and 65% always trust the information provided. The survey also shows that 93.9% of respondents believe receiving information from their GP in the form of emails is a GREAT principle. So we now know who needs to send the information and also the simple, low cost, almost ubiquitous communication medium that can be embraced. For access to the survey, go to: http://www.mygeneralpractice.co.uk/binfield and look under services for the Imed(Poll). Competing interests:   Marketing manager for MyGeneralPractice; a company set up to help general practices communicate impartial, patient centric, information regularly to their patients.