[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.159.129.152. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 17, 1997

Bioequivalence of Levothyroxine Preparations: Issues of Science, Publication, and Advertising-Reply

Author Affiliations

Deputy Editor (West), JAMA

JAMA. 1997;278(11):898-899. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550110036027
Abstract

In Reply.  —Dr Brantigan finds the "suppression of valuable clinical information to be deplorable." No suppression would have occurred had the contract not included a clause giving veto power to the sponsor. Whatever might happen in the field of historical research, in matters that could affect the health of individual patients it is clear that universities must forbid, and researchers refuse to sign, such contracts. Dr Donohue and Dr Gordon agree, while Dr Dreyer shows that a small company can thrive while insisting on freedom to publish.In my Editorial1, I mention that the study may not be perfect, but several thyroidologists, including our reviewers, thought it provided powerful evidence for the bioequivalence of the 4 products. Neither Dr DeGroot nor Drs St. Germain and Ridgway can be arguing that the study should have been suppressed or that the tactics of the company that had the effect of intimidating the authors1

×