Anyone have the actual paper? Does it list who (eg Huberman) is receiving the payola?
This seems to work: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2819356
Sadly no specifics about the 28 physicians they analyze.
Sadly no specifics about the 28 physicians they analyze.
That's not to say that it's not important, but the labor required is vastly underappreciated. I say this as someone who has completed the task for many papers.
In most cases people are suspicious of pharma corruption & recklessness. Yet in a few contexts, for example with vaccines and psych meds , any criticism is deeply stigmatized. Critics are even slandered as backwards.
Why the paradox? I think a healthy dose of suspicion all around is warranted given their track record, plummeting healthfulness and the stakes at hand.