Inaccuracies In Ephedra Article Prompts Call For Professional Journal To Stop Publication
The American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy was urged to stop the May publication of an article with “serious and damaging inaccuracies” about herbal products containing Ephedra. The author, Bill Gurley, has been actively promoting his Ephedra study featured in the article through interviews with media nationwide.
Accepted protocol for professional journals is to have scientific articles reviewed by peers prior to publication. Yet, a prepublication version of the article already has been published on the Internet and promoted by news releases from the Pharmacy Journal. Gurley’s article is scheduled to appear in the printed Journal’s May issue.
In a letter to the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists, which publishes the journal, A. Wes Siegner, Jr., a partner with the firm of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, requests a meeting “to address serious and damaging inaccuracies in the widely distributed prepublication version of the article.” He states that the misleading, inaccurate, and false statements in the article need to be corrected prior to publication and cannot be addressed or reversed in a letter to the editor.
The law firm serves as legal counsel to the Ephedra Committee of the American Herbal Products Association, which represents manufacturers of herbal products, including those containing Ephedra. More Annually more than 3 billion servings of Ephedra are safely consumed by Americans who need to lose weight and promote healthier lifestyles. The Gurley article, and the widespread publicity promoted for its author, is certain to raise their concerns or create confusion about the safety of these products.
“The herb industry is always pleased to see a serious scientific study that furthers our knowledge about botanicals,” said Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association. “In this case, however, the author has stated opinions and made implications that go beyond the scope of his analysis and his professional expertise. These factors discredit what could have been an important publication that would otherwise have verified that consumers should buy from responsible herbal product manufacturers.”
Siegner said his firm will has submitted the article for review by three experts with backgrounds in the fields of toxicology, pharmacology, and cardiac pathology. Initial assessments, however, revealed four major flaws he told the professional group.
The letter says that the article misrepresents the safety of Ephedra products, despite the fact that the author attended a symposium where evidence that contradicts his article was presented. The incorrect assertions that Ephedra products in general are untested, unsafe, and even deadly, are false and plainly unacceptable in a peer-reviewed article, the letter charges.
The Gurley article also improperly lumps illegal street drugs with dietary supplements without any explanation. According to the letter, it leaves the impression that the industry condones the marketing of these illegal products, when the industry has worked hard to get the Food and Drug Administration to remove these illegal products from the market.
The legal experts challenge statements in the article that norpseudoephedrine contained in Ephedra products is a controlled substance. Thousands of readers, the letter says, will be left with the impression that Ephedra products are abused and highly addictive, and should be subjected to regulation as controlled substances. “The actual facts are just the opposite,” Siegner’s letter states, and “to mislead the American public is irresponsible.”
Finally, the letter notes that the article incorrectly asserts that Ephedra products are related to amphetamine, a highly addictive and dangerous drug of abuse. “Such statements, are the clearest form of irresponsible research and knowingly false and misleading journalism,” the letter concludes. The letter also points to the journal’s “ethical and legal obligations with respect to the publication of this article.”
The Gurley article does not explain why the author decided to conduct his study, or the source of his funding for the research.
Suggested Reading:
