>I agree with the commentary in your article, which says to suspend judgment until matching is complete. If it can be established that some speakers are paid to express a particular opinion- that's still not criminal. E.g. it happens in IT as well. The difference is that in medicine, paid sock puppets for manufacturers take a big reputation hit and end up with minimal credibility, whereas in IT they expect to be put on a pedestal and treated as experts because the vendor says they are.

They may expect that. I'd rather expect their 'lectures' to be framed with 'presentation brought to you by {insert brand name here} truck". And I'd refuse to pay for that 'lecture' as it's already been paid by the vendor. Just like I do with TV (which is why I don't have one).

>If it can be established that physicians are paid to prescribe a particular drug - which is your immediate preferred interpretation- then I agree, that's not good as it tends to increase price for consumers whether it's building materials or drugs. In any case, your focus on physicians has little impact- because their share of the health dollar is small. You could halve their incomes and still not prevent this year's rise in healthcare costs. I'm reminded of beams and splinters etc etc.

It still doesn't mean they aren't prescribing what's making them a dime, only that if so, the dime is just a dime, compared to megabucks others are making. And that if they are bought, it was cheaper than we think.