Connect
MJA
MJA

Bipolar disorder supplement needed broader perspective

Jon N Jureidini, Peter I Parry, Catherine M Houen and Malcolm W Battersby
Med J Aust 2011; 194 (6): 326.
Published online: 21 March 2011

To the Editor: The supplement of the Journal published on 16 August 2010 — “Bipolar disorder: new understandings, emerging treatments”1 — illustrates a number of features of the current implementation of the Journal’s supplement policy that are problematic. While it is clearly stated that the supplement “was supported by an unconditional grant from AstraZeneca Neuroscience”, the amount of sponsorship, to whom it was paid, and how it was used were not disclosed. Such information is particularly pertinent as evidence suggests that the pharmaceutical industry has financial motivation to see a widening of the diagnostic boundaries of bipolar disorder and a rebadging of atypical antipsychotics as “mood stabilisers”.2

  • Jon N Jureidini1
  • Peter I Parry2
  • Catherine M Houen3
  • Malcolm W Battersby2

  • 1 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.
  • 2 Flinders University, Adelaide, SA.
  • 3 Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA.


Competing interests:

Jon Jureidini, Peter Parry and Malcolm Battersby are members of Healthy Skepticism.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.