Is the BBC Really Advertising Antidepressants on its Website?

Three months ago an article appeared on the BBC News website extolling the virtues of antidepressants: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12716742 I thought this article was heavily biased in favour of antidepressants, suggesting that more people should take them. I also thought it made some erroneous claims about antidepressant efficacy without supporting these claims with any evidence. When reading the article I therefore felt uneasy. But my unease only increased once I read at the bottom of the article that its author, Professor Richard Gray, has, and I quote, ‘given lectures on behalf of a number of pharmaceutical companies’. Now, for those of you who don’t know, these companies pay speakers considerable sums to deliver lectures on their behalf. And I have direct evidence that Professor Richard Gray has received such funds. For example, in another article in the Journal of Pharmacology (2008), he declares he has received consultancy fees and honoraria from many pharmaceutical companies including Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly and Co., AstraZeneca, BristolMyers Squibb/Otsuka and Wyeth. After I found this out I sent professor Gray the following email: “I read your article about antidepressants on the BBC with interest. If I may, could I ask your source for the statement 'Antidepressants are very effective in treating moderate to severe depression, quickly alleviating distressing and disabling symptoms in about seven out of 10 patients'. At the end of the article it states that you have given lectures on behalf of a number of pharmaceutical companies. I am conducting some research on these matters, and the conflict of interest issues they may raise. I wondered whether you would be happy to disclose to me the number of lectures you have given, the companies you have spoken on behalf of, and the amount of revenue received for these lectures.” Professor Gray did not respond. I contacted him twice more but he did not respond. I also contacted his secretary, and left the details of my question, but again I have still not received a response. I have also contacted the BBC. Firstly, I wrote comments on their website on the 25th March under the article drawing attention to Gray’s financial associations. I further commented on whether the article could be considered to constitue a kind of surreptitious form of pharmaceutical advertising, unbefitting for the BBC. The BBC then proceeded to remove my comment from its website, without giving me any explanation why. I then lodged two further complaints to the BBC complaints department about professor Gray’s financial associations, and whether a man who is being paid by drug companies to speak on their behalf should be extolling their virtues on the BBC. They did not respond. So two weeks ago on the 15th June I called the complaints division and asked them why they were not responding, and that by not doing they were raising my suspicions. I was told I’d be contacted within 10 days – two weeks later (now the 1st July) they have still not responded. Exasperated, I sent them an email today (1st July) …let’s see if they continue not to respond…. Rest assured, I will keep going until I receive a response and will keep you informed as to the outcome. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Update (July 4th 2011) - After not responding again to my last email, I called the BBC complaints division today. They admitted I should have received a response by now. So they have contacted the relevant parties again at Newsonline to urge them on. I am sure a response will drop in to my inbox soon. When it does, I shall post it below.–------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Update (July 20th 2011) - After still not receiving a response, I called the BBC complaints division once again today, and told them this. I was told that I was in a queue. I informed them that their complaints website states that complaints are answered usually within 10 days, and that I had been now waiting for a response for nearly 4 months (my first complaint was late March!). They then admitted that this was highly unusual and that they will now do everything to get my response prioritised. Once it arrives. I'll post it below.