I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed that the "full
disclosure" of potential conflicts of interest of speakers (at CME
events) and authors (in journals) is somewhat less than worthless. That
prominent researchers have been supported by 10 or more drug companies may
indicate their "importance," but this does not indicate whether
any of the support they have received has anything to do with their
presentation or article.
For disclosure to mean anything, it should be focused on the article or
talk at hand; if a paper presents a particular medication in a favorable
light, the relevant support that should be disclosed is that from the company
that makes that medication. Though many speakers/authors might object, they
should disclose the total amount of funding for any reason from that company
in the prior one to two years.
Perhaps also helpful would be a required statement from speakers/authors
indicating whether the support from the drug company has in any way influenced
what they are presenting or writing. If a speaker/author is found to state one
thing when being funded by one company, and something different when funded by
another company, that person should be barred from speaking at CME events for
a long time.