When money talks.

Despite the explicit and detailed reports of extensive financial ties between physicians and researchers on the one hand and device and drug companies on the other hand and notwithstanding a proliferation of conflict of interest policies by academic medical centers (AMCs) and professional medical societies, some recipients of industry largess continue to deny that these relationships are in any way problematic. No matter how sizable the payments or personally advantageous the association, some heavily conflicted authors insist that neither patient welfare nor scientific integrity is undermined [1–3]. Their arguments take several forms and have been so insistently reiterated as to warrant thorough rebuttal. First, and most often heard, is blanket denial: Professional obligations are not compromised by considerations of income or grants. Some authors and researchers doggedly deny that generous speaking honoraria, lavish entertainment, or substantial consulting retainers exert any influence whatsoever over their prescriptions, endorsements, or promotions [4]. By the same token, funding has purportedly no effect on research design or published findings. In the vernacular, physicians and investigators cannot be bought for a steak dinner or, for that matter, the equivalent of a million steak dinners. Second, some recipients of industry largess offer what they believe is a more nuanced distinction. Conceding that there may be a potential conflict of interest in promoting or investigating a specific company’s drug or device in which they have a substantial financial interest, these proponents