Let’s look again at the observation by Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, expert witness in the Wyeth trial. She was quoted in a Science magazine article regarding deceptive scientific publications:
“People tend to think of marketing messages as ‘buy drug A,’ but that’s never the message imbedded in such articles. …. The message may be, disease A is underdiagnosed or far more serious than previously believed ….”
On the right, we see this strategy in the Regeneron-funded report, coincidentally published in the same magazine. Note the rational leverage that “prevalence” has over “underdiagnosis.”
And below, in the industry’s authoritative report: “Severe Underdiagnosis” … “undertreatment” … “urgent worldwide need” … “early and aggressive treatment” … and “extremely high-risk condition.”
In the Danish report below, sharing an identical population with the report above, prevalence was supposed to have been confirmed genetically. My analysis however proves, with deduction, that upon reconciliation of the respective reports, this later study provides the facts which refute the “1st report” decisively. Click here to see my mathematical proof. I refer to this report below as the “2nd report.”
Key point: Distorted prevalence serves as “proof” of “underdiagnosis.”
Below, we see the pharma-funded efforts to educate the medical community and create awareness of the urgency. The industry wide repetition of “vastly underdiagnosed” suggests that either the education strategy has been influential or there is a concerted effort to broadcast a unified message.
 “Ghostwriters in the medical literature,” Susan Gaidos, http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2010/11/ghostwriters-medical-literature