Eli Lilly and Company had several advertisements in the May 5 issue, but the company could have saved its money. The three stories that the issue contained on Lilly’s products offered all the publicity that Lilly could have desired.

Particularly egregious was the article on page 37 that reported on FDA approval of an antimanic indication for olanzapine, which read like an ad for the drug. Who decided to append to it the Lilly Web site address? The related article on page 41 also could have been more objective. It neglected to note the sponsor of the "teleconference press briefing" on the drug. And why were two stories necessary to cover one event?

Trade competitors of Psychiatric News often show the influence of pharmaceutical company advertisers in their news, but members should expect more balanced reporting and less marketing from the APA house organ. Psychiatric News should "level the effects" of corporate advertising.

John C. Markowitz, M.D.

New York, N.Y.