
A Harvard Medical School Professor is against the scrutiny of pharmaceutical industry ties and physicians being investigated. Inside Higher Ed has the story:
From the article:
"Thomas Stossel, the American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, is spearheading a new nonprofit professional organization that is, according to Stossel’s preliminary description, “to be a forum for what we believe is a hitherto silent majority of individuals engaged in clinical service, medical education and medical innovation ready to oppose a small but well organized and well-funded coterie responsible for an anti-industry movement."
AND
"Harvard Medical School, for example, is reviewing its conflict of interest policies after Grassley last year uncovered that psychiatrist Joseph Biederman of Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital received $1.6 million from companies that produced the drugs he used to treat children for bipolar disorders. Part of the push for review of conflict of interest policy came from Harvard Medical students who lobbied for faculty to be subject to a full disclosure policy. Also last year, the National Institutes for Health froze funding for an Emory University depression study because of a conflict of interest involving Charles Nemeroff, chairman of the psychiatry department and the study’s principal investigator. Nemeroff collected, but mostly did not disclose, about $2 million from pharmaceutical companies that, in some cases, produced the products he was using in his research."
AND
"There has been a McCarthy-style witch hunt going on here. I believe the standard should be that you’re innocent until proven guilty,” Markowitz said. “Can I tell you everybody is on the up and up? No. But there are people in every profession who will behave dishonorably, and no rules anywhere will stop those people from doing that.”
The most egregious cases making recent headlines -- the Nemeroffs and Biedermans -- are not excusable, Markowitz said, but are bound to happen with or without more extensive regulation of the physician-industry relationship. Bad apples are a fact of life, he said."
Click here to continue reading "Conflict With My Interests", at Inside Higher Ed.
From the article:
"Thomas Stossel, the American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, is spearheading a new nonprofit professional organization that is, according to Stossel’s preliminary description, “to be a forum for what we believe is a hitherto silent majority of individuals engaged in clinical service, medical education and medical innovation ready to oppose a small but well organized and well-funded coterie responsible for an anti-industry movement."
AND
"Harvard Medical School, for example, is reviewing its conflict of interest policies after Grassley last year uncovered that psychiatrist Joseph Biederman of Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital received $1.6 million from companies that produced the drugs he used to treat children for bipolar disorders. Part of the push for review of conflict of interest policy came from Harvard Medical students who lobbied for faculty to be subject to a full disclosure policy. Also last year, the National Institutes for Health froze funding for an Emory University depression study because of a conflict of interest involving Charles Nemeroff, chairman of the psychiatry department and the study’s principal investigator. Nemeroff collected, but mostly did not disclose, about $2 million from pharmaceutical companies that, in some cases, produced the products he was using in his research."
AND
"There has been a McCarthy-style witch hunt going on here. I believe the standard should be that you’re innocent until proven guilty,” Markowitz said. “Can I tell you everybody is on the up and up? No. But there are people in every profession who will behave dishonorably, and no rules anywhere will stop those people from doing that.”
The most egregious cases making recent headlines -- the Nemeroffs and Biedermans -- are not excusable, Markowitz said, but are bound to happen with or without more extensive regulation of the physician-industry relationship. Bad apples are a fact of life, he said."
Click here to continue reading "Conflict With My Interests", at Inside Higher Ed.
Addendum: Read this hilarious satire-- by Pharma Giles :
Part of it
"The Forum for University Corporate Kickbacks in Education as Determined by University Professors (FUCKEDUP), slated to hold its charter conference this month, will be led by a steering committee consisting of physicians from Dry Prong Medical School, the State University of Louisiana and the Catsup Clinic."
The pens, the meals, who’s going to fall on their sword for that?” he said. “What we want is large amounts of cash in plain brown envelopes, and now.”
“Rest assured, we at FUCKEDUP will be doing our utmost to discredit and smear our critics whilst ensuring that the backhanders still continue to roll in for us,” Tossall states, “just like every other pharmaceutical industry funded forum…”














11 comments:
"The most egregious cases making recent headlines... are bound to happen with or without more extensive regulation of the physician-industry relationship. Bad apples are a fact of life, he said."
Lazy bastard! If there was a real desire to create a system whereby KOLs were simply not able to tout drugs in order to line their pockets, then it could be done. No question. Why would Stossel not want a system that made it impossible to engage in corrupt practices? The simple fact is, most are only interested in stopping the gravy train in order to get on (TM Desmond Tutu), although I wouldn't for one minute wish to suggest that Stossel is a corrupt bastard - I'm sure he's a paragon of all virtue.
The issue is this, as I see it: KOLs take money from Pharma; there's no question of that. The argument from the KOLs is that this doesn't impact their judgment, in the slightest, when most would be severely compromised by the receipt of these massive gifts and other payments. Ergo, there is no trust. If the KOLs are happy with that, then they should proceed, and see where it leads them. Obscurity, I imagine. The test is simple: is the outcome in accordance with the stated objective? No? Then it's the wrong solution, and more work needs to be done. I think you'll find that most won't even commit themselves to agreeing an objective, so what hope is there of finding a fix? Precious little, I would say - those in a position to change anything are just as happy as a pig in shit with things as they are, when the system, far from being perfect, actually operates against those that it's supposed to help oftentimes.
Matt
Yeah, and it sure lets them all off of the hook, there's a part of the article that says in surgery we as patients shouldnt care who pays them, just as long as they are good (doctors)
No way. How about the skewed studies or data, or those pregnant moms trialed on antidepressants by Stowe at Emory?
I love how no one wants to be accountable! or truthful, there should be no opposition to Grassley's transparency campaign because something has to be done to get this fixed, the right way, you know how many drugs have side effects killing ppl (seroquel for example) where these ppl have been researchers for that drug approval, and paid by that drug company? (well I know you know, Matt, just talking generalization)
And Nemeroff still receiving his huge paycheck, and so is Biederman.
"...there's a part of the article that says in surgery we as patients shouldnt care who pays them, just as long as they are good (doctors)..."
LMFAO! OK, great - I don't care who pays them... Now kindly instruct how the fuck I'm supposed to know who is a good doctor, and who is a quack? Are there league tables, somewhere (a British thing - state schools are assessed in this way, in the UK)? No? Is there some kind of professional ranking system? No? May one ask endless searching questions, without fear of provoking outrage? No?
Well, in that case, I do fucking care who treats me. I don't care how long they've been training, and I think their professional status means dick - do some reading on medical negligence, and you'll see how difficult it is fuck a quack, in a civil court... As such, there's no motivation on them to attain the highest standards, aside from their own pride and integrity, and let's face it: there seems to be precious little of that commodity going round.
Matt
It's hard to say which Stinks worse:
1: the Corrupt Research itself,
2: NIH underwriting All of these Boiler Room Operations
3: the Crowning Arrogance of these Fops crowing that they should be allowed to Continue on the Honor System, which Nemeroff hot wired for $2.8 Million, and Short Fuse Beiderman's Trio of Toddler Poisoners fenced for $4.2 Million.
Medicine must be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct than other business ventures.
If your Toyota crashes due to COI corrupted research/manufacturing of the brake pads you stand a far better chance of recovering from a broken jaw or arm than you do from chemical brain killers which Cure, Nothing at all, even if they worked Without their Matterhorn of crippling EPS effects.
"According to Stossel, the perceived risks of physician-industry relationships are too often demonized instead of assessed for value. “The damages are imaginary or speculative,” he said, adding that in the “crescendo” of anti-business sentiment in science and medicine, “no one wants to sign up to be abused by The New York Times or Senator Grassley.”
Abused? You Should be getting Incarcerated for it!
"But there are people in every profession who will behave dishonorably, and no rules anywhere will stop those people from doing that.”
No, not Yet. But if we toss 10 or 20 Thousand of these 'dishonorables' into the Graybar, for starters, perhaps Someday the rest of them will straighten out and fly right.
Stossel & Markowitz infuriating Arrogance illustrates perfectly how deeply ingrained and solidly entrenched the sense of Supra Human Entitlement is - at least in their case - among those holding the Medical PhD: which, as the old saw goes, means only that one's Bio-$cience is Piled Higher & Deeper.
So long as the AMA continues to harbor the APA & its Industry minions with Their 1 in 5 - 60 Million - Americans NEED to to be Drugged and Brain Damaged, the AMA itself owns ZERO credibility on bought & owned by Industry, Ethics.
"The damages are imaginary or speculative."
Are they? Really? There'll be no need for that list of side effects on the PILs, then, will there? It's not only the patients claiming damage - the manufacturers are acknowledging that these issues do exist.
But let's not "speculate," or "imagine" things that are in any way contentious (contentious when somebody experiences them and tries to seek redress, but real enough on the PIL, of course). Instead, let's talk about benefit, which is a real bone of contention, for me, and is the primary criteria in the assessment of any drug, for market... What is the benefit of ANY, and I mean ANY, psych drug? What does it do in clinical language, in everyday language, in any kind of language that you wish, for the patient?
Is there any relief for the patient from the symptoms that they are supposed to be experiencing? Assessed against what? And when logging onto the Internet "too much" is being mooted as a disorder for inclusion in DSM-V, just how much credence should we attach to any of the supposed disorders/illnesses/conditions that have been dreamt up by these disease mongers? And we should trust that industry money isn't impacting their judgment? Purr-lease!
Matt
Maybe there is some ways to force some form of ethics upon medicine.
Outlaw insurance company's to begin with; who just take a huge piece of pie off the top in bureaucratic bull shit while adding nothing in benefits; then make all of the pharmaceutical industry non-profit. If your not making countless billions, you can't have much influence upon politicians, policy, research, or medicine.
This would then give back the power to the consumer/patient. In theory doctors would have to start serving those they treat or be driven out of practice.
Granted, this is a fairly socialistic solution and concept; but capitalism and free markets without conscience is doomed and failing horribly anywise.
Well, Stan, if one was paranoid, one might almost be tempted to assert that this whole, nasty business was about controlling behaviour. The truth of it is, that a lot of people have benefitted (yes, I can use completely unsubstantiated claims, just as well as the fucking pharmas!), from being able to log on to the Internet and speak with people who have had similar experiences with the mental health "system" (which looks like no kind of system I've ever experience or imagined).
Knowing you're not alone is enormously beneficial, and knowing that you're keeping company with some extremely bright people is also beneficial, because one starts to see oneself in the same way... Take a look through the comments on some of the threads on here, FS, Pharmalot (when it was running), and so on; these are complex ideas expressed in a highly literate and articulate way, for the most part. What's more, that it can be discussed rationally at all, albeit with real anger, is extraordinary, given the highly emotive nature of the subject matter.
Socialistic, or not, being able to go on a blog, leave a comment and maybe get involved in a discussion, without being routinely invalidated, is truly beneficial in rebuilding shattered confidence. No drug can achieve such a thing, and no quack would dare agree with some of the stuff we say. And it's free - so fuck pharma, and fuck DSM-V!
Matt
lol Matt, did you read that link I added to Pharma Giles satirical article on this? heh hhehe
"The manufacturers are admitting that these issues do exist."
Even with the manufacturers Buying roughly 20% of FDA through PDUFA, those issue laden FDA labels are Still the BEST Lipstick Pharma can trowel onto their filthy chemicals.
And the Relief afforded by them is on a par with treating a minor stove burn with a framing hammer. At least you'll forget the stove burn.
As to making Pharma Non Profit, sorry. All the Legislation in the World to Take the Profit out of it couldn't succeed. Pharma would just buy another DC paperwork Morph into even More Govt funding/collusion, and become even more of a problem than it already is. (hello DSM-V)
"capitalism and free markets without conscience is doomed and failing horribly anywise"
Conscience & Free Markets are Anti Matter. True Free Markets destroy defective products by trading superior products for the consumers limited equity, and thus starving the defective manufacturers out of business.
And Free Markets are Not what we have anyway. We have Mega Conglomerates with the Trade Assc Pharma Mediating internecine disputes/competition out from between them, the way J&J bought Pfizer's Consumer Healthcare Dept in Dec. 2006. Problem solved, No Need to Compete because they're all on the Same Team.
True Free Markets are Cannibals, which Cannibalize their Competitors in Pursuit of Satisfied Customers. These Oligarchs are cannibalizing their Customers and pocketing the cost of competing with each other.
I found a Kaiser Health page saying DOJ only had 75 Prosecuting Attorneys to deal with Pharma/Health Fraud. They should have 500 to RICO this Medusa into Thousands of smaller little Self Cannibalizing Snake Heads.
It took 8 Federal Agencies to investigate 1 Co, J&J, for a heart drug in 1 state alone.
"If you would abolish covetousness, you must abolish its mother, profusion." Cicero
The only way to take greed out of the equation is to take Everything which Anyone could ever want, and destroy it all.
The Trade Association Pharma itself needs to be Anti Trust abolished, and the Manufacturers broken up and set against each other, and Themselves, rather than holding their current position of, "We Don't Care. We can Afford Not to Care. We Bought our Regulators, so that we wouldn't Have to spend Tens of Billions competing with each other.
True Free Markets with their annihilation of defective products would finish off the Psych Med con, because it's impossible to invent one which Fixes an Illness that Isn't an Illness.
Stephany wrote:
"lol Matt, did you read that link I added to Pharma Giles satirical article on this? heh hhehe"
Just did. Ouch - somebody should send Stossel the link! I do like Stossel's name, though, I have to admit - in the same way that I like Blendlebleb's...
Let's see... Stifle, Sozzled, Ladled, Oggles, Spondulix... Ah, yes: endless fun! Not that Shovel's corrupt, though, as I've already stated, and his determination to oppose those who criticize his industry's practices, rather than addressing their concerns should be read to mean anything, at all. And I didn't just imply anything, although if others wish to infer, then that is there business!
Matt
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Margaret
http://grantfoundation.net
Post a Comment