The New York Times reported yesterday on a Senator Grassley’s revelations into unreported income by some big names amongst researchers. I don’t get how Harvard renowned researchers could be so blasé about failing to report millions of dollars in income from pharmaceutical companies.
The researchers …
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1995-2013 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 19 May 2013
|
Thank you for putting this in the spotlight. This has been an industry-wide practice for years and years. Clinical trials of drugs are conducted by researchers who are well compensated by the drug companies that want FDA approval for their drugs.
Pharmacists know this, doctors know this, researchers know this, universities know this, professional organizations know this, and pharmaceutical companies know that competing for the best and most respected names can make or break the future of a drug. There are lots of rules in place. It’s the lack of ethics, the manipulation and justifications, and no monitoring of compliance, that’s sickening.
I went and read the NYT article:
… “In 2000, for instance, Dr. Biederman received a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study in children Strattera, an Eli Lilly drug for attention deficit disorder. Dr. Biederman reported to Harvard that he received less than $10,000 from Lilly that year, but the company told Mr. Grassley that it paid Dr. Biederman more than $14,000 in 2000, Mr. Grassley’s letter stated.
“At the time, Harvard forbade professors from conducting clinical trials if they received payments over $10,000 from the company whose product was being studied, and federal rules required such conflicts to be managed. “
Hard to pass that off as “I thought I disclosed everything.” Harvard’s problem is a crumb. I wonder if the senator will ever find the loaf.
Thank you again.
The article is just another confirmation of how “the Powers that Be” are in bed together scratching each other’s back. They say they have the public’s interest in mind but in reality it is their own greed.
I see this kind of ethical hypocrisy with the relationship pharmaceutical companies have with doctors as they pay for perks, send expensive food to their offices, show up with very pretty ladies and a few good looking guys. This is all designed to wrap the doctor around their finger in a most unethical relationship that rewards doctors. Never mind the patients and their pocketbook. Hypocrisy!
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
http://www.DrSam.tv
I’m sorry Does this be a sob story about not getting enough to kill kids?! What a bunch of BS. GO find something more beneficial to research Harvard losers. Ivy League are some of the biggest losers since all they do be kid killing for the government by manner of being kid liver poisoner with these harsh chemical drugs.
Ivy League colleges such as Harvard and Brown are some of the biggest losers of history (yes even when and especially when they win Nobel prizes for nothing more than obvious eugenics for their Satanist funding .) Since all they do be kid killers for the government by manner of being kid liver poisoner.
Let us not leave out the losers at Rockefeller where they build the virus at the same location they then build a vaccines. And Texas where they build chicken enterovirus flu also and lasers.
How come scientist are endlessly misusing their mental abilities for ill?
What a bunch of owned minds.
i am a rather obvious cyclothyme, from late teens. i’ve been mis-dxed as BP-1, 2–with refractory depression. in year 2000 i was ‘off-labeled’ risperdal. the 1st night’s dose, i peed in my sleep, by day 2 on this IMHO poison, i was reduced to sleeping 18 hours/day, and went from an active cycler of 20 miles/day to walking a block for cheap food. my motor/cognitive skills (former ceo, 8 figure net worth, internationally known writer, etc., etc.)were ‘blown-away’–as a fool i obeyed my shrink and phd, taking risperdal for 4 months. Then, in 2006, Emory U did a ‘real-life’ study on EPS from atypical neuroleptics in affective disorder finding 50+% would be ‘clobbered’, and concluded drug co. study flawed. gee thanks. my toes curled, tendons atrophied, i have had adhedonia, blunted affect–i’m dead–the man that founded industries that now employee thousands? it’s been 8 years of hell, and now even my md. says
i have little hope of regaining former mental status. i also gained 60 lbs, then my back ‘went-out’. and now comes Parkinsons! and no legal firm will fight J & J–i don’t appreciate my former core personality murdered for Big Pharma’s profit. time to clean-house. i am not surprised in the least by even Harvard md.’s ‘on-the-take’. i want ‘pay-back’, i am not violent–but i have perhaps 50% writing ability remaining. ‘the pen Is mightier…’ why not let ‘drug’ testing be done on those who dispense/make such? fat chance–
Okay, I understand the concern over this. But, due to some of life’s little curves, I have a few question’s for those in reaserach that deal with psyc testing, and speech therapist’s test. How come these are given a patien, yet, the person given the test may not know the full implication of the testing? Also, how come a drug company must list every possible side effect, but the makers of the test’s do not have to say how often these tests may report false postitives,only find pre-existing conditions,cause emotional harm or cause finicial harm? Or how come a drug company must reveal as much information as possible, but the maker’s of some of the standard tests that are given do not have to provide a patient the ability to see a test booklet? Just a few points I think that are worth checking out. I think a person that is given any type of this test in a hospital should be given a information leaflet like the one’s some drug makers must provide. This type of thing should be a two-sided coin. Why not make these types of tests be subjected to the same standards of drug testing? How much harm can a test of this sort cause a patient? Could it cause a patient to doubt his or herself? Could this type of testing lead to a waste of healhcare dollars?
I would be interested to hear from anyone on this issue.
Hello John,
as a medical student and a psychiatric patient, I want to thank you for being enraged at Biederman’s behaviour. I’ve just gotten into a fight with an “advocate” calling it a “Scientology plot” against Biederman. If my memory isn’t mistaken I’ve heard this man at APA 2007 ranting and raving against FDA “restrictive” regulations about clinical trials. I guess somebody else got mad at him and spilled the beans.
Unfortunately, somebody will take this man’s unethical behaviour as an excuse to claim that s/he doesn’t need to take medications but – what can I say – caring after oneself when not psychotic still is a matter of personal responsibility I guess.
Thank you again.