![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by jrbecker76 on October 4, 2008, at 20:54:18
another big name bites the dust....
Posted by desolationrower on October 4, 2008, at 22:12:32
In reply to Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations, posted by jrbecker76 on October 4, 2008, at 20:54:18
God i hate these pig f**kers. Running around making hundreds of thousands of dollars to push antispychotics and beforeo that ssris on us. and making it harder to get drugs that would actually help us live a normal life.
-d/r
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2008, at 22:42:17
In reply to Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations, posted by jrbecker76 on October 4, 2008, at 20:54:18
I am stunned to read this:
"One of the nations most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators....From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents."
I am stunned by the amount of money. I am stunned by the blatant deception. And I'm stunned that Nemeroff is such a sell-out. I always thought of him as a class act.
Lar
Posted by azalea on October 4, 2008, at 22:57:25
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations » jrbecker76, posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2008, at 22:42:17
While I agree that the numbers are stunning, let's remember that the New York Times is in the business of making news. They want readers and may "sensationalize" to get people to read the articles. Dr. Nemeroff has done an incredible amount of research in the field and has no doubt helped many patients.
> I am stunned to read this:
> "One of the nations most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators....
>
> From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents."
>
> I am stunned by the amount of money. I am stunned by the blatant deception. And I'm stunned that Nemeroff is such a sell-out. I always thought of him as a class act.
>
> Lar
>
Posted by Phillipa on October 4, 2008, at 23:40:05
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensat » Larry Hoover, posted by azalea on October 4, 2008, at 22:57:25
I believe it. Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on October 4, 2008, at 23:46:43
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensat, posted by Phillipa on October 4, 2008, at 23:40:05
It's all over the internet I just googled it wow is all I can say. Phillipa
Posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 0:40:07
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensat » Larry Hoover, posted by azalea on October 4, 2008, at 22:57:25
I fail to see how the NY Times sensationalized the story.
In July 2004, for example, Dr. Nemeroff wrote a letter assuring Emory University (where he teaches) that he had earned --and would earn for the year--less than $10.000 at GSK (the amount that causes action to be taken for potential conflicts of interest). By that time, he had earned $98,000 and he was making $3,000 more that weekend, at a marketing meeting. By the end of the year, he made $170,000 while supervising research for GSK.
I don't see how the NY Times is guilty of sensationalizing anything, as opposed to publicizing a rather disturbing fact: quite a number of leading psychiatrists, whose judgments are responsible for the public's reliance on various drugs, have taken large sums from drug companies, while assuring their universities (who are supposed to monitor this) that they are earning less than the $10,000 cap.
First of all, how you can trust people who are paid substantial amounts by the companies? And second, how can you trust people who go so far as to violate conflict of interest rules and then lie directly in disclosure forms, and lie again, when further questioned?
Plus, Nemeroff was involved in another case of questionable ethics in 2006, when he wrote a favorable review of a product in whose company he had a considerable stake, without revealing his involvement.
I'm sorry-- but the problem is with Nemeroff's behavior, not the NY Times.
Maybe his research is excellent-- but he's certainly completely undermined its believability--.
Nadezda
Posted by Sigismund on October 5, 2008, at 1:44:50
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensat, posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 0:40:07
It's a beautiful feedback loop.
No wonder we get the drugs we do.
Posted by linkadge on October 5, 2008, at 6:28:34
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensat, posted by Sigismund on October 5, 2008, at 1:44:50
I could have told you before this that Nemeroff seemed a little to idealistic.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on October 5, 2008, at 6:30:15
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations » jrbecker76, posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2008, at 22:42:17
Oh he's a class act all right.
Linkadge
Posted by linkadge on October 5, 2008, at 6:36:04
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensat » Larry Hoover, posted by azalea on October 4, 2008, at 22:57:25
>Dr. Nemeroff has done an incredible amount of >research in the field and has no doubt helped >many patients.
The bottom line is that he was doing something that he knew was wrong.
Nemeroff has just done a lot of 'duh' loser research like why SSRI's are better than TCA's in cardiac patients.
Linkadge
Posted by SLS on October 5, 2008, at 7:33:44
In reply to Re: Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations » jrbecker76, posted by Larry Hoover on October 4, 2008, at 22:42:17
> I am stunned to read this:
> "One of the nations most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers from 2000 to 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of that income to his university and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators....
>
> From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents."
>
> I am stunned by the amount of money. I am stunned by the blatant deception. And I'm stunned that Nemeroff is such a sell-out. I always thought of him as a class act.I thought so too. He's one of the best out there. So, now, we have politicians and investigative psychiatrists defrauding the people. I will still respect his knowledge and understanding though. He was very pleased that I recognized his treatise on the placebo response. I really am disappointed.
- Scott
Posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 9:50:52
In reply to Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations, posted by jrbecker76 on October 4, 2008, at 20:54:18
While this example may be a bit outlandish, I do want to point out that cooperation between pharma and academia is typically a very productive and beneficial one.
University medical centers provide the patient population and clinical trial resources that drive the studies that evaluate drugs. Pharma has the resources for large scale research and development, scale up and distribution.
If a drug company runs a clinical trial at an NIH funded university/medical center, both the investigator AND the university get monies to run the trial.
Universities just can't run these trials for free and there has to be a principal investigator at the site. The universities incur significant expense to run these trials for companies and this cost should be offset.
Because the NIH has a "percent effort" requirement for grants, the investigator themselves often can not apply for NIH monies because of the time required to run the trials.
It's a catch-22. Yes, there can be an appearance of impropriety, but without it the pipeline for drugs would get smaller and slower.
When people look at the amount of money changing hands there is an immediate cry of "conflict of interest!" but usually, it is just a case of cooperation that drives discovery and there are real world costs associated with it.
On a side note, if a company invites an "academic" to speak at a conference/meeting that speaker is paid an honorarium and travel expenses. That honorarium is counted as income even though the speaker is usually just presenting their findings which may or may NOT have been funded by the company.Just my two cents.
Seldom.
Posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 10:18:14
In reply to Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations, posted by jrbecker76 on October 4, 2008, at 20:54:18
is not income directly paid by the company to the investigator, but rather that investigator's ownership of stock, shared patent rights, or any other vested interest in the company's success.
Posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 12:09:20
In reply to What SHOULD (IMO) be closely monitored, posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 10:18:14
I think it's appropriate to monitor both, because either can cause conflict of interest problems.. Maybe there's nothing that can be done about unconscious bias-- because at least researchers may be more aware of how this bias may be affecting their work.
What's most troubling in these stories is the direct lying to institutions that are supposed to monitor and the violation of rules that represent some (probably not very intrusive) oversight. True, it may be an annoying bit of paperwork and some jumping through hoops-- but there is the overall problem that researchers do impose their biases in interpreting data.
And how do you distinguish Nemeroff from Biederman, who was actively involved in promoting the practice of giving antipsychotics to children--especially for pediatric bipolar disease-- and who earned over $1.6 (a figure which itself may be an understatement) from drug companies--while reporting very little? for example, in one year, he earned over $58,000 from Johnson & Johnson, and reported no earnings; when asked to recheck this, he reported $3,000. is he a "visionary" or a shill for the company? How can you tell?
I understand Seldom's point about the need for the connections between academics and drug research, but there also needs to be some regulation of how these connections affect the shape and outcomes in research.
It may be worse when physicians have a stake in a company-- but still there can be conflicts of interest when you're being paid to attend marketing conferences, and are given large amounts of money--which presumably would be much less if you raised questions about the efficacy of the company's drugs.
How can you not question the judgment and integrity of respected and influential psychiatrists when they knowingly lie about payments they've received?
Nadezda
Posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 13:09:18
In reply to Re: What SHOULD (IMO) be closely monitored » seldomseen, posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 12:09:20
I think it's appropriate to monitor both, because either can cause conflict of interest problems.. Maybe there's nothing that can be done about unconscious bias-- because at least researchers may be more aware of how this bias may be affecting their work.
**** It's important to note here that the investigators and the universities are paid regardless of the results of the trial.****
What's most troubling in these stories is the direct lying to institutions that are supposed to monitor and the violation of rules that represent some (probably not very intrusive) oversight. True, it may be an annoying bit of paperwork and some jumping through hoops-- but there is the overall problem that researchers do impose their biases in interpreting data.
****True, there should be no direct lying to institutions, the NIH or anyone. However, in terms of the company funded trials, the data interpretation usually comes largely from the company and not the investigator. However, this largely depends on the contract that university entered into with the company. The concept of "Data ownership" is negotiated and most universities insist on being given some ownership of the data in order to prevent the results from being misinterpreted.*****
And how do you distinguish Nemeroff from Biederman, who was actively involved in promoting the practice of giving antipsychotics to children--especially for pediatric bipolar disease-- and who earned over $1.6 (a figure which itself may be an understatement) from drug companies--while reporting very little? for example, in one year, he earned over $58,000 from Johnson & Johnson, and reported no earnings; when asked to recheck this, he reported $3,000. is he a "visionary" or a shill for the company? How can you tell?
****You do have to ask questions about where the income is coming from. Is it from monies earned for doing trials, consultations, or is he involved in another way with the company? Following the money trail can lead to misconduct, or it can lead to progress. I'm not saying don't ask where the money is coming from.*******
I understand Seldom's point about the need for the connections between academics and drug research, but there also needs to be some regulation of how these connections affect the shape and outcomes in research.****I think involving academics definately affects the shape of research, but not the outcome (or those cases are very very isolated).*****
It may be worse when physicians have a stake in a company-- but still there can be conflicts of interest when you're being paid to attend marketing conferences, and are given large amounts of money--which presumably would be much less if you raised questions about the efficacy of the company's drugs.
*****I think it IS worse when physicians have a stake in the company. I think there can be the appearance of conflict of interest when being paid to attend conferences (I've never heard of a marketing conference by the way and can't imagine why a physician would even want to attend one). I'm not sure it is a fair assumption to assume a negative result would earn you less money from a company. What I can say, however, with certainty is that it will earn you less money from the NIH - but that is another story....*****
How can you not question the judgment and integrity of respected and influential psychiatrists when they knowingly lie about payments they've received.****You do question it. Fortunately, I think these cases are not as widespread as people might believe****
Seldom.
Posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 16:44:30
In reply to Re: What SHOULD (IMO) be closely monitored » Nadezda, posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 13:09:18
One of my points about distinguishing Biederman from Nemeroff was that both of them had lied to their institutions about the money received from the companies. Since home institutions are responsible for monitoring, this was the only real check on their activities.
Second, while interpretation of data may or may not be done by the companies, the generation of data cannot be entirely distinguished from its interpretation, Often the design of a study produces the template against which the data may be interpreted or not. While the company may do the statistics, the attitudes and expectations of researchers not only shape the design of the study, but also the data collection. There's always a lot of interpretation going on during data collection, as well as after the data has been registered.
Nadezda
Posted by stargazer2 on October 5, 2008, at 19:31:21
In reply to Nemeroff Failed to Report PharmCos' Compensations, posted by jrbecker76 on October 4, 2008, at 20:54:18
That's one of our fellow PsychoBabbler's doctors...I wonder if he knows???
I will email him today and let him know.
Stargazer
Posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 20:01:44
In reply to Re: What SHOULD (IMO) be closely monitored » Nadezda, posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 13:09:18
And third, excuse my using the wrong word; he was giving a marketing talk, I presume at a meeting, though not a conference,
Furthermore:
His [Adkinson's] continuing oversight of a federally financed trial using GlaxoSmithKline medicines led Dr. Adkison to write Dr. Nemeroff on July 15, 2004, that you must clearly certify on your annual disclosure form that you do not receive more than $10,000 from GSK.
In a reply dated Aug. 4, Dr. Nemeroff wrote that he had already done so but promised again that my consulting fees from GSK will be less than $10,000 per year throughout the period of this N.I.H. grant.
When he sent that letter, Dr. Nemeroff had already earned more than $98,000 that year from GlaxoSmithKline. Three weeks later, he received another $3,844.56 for giving a marketing talk at the Passion Fish Restaurant in Woodbury, N.Y.
From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents."
I simply don't see how you can dismiss this as some sort of irrelevancy, when, no matter what Nemeroff's personal opinion of the conflict of interest rules, he was required to follow them. Moreover, there seems to be a rather widespread practice of misstating earnings, suggesting that people have some motive for not revealing the financial stake they have in pleasing the companies.
It's hard to believe that physicians whose research repeatedly disputes the efficacy or safety of medications are going to be frequently employed by the major drug companies.
Nadezda
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.