Thursday, July 20, 2006

Prominent Researchers Caught Again With Their Hands in the Cookie Jar

Here we go again.

It was only a week since the Journal of the American Medical Association published a correction, because seven well known authors of a Februrary article on depression failed to reveal that they were paid by the drug industry.

And of course, their study, which they also made into a road show, indicated that it is perfectly fine to take these strong antidepressants even if you're pregnant. To me, as a doctor, giving such drugs which impact neurotransmittors during pregnancy appears to be close to giving the fetus rat poison.

Nothing against antidepressants/SSRI's, they help many, but to use them in pregnant women and have the fetus also get the same dose simply goes against all common sense.

Sure it is better than mommy killing herself, but unless that is a real risk, fetus should come first and should develop without interference of powerful drugs.

This was the third time JAMA got caught this year.

And now one of the nation's most prominent psychiatrists, the editor of the journal Neurophsychopharmacology got caught when he together with seven co-authors published a study he had done. Turns out they all had financial ties with the company, whose treatment they recommended.

Remember when I wrote the post Don't Trust Your Doctor?

To read about the latest conflict of interest scandals, check out the WSJ.

Biggest problem is that it pays to cheat. What is the penalty for non-disclosure of financial ties?

Usually nothing.

Anyone surprised?


Anonymous said...

Don't trust your doctor? That advice is already depressing enough, but when respected journals like JAMA and new row ... um
(correct new row um ... er ..... oh nevermind) are tainted, god help us (or Tom Cruise ... whomever you have faith in)

Anonymous said...

It's just the way money works in the "medical research" community.

1. A certain lab gives positive testing/review for a certain drug for FDA approval.

2. In exchange the Pharm gives them a huge grant/funding for their research.

3. In their research, they cite/promote the positive results of this drug.

4. They get even more grant/funding.

(Rinse and Repeat)