December 28, 2008
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
Marcia Angell in the New York Review of Books:
Recently Senator Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has been looking into financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and the academic physicians who largely determine the market value of prescription drugs. He hasn't had to look very hard.
Take the case of Dr. Joseph L. Biederman, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and chief of pediatric psychopharmacology at Harvard's Massachusetts General Hospital. Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose and none of which were approved for children below ten years of age.
Legally, physicians may use drugs that have already been approved for a particular purpose for any other purpose they choose, but such use should be based on good published scientific evidence. That seems not to be the case here. Biederman's own studies of the drugs he advocates to treat childhood bipolar disorder were, as The New York Times summarized the opinions of its expert sources, "so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive."
In June, Senator Grassley revealed that drug companies, including those that make drugs he advocates for childhood bipolar disorder, had paid Biederman $1.6 million in consulting and speaking fees between 2000 and 2007. Two of his colleagues received similar amounts. After the revelation, the president of the Massachusetts General Hospital and the chairman of its physician organization sent a letter to the hospital's physicians expressing not shock over the enormity of the conflicts of interest, but sympathy for the beneficiaries: "We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them."
More here. [Thanks to Tasnim Raza.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 11:31 PM | Permalink









Comments
naturalnews
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 29, 2008 2:16:40 AM
very interesting. I observe in my own field, biology, that academic petty politics often determine what is published and what not. But with these amounts of money involved, it is not a surprise that things are even worse.
Posted by: Klausi | Dec 29, 2008 4:18:40 AM
CriticalMass:
Natural news is a conspiracy theory website disguised as an alternative health news agency. Its articles range from being completely on target to dangerously misinformed. The common thread is to take a flawed study and assume the opposite of the conclusion is true, which is fallacious to say the least.
In general:
This article was deeply disturbing. I had not realized how common it has become for research to be tainted conflict of interest in the medical community. The real kickers for me is that the article was written by a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine: this is someone who has watched it happen. Very depressing that the scientific process is broken in this very important field.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Dec 29, 2008 6:15:16 AM
Cyrus, I found that site when I was seeking info on Whitaker's drug study that I posted on the "Scientific illiteracy" topic. I don't know anything about the site, but I know the author of that article is not alone in taking a dim view of children being prescribed Ritalin and similar drugs. Are you of the opinion that such drugs do not present the dangers the author cites or other dangers?
Posted by: CriticalMasI | Dec 29, 2008 6:37:13 AM
All the news that fits, etc.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/health/01ritalin.html?_r=1
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719114451.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/drugs/ritalinstats.html
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 29, 2008 7:09:02 AM
CriticalMass-
Not at all. I believe that children are far, far over prescribed drugs for disorders that largely exist in the minds of adults that have forgotten childhood. As someone who has very occasionally taken Ritalin for the temporary boost in focus, I deeply suspect that a child who does not need it will be harmed, at least academically, by taking it on a regular basis. Just wanted to make sure people weren't taken in by the site. No offense meant.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Dec 29, 2008 9:17:44 AM
Thank you for clarifying that, Cyrus. :-) Hope it doesn't sound conspiratorial, but the medico-pharma industry does bring Brave New World to mind. Did you read the article posted here a couple of weeks ago on possible benefits to employers if this type of drug were to become a standard performance enhancer for employees? Creepy.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 29, 2008 9:52:35 AM
As a psychology student, it became very apparent that the evolution of the Psychology Bible is overwhelmingly swaying toward drug treatments. This is especially galling considering all of the research that has been accomplished on non-pharmaceutical approaches to such supposed "disorders" as ADHD--now they're looking for the ADHD gene! They're creating diseases! They're fabricating "chemical imbalances" around naturally-occurring substances such as dopamine, about which they really know very little. I did a research paper specifically about this approach to ADHD, and amazingly, the complicity was far-reaching--teachers and parents were very often the primary diagnosers! Teachers report to parents that "Johnny just can't sit still in class. I think it's ADD," which the parent reports to the doctor, asking for the Ritalin. For me, this situation is beyond comprehension, and it is one of my drives in life to provide a counter-intelligent voice in the psycologoical community.
Posted by: lambness | Dec 29, 2008 1:30:59 PM
CriticalMassI-
First off, what is the I in your name for? :-)
I indeed did catch the article from a week ago. I also remember that it was written, by the way, by professors who have been given grants and stock by various pharma companies.
What I found so interesting about that article was that I could largely buy it, as long as I imagining some ideal drug without side-effects. But what it comes down to in the real world is finding a reasonable trade-off between the possible downsides of drugs and the possible upsides. Any sort of social pressure to use drugs to enhance work or school performance is truly scary in that it takes that trade-off away from the individual.
In a field somewhat close to mine there is a hero, Paul Erdős, who is famous for taking large quantities of amphetamines over the course of his life. But it was of his own volition - it was a trade-off that was worth it to him. No one was judged less for not partaking, much less threatened with dismissal. Yet now I've heard secondhand stories of parents of children being pressured to put them on Ritalin, least they be removed from school.
Brave New World indeed.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Dec 29, 2008 1:51:31 PM
This is a subject which I have long been astounded and saddened by. At 18, I worked as a lab tech. at NIMH on a study for a "new" schizophrenia drug, which we were also investigating for off-label use in Alzheimer's disease. I somehow managed to get a grant to go out to UCDavis and worked in the lab there, where I was actually told that any results beyond the parameters of those that were deemed "reportable" by the drug company were thrown away.
This was 25 years ago.
Posted by: missvolare | Dec 29, 2008 3:11:29 PM
There needs to be both more transparency and limits on advertising. All medical studies need to be published on-line so doctors can independently analyze a drug's efficacy. As well, perhaps it's time for the FDA to prohibit pharma from directly marketing to the public? People go to their doctors to discuss what drugs are best for their particular condition?
Posted by: jason | Dec 30, 2008 6:25:17 PM
Post a comment