<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: conflict of interest</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'conflict of interest'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22conflict+of+interest%22&t=%22conflict+of+interest%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:01:54 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Redux</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5158872&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F08%2Fquis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes-redux.html</link>
            <description>Revised HHS Rules for Conflict of Interest Fall Short

This morning NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins announced revisions to the existing 1995 regulations on objectivity in research that is funded by the Public Health Service. The focus is on significant financial interests (SFI) and on financial conflicts of interest (FCOI). The regulations illustrate the 3-way dance involving academic institutions (the grantees), NIH (the grantor) and academic scientists (the investigators). Thanks to Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) and his investigator Paul Thacker, headlined revelations in recent years about unacceptable management of FCOI at places like Stanford (Alan Schatzberg), Emory (Charles Nemeroff) and Harvard (Joseph Biederman) forced these revisions of the NIH regulations.

The general initial react...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5158872</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5158872</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More dangerous nonsense from the University of Westminster: when will Professor Geoffrey Petts do something about it?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4775406&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2Fmaterial-world-part2-220307.mp3</link>
            <description>One of my first posts about nonsense taught in universities was about the University of Westminster (April 2008): Westminster University BSc: “amethysts emit high yin energy”. since then, there have been several more revelations.
Jump to follow-up





	

  Professor Petts 


The vice-cnancellor of Westminster, Professor Geoffrey Petts, with whom the buck stops, did have an internal review but its report was all hot air and no action resulted (see A letter to the Times, and Progress at Westminster). That earned Professor Petts an appearence in Private Eye Crystal balls. Professor Petts in Private Eye (and it earned me an invitation to a Private Eye lunch, along with Francis Wheen, Charlie Booker, Ken Livingstone . . ). It also earned Petts an appearence in the Guardian (The opposite of...</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4775406</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 08:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4775406</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who you gonna believe?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4676731&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fwho-you-gonna-believe.html</link>
            <description>WHO YOU GONNA BELIEVE? Ghostwriting Charges and Stonewalling at the American Psychiatric Association The American Psychiatric Association came under a searchlight this past December over allegations of ghostwriting. The story originated with a public letter from Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to the Director of NIH, and it was picked up by Duff Wilson writing in the New York Times. The book was Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care. The named authors were Charles Nemeroff, now chairman of psychiatry at the University of Miami, and Alan Schatzberg, formerly chairman of psychiatry at Stanford University. Both are well known for ethical controversy – see here and here. Soon, these allegations were being dissected in the bl...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4676731</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:44:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4676731</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Inept Trials and Tainted Studies: Living With a Disease While Waiting for A Cure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4610887&amp;cid=t_113971_117_f&amp;fid=37824&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doctorkalitenko.com%2Fblog%2Finept-trials-tainted-studies-living-disease-waiting-cure%2F</link>
            <description>According to statistics, 1500 people die every day in the United States from cancer. Shocking statistic? Sure. But how long have these people lived with the disease, how long did they know about it? What kind of treatment did they receive? What kind of treatment could they have received if it was not held up in one study after another?
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal highlighted perhaps the most amazing point (1) How long will someone have to wait for a drug to be approved? How many treatments are there that are being held up by inefficient trials while you or a loved one are dying of cancer.
Here’s where a holistic doctor like myself just doesn’t understand. Why should we trust clinical studies? Well, there are years and years of various testing done before a product is ap...</description>
            <author>Doctor Kalitenko antiaging blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4610887</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:38:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4610887</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Independent Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals: Just How Independent Are They?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4565905&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Findependent-peer-reviewed-scientific-journals-just-how-independent-are-they%2F2011.03.09</link>
            <description>On September 27, 2010, the peer-reviewed scientific journal Europace published online-before-print a case report entitled &amp;#8220;Spontaneous explosion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator&amp;#8221; by Martin Hudec and Gabriela Kaliska. In the pdf of that case report a figure containing a color photo of the affected patient&amp;#8217;s chest, chest X-ray, and two pictures of the extracted device (one seen here) were included.
The pictures and case presentation were dramatic and the case very rare. Both were perfect reasons to report such an important case to the medical literature. And so these doctors sent the case to Europace on June 29, 2010, and the article was accepted after revision on August 16, 2010, with the article appearing online September 27, 2010.
The authors must have felt v...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4565905</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4565905</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AstraZeneca Loses Japan Case Over Iressa Labeling</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4532567&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FsAQS7vachLg%2F</link>
            <description>Japan&amp;#8217;s Osaka District Court late last week ordered AstraZeneca to pay 60.5 million yen - or about $733,000 - to nine of 11 plaintiffs for failing to include proper warnings about serious side effects on the labeling for its Iressa lung cancer med when it was approved in the country in July 2002. However, the three-judge panel ruled the Japanese government was not liable for any damages.
At issue was interstitial lung disease, or ILD, which was cited in 810 deaths through March 2010, according to Medwatcher Japan, a non-profit watchdog, and attorneys who represent the plaintiffs. They argued AstraZeneca downplayed safety issues by failing to prominently note on the labeling the potential for ILD at the time of approval and then advertised Iressa as &amp;#8220;anti-cancer drug with little...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4532567</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:53:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4532567</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Justice Clarence Thomas: He Did It His Way</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4489930&amp;cid=t_113971_136_f&amp;fid=37852&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonnatrussell.com%2F2011%2F02%2F17%2Fjustice-clarence-thomas-he-did-it-his-way%2F</link>
            <description>New cartoon by Trussell &amp; Trussell on Politics Daily. Justice Clarence Thomas: He Did It His Way. Fun, fun, fun till Congress takes the freebies away.
Filed under: Politics Tagged: clarence thomas, conflict of interest, ginny thomas, robert donna trussell, scotus, supreme court (Source: Donna Trussell)</description>
            <author>Donna Trussell</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4489930</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:36:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4489930</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FDA tries to cure obesity with dangerous weight loss surgery. Is surgery the only option?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4575133&amp;cid=t_113971_117_f&amp;fid=37824&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doctorkalitenko.com%2Fblog%2Ffda-cure-obesity-dangerous-weight-loss-surgery-surgery-option%2F</link>
            <description>Where do we stop when it comes to getting skinny? That’s often the question we ask when looking at a picture of a gaunt supermodel that we will never know, whose look we will never achieve. Or, we ask it when we hear about Hollywood and eating disorders.
But recently, the government is jumping in on trying to cure the obesity problem in the United States, not with methods to improve our diets, healthier and safer options, and guidelines, but instead, by looking into approving lap band procedure for millions more Americans.

According to this article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/business/02obese.html?_r=2&amp;ref=health) the potentially deadly surgery is now an option for people with a BMI (body mass index) of 40% or 35% is there is another medical condition, s...</description>
            <author>Doctor Kalitenko antiaging blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4575133</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 18:21:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4575133</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medical Schools Don't Ask &amp; Faculty Don't Tell If They Violate Ban on Paid Pharma Speaking Gigs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4272600&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fmedical-schools-dont-ask-faculty-dont.html</link>
            <description>ProPublica -- the non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest and which received a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting -- recently published a story revealing that physicians from Stanford, Penn and the Universities of Pittsburgh and Colorado Denver have faculty members who have accepted money to promote drugs despite the fact that these universities have conflict of interest policies that restrict their doctors from accepting pharma money (see &quot;Medical Schools Don't Verify Faculty Compliance with Ban on Pharma Speaker Fees&quot;).This is just the latest revelation made possible by comparing names in ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs database of payments publicly reported by seven drug companies with names of faculty members at a dozen medical schools ...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4272600</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:32:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4272600</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Doctors Are Refusing Industry Perks And Gifts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4159241&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmore-doctors-are-refusing-industry-perks-and-gifts%2F2010.11.12</link>
            <description>Physicians and particularly primary care doctors are reporting fewer industry ties than five years ago, according to a survey.
While 94% of doctors reported some type of perk from a drug or device maker in 2004, 83.8% did in 2009, researchers reported in the Nov. 8 Archives of Internal Medicine.
Researchers surveyed a stratified random sample of 2,938 primary care physicians (internal medicine, family practice, and pediatrics) and specialists (cardiology, general surgery, psychiatry and anesthesiology) with a 64.4% response rate. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4159241</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4159241</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Novartis, Dana-Farber, An Angry Exec And Money</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4119713&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fiqx9Ideosb4%2F</link>
            <description>There&amp;#8217;s nothing like a nasty battle over the rights to a drug under development to make for interesting reading. And so we present you with some intense legal haggling over a molecule known as WZ4002, which was discovered by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston for combating non small-cell lung cancer with specific gene mutations. The compound is potentially quite valuable because it may be able to treat patients who don&amp;#8217;t respond to existing cancer pills.
The dispute, however, is not your run-of-the-mill spat over development rights. Instead, the lawsuit peels back the curtain on some of the jockeying that occurs among universities, drugmakers and scientists when potentially lucrative intellectual property rights are in play. Here&amp;#8217;s why: the legal ba...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4119713</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:35:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4119713</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FDA Panel Members Talk About Avandia Conflicts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3776609&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FG7wD-XKMv5o%2F</link>
            <description>Twice this week, we have learned that members of the FDA advisory panel convened to review the safety of the Avandia diabetes pill had relationships with drugmakers that had something at stake. One panelist, David Capuzzi, has an ongoing relationship with GlaxoSmithKline as a speaker, although he apparently spoke only once about the diabetes drug (see here). And Abraham Thomas has, in the past, given talks about Actos, a rival pill sold by Takeda Pharmaceuticals (see here).
The FDA is now investigating the episode surrounding Capuzzi and expects to have some decision by the end of the week. A finding that warrants further inquiry could be sent to the HHS Office of Inspector General. The agency, however, may not probe Thomas, because his speaking engagements for Takeda took place more than ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3776609</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:29:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3776609</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Two More Med Schools To End Pharma Funding</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3776612&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FaBixXSE3HwE%2F</link>
            <description>Two more colleges are in the process of restricting funding from industry. Harvard Medical School will prohibit its 11,000 faculty from giving promotional talks for drug and device makers and accepting personal gifts, travel, or meals, The Boston Globe writes. And Central Michigan University may not accept money upcoming continuing medical education programs, according to Central Michigan Life.
The Harvard will also place strict limits on income faculty can earn from companies for consulting, joining boards, and other work; require public reporting of payments of at least $5,000 on a med school website; and promise more robust internal reporting and monitoring of these relationships. Harvard will also create a firewall between health care companies during these courses.
One target is Pri-M...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3776612</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:36:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3776612</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>WHO And H1N1: Conflict Of Interest?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3671695&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fwho-and-h1n1-conflict-of-interest%2F2010.06.17</link>
            <description>On June 11, 2009, Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared that the H1N1 flu that was then spreading around the world was an official pandemic. This triggered a series of built-in responses in many countries, including stockpiling anti-viral medications and preparing for a mass H1N1 vaccination program.
At the time the flu was still in its “first wave” and the fear was that subsequent waves, as the virus swept around the world, would become more virulent and/or contagious –- similar to what happened in the 1918 pandemic. This did not happen. At least our worst fears were not realized. The H1N1 pandemic, while serious, simmered through the winter of 2009-2010, producing a less than average flu season, although with some worrisome differe...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3671695</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:00:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3671695</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Where Have All The Clinical Investigators Gone?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3666227&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FRGDjRXl_eDU%2F</link>
            <description>Between 2004 and 2007, the number of clinical trial investigators who are regulated by the FDA fell 5.2 percent in the US and 6.1 percent in Europe, while increasing 16 percent in Eastern Europe, 12 percent in Asia and 10 percent in Latin America, according to a new survey from the Association of Clinical Research Organizations.
Why are investigators in the US and Western Europe dropping out? We know that pharma can runs trials more cheaply overseas. But what do investigators say? Well, 70 percent of respondents believe current regulations make trials difficult to manage. They cited such issues as medical liability (42 percent in the US vs. 20 percent in Western Europe), conflict of interest rules and mandates that docs disclose financial relationships with pharma. File this under backlash...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3666227</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 17:50:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3666227</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AAIDD Death Penalty Task Force:  Conflict of interest disclosure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3538276&amp;cid=t_113971_122_f&amp;fid=37835&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iqscorner.com%2F2010%2F05%2Faaidd-death-penalty-task-force-conflict.html</link>
            <description>I was recently asked (and accepted) to be a member of the AAIDD Death Penalty Task Force to address issues regarding Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases.&amp;nbsp; I want to thank the AAIDD members for the privilege.&amp;nbsp; This is a conflict of interest disclosure note.&amp;nbsp; Any comments or posts at&amp;nbsp; IQ's Corner or the ICDP blog do not represent the views or opinions of the AAIDD Death Penalty Task ForceI will not post any AAIDD Death Penalty Task Force internal communications at my two blogs.&amp;nbsp; Any task force information that is made public will be posted here as an FYI post with a URL to the appropriate AAIDD web resource.&amp;nbsp; If the AAIDD DP TF asks me to disseminate information via my blogs, such posts will be clearly labeled.Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, foren...</description>
            <author>Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Theories and Tests (aka IQ's Corner)</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3538276</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 16:06:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3538276</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>De-Capturing the FDA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3482949&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2F19%2Fde-capturing-the-fda%2F</link>
            <description>Harvard Law Student, Jason Iuliano, recently posted his forthcoming article, &amp;#8220;Killing Us Sweetly: How to Take Industry Out of the FDA&amp;#8221; (forthcoming Journal of Food Law and Policy) on SSRN.  Here&amp;#8217;s the abstract.
* * *
For more than a century, the Food and Drug Administration has purported to protect the public health. During that time, it has actually been placing corporate profits above consumer safety. Nowhere is this corruption more evident than in the approval of artificial sweeteners.  FDA leaders’ close ties to the very industry they were supposed to be regulating present a startling picture. Ignoring warnings from both independent scientists and their own review panels, FDA decision makers let greed guide their actions. They approved carcinogenic sweeteners such ...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3482949</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:01:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3482949</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Do Medicine When You Can 'Advise' for $3000 a Day?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3408412&amp;cid=t_113971_105_f&amp;fid=38964&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdrwes.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fwhy-do-medicine-when-you-can-advise-for.html</link>
            <description>It's very generous of Sanolfi-Aventis's marketing department to make this offer (pdf) for me to serve as an &quot;advisor&quot; for dronedarone today, but seriously, I was a bit skeptical that they wanted my &quot;feedback on the reasons for and against utlilization of Multaq® in the appropriate patient as well as to understand communication and educational needs with regard to Multaq® and the atrial fibrillation state in general.&quot;Where were they when the drug launched? Might it be because it's this drug has not been quite the blockbuster they'd hoped for?But of course I'd never be swayed to use more of this drug by this important consulting work. No, really.-WesP.S.: To Sanolfi-Aventis marketers: Please update your prescriber database with my correct workplace.Musings of a cardiologist and cardiac ele...</description>
            <author>Dr. Wes</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3408412</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:52:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3408412</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Dr. pangloss as nih institute director</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3398863&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fdr-pangloss-as-nih-institute-director.html</link>
            <description>DR. PANGLOSS AS NIH INSTITUTE DIRECTORJAMA is out today with a Commentary by Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Using indirection, Dr. Insel has risen to the defense of seven academic psychiatrists on whom an ethical searchlight has been trained for the past several years by Senator Grassley and others. With ludicrous optimism and a series of straw man discussions, Dr. Insel makes the case that things are not really as bad as they seemed to be or, if they were, then other specialty physicians were doing much the same things. Dr. Insel needs to recalibrate his ethical compass.Why is an NIH Institute Director issuing this apologia for the corruption of academic psychiatry? Does he not have better things to do, such as ensuring that longstanding NIH regulat...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3398863</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:42:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3398863</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Study: Researchers with Glaxo ties favored Avandia</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3386869&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fstudy-researchers-with-glaxo-ties.html</link>
            <description>As mentioned in my previous post on the MIT controversy surrounding an economist's testifying to Congress on healthcare policy without revealing possible economic conflicts of interest that could affect his views, frequently expressed on this blog are concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest and their corrosive effects upon healthcare (query link).One major question that arises is the degree to which conflicts of interest can affect the integrity of the scientific literature. Answering this question is more a matter of social science research rather than biomedical inquiry.One internal medicine resident at the Mayo Clinic took on this challenge and published such a study, a systematic review, in the British Medical Journal. It is entitled &quot;Association between industry affiliation a...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3386869</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3386869</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Gruber at MIT to Senators:  &quot;I Promise To Be Good ... Next Time&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3382771&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fgruber-at-mit-to-sen-grassley-i-promise.html</link>
            <description>In a stunning display of academic arrogance, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, who promoted and defended the administration's health care policies before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance as well as the Health, Education, Labor &amp; Pensions Committee, while collecting $400,000 from HHS for his services, literally blew off a letter of inquiry from Senators Grassley and Enzi regarding possible conflicts of interest. (See this Google search on the terms &quot;jonathan gruber conflict of interest HHS&quot;.)The professor has been a source of support for what many consider improbable arguments of the impact of current health care reform efforts, while being on the HHS dole.Sen. Grassley and Sen. Enzi have thus written Dr. Susan Hockfield, President of MIT, to &quot;encourage&quot; the professor to be a...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3382771</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:58:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3382771</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Blogging the ACC: A Note from the Unwashed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3363664&amp;cid=t_113971_105_f&amp;fid=38964&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdrwes.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fblogging-acc-note-from-unwashed.html</link>
            <description>Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned...I was a speaker for Medtronic a while back, I'm not sure when. I was paid a fee to do this, but I can't recall exactly how much. (No doubt Senator Grassley knows by now.) I'm not even sure if my contract with Medtronic is still in effect, but I disclosed that former relationship to the American College of Cardiology before their upcoming meeting since I am blogging the conference this year.And I was shunned.Oh sure, they paid my registration fee - that was the original agreement (my &quot;pay&quot; if you will) - but because of my unwashed status as a former speaker for a company, there will be no coffee and donuts, no access to cell phone rechargers, no sit-down laptop computer space, and no early access to press releases and interviews with investigators. *Sigh...</description>
            <author>Dr. Wes</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3363664</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:13:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3363664</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>No Conflict Of Interest For FDA’s Woodcock</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3244048&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FU_U7Ito0v0w%2F</link>
            <description>The research collaboration between Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA, and scientists at Momenta Pharmaceuticals during the 2008 heparin crisis did not constitute a conflict, even though the drugmaker had an application pending before the agency, according to FDA legal counsel Ralph Tyler, The Baltimore Sun writes.
But Woodcock voluntarily removed herself from considering the application, as well as a competing one filed by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, which raised the allegations last April, the paper reminds us. Both companies are developing a generic version of low molecular weight heparin, which is currently sold by Sanofi-Aventis as Lovenox.
&amp;#8220;We&amp;#8217;ve determined that there&amp;#8217;s no conflict here,&amp;#8221; Tyler tells the paper, ad...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3244048</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:00:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3244048</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is Someone at Jefferson Regional Medical Center Lying About EHR Safety?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2967250&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fis-someone-at-jefferson-regional.html</link>
            <description>This curious story appeared about apparent clinician health IT safety concerns at Jefferson Regional Medical Center near Pittsburgh:Switch to electronic records alarms Jefferson Regional physiciansBy Walter F. Roche Jr.PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEWFriday, October 30, 2009Jefferson Regional Medical Center's attempts to convert to electronic medical records have some doctors concerned about patient safety.   In a memo issued this month, the hospital's Health Information Technology Committee announced the 373-bed facility in Jefferson Hills would revert to printed versions of patients' consultant reports &quot;due to patient safety concerns from the majority of physicians.&quot; Jefferson executives downplayed the memo and said they found no evidence that patient safety has been impacted, arguing a small g...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2967250</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:35:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2967250</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nissen Puts Stake Through ACCME's Heart at Senate Hearing on Industry-Funded CME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2653996&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fnissen-puts-stake-through-accmes-heart.html</link>
            <description>At yesterday's United States Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on &quot;Medical Research and Education: Higher Learning or Higher Earning?&quot;, most of the testimony focused on pharma industry support of continuing medical education (CME).Senators Kohl, Martinez, and Franken heard from speakers who were pro and con regarding the benefits of industry-sponsored support of CME, which is waning (see &quot;Pharma Shifts Support of CME from MECCs to Physician Societies&quot;).Testimony form Steven Nissen, MD, Chairman, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, was especially critical of industry-funded CME in general and of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) -- the organization that accredits CME providers -- in particular.&quot;With the billions of dollars of ind...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2653996</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:16:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2653996</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>STOSSEL and ACRE: WHERE'S the BEEF?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2615336&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fstossel-and-acre-wheres-beef.html</link>
            <description>STOSSEL and ACRE – WHERE’S the BEEF?Thomas Stossel from Harvard is at it again. As Daniel Carlat has humorously described, Stossel is planning the inaugural meeting next week of a group to counter those he calls pharmascolds. The group is named ACRE – Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators. Here is its website: http://www.acreonline.org/ For months, Stossel has been warning of the dire negative consequences that will result from tightened conflict of interest policies, but he has not presented any persuasive examples of damage to “productive relationships between industry and physicians involved in clinical research and educational outreach.” At the same time, Dr. Stossel has conveniently overlooked the shenanigans of the bad actors whom Senator Grassley exposed. Dr. S...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2615336</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2615336</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A New Era of Pharma Marketing: Direct to Journalist (DTJ)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2602214&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fnew-era-of-pharma-marketing-direct-to.html</link>
            <description>Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) and Direct-to-Physician (DTP) marketing have been the two staples of pharmaceutical marketing for many years. Now there is another kind of pharma marketing emerging: Direct to Journalist (DTJ)!I have written previously about Pfizer's new strategy to &quot;woo&quot; journalists (see &quot;Chantix 'Roundtable' Apparently Not Round and Not a Table&quot; and &quot;Pfizer's PR Chief: 'How in the hell do we have such a bad reputation?'&quot;). This is a followup with a new twist to the story.With regard to journalists, &quot;our core strategy,&quot; said Pfizer's global PR chief, Ray Kerins, is &quot;engage and educate,&quot; which, IMHO, can be loosely translated to &quot;free lunch and schmooze,&quot; the same strategy that has worked so well in marketing to physicians.Unable to send physicians on all-expenses paid junkets due ...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2602214</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:32:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2602214</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Open letter to Mark Leavitt, Chairman, Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology on Penalties For Use of Non-&quot;Certified&quot; HIT</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2462987&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fopen-letter-to-mark-leavitt-chairman.html</link>
            <description>A remarkable Bill (ASSEMBLY, No. 3934, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 213th LEGISLATURE) has appeared in NJ that would prohibit the sale or use of healthcare IT not &quot;certified&quot; (i.e., feature-qualified) by the industry-founded and connected group &quot;Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology&quot; (CCHIT). The Bill calls for monetary civil penalties for such sale or use:A civil penalty or civil fine is a term used to describe when a state entity or a governmental agency seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual.I previously wrote about CCHIT in a series of linked posts that start here: A very troubling post about the CCHIT (Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology).I have now written the following open letter to Mar...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2462987</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:11:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2462987</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>One Third of the Clinical Cancer Studies Report Conflict of Interest</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2414719&amp;cid=t_113971_86_f&amp;fid=38272&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flaikaspoetnik.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F05%2F16%2Fone-third-of-the-clinical-cancer-studies-report-conflict-of-interest%2F</link>
            <description>While many of us just recovered from the news that Elsevier was paid to produce fake Journals to promote pharmaceutical products, another news item has appeared about &amp;#8220;conflicts of interests in scientific publications&amp;#8221;
This news is based on a new journal article from researchers from the University of Michigan&amp;#8217;s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Ann Arbor, published [...] (Source: Laika's MedLibLog)</description>
            <author>Laika's MedLibLog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2414719</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 22:02:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2414719</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Confession of a KOL: The Perverse Effect of Conflict of Interest Disclosure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2381529&amp;cid=t_113971_150_f&amp;fid=34889&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmamkting.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Fconfession-of-kol-perverse-effect-of.html</link>
            <description>&quot;I was also wrong about disclosure,&quot; said James Stein, MD at a University of Wisconsin conflict of interest seminar (see video here). Dr. Stein, a cardiologist, was proud to list all his drug company affiliations on his CV in the 90's and admitted he liked the money he got from being on their advisory boards and speakers' bureaus.&quot;I really felt that if I stood up in front of a crowd and said these are my disclosures, look how honest I am, that I was really managing conflict of interest. The literature tells me it [has] the opposite effect. Although its laudable to disclose your relationships [with drug companies] ... it actually has the perverse effect. The recipient of your information becomes more trusting. Also, professionals who disclose become more biased. That's the perverse effect o...</description>
            <author>Pharma Marketing Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2381529</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 13:12:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2381529</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>INSTITUTE of MEDICINE REPORT on CONFLICT of INTEREST</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2375958&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F04%2Finstitute-of-medicine-report-on.html</link>
            <description>Today we saw a new marker laid down in the arena called Conflict of Interest (COI). The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences issued a report of its Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice. The report is comprehensive, even exhaustive, running to 353 pages. Gardner Harris in the New York Times today calls it “scolding,” “stinging,” and “damning.” The recommendations go well beyond any proposed in the recent past by medical schools or by other professional organizations. The NYT quoted David Rothman, president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University: “With the I.O.M.’s endorsement, issues that were once controversial now are indisputable. Conflicts of interest in medicine are no longer acce...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2375958</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2375958</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is this anyway for a medical journal to behave?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306833&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E5%2FyVVoh14lw-w%2Fjed90012pap_E1_E3.pdf</link>
            <description>Reprinted in part from the The Chronicle of Higher Education:'JAMA' Orders Whistle-Blowers to Blow Their Whistles in Private The longstanding ethical principle of medical students and physicians — “First do no harm” — appears to be taking on a new meaning at one of the world’s top medical journals.  The Journal of the American Medical Association, in an editorial published on Friday, has warned that anyone raising a conflict-of-interest complaint about one of its authors should do so in private to the editors, without telling any outsiders.  JAMA’s warning stems from a case involving Jonathan Leo, an associate professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University, in Tennessee, who found problems in a study published in JAMA by a University of Iowa psychiatry professor, Robe...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306833</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:48:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306833</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Therapy vs. Medication, Conflicts of Interest, and Intimidation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2293092&amp;cid=t_113971_122_f&amp;fid=36582&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FSharpBrains%2F%7E3%2FGdpba4jkjjY%2F</link>
            <description>What started as an academic dispute regarding disclosure of conflict of interest is now snowballing into the mainstream media, due to the over-reaction by JAMA editors as reported in this Wall Street Journal blog post, JAMA editor calls Critic a &amp;quot;Nobody and a Nothing&amp;quot;
In summary, Dr. Jonathan Leo, the &amp;quot;Critic&amp;quot;, dared to draw attention to 2 important points regarding a study comparing the efficacy of therapy vs. medication published in the Journal of the American Academy of Medicine (JAMA) - one of the most prestigious scientific publications:
1) The study results were presented and reported in a biased way, since they favored one specific intervention, a drug, while ignoring another one, therapy-based, that had equally statistically significant effects.
2) Both the lead...</description>
            <author>SharpBrains</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2293092</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:44:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2293092</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>JAMA and DeAngelis Respond But DeAngelis Should Resign</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2287231&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2Fjama-and-deangelis-respond-but-deangelis-should-resign%2F</link>
            <description>In an attempt to whitewash their own actions and responsibility to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing, Catherine D. DeAngelis and Phil B. Fontanarosa &amp;#8212; editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) &amp;#8212; published an editorial defending their handling of a conflict of interest and blasting the professor who brought it to their attention. In a classic example of shooting the messenger, it&amp;#8217;s my opinion that DeAngelis and Fontanarosa absolve themselves of all blame, and suggest that any reports where they called Lincoln Memorial University Assistant Dean of Students and Professor Jonathan Leo Ph.D., a &amp;#8220;a nothing and a nobody&amp;#8221; were &amp;#8220;erroneous.&amp;#8221; (In other words, the editors of JAMA are apparently suggesting that the Wall...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2287231</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:38:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2287231</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Does Pharma Want its Researchers to Believe They Are Next to God?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2284455&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fdoes-pharma-want-its-researchers-to.html</link>
            <description>In &quot;Drug Maker Told Studies Would Aid It, Papers Say&quot; (New York Times, Mar. 19, 2009), the Times discusses the case of psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Biederman. Dr. Biederman outlined plans to test Johnson &amp; Johnson’s drugs including risperidone/Risperidal in presentations to company executives and seemed to guarantee positive outcomes for his studies of the drug, raising questions about his research.Biederman has become a key witness in a series of lawsuits filed by state attorneys general claiming that makers of antipsychotic drugs defrauded state Medicaid programs by improperly marketing their medicines. His work helped fuel a rapid rise in the use of these medicines in children. Biederman earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but failed to re...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2284455</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:11:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2284455</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Was JAMA and Catherine DeAngelis Thinking?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2287238&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F19%2Fwhat-was-jama-and-catherine-deangelis-thinking%2F</link>
            <description>While I was down in Austin at SXSW this past week, there was a rare glimpse into the big egos that run the journal business in the world. As you may know, publishing research articles is a business, and because it involves prestigious reputations &amp;#8212; both on the journal and academia side &amp;#8212; there is a lot of ego involved. Lots.
So imagine if you&amp;#8217;re sitting at the head of one of the world&amp;#8217;s most prestigious and respected journals, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and an academic &amp;#8212; not from Harvard or Yale, but from Lincoln Memorial University &amp;#8212; calls you on the carpet for failing to conduct a very good peer-review on a peer-reviewed paper appearing in JAMA:

Jonathan Leo, a professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University, wrot...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2287238</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:58:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2287238</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conflict of Interest:  Why Research and Government Need the Private Sector</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2263725&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=37069&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolicymed.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fconflict-of-interest-why-research-and-government-need-the-private-sector.html</link>
            <description>This weekend there are two major editorials providing an alternate perspective on research and conflict of interest.&amp;#0160; The theme read together is that research institutions and governments need industry to develop new innovations.
The first editorial in the Washington Post&amp;#0160; When Science Is a Siren Song &amp;#0160;&amp;#0160;By David Shaywitz, MD an Endocrinologist and former professor at Harvard, focuses around how research is self correcting.&amp;#0160; He gives an example of a headline news reports on &amp;#0160;important research claims such as &amp;quot;Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son,&amp;quot; which was later disproven with little mention in the press (I am not making it up, and the media being the lost sheep that they are eat this stuff up).
University research is no...</description>
            <author>Policy and Medicine</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2263725</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:50:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2263725</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cerner board member as Healthcare Czar</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2232510&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fcerner-board-member-as-healthcare-czar.html</link>
            <description>President Obama has declared that National Electronic Health Records are essential to curing healthcare's ills.From MSNBC:WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama will name former Clinton administration health official Nancy-Ann DeParle on Monday to lead the newly created White House Office on Health Reform, a U.S. official said.DeParle, a former administrator of what is now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, will lead the White House office charged with coordinating Obama's ambitious healthcare reform efforts with Congress.From the NY Times:WASHINGTON — In picking Nancy-Ann DeParle to champion an overhaul of the nation’s health system, President Obama selected someone with deep roots in the Washington bureaucracy, an intimate familiarity with health policy and respect on both ...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2232510</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:33:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2232510</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>News of Note this past week</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2188070&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F539976257%2Fnews-of-note-this-past-week.html</link>
            <description>~ Gender disparities persist in treatment of stroke. Guess which direction this one cuts.   ~ TANSTAAFL: Pfizer to disclose payments to doctors, researchers starting in 2010. All right, let’s hear it!   ~ Second Stryker sales rep pleads guilty to misbranding a medical device. A  felony.   ~ Ovaries can be safely saved in some endometrial cancers.   ~ 9 flawed genes found in risk of heart attack. Ah, the plot thickens! ~ Are you what you eat?: Mediterranean diet could cut risk of dementia. Quick! Get me some fish and olive oil.   ~ Bone drugs may help fight breast cancer. Nice added benefit.   ~ Damaged spinal cords in mice improved by transplants of neural stem cells produced with human induced pluripotent stem cells. We can rebuild them .  ~ Are fears over bioterrorism stifling scientif...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2188070</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:46:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2188070</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Computer Bites Human?  Healthcare IT Blamed in Patient Death at UPMC</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2182480&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fhealthcare-it-blamed-in-patient-death.html</link>
            <description>Just as I'm finishing my semi-tongue in cheek post &quot;Another Human Bites Dog Story? Health Affairs Briefing on Healthcare IT Challenges&quot; on a remarkable new phenomenon of increasing candor from major organizations about the dangers of poorly conceived and implemented health IT, this tragic story crosses my inbox.My comments are in [bracketed red italics]:UPMC records blamed in deathBy Walter F. Roche Jr.PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEWWednesday, February 11, 2009The son of an 89-year-old woman who died on UPMC Montefiore's roof in freezing temperatures charged in court papers Tuesday that a new and untested electronic medical records system was a major factor in her death.The complaint filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court claims the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center implemented the r...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2182480</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2182480</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Has Bioinformatics Hit A Hard Wall of Stagnation?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2086899&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fhas-bioinformatics-hit-hard-wall-of.html</link>
            <description>Is the field of bioinformatics in trouble?I ask this due to two disturbing trends. The first is the misuse of bioinformatics for &quot;dubious&quot; purposes. The second is, has bioinformatics itself reached a wall of stagnation due in part to disciplinary insularity and resultant inadequate collaboration with its medical counterpart?Terminology note: Bio-informatics is the application of IT to the field of molecular biology, as opposed to the broader Bio-medical Informatics. Biomedical informatics includes both bioinformatics and my field, Medical informatics, which deals with application of IT to patients, along with fields at different granularities such as public health informatics. See a diagram of these relationships in the PDF article here.On the first issue, consider the following:In &quot;A Prof...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2086899</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:05:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2086899</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Key Opinion Leader With A Very Short Fuse</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1990767&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F465086208%2Fkey-opinion-leader-with-very-short-fuse.html</link>
            <description>Psychiatrist Joe &quot;Short Fuse&quot; Biederman of Harvard University is really in hot water now. The sordid details can be seen in a fantastic article by Gardiner Harris of the New York Times. Here's just one snippet:In a November 1999 e-mail message, John Bruins, a Johnson &amp; Johnson marketing executive, begs his supervisors to approve a $3,000 check to Dr. Biederman as payment for a lecture he gave at the University of Connecticut. “Dr. Biederman is not someone to jerk around,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “He is a very proud national figure in child psych and has a very short fuse.” Mr. Bruins wrote that Dr. Biederman was furious after Johnson &amp; Johnson rejected a request that Dr. Biederman had made for a $280,000 research grant. “I have never seen someone so angry,” Mr. Bruins wrote. ...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1990767</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1990767</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The gripes of Rath</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1790645&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D256</link>
            <description>Today is a good day for anyone who deplores dangerous confidence tricksters. In particular it is a good day for Ben Goldacre, and for the Guardian who defended him at potentially enormous expense.




Matthias Rath, the Dutch (or is it German) vitamin salesman has dropped his libel action against the  Guardian. He is the man [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1790645</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:52:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1790645</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Investigative Journalism Par Excellence</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1717155&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F369184826%2Finvestigative-journalism-par-excellence.html</link>
            <description>I am a little late in reporting this story, but there is a must-read post from Jonathan Leo over at Chemical Imbalance that I must bring to your attention. Many bloggers have chimed in about the radio program All in The Mind's broadcast about SSRIs. Most writers have focused, understandably, on the myriad unreported conflicts of interest of the guests on the show. But the conflicts of interest are not the most important part of this saga -- the terribly misleading information on the program, which aired on National Public Radio outlets, is the main problem.  Leo compares the data on SSRIs and suicide to the blatantly false statements made by the All in the Mind commentators. He notes, for example, that it is utter BS to state that nobody committed suicide in antidepressant trials submitted...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1717155</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:38:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1717155</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FOLLOW the MONEY</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1674817&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F08%2Ffollow-money.html</link>
            <description>There is no sign of let-up in the scrutiny of Stanford University and Dr. Alan Schatzberg, who chairs the University’s department of psychiatry. Since Senator Grassley started asking questions last month, the explanations offered about Stanford’s management of this faculty member’s conflicts of interest vis à vis his NIH grants and his corporation (Corcept Therapeutics) have become non-viable. The story so far can be found here and here and here.Senator Grassley was concerned that Stanford gave him lowball information about Dr. Schatzberg’s financial stake in Corcept, and no information about Dr. Schatzberg’s realized financial gains from selling Corcept stock. Inspection of Stanford’s answers to Sen. Grassley and of the University’s faculty disclosure forms reveals that the...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1674817</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:07:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1674817</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On a Clinical IT Abomination and a Health IT Leadership Gap</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1664208&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fclinical-it-abomination.html</link>
            <description>... If there ever was a reason for physicians, other clinicians and patients to oppose the use of Electronic Medical Records forced upon them by by third parties, here it is. Assuming this story is accurate, it reflects what I believe will be an increasing trend towards control of the medical profession via computer:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)August 2008 NewsInnocent Caught in Dragnet  With a 19.7% increase in budget, and a 64-person increase in staff to a total of 1,495, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is aggressively looking for fraud. The anti-fraud cash cow brings in $20 for $1 spent. To &quot;find&quot; fraud, the government gets creative, elevating ordinary billing disputes to fraud.  &quot;The government overkills. It ruins their life. Doctors lose their career. Th...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1664208</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:54:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1664208</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>SCHATZBERG, STANFORD and the AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1622086&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fschatzberg-stanford-and-american.html</link>
            <description>14 July 2008SCHATZBERG, STANFORD and the AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATIONThe chairman of psychiatry at Stanford University, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, is still in the news for his problems at the boundary of commerce and academia. The New York Times reported that Dr. Schatzberg believes constraints on researchers trying to develop drugs “will mean less opportunities to help patients with severe illnesses.” Just as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, so patient welfare is the last refuge of the dodgy medical entrepreneur.What exactly does Dr. Schatzberg mean by “constraints”? Does he object to transparency as a “constraint”? Would he feel “constrained” by the need to disclose his stock sales to his academic institution? The Stanford Daily commented recently that Stanfo...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1622086</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:19:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1622086</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conflicts, Bad Science, and Corlux: Part Two</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1556310&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F323350227%2Fconflicts-bad-science-and-corlux-part.html</link>
            <description>The blogosphere has been abuzz with discussion of psychiatrist Alan Schatzberg's dual roles as a tycoon and an allegedly &quot;objective scientist.&quot;  But wait... there's more.  Schatzberg is deeply involved with Corcept Therapeutics, a company that has repeatedly found that mifepristone (Corlux/RU-486) is a dud for psychotic depression.  Yet Corcept has continually attempted to spin the results as positive, in a manner that should be obvious to anyone who passed an introductory research methods or statistics course.  Schatzberg has millions of dollars in Corcept shares and should Corcept actually turn out to possess even minimal efficacy for psychotic depression, Schatzberg stands to profit quite handsomely.  Bernard Carroll has the next chapter in this interesting saga, dealing particular...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1556310</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:54:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1556310</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conflicts, Bad Science, and Corlux</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1546655&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F320627759%2Fconflicts-bad-science-and-corlux.html</link>
            <description>Recently, the watchful eyes of Charles Grassley have been peering into the bank accounts of big name psychiatrists. Melissa DelBello and Joe Biederman (1, 2) from the Wonderful World of Child Bipolar were first, and now Alan Schatzberg has been hit. Schatzberg is the Chair of Psychiatry at Stanford University. He is also the President of the American Psychiatric Association. In other words, he's kind of a big deal.  Pharmalot hits the details, but the gist is that Schatzberg is deeply involved at Corcept Therapeutics, a company for which he is chair of the scientific advisory board and holds a large amount of stock. According to Grassley, he did not disclose some of his stock sale profits or the magnitude of his multimillion dollar stock holdings in the company. Additionally, Schatzberg al...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1546655</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:04:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1546655</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma should demand the same treatment!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1522012&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fpharma-should-demand-same-treatment.html</link>
            <description>Imagine a government report about pharma that glosses over the rough edges. Imagine a report where the most critical issues in pharma are reluctant doctors, difficulty measuring ROI of drugs, and the criteria for the quality of drugs being solely dependent on whether users take them correctly.Well, no such pharma report exists (the opposite is true - pharma is put under a microscope and excoriated harshly by the government, media, activist groups, etc. for even the slightest &quot;deviation&quot;), but in Health IT, it is a different matter.In the milquetoast May 2008 report &quot;Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology&quot; (PDF), the Congressional Budget Office essentially whitewashes the downsides and difficulties of Health IT. All of the potential (and largely unrealized) bene...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1522012</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1522012</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Situation of Medical Research</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1522553&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F06%2F15%2Fthe-situation-of-medical-research%2F</link>
            <description>Gardiner Harris and Benedict Carey wrote an article in last week&amp;#8217;s New York Times includes, titled “Researchers Fail to Reveal Full Drug Pay.“ In it , they describe yet another instance of industry influence over what research and manipulation of the marketplace of ideas. We’ve included a few excerpts from the story below.
* * *
A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given Congressional investigators.
By failing to report income, the psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Biederman, and a colleague in the psych...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1522553</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:01:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1522553</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Royal Pharmaceutical Society defends quackery</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1494744&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D233</link>
            <description>We have often had cause to criticise Boots Alliance, the biggest retail  pharmacist in the UK, because of its deeply unethical approach to junk medicine.  Click here to read the shameful litany. The problem of Boots was raised recently also by Edzard Ernst at the Hay [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1494744</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:35:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1494744</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Boots zapped by Advertising Standards Authority</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1446636&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D232</link>
            <description>After writing the recent post Boots reaches new level of dishonesty with CoQ10 promotion, I sent a complaint about the dishonesty of the advertisements to the Advertising Standards Authority. I got a surprsingly fast response. On April 22 I got

&amp;#8220;it appears you have a valid point and, with a view to acting quickly, have [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1446636</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 12:11:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1446636</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Quacktitioner Royal gets a drubbing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1387089&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D228</link>
            <description>This blog, along with many others, has had plenty to say about the Prince of Wales&amp;#8217; unconstitutional meddling in public affairs. The lovely description, Quacktitioner Royal, was coined by NHS Blog doctor.
The Times published a letter from Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh on April 16th. In their forthcoming book, Trick or Treatment? Alternative [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1387089</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:47:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1387089</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Key Opinion Leaders, Osteoporosis, Vioxx, Psychiatry, Science, and Patients</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1382349&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F272885550%2Fkey-opinion-leaders-osteoporosis-vioxx.html</link>
            <description>Remember Richard Eastell? To summarize briefly, he is a professor at Sheffield University who was lead author on a publication that showed positive results for the osteoporosis drug Actonel. One problem: the data did not actually provide good news for Actonel. In a key graph in the published paper, 40% of patient data was missing. Now that's an interesting form of science: Just eliminate the pesky 40% of the data that don't go along with your hypothesis and POOF!, you get exactly the results you are looking for. An excellent writeup of the situation can be seen in Jennifer Washburn's excellent piece in Slate. Making the plot more interesting, Eastell did not have the raw data; Procter &amp; Gamble's (Actonel's sponsor) statisticians were in charge of the analysis. Hence the missing 40% of ...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1382349</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1382349</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The debasement of science by an &quot;academia-industrial complex&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1379372&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F04%2Fdebasement-of-science-by-academia.html</link>
            <description>From Bloomberg in &quot;Merck Masked Vioxx Risk, Hired Study Ghostwriters&quot;:Jim Fitzpatrick, an attorney with Hughes, Hubbard and Reed who helped represent Merck in its Vioxx litigation, said all authors on Merck studies had input on them. It is part of the scientific process to list authors with varying degrees of involvement, he said in a telephone interview. ``Merck's expectation is if a scientist is an author on a paper, then he or she agrees with the paper, has had the opportunity to comment and make revisions,'' Fitzpatrick said. ``I think it does give the paper more credibility if there is a respected outside author that has reviewed and edited the content of the paper.'' If those are Merck's &quot;expectations&quot; for authorship, then Merck science seems seriously troubled, indeed.This seems typ...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1379372</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:13:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1379372</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Key Opinion Leader Is Unfairly Disparaged</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1363710&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F267706581%2Fkey-opinion-leader-is-unfairly.html</link>
            <description>Or so she said. I've written about key opinion leader, University of Cincinnati child psychiatrist Melissa DelBello a few times (here, here, and here). One key point was she was quoted as saying &quot;Trust me. I don't make much&quot; in regards to income received from AstraZeneca for giving favorable talks for its antipsychotic drug Seroquel. I had missed that in 2007, she claimed she was misquoted in an interesting piece on Inside Higher Ed:  [University of Cincinnati spokesperspon] Puff said that DelBello’s comment in May that she did not “make much” money from drug companies had actually come in response to the reporter’s question “about how much money she was given for making a single, individual presentation. Her comment was misrepresented and then repeated by Sen. Grassley.” Added...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1363710</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:01:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1363710</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>In-human resources, science and pizza</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1362540&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D226</link>
            <description>This is a fuller version, with links, of the comment piece published in Times Higher Education on 10 April 2008.
 If you still have any doubt about the problems of directed research, look at the trenchant editorial in Nature (3 April, 2008.  Look also at the editorial in Science by Bruce [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1362540</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:50:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1362540</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Zyprexa and Key Opinion Leaders</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1311030&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F253643409%2Fzyprexa-and-key-opinion-leaders.html</link>
            <description>Since the Zyprexa trial is ongoing in Alaska, I thought I should return to the wonderful world of Zyprexa. I encourage readers to follow the Zyprexa coverage at Furious Seasons, Pharmalot, and PharmaGossip. Today, I will discuss the link between key opinion leaders and the marketing of Zyprexa. To preface, a coveted Golden Goblet Nomination could be handed out to several individuals based on their involvement in Zyprexa marketing...In March 2000, Zyprexa received FDA approval for treatment of manic episodes. One document laid out the multipronged marketing maneuvers that Lilly utilized to move Zyprexa shortly after its approval. Some of the details of this document have been well-covered in a terrific piece of investigative journalism at Furious Seasons. This post will provide some coverag...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1311030</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:46:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1311030</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Boots reaches new level of dishonesty with CoQ10 promotion</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1300847&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D223</link>
            <description>Boots the Chemists have proved themselves dishonest before, over their promotion of homeopathy and of B Vitamins &amp;#8220;for vitality&amp;#8221;
In a press release dated 12 March 2008, they have hit a new low in ethical standards



Boots help boost the nation’s energy levels in just one week
&amp;#8220;Health and beauty expert Boots has launched an exclusive energising vitamin [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1300847</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:01:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1300847</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nutriprofile: useful aid or sales scam?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1288700&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D221</link>
            <description>We are all interested in the relationship between our health and what we eat. What a pity that so little is known about it.
 
The problem, of course, is that it almost impossible to do randomised experiments, and quite impossible in most cases to make the experiments blind. Without randomisation there is no [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1288700</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:38:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1288700</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>&quot;Healthcare IT Difficulty&quot; site banned by Google after their push into EMR provider?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1251731&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fhealthcare-it-difficulty-site-banned-by.html</link>
            <description>Over the past ~1 year I've noted a curious Google phenomenon. The recent news release &quot;Google Wants Your Medical Records&quot; has raised some related questions for me. My observations raise an interesting information science issue at the intersection of ethics, medicine and the power potentially represented by corporate control of search engine query behavior. At the 2006 American Medical Informatics Association meeting I presented a poster &quot;Access Patterns to a Website on Healthcare IT Failure&quot; (Abstract [pdf], Poster [ppt]). Access patterns to my web site on common health IT difficulties over five months were tracked and analyzed via IP and referrer. At that time, many of the site views came from Google searches on terms such as &quot;healthcare IT difficulty&quot;, &quot;hospital computing failure&quot; and re...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1251731</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:18:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1251731</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Quackademics in USA and Canada</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1238293&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D219</link>
            <description>This is the third post based on a recent trip to North America (here are the first and second)
One aspect of the endarkenment, the Wal-Mart model of a university, is very much the same in the US as in the UK. At one US university, an excellent scientist offered the theory that an alien spacecraft [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1238293</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:36:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1238293</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Healthcare scandal-of-the-week:  Merck settles Medicaid lawsuits</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1217907&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F02%2Fmerck-settles-medicaid-lawsuits-but.html</link>
            <description>They come fast and furious.It was with sadness that I saw this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today:       Posted on Fri, Feb. 8, 2008   Merck settles Medicaid lawsuitsIt will pay $671 million in alleged overcharging.By Karl Stark, Inquirer Staff WriterMerck &amp; Co. Inc. agreed yesterday to pay $671 million to settle allegations that it overcharged the Medicaid program and gave doctors junkets, dinners and other inducements to promote three of its drugs.The payments stem from two settlements, announced yesterday by U.S. attorneys in Philadelphia and New Orleans, that together show Merck executives' offering low prices to hospitals to induce them to use its drugs heavily, and then failing to acknowledge those low prices to Medicaid, the health program for the poor, as required by la...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1217907</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:16:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1217907</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Food for the Brain: Child Survey. A proper job?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1220900&amp;cid=t_113971_97_f&amp;fid=36415&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D218</link>
            <description>A great deal has been written about media &amp;#8216;nutritionist&amp;#8217;, Patrick Holford. He&amp;#8217;s the chap who thinks that chromium and cinnamon can treat diabetes (watch the video), among other odd beliefs. For all the details, check badscience.net, holfordwatch and here.
For a quick symopsis, look at Holfordmyths.org.
Patrick Holford and Drew Fobbester are joint researchers and [...] (Source: DC's Improbable Science)</description>
            <author>DC's Improbable Science</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1220900</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:41:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1220900</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Zetia, Paxil, Medical Journals, Fraud, Etc,</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1146313&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F215012689%2Five-been-busy-wiping-up-tears-after.html</link>
            <description>I've been busy wiping up tears after the Frontline episode on medicating children with a wide variety of psychiatric medicines. Well worth watching. There are many thoughtful comments over at Furious Seasons. Feel free to add your voice. I may post on some of the highlights and lowlights of the Frontline piece later. Suffice for now to say that it sure is depressing that the media keeps up the dunce journalism of linking decreased SSRI prescriptions to an increase in suicide as if this was some sort of reliable finding. Please read my earlier posts (1, 2) for details on this constantly repeated yet incorrect interpretation of events.Here are a few other posts worth reading:Is &quot;symptom remission&quot; a realistic or even desirable goal when treating depression? A very interesting battle of lette...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1146313</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:32:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1146313</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Homeopaths show Arsenic 45x is indistinguishable from water</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1122598&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D213</link>
            <description>Happy new year. not least to the folks at the homeopathy4health site .  They are jubilant about a &amp;#8220;proof&amp;#8221; that homeopathic dilutions could produce effects. albeit only on wheat seedlings. But guess what? After some questioning it was found that they hadn&amp;#8217;t actually read the paper. Well I have read it, and this is the [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1122598</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:21:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1122598</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Morals in high places: leadership from Anderson and Chisholm.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1116862&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D212</link>
            <description>We here a lot about leadership these days. It has become one of the favourite buzzwords of those who do neither research not teaching. Quite what it means is never clear, but one thing it should include is setting a good example in ethical behaviour. So what&amp;#8217;s going wrong?
We&amp;#8217;ve seen the case [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1116862</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:17:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1116862</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why honey isn’t a wonder cure: more academic spin</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1075309&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D209</link>
            <description>The press releases (STOP PRESS)

Uhuh, here we go again.
All over the media we see headlines like &amp;#8220;Honey &amp;#8216;beats cough medicine&amp;#8217; &amp;#8220;.
Take for example, the Daily Telegraph, where Ben Farmer writes &amp;#8220;Honey is better at treating children&amp;#8217;s coughs than an ingredient used in many over-the-counter medicines, according to new research&amp;#8221;. That is NOT what the [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1075309</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:40:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1075309</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why honey isn’t a wonder cure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1070455&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D209</link>
            <description>Uhuh, here we go again.
All over the media we see headlines like &amp;#8220;Honey &amp;#8216;beats cough medicine&amp;#8217; &amp;#8220;.
Even the normally reliable James Randerson in the Guardian fell for it. But this is what the research paper itself says (DM refers to the standard &amp;#8216;cough suppressant&amp;#8217; dextromethorphan, which is already known to be ineffective).



&amp;#8220;honey was significantly superior [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1070455</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:47:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1070455</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why honey isn’t a wonder cough cure: more academic spin</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1090750&amp;cid=t_113971_97_f&amp;fid=36415&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D209</link>
            <description>The press releases (STOP PRESS)

Uhuh, here we go again.
All over the media we see headlines like &amp;#8220;Honey &amp;#8216;beats cough medicine&amp;#8217; &amp;#8220;.
Take for example, the Daily Telegraph, where Ben Farmer writes &amp;#8220;Honey is better at treating children&amp;#8217;s coughs than an ingredient used in many over-the-counter medicines, according to new research&amp;#8221;. That is NOT what the [...] (Source: DC's Improbable Science)</description>
            <author>DC's Improbable Science</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1090750</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:43:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1090750</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should there be more alternative research?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1040378&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D202</link>
            <description>Here is an interchange of letters from the BMJ.  George Lewith says more money should be spent by the government on research on alternative medicine.  Well, only if it is spent properly, and that is not what has happened in the past.
In all probability spent in this way would be [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1040378</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:45:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1040378</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Attention mes amis! Homeopathic emergency in France!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1018990&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D196</link>
            <description>Thanks to a correspondent for alerting me to a medical emergency in France.
You can read the press release here, from Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé (AFSSAPS, the French equivalent of the MHRA or FDA). 




Withdrawal of batches of Gingko biloba and Equisetum arvense
AFSSAPS has been informed by Laboratoires Boiron of an [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1018990</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:19:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1018990</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On sham consultations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1018991&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D195</link>
            <description>No longer are we just told what to do from the top. Important decisions are preceded by a long period of consultation.  That is a wonderful contribution to democracy. Sometimes.  But in truth, these consultations are only too often totally sham public relations exercises.  Here are a couple [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1018991</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:00:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1018991</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A conversation with a ghost writer</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1012611&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D194</link>
            <description>This may seem very odd to people outside the biosciences area, but in recent years a business has grown up that will write a paper for you, on the basis of data supplied by a pharmaceutical company. The person who actually did the writing will usually not appear as an author at all [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1012611</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:33:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1012611</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Universities Inc. in the UK</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1009694&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D193</link>
            <description>The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education: part 2.




Scientists are no longer perceived exclusively as guardians of objective truth, but also as smart promoters of their own interests in a media-driven marketplace. Haerlin &amp;#38; Parr, Nature, 1999, 400, 499.



This is a continuation of the previous post on Universities Inc, but with two examples from the UK.
University [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1009694</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:21:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1009694</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Universities Inc. in the USA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1010770&amp;cid=t_113971_97_f&amp;fid=36415&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D192</link>
            <description>The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education: part 1
The next post is about examples from the UK.







Academic biologists and corporate researchers have become indistinguishable, and special awards are now given for collaborations between these two sectors for behavior that used to be cited as a conflict of interest.
Richard Strohman, 1999.






Every academic, and especially every university administrator, [...] (Source: DC's Improbable Science)</description>
            <author>DC's Improbable Science</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1010770</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:39:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1010770</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Universities Inc. in USA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1007821&amp;cid=t_113971_90_f&amp;fid=36413&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdcscience.net%2F%3Fp%3D192</link>
            <description>The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education







Academic biologists and corporate researchers have become indistinguishable, and special awards are now given for collaborations between these two sectors for behavior that used to be cited as a conflict of interest.
Richard Strohman, 1999.






Every academic, and especially every university administrator, should read this book. Although it is entirely about the [...] (Source: DC's goodscience)</description>
            <author>DC's goodscience</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1007821</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:39:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1007821</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Uh-Oh Chuck, What About the Disclosure? OR Go Team MAOI!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=835436&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F150536709%2Fuh-oh-chuck-what-about-disclosure-or-go.html</link>
            <description>Introduction: As longtime readers can surmise from the headline, this post is about Dr. Charles Nemeroff. And the Dalai Lama. Let's start from the beginning. Nemeroff was featured in a CME activity on Medscape. To view it, you'll need to complete a free registration at Medscape. For those new to the wonderful world of CME, note that while CME stands for continuing medical education, it is more accurate to refer to it as commercial medical education -- it's paid advertising, dare I say cheerleading. It is rather disheartening that physicians who wish to keep their licenses must sit through a bunch of advertisements as opposed to less biased, more educational forms of training. For more on CME in general, read my earlier posts here and here, or check out Daniel Carlat's excellent work (1, 2,...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=835436</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:26:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">835436</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>House passes bill on drug safety: Senate version kinder to drugmakers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=735516&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34867&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediabetesblog.com%2F2007%2F07%2F15%2Fhouse-passes-bill-on-drug-safety-senate-version-kinder-to-drugm%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Adult Onset, Drugs, Daily NewsComplaints of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) abound lately, especially after the Vioxx and Avandia scares. In response to criticism of FDA's handling of serious side effects emerging after problem drugs hit the market, the U.S. House of Representatives voted last Wednesday to give the agency more power over drugmakers.
Passing 403-16, the legislation allows the FDA to require post-approval studies of new prescription drugs or order additional warnings. Drugmakers don't always listen, so the new law allows the FDA to levy heavier fines. $50 million for companies failng to follow FDA directives, and a potential $250,000 fine for misleading/false consumer advertising. I am always amazed when the television voiceover speedily r...</description>
            <author>The Diabetes Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=735516</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">735516</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Selling an Organization</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=675341&amp;cid=t_113971_109_f&amp;fid=34800&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FClinicalPsychologyAndPsychiatryACloserLook%2F%7E3%2F124205314%2Fselling-organization.html</link>
            <description>Bob Fiddaman has an interesting post about the Obesity Society and its ties to GlaxoSmithKline, maker of the weight loss pill Alli. Yes, the Alli of I Pooped My Pants fame.Bob noted that, in the new video promoting Alli, it is mentioned that a portion of sales of a new book that discusses weight loss will be donated to the Obesity Society. Bob connects the dots by noting that the Obesity Society needed funding, GSK provides some funding for the Obesity Society, and that GSK was about to launch a diet pill (Alli).   I also noticed that, on the Obesity Society's website, it is stated thatOn February 7th, the Food and Drug Administration approved Alli, an over-the-counter version of orlistat (trade name Xenical). Alli, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, will be available in June. It is a 60mg v...</description>
            <author>Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=675341</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:05:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">675341</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Drugs, Demagogues and the Irregular Verb Theory</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=556863&amp;cid=t_113971_87_f&amp;fid=34882&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fbreathspakids.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F04%2Fdrugs-demagogues-and-irregular-verb.html</link>
            <description>Val McDermid is associated with one of the pithiest versions of the irregular verb theory: I am diplomaticYou are tactfulHe/she is a liarAnother, more controversial version, is: I am a patriotYou are a nationalistHe/she is a terroristOr, given some of the recent discussions about the funding source of various studies and publications: I have an impeccable moral compassYou have a conflict of interestHe/she is a pharma/industrial complex shillDr. Stossel has written a piece that asserts his confidence in his own moral barometer in the Boston Globe: Drugs and demagogues. It's well worth reading if you enjoy classical references (which I do) but quite maddening if you were hoping for guidance on how impeccable moral barometers can prevent acknowledged problems such as the disproportionately po...</description>
            <author>Breath Spa for Kids</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=556863</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:03:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">556863</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

