Let public see doctors’ ties to drug companies

November 3, 2008

I just sent this letter to Rubin:

Dr. Rubin:

I find it inappropriate for you to defend Dr. Nemeroff or to contend

that there is a war on pharmaceuticals. That Dr. Nemeroff has taken

money from numerous pharmaceutical companies does nothing to obviate

the damage he has caused to the public .by his accepting payment to

promote damaging and ineffective psychiatric treatments. Dr. Nemeroff

has been at the center of considerable controversy, for repeatedly

failing to disclose his extensive commercial ties to companies whose

products he reviewed favorably in journal publications. As a board

certified psychiatrist I am appalled at this doctor's bogus

recommendations such as the unproven vagal nerve stimulator and

promotion of Paxil - undeniably the most toxic and damaging of all

antidepressants. As a psychiatrist who is knowledgeable about the

publication of scientific articles, it is more likely than not that

his resume is loaded with articles that were actually written by the

marketing limb of the drug companies, to which he is all to happy to

attach his name and pad his resume. To assert that he is somehow

unbiased because he takes money from everyone is silly. So, my

question to you is this: who is paying you off?

Stuart Shipko, M.D.

Pasadena, CA

>

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/11/03/restucciaed_1103_3\

DOT.html

> Let public see doctors' ties to drug companies

> By ROBERT RESTUCCIA

>

> Monday, November 03, 2008

>

> What is the appropriate relationship between the medical profession

and the drug industry? Last month, Dr. Nemeroff stepped down

as chair of Emory University's psychiatry department after a Senate

investigation exposed his failure to report hundreds of thousands of

dollars in industry consulting and speaking fees, including payments

from Glaxo-

>

> Kline, whose drug he was also studying using taxpayer dollars

from the National Institutes of Health.

>

> Last week in this newspaper, Emory economist Rubin defended

Nemeroff and accused Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who led the

investigation, of leading a " war on pharmaceuticals " ( " If politician's

war on drugs continues, " @issue, Oct. 28). Rubin argues that

Nemeroff's presence on 21 pharmaceutical payrolls is evidence that he

is conflict-free, for how could he possibly favor the product of one

company over the other 20? It's a fallacy of the first order.

>

> Physician-researchers play an important role in evaluating new

drugs. But many physicians are also involved in helping the industry

market its products. NIH guidelines do not prevent collaboration with

industry (as Rubin suggests), but they do require that financial

interests of more than $10,000 a year be reported and that conflicts

of interest be managed so that publicly-funded science is not colored

by industry support. Documents released by Grassley suggest that

Nemeroff misled university officials about the extent of his financial

relationships.

>

> Nemeroff is in a group of influential doctors the industry refers to

as " thought leaders, " prominent researchers that drug companies use to

help promote their products among other physicians. A copious body of

research over the past 20 years shows the link between industry

marketing and physician prescribing.

>

> The success of that marketing is at least part of the reason that

U.S. doctors are so quick to adopt new and often unproven drugs. Yet

news headlines warn us that new drugs — Vioxx, Paxil, Avandia, Vytorin

— aren't necessarily better drugs. In fact, the Food and Drug

Administration's own numbers show that in a recent five-year period,

only 14 percent of drugs approved represented true therapeutic advances.

>

> This is why there is a clear public interest in understanding the

financial ties between physicians and drug companies. If disclosure of

those ties discourages one physician from accepting NIH funding, there

is no shortage of other highly qualified researchers who will step in

to take his or her place.

>

> Grassley understands that innovation does not stand at odds with

transparency; it is strengthened by it. That's why he and Sen. Herb

Kohl (D-Wis.) have introduced the Physician Payments Sunshine Act,

which would require drug and medical device companies to disclose all

payments to physicians on a publicly accessible Web site, a critical

step toward better, safer, more transparent medicine that Congress

should pass in 2009. Patients are certainly better off for Congress's

recent efforts to shed light on conflicts of interest in medicine.

>

> • Restuccia is executive director of the Prescription

Project, a national initiative created with The Pew Charitable Trusts

and led by Community Catalyst to ensure safe and effective drugs for

consumers.

>

November 3, 2008

From: Rubin <paul.rubin@...>

Stuart Shipko, M.D. <shipko@...>

Subject: Re: war on pharmaceuticals

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 23:31:57 -0500

Sorry, but no one paid me. As a psychiatrist, maybe you can explain

why some feel that anyone who disagrees with them must be paid off.

Not anyone who disagrees, just the people who would defend a person

like Dr. Nemeroff who has done such a disservice to the public. I

truly do believe you have another agenda. Your sarcasm is unwarranted

when you consider that Dr. Nemeroff's paid agenda has literally killed

many people. You really need to educate yourself on these issues

before making public statements of this nature.

> >

>

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/11/03/restucciaed_1103_3\

DOT.html

> > Let public see doctors' ties to drug companies

> > By ROBERT RESTUCCIA

> >

> > Monday, November 03, 2008

> >

> > What is the appropriate relationship between the medical profession

> and the drug industry? Last month, Dr. Nemeroff stepped down

> as chair of Emory University's psychiatry department after a Senate

> investigation exposed his failure to report hundreds of thousands of

> dollars in industry consulting and speaking fees, including payments

> from Glaxo-

> >

> > Kline, whose drug he was also studying using taxpayer dollars

> from the National Institutes of Health.

> >

> > Last week in this newspaper, Emory economist Rubin defended

> Nemeroff and accused Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who led the

> investigation, of leading a " war on pharmaceuticals " ( " If politician's

> war on drugs continues, " @issue, Oct. 28). Rubin argues that

> Nemeroff's presence on 21 pharmaceutical payrolls is evidence that he

> is conflict-free, for how could he possibly favor the product of one

> company over the other 20? It's a fallacy of the first order.

> >

> > Physician-researchers play an important role in evaluating new

> drugs. But many physicians are also involved in helping the industry

> market its products. NIH guidelines do not prevent collaboration with

> industry (as Rubin suggests), but they do require that financial

> interests of more than $10,000 a year be reported and that conflicts

> of interest be managed so that publicly-funded science is not colored

> by industry support. Documents released by Grassley suggest that

> Nemeroff misled university officials about the extent of his financial

> relationships.

> >

> > Nemeroff is in a group of influential doctors the industry refers to

> as " thought leaders, " prominent researchers that drug companies use to

> help promote their products among other physicians. A copious body of

> research over the past 20 years shows the link between industry

> marketing and physician prescribing.

> >

> > The success of that marketing is at least part of the reason that

> U.S. doctors are so quick to adopt new and often unproven drugs. Yet

> news headlines warn us that new drugs — Vioxx, Paxil, Avandia, Vytorin

> — aren't necessarily better drugs. In fact, the Food and Drug

> Administration's own numbers show that in a recent five-year period,

> only 14 percent of drugs approved represented true therapeutic advances.

> >

> > This is why there is a clear public interest in understanding the

> financial ties between physicians and drug companies. If disclosure of

> those ties discourages one physician from accepting NIH funding, there

> is no shortage of other highly qualified researchers who will step in

> to take his or her place.

> >

> > Grassley understands that innovation does not stand at odds with

> transparency; it is strengthened by it. That's why he and Sen. Herb

> Kohl (D-Wis.) have introduced the Physician Payments Sunshine Act,

> which would require drug and medical device companies to disclose all

> payments to physicians on a publicly accessible Web site, a critical

> step toward better, safer, more transparent medicine that Congress

> should pass in 2009. Patients are certainly better off for Congress's

> recent efforts to shed light on conflicts of interest in medicine.

> >

> > • Restuccia is executive director of the Prescription

> Project, a national initiative created with The Pew Charitable Trusts

> and led by Community Catalyst to ensure safe and effective drugs for

> consumers.

> >

>

November 3, 2008