Blumsohn, History, and Fire

Wow. I noted yesterday in a History (and Future) Lesson that Aubrey Blumsohn posted a list of scientific misconduct related goodies that occurred on various years on October 8th. Proving that October 8th was not an anomaly, he's now posted a list of scientific misconduct related events that have occurred on October 9th over the years.

His posts from the last two days are mandatory reading. In fact, I declare that the Scientific Misconduct Blog is ON FIRE! Today, I will post nothing more so that you can run to the Scientific Misconduct Blog and read the excellent posts noted above.

A History (And Future) Lesson

When science, industry, and government collide, the results are often less than pretty. Aubrey Blumsohn gives a glance into several episodes, all of which apparently related to the date October 8 in various years. Either October 8 is a very bad day, or these incidents occur with regularity on many other days of the year as well. I strongly suggest (nay, I insist), that you educate yourselves over at the Scientific Misconduct Blog.

When done, feel free to head over to Furious Seasons and get a reminder about how the "patient advocate group" known as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill touted the second generation antipsychotics as life-saving. That's all fine and dandy, until one notes there is no data that schizophrenia outcomes have improved by a single iota since these drugs were foisted upon the public.

But don't worry, these miracle antipsychotic drugs are now prescribed for bipolar disorder, Mega-Watered Down Bipolar Disorder, autism, depression, and whatever else you can imagine. So, the gap in lifespan between people with schizophrenia and the rest of us continues to increase, yet these drugs are still pimped as a huge improvement over older treatments.

My Guaranteed Prediction: And when the next bandwagon of psychiatric treatments comes out, count on them to be touted as safer and more effective than the drugs that they are replacing. The same companies that are currently pushing atypical antipsychotics will eventually push other antipsychotic drugs and will then denigrate the very same treatments they now claim are life saving. NAMI and others that claim to advocate for patients will state uequivocally that the new treatments save lives and make the world a better place. The old treatments may even be labeled as causing dependence, which of course will not be true of the newer treatments.

Of course, at the anemic rate which psychiatric drugs are being developed these days, it may be a few years before the prior paragraph comes true, but come true it will. Mark my words. I have no special powers of prediction -- all one needs to do is notice a pattern and note that there are currently no real obstacles (beside having very few drugs in the pipleine) to the current script being replayed over and over again.

If you think the media or a clinical trial registry are going to fix things, consider yourself a sunny optimist.

Science and PR Declare Merger

The firms Science and Public Relations will officially merge today. As Science has exponentially increased its contracts with Public Relations over the past 30 years, this comes as little surprise to investors. It is rumored that Universities will soon end their "independence" to create a megaconglomerate: Science-PR-University Inc.

Billy Tauzin, CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, expressed optimism, saying, "Hey, when Science, PR, and Universities team up on a project, the results can be incredible. When the three firms aligned for the Paxil in Kids campaign, that was amazing. There was obvious synergy that was able to take what was, frankly, a mediocre product, and really slap some lipstick on that pig."

Of what do I speak? In the parallel universe known as reality, Aubrey Blumsohn has detailed what seems to be a rather odious merger of science and public relations. It involves a an "independent" academic researcher, Procter & Gamble, and much more. His post is well worth reading.

Procter & Gamble: Purple Haze

The Procter & Gamble –Aubrey Blumsohnn saga has officially turned into tragicomedy to the 7^th power. As you may know, Blumsohn was performing research for P & G regarding its osteoporosis drug Actonel. To make a long story short, Blumsohn discovered that P & G’s data analysis strongly appeared to differ from reality. When Blumsohn attempted to make such knowledge public, he nearly lost his job. But worry not, the poorly done data analyses resulted in several scientific presentations and a publication in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research that has yet to be retracted. So the official scientific record still seems to paint an unrealistically favorable picture of P & G’s Actonel.

Latest Installment: Dr. Blumsohn has decided to present the results of some of the real data analyses, (i.e., data not, um, creatively analyzed, by Procter & Gamble) so that the scientific and medical communities may become familiar with what appears to be the real story of Actonel rather than the PR currently posing as the official scientific record.

Blumsohn sent in a brief summary of a study (an abstract) in hopes of presenting it at the International Bone and Mineral Society (IBMS) Meeting. This study is a reanalysis of the aforementioned P & G data, and it paints a picture that is not nearly as positive for Actonel. The abstract contains a statement stating: “Study funded by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.” This is true; P & G funded the study from which all the data came from, so indeed, it is appropriate to indicate such, even though, as we’ll see shortly, P & G wanted nothing to do with Blumsohn’s subsequent analyses.

Enter Dr. Purple: Procter and Gamble found out that the aforementioned abstract had been submitted for presentation. A man named Dr. Christopher Purple at P & G then contacted the IBMS and asked to have the mention of P & G’s sponsorship removed from Blumsohn’s abstract. Mind you, Dr. Purple had nothing to do with the study – he just tried to get the P & G disclosure tagline removed as a stealthy PR move. The IBMS people then replied to Dr. Purple that the P & G line would indeed be removed.

Unfortunately for Dr. Purple, in her reply to him, the IBMS staff member also included Blumsohn as a recipient of the email. Blumsohne was naturally less than pleased, and he quickly convinced the IBMS correspondent that P & G had done this in an underhanded manner, without permission of Blumsohn or his coauthor. The P & G disclosure tagline was then re-added to the abstract.

Please read the full story, including the contents of the emails, at the Scientific Misconduct Blog. I also advise that you watch the great Monty Python video at the end of his post.

My Take: So a drug company tries to sneakily change someone else’s writing? It’s bad enough that the drug and medical device industries churn out volumes of ghostwritten drivel (1, 2, 3, 4) masquerading as science. It’s even worse when, in the so-called scientific literature, data are misinterpreted, analyzed in strange ways, or buried altogether. Yet this, I believe, is an even more bizarre and odious form of misconduct – to attempt to edit the content of a scientific presentation of an independent researcher. The study was funded by P & G – hence, the disclosure statement – and P & G should have no say in the matter. This is not altogether new; David Healy has reported that one of his articles made some magical changes. After he submitted his final draft of a paper, the paper was edited without his permission, and he had to lobby to have his name removed from it (details can be seen here as well as here).

Perhaps I’ll email the good Dr. Purple and see if he has an opinion he’d like to share on the matter.

The Ongoing Abuse of the Term Paranoia

In one post, Blumsohn details the claims Blakemore Brown made that were used to label her as “paranoid” by an “expert” witness. More on the “expert” witness to come – suffice to say for now that I hope it does not become standard practice for psychologists to be labeled as “paranoid” by psychiatrists whom they have never met based on the psychiatrists’ interpretation of various documents, most of them emails, regardless of the individual's actual fitness to practice psychology. You can get ahead of the game and read the transcript of the psychiatric testimony at Furious Seasons.

It is interesting that the potential veracity of Blakemore Brown’s claims do not appear to have been examined. If people really are out to get you, then how are you paranoid when you point out that you are in some sort of danger? Mind you, I’m not claiming that paranoia does not exist. I’ve certainly seen paranoia in some people, but just throwing around the term as a political label in order to discredit someone is certainly far from what we should expect from mental health organizations such as the British Psychological Society.

In Blumsohn’s most recent post, he discusses how some researchers seem to have absolutely blown it regarding the prevalence of paranoia. Did you know, for example, that one third of people suffer from “paranoid” fears? Does this seem believable to you? Of course, once someone has been labeled as “paranoid,” then the person can be attacked as “unfit to practice” whatever trade they have learned, as has happened with Lisa Blakemore Brown.

More to come, hopefully soon.

British Psychological Society Panned

The British Psychological Society continues to get kicked around the blogosphere. I am, of course, referring to the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown, who dared to take the "wrong" side on a few controversial issues, such as autism and Munchausen's Syndrome. For some background, see here and especially here and here.

The BPS has essentially put Brown on trial to determine if she is fit to practice psychology due to her alleged "paranoia." The funny thing is, when people are really out to get you (as appears to be likely in Brown's case), shouldn't you be afraid? Shouldn't you watch your back?

The BPS refuses to release any transcripts related to Brown's case and also refused to allow an outside witness (whom Brown gave permission to attend) to sit in on the hearings. As stated on the excellent Scientific Misconduct Blog (which has done easily the best reporting on this topic), secrecy is the last refuse of a scoundrel.

The latest: Aubrey Blumsohn has aptly asked why the BPS insists on investigating the Brown case in so much secrecy, yet seems unconcerned with much larger problems. In his latest post, Blumsohn noted that the BPS appears quite uninterested in dealing with issues related to scientific fraud and is likewise uninterested with how a patient group may be influenced by the drug industry.

I can understand that a psychological organization may play hands off regarding medications, as psychologists do not prescribe medications in the vast majority of places. On the other hand, it would seem that issues pertaining to the drug industry are highly relevant to psychologists' clients, as they quite frequently take psychiatric medications. Aren't psychologists supposed to help clients achieve the best possible outcomes? How is it sensible to allocate resources (time and $$$) to the Brown case while ignoring much larger problems? How is the BPS helping the general population by pursuing a dead-end case based on what appears to be shifty evidence at best while ignoring much larger systemic issues such as scientific misconduct and the pernicious influence of the drug industry?