{"id":37547,"date":"2013-06-16T07:14:57","date_gmt":"2013-06-16T11:14:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=37547"},"modified":"2013-07-04T09:19:53","modified_gmt":"2013-07-04T13:19:53","slug":"as-it-should-be-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2013\/06\/16\/as-it-should-be-3\/","title":{"rendered":"as it should be&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div align=\"justify\">Last summer, the raw data for Paxil Study 329 appeared on the GSK web site. I had a go at analyzing it armed with Excel and 30+ year old memories of rudimentary statistics, but I got far enough to feel confident that what we&#8217;ve thought all along was, in fact, true. This study did not show Paxil to be efficacious in adolescent depression, and the adverse effects were way under-reported in the original article. I forwarded my findings [below] to the AACAP ethics committee, the incoming president, and the editor of the JAACAP as did others, but no action was taken. The fact that it was ghost-written, did not meet its primary outcomes, was deceitfully presented, reached erroneous conclusions, and has been universally villified were apparently insufficient reasons for retracting the article. Here&#8217;s my earlier series about Paxil Study 329: <\/p>\n<ul><sup><strong> <\/p>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/21\/a-movement\/\/\" target=\"_blank\">a \tmovement&hellip; \t<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/22\/to-make-distortion-possible\/\" target=\"_blank\">to \tmake distortion possible&hellip;\t<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/24\/the-lesson-of-study-329-the-basics\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: the basics&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/25\/the-lesson-of-study-329-efficacy-drift-to-trends-and-2s\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: efficacy drift to trends \tand 2&deg;s&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/26\/the-lesson-of-study-329-conventions-and-protocols\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: conventions and protocols&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/27\/the-lesson-of-study-329-clues-and-adversities\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: clues and adversities&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/29\/the-lesson-of-study-329-uh-oh\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: uh-oh!&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/29\/the-lesson-of-study-329-data-transparency\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: data transparency&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/08\/30\/the-lesson-of-study-329-the-authors\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: the authors&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/09\/02\/the-lesson-of-study-329-the-hurdles\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: the hurdles&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/09\/04\/the-lesson-of-study-329-naked-emperors-fractious-queens\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: naked Emperors, fractious Queens&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/09\/06\/the-lesson-of-study-329-were-only-as-sick-as-our-secrets\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tlesson of Study 329: &ldquo;we&rsquo;re only as sick as our secrets&rdquo;&hellip;<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"JUSTIFY\"><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/09\/08\/the-lesson-of-study-329-epilogue\/\" target=\"_blank\">the \tfinal lesson of Study 329: epilogue&hellip;  \t<\/a><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<p> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>         <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><\/sup><\/ul>\n<p> The  <strong><font color=\"#200020\">RIAT<\/font><\/strong> [Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials] proposal published last week in the British Journal of Psychiatry [<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2013\/06\/13\/a-bold-remedy\/\">&ldquo;a bold remedy&rdquo;&hellip;<\/a>, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2013\/06\/14\/the-talk-of-the-town\/\">the talk of the town&hellip;<\/a>] suggests that studies like this one that have been discredited but not retracted should be republished from the raw data analyzed by neutral investigators. They call it &quot;restorative publication.&quot; In the article by Doshi et al [<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.bmj.com\/cgi\/doi\/10.1136\/bmj.f2865\">Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings<\/a>], there is a table of the clinical trials where their group already has the data available to reanalyze, and Paxil Study 329 is on that list. <\/div>\n<p>        <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">The time for listing the reasons this Paxil Study needs to be retracted from our literature has long passed, as has speculation about why it hasn&#8217;t been. It simply stands as an anachronistic monument to a reckless and embarrassing time. In my last post [<a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2013\/06\/15\/wordplay\/\" target=\"_blank\">wordplay&hellip;<\/a>] about the meanings of the words <em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">academic<\/font><\/strong><\/em> and <em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">scholarly<\/font><\/strong><\/em>, I said:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>I was watching a <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/youtu.be\/_0ffzsrDkSQ\">youtube video<\/a> of a BBC Panorama program about Paxil Study 329. They interviewed Dr. Mina Dulcan, the editor of the <u><font color=\"#200020\">Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry<\/font><\/u>  who had accepted the study over the objections of the peer reviewers.  She first talked about the Journal&rsquo;s classy ranking [@13:57]. Then, when  asked if she had any regrets about publishing it [@14:58], she said, <font color=\"#660033\">&quot;Oh  I don&rsquo;t have any regrets about publishing at all. It generated all  sorts of useful discussion, which is the purpose of a scholarly journal.&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">I should have included what Dr. Dulcan said about the Journal itself&#8230;<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong><font color=\"#660033\">&quot;We rank &#8211; and this is a world-wide ranking &#8211; we rank number one in child mental health and number two in pediatrics.&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"> &#8230;as if that were relevant. Dr. Dulcan&#8217;s playing the prestige card is exemplary of the whole problem with these industry-manipulated studies that pepper our literature. The perpetrators, industry and authors, have used the time honored prestige of the sponsoring academic institutions to certify deceitful science &#8211; Joseph Biederman at Harvard, Martin Keller at Brown, Alan Schatzberg at Stanford, Charlie Nemeroff at Emory, Mina Dulcan at the&nbsp;Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The list is shamefully long. <\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">No journal editor or sponsoring organization, no matter how prestigious,  should have the power to  decide to leave something like this article  reporting Paxil Study 329 that has been so thoroughly discredited in the  scientific  literature unchallenged, <em>in perpetuity<\/em>. No academic scholars who understood the responsibility of their respected positions would. But that&#8217;s exactly what has happened. So unless someone in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry comes to their senses and finally retracts the 2001 article [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&#038;rct=j&#038;q=efficacy%20of%20paroxetine%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20adolescent%20major%20depression%3A%20a%20randomized%2C%20controlled%20trial&#038;source=web&#038;cd=3&#038;ved=0CGAQFjAC&#038;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthyskepticism.org%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2Fgsk%2Fparoxetine%2Fstudy329%2Ffirsttofinaldraft.doc&#038;ei=N-72T8bPDIj49QTa3dWFBw&#038;usg=AFQjCNGuACdOnfkYuwvIqTlWlnN1noSo2Q&#038;cad=rja\" target=\"_blank\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Efficacy of Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Trial<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>], I would predict that Paxil Study 329 will be the very first candidate for the proposed &quot;restorative publication.&quot;<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">That is as it should be&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last summer, the raw data for Paxil Study 329 appeared on the GSK web site. I had a go at analyzing it armed with Excel and 30+ year old memories of rudimentary statistics, but I got far enough to feel confident that what we&#8217;ve thought all along was, in fact, true. This study did not [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37547"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42368,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37547\/revisions\/42368"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}