Wall Street Journal <\/strong>
By Jacob Goldstein
August 20, 2009 <\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
![](\"http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/media\/casper_CV_20090820124118.jpg\")
Drug makers have been taking heat for a while now over ghostwritten articles in medical journals. Basically, there have been instances where drug companies went out and found doctors willing to put their names on articles that the company paid someone else to write or make significant contributions to.<\/p>\n
- \n
Offered to help doctors publish articles on drug<\/em>
Boston.com [Associated Press] <\/strong>
By Matthew Perrone
August 20, 2009<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
The Public Record<\/strong>
By Evelyn Pringle
March 3rd, 2010<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"Dr.](\"http:\/\/www.harvardsquarelibrary.org\/HarvardPressBooks\/history_images\/science\/healy.jpg\" "\\"Dr.")
<\/p>\nWikipedia
[on-line encyclopedia] <\/div>\n
by Bruce Charlton
October 2001<\/div>\n
by David Healy
[personal website] <\/div>\n<\/ul>\n
I learned about the new drugs, and found that the SSRI’s were effective in controlling depressive and obsessive compulsive symptoms in certain cases, and so I prescribed them, but my main work was as a psychotherapist and psychoanalyst. I personally thought that the "Biological Wave" was something of a fad that would pass in time – finding its appropriate place. But then I began to realize, along with lots of other colleagues, that the "Biological Wave" was more than a fad, it had a motor<\/u> – the Pharmaceutical Industry looking for profit. I resented the intrusion of Drug Companies into the practice of Psychiatry and into academic medicine – the place where practitioners looked for guidance. As time went on, I further learned that the intrusion had reached criminal<\/u> proportions with university physicians in on the the game. That is absolutely infuriating! And a lot of it was centered at my University [Emory], in my town [Atlanta, Georgia], where I practiced – so I’m hardly unbiased in this matter. That is my own conflict of interest statement in toto<\/em>.<\/p>\n The more I read these stories, the more it just seems like a racket, the stuff of flim-flam men and bilko artists. The newer drugs are real – they aren’t snake oil or magic bracelets. But they’re certainly not all there is to treating mental illness. And they are potentially dangerous. We physicians have a covenant with our patients to do no harm in our efforts to help them. And these distortions and manipulations of scientific information directly impede our ability to keep that bargain. It’s a practical matter. There was a time when books like Nemeroff and Schatzberg’s Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care<\/font><\/strong> would have kept us abreast of advances and dangers of newer medications. But not so much any more. If that book had said "Commissioned by the makers of Paxil," I would’ve known how to read it [or not read it]. But it didn’t say that. This kind of thing has become way too common and made us appropriately suspicious of our own literature. Industry financed ghost-writing has regularly found its way into our best journals. <\/p>\n\n
\n
NewYork Times<\/strong>
By DUFF WILSON
November 29, 2010<\/div>\n
The Brown Daily Herald<\/strong>
By Sarah Mancone
December 3, 2010<\/div>\n
Stanford Daily<\/strong>
by Elizabeth Titus
December 4, 2010<\/div>\n