{"id":45622,"date":"2014-04-16T08:00:58","date_gmt":"2014-04-16T12:00:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=45622"},"modified":"2014-04-16T08:26:54","modified_gmt":"2014-04-16T12:26:54","slug":"reason-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/04\/16\/reason-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"reason enough&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div align=\"justify\">In the comments to [<a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/04\/15\/what-really-matters\/\" target=\"_blank\">what really matters&hellip;<\/a>], <a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/04\/15\/what-really-matters\/#comment-256684\" target=\"_blank\">Dr. Carroll<\/a> mentioned a post on the <em>Danny Carlat Blog<\/em> back in August 2010 about the Dan Markingson case, actually two posts [<a href=\"http:\/\/carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com\/2010\/08\/making-killing-new-carl-elliott-article.html\" target=\"_blank\">&quot;Making a Killing&quot;: New Carl Elliott Article in Mother Jones<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com\/2010\/08\/was-cafe-study-manipulated-by.html\" target=\"_blank\">Was the CAFE study manipulated by AstraZeneca? Maybe Not.<\/a>]. Both of these posts, and particularly the comments to the second give a pretty full version of the story. In an article in the Pioneer Press  in May 2008 [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.twincities.com\/ci_9306735?nclick_check=1\" target=\"_blank\">Patient&#8217;s suicide raises questions<\/a>], the attempt to file a suit against the Institutional Review Board was described as follows:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"> A judge ruled in February that as a state agency, the university and its IRB are immune from the lawsuit. The legal ruling didn&#8217;t allow questions to be explored about  who&#8217;s ultimately responsible for the safety of research subjects and  whether the university did everything reasonable to protect Markingson  from harm. According to the U&#8217;s human subjects protection guide, the IRB&#8217;s  first charge is &quot;to protect human subjects involved in research at the  university from inappropriate risk&quot;&#8230;<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">The lawsuit by Markingson&#8217;s mother, Mary Weiss, alleged that the  IRB&#8217;s trust was misplaced in the so-called CAFE study, led by Dr.  Stephen Olson, a U psychiatrist. A central allegation was whether Olson had too much power over  Markingson, and too many conflicts that obscured his clinical judgment.  Olson recruited Markingson into the study at the same time he served as  Markingson&#8217;s treating doctor and advised a Dakota County judge on  whether Markingson should be committed to a psychiatric hospital.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">Had the IRB followed its own guidelines, it would have discouraged  Olson from recruiting his own patient. The IRB Web site states that  &quot;doctor-patient relationships between the investigator and participants  should be avoided, when possible, to eliminate any power-based  coercion&quot;&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"> While it&#8217;s an obvious point, Dan Markingson&#8217;s suicide was ten years ago. One might ask why people won&#8217;t just let it go &#8211; let the &quot;sleeping dog lie&quot; and move on? The drug companies have run out of tricks and currently aren&#8217;t even looking at the CNS drug market. Why continue to cover this same ground over and over? Dan Markingson&#8217;s suicide? Paxil Study 329? the case of Rebecca Riley? Ghost-writing? Guest authorship? TMAP? the ways that clinical trials have been mispresented? the complicity and\/or collusion of way too many academic psychiatrists?<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">In some ways, the way the University of Minnesota has tried to deal with the Markingson case [refusing to let it to see the light of day, denying all allegations, trying to limit any investigation to the present corrections] turns out to be a microcosm of how American Psychiatry is dealing with the overall problem of corruption in the ranks in the specialty. If you look at the <a href=\"http:\/\/annualmeeting.psychiatry.org\/File%20Library\/Scientific%20Program\/2014_APA_Program.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">APA Convention program<\/a> for next month&#8217;s meeting, none of these unpleasant and shameful topics made it to the program. Yet the theme for the meeting addresses them:<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><a href=\"http:\/\/annualmeeting.psychiatry.org\/File%20Library\/Scientific%20Program\/2014_APA_Program.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"520\" height=\"186\" border=\"1\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/apa-2014-1.jpg\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">So we&#8217;re interested in <font color=\"#200020\">Changing The Practice and Perception of Psychiatry,<\/font> but we&#8217;re not mentioning why it needs to be changed? Like the President of the University of Minnesota, the APA is saying &quot;<font color=\"#200020\">look at us <em>now<\/em>, not <em>then<\/em>.<\/font>&quot; For that matter, the pharmaceutical industry is doing something similar. They&#8217;re finally giving in to Data Transparency but presenting it as a magnanimous act rather than a position they&#8217;ve been forced to occupy.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><font color=\"#200020\">I know of no situation in the history of medicine that matches what happened in psychiatry in these last twenty plus years. Fundamental medical values like trust and honesty were repeatedly pushed aside. How can we now ask people to change their perceptions, if we&#8217;re not even honest enough to acknowledge why they have them? The reason to keep bringing up things like Dan Markingson&#8217;s suicide is because they happened &#8211; that&#8217;s reason enough. In medicine, sometimes we learn from the living, but often-times, we learn the most from the last autopsy.<\/font><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the comments to [what really matters&hellip;], Dr. Carroll mentioned a post on the Danny Carlat Blog back in August 2010 about the Dan Markingson case, actually two posts [&quot;Making a Killing&quot;: New Carl Elliott Article in Mother Jones, Was the CAFE study manipulated by AstraZeneca? Maybe Not.]. Both of these posts, and particularly the [&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_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45622","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=45622"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45622\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45643,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45622\/revisions\/45643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}