{"id":60048,"date":"2015-09-21T10:00:41","date_gmt":"2015-09-21T14:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=60048"},"modified":"2015-09-21T14:06:36","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T18:06:36","slug":"60048","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/09\/21\/60048\/","title":{"rendered":"lost its mojo…"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
One might think that with all of the supportive media<\/a> coverage our Study 329 article<\/a> has received, I would be able to shake off the response from lead author, Martin Keller, reproduced from Retraction Watch<\/a> in the last post [keller responds…<\/a>], or his comment in The Chronicle of Higher Education<\/a>:<\/div>\n
\n
Dr. Keller contacted The Chronicle on Wednesday to insist that the 2001 results faithfully represented the best effort of the authors at the time, and that any misrepresentation of his article to help sell Paxil was the responsibility of Glaxo. "Nothing was ever pinned on any of us," despite various trials and investigations, he said. "And when I say that, I’m not telling you we’re like the great escape artists, that we’re Houdinis and we did something wrong and we got away with the crime of the century. Don’t you think if there was really something wrong, some university or agency or something would have pinned something on us?" In what he described as his first effort to speak publicly about the matter, Dr. Keller said his critics also have financial and professional motives for amplifying criticisms, including lawyers representing Paxil plaintiffs and professors seeking their own records of journal publication…<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I had a somewhat similar reaction to Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman’s comment<\/a>:<\/div>\n
\n
\n
“The group is a self-appointed watchdog,” Jeffrey Lieberman, chair of psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, told BuzzFeed News. “One wonders what the motivation is, and how objective they’re going to be.”<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote><\/div>\n
So I spent a day or so with a background chorus of refutations playing like a scratchy record in my mind until they played themselves out. Nobody reading this blog needs to hear them again. You could probably reproduce them yourselves, and I’ve certainly filled up enough pages saying them. After the din in my head subsided, I was left with just one clear note that I wanted to respond to. It is what has been characterized as the fallacy of an appeal to authority<\/a>: <\/div>\n
\n
“The study authors comprised virtually all of the academic researchers studying the treatment of child depression in North America at the time”<\/em>…<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In this case, the BY·LINE is indeed full of experts<\/font><\/em>:<\/div>\n
\n
MARTIN B. KELLER, M.D., NEAL D. RYAN, M.D., MICHAEL STROBER, PH.D., RACHEL G. KLEIN, PH.D., STAN P. KUTCHER, M.D., BORIS BIRMAHER, M.D., OWEN R. HAGINO, M.D., HAROLD KOPLEWICZ, M.D., GABRIELLE A. CARLSON, M.D., GREGORY N. CLARKE, PH.D., GRAHAM J. EMSLIE, M.D., DAVID FEINBERG, M.D., BARBARA GELLER, M.D., VIVEK KUSUMAKAR, M.D., GEORGE PAPATHEODOROU, M.D., WILLIAM H. SACK, M.D., MICHAEL SWEENEY, PH.D., KAREN DINEEN WAGNER, M.D., PH.D., ELIZABETH B. WELLER, M.D., NANCY C. WINTERS, M.D., ROSEMARY OAKES, M.S., AND JAMES P. MCCAFFERTY, B.S.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
But in spite of Dr. Keller’s claims otherwise, reading the raft of subpoenaed documents and the depositions, the author·<\/strong>ity<\/font><\/em> appears to have rested on the shoulders of ghostwriter Sally Laden and perhaps the last two listed authors, both of whom were GSK employees [Deposition of Sally Laden<\/a>, 2007]:<\/div>\n