{"id":7284,"date":"2011-04-13T11:19:15","date_gmt":"2011-04-13T15:19:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=7284"},"modified":"2011-04-29T22:11:11","modified_gmt":"2011-04-30T02:11:11","slug":"i-see-dead-people","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/04\/13\/i-see-dead-people\/","title":{"rendered":"I see dead people&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div align=\"justify\">John Romankiewicz, founder of Scientific Therapeutics Information [STI], isn&#8217;t having a very good week. His medical communications firm has been under the microscope in the matter of Charlie Nemeroff&#8217;s and Alan Shatzberg&#8217;s psychopharmacology textbook for Primary Care Physicians ever since <u><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.pogo.org\/pogo-files\/letters\/public-health\/ph-iis-20101129.html#3\">POGO&#8217;s accusation<\/a><\/u> that STI&#8217;s Sally Laden and Diane Coniglio ghost wrote the book. Monday, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miwatch.org\/2011\/04\/apas_ghostwriting_controversy_grows.html\"><u>Phylis Vine<\/u><\/a> found an old STI web-page proudly displaying the book [see my last post], going a long way towards invalidating the &quot;authors&quot;&#8217; denials. Then Tuesday, POGO put up a <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/pogoarchives.org\/m\/ph\/sally-laden-sti-deposition-20070315.pdf\"><u>transcript<\/u><\/a> of Sally Laden&#8217;s deposition in a 2007 Paxil lawsuit against GSK involving another ghost writing allegation. When Ed Silverman of <u><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pharmalot.com\/2011\/04\/a-ghostwritten-book-mysteriously-disappears\/\" target=\"_blank\">Pharmalot<\/a><\/u> gave John Romankiewicz a call at STI to ask some questions, John was definitely in a grumpy mood:<\/div>\n<ul><sup><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">So we called John Romankiewicz, a PharmD who started the firm 26 years  ago, to ask about the missing info. His explanation? &ldquo;Thanks for the  inquiry,&rdquo; he responded abruptly, &ldquo;but we don&rsquo;t display that kind of  stuff on our web site.&rdquo; We replied by noting that the info had been  there previously, but then we heard a loud&hellip;click. Perhaps, he realized  that listing the book as a portfolio product does not easily square with  the APA position that ghostwriting did not take place. And taking down  the product portfolio might also make it more difficult to scrutinize  other STI work. Given how fast he hung up, though, one might have  thought we uttered the magic word: &ldquo;Boo!&rdquo;<\/div>\n<p><\/sup><\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">If you&#8217;ve ever been deposed, you know the drill. A lawyer spends a few hours trying to turn you into a witness for the other side [in this case, 90 pdf pages]. Then your other team spends a few hours trying to undo any damage [another 75 pdf pages]. Since there&#8217;s no Judge around, all questions are the kind not allowed in a court room &#8211; &quot;leading the witness.&quot; In those first 90 pages of Sally&#8217;s deposition, it was clear that GSK had sent their version of a study of Paxil treating adolescent depression to Sally Laden and she turned it into a first draft of a paper. It was also clear that GSK knew it was a &quot;failed study&quot; before they sent it. It was the article published under the &quot;authorship&quot; of Dr. Martin Keller [then Chairman at Brown Medical School] and others &#8211; the results of the infamous Study 329. That article was ultimately published in the <u>Journal of the American Academy of Child &amp; Adolescent &amp; Psychiatry<\/u> recommending Paxil for the treatment of Adolescent Depression.            <\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"95\" hspace=\"4\" border=\"1\" align=\"left\" title=\"Sally Laden\" alt=\"Sally Laden\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/laden.jpg\" \/>The plaintiff&#8217;s lawyer also established that Ms. Laden carried the article to completion, working with Dr. Keller&#8217;s edits and the complaints of various reviewers for journals that rejected the paper until she got it published. It was also obvious that she felt no responsibility for the content or conclusions. Her job was to get it written and get it published.           <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">The lawyer for GSK then cross examined. He was trying to establish that Dr. Keller and the other &quot;authors&quot; were involved in the writing of later drafts [trying to distance GSK from &quot;authorship&quot;], and finally got around to the issue of ghost writing on <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/pogoarchives.org\/m\/ph\/sally-laden-sti-deposition-20070315.pdf#page=111\"><u>pdf page 111<\/u><\/a>. Here&#8217;s a [slightly cleaned up] version of that exchange:           <\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTION:<\/strong>  But do you consider that the work that you did in terms of revising the draft of the article to incorporate the authors comments their analysis and their changes, Is that a host of hours  in your mind?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> It was a lot of time. <\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTION:<\/strong>  If STI or you had ghost written  the Keller article would you have then would there have been any need to do any of this work that we have been discussing?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> Can you tell me what you mean by ghost written?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTIONER:<\/strong> Ghost written is where  the authors of the article have no input at all into the contents of the article.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> And then can you  repeat the question please?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTION:<\/strong>  With that identification of ghost writing in mind If STI or you had ghost written the Keller article would there have been any need to do any of the items that we discussed in terms of your editorial assistance?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> That&#8217;s a hard question to answer because that didn&#8217;t happen.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTION:<\/strong>  Is it your testimony that you did  not ghost Study 329 well excuse me  Is it your testimony that you did not ghost write the Keller article which was published in the journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent  Psychiatry?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> Based on your definition of ghost writing &#8211; absolutely.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTION:<\/strong>  Would you have bothered to waste your time your effort and your energy  doing all of this coordination with the authors if you were a ghost writer for the Keller article?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> I can&#8217;t answer that.<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>QUESTION:<\/strong>  Why can&#8217;t you answer that?<\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup><strong>THE WITNESS:<\/strong> Because I don&#8217;t believe I was a ghost writer.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"195\" hspace=\"4\" border=\"1\" align=\"right\" src=\"http:\/\/t3.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSn862fmH66mhH1XtihJtja-ifxpWpDnRDUAaHL4pIobGamF24Bkg\" \/>Like Bruce Willis&#8217; character in M. Night Shyamalan&#8217;s film, <u>The Sixth Sense<\/u>, the deposition raises the question, &quot;<em>Does a ghost know it&#8217;s a ghost?<\/em>&quot; Sally doesn&#8217;t believe she&#8217;s a ghost writer [she makes the lawyer define it before answering]. And that definition given by the lawyer sounds familiar, &quot;<em>Ghost written is where  the authors of the article have no input at all into the contents of the article.<\/em>&quot; It&#8217;s the argument of Shatzberg&#8217;s and Nemeroff&#8217;s lawyers in response to POGO&#8217;s challenge of their textbook, and it&#8217;s the essence of the APA&#8217;s response in their defense [<u><a href=\"http:\/\/pn.psychiatryonline.org\/content\/46\/2\/1.1.full\" target=\"_blank\">APPI Documents Refute Claims About Text&#8217;s Authorship<\/a><\/u>]. I&#8217;ve had my say about that argument previously [<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/01\/21\/when-charlie-met-sally\"><u>when charlie met sally&#8230;<\/u><\/a>] and won&#8217;t repeat it here.Essentially, I think these examples are worse than ghost writing. But right now I want to avoid the lawyer&#8217;s semantic trap.<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">The Paxil suit and the textbook case are not exactly the same. In the case of Study 329, the Pharmaceutical Company hired STI and sent them a summary of the study [having privately seen it as a failed study]. Sally Laden&nbsp; of STI wrote a first draft, then tweaked it with the recruited &quot;authors&#8217;&quot; input. It was published recommending Paxil as a treatment for depressed adolescents. In the case of Shatzberg and Nemeroff, they were the editors of a definitive Psychopharmacology text. In <u><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/pogoblog.typepad.com\/pogo\/gw-attachment-e.html\">Sally&#8217;s letter<\/a><\/u> to Dr. Nemeroff, it&#8217;s clear that GSK&nbsp; [sponsor] is STI&#8217;s employer and a big part of the mix. There&#8217;s little question&nbsp; about who&#8217;s writing the book:<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"450\" height=\"293\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/sti.gif\" \/>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">And as Danny Carlat pointed out, there&#8217;s little question about its purpose [<u><a href=\"http:\/\/carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com\/2010\/12\/nemeroff-and-schatzbergs-textbook.html\" target=\"_blank\">Nemeroff and Schatzberg&#8217;s &ldquo;Textbook&rdquo; Pushed Paxil<\/a><\/u>]:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>To sum up, in 1999,  Nemeroff and Schatzberg published a textbook called &quot;Recognition and  Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for  Primary Care.&quot; It was funded by SmithKline Beecham with a $120,000 &quot;unrestricted educational grant.&quot; <u><a href=\"http:\/\/graphics8.nytimes.com\/packages\/pdf\/business\/20101130drug.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Documents<\/a><\/u>  posted on the internet hint strongly that the book was ghostwritten by a  PR firm hired by the drug company. And an analysis of the book&#8217;s  content shows that it was crafted to encourage primary care doctors to  prescribe Paxil preferentially over its competitors, such as Zoloft.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">None of us agree with, &quot;<em>Ghost written is where  the authors of the article have no input at all into the contents of the article,<\/em>&quot; but who wants to waste time arguing semantics with a high-priced lawyer? Instead of nickle and diming over the precise definition of how to name these cases, it might be better to talk about what they don&#8217;t represent:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<li>truth<\/li>\n<li>integrity<\/li>\n<li>ethically acceptable behavior<\/li>\n<li>remotely acceptable behavior from physicians<\/li>\n<li>remotely acceptable behavior from scientists<\/li>\n<li>scientific knowledge <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">They are blatantly untruthful, unethical, perversions of science at its most basic level. Their only place in the medical literature is as examples of what not to do&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>John Romankiewicz, founder of Scientific Therapeutics Information [STI], isn&#8217;t having a very good week. His medical communications firm has been under the microscope in the matter of Charlie Nemeroff&#8217;s and Alan Shatzberg&#8217;s psychopharmacology textbook for Primary Care Physicians ever since POGO&#8217;s accusation that STI&#8217;s Sally Laden and Diane Coniglio ghost wrote the book. Monday, Phylis [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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-7284","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7284","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=7284"}],"version-history":[{"count":42,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7284\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8327,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7284\/revisions\/8327"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}