Posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 20:01:44
In reply to Re: What SHOULD (IMO) be closely monitored » Nadezda, posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 13:09:18
And third, excuse my using the wrong word; he was giving a marketing talk, I presume at a meeting, though not a conference,
Furthermore:
His [Adkinson's] continuing oversight of a federally financed trial using GlaxoSmithKline medicines led Dr. Adkison to write Dr. Nemeroff on July 15, 2004, that you must clearly certify on your annual disclosure form that you do not receive more than $10,000 from GSK.
In a reply dated Aug. 4, Dr. Nemeroff wrote that he had already done so but promised again that my consulting fees from GSK will be less than $10,000 per year throughout the period of this N.I.H. grant.
When he sent that letter, Dr. Nemeroff had already earned more than $98,000 that year from GlaxoSmithKline. Three weeks later, he received another $3,844.56 for giving a marketing talk at the Passion Fish Restaurant in Woodbury, N.Y.
From 2000 through 2006, Dr. Nemeroff earned more than $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline but listed earnings of less than $35,000 for the period on his university disclosure forms, according to Congressional documents."
I simply don't see how you can dismiss this as some sort of irrelevancy, when, no matter what Nemeroff's personal opinion of the conflict of interest rules, he was required to follow them. Moreover, there seems to be a rather widespread practice of misstating earnings, suggesting that people have some motive for not revealing the financial stake they have in pleasing the companies.
It's hard to believe that physicians whose research repeatedly disputes the efficacy or safety of medications are going to be frequently employed by the major drug companies.
Nadezda
poster:Nadezda
thread:855794
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080926/msgs/855922.html