As States Target High Drug Prices Pharma Targets State Lawmakers

Kaiser Health News
By Jay Hancock and Shefali Luthra February 1, 2018
It was expected to be a perfunctory statehouse meeting — three lobbyists and a legislator discussing a proposal to educate Louisiana doctors about the price of drugs they prescribe.

The bill seemed like a no-brainer in a country where even decades-old medicines can cost thousands and consumers are urged to make smart choices in buying health care. The legislation simply required pharmaceutical sales reps promoting medicines at doctors’ offices to also reveal a price.

No one expected the industry scrum that materialized.

About 10 pharma lobbyists flooded the room in Baton Rouge’s art deco state Capitol, some of them hired guns — lobbyists who’d never represented drug companies before, remembers Jeff Drozda, an insurance lobbyist at the 2016 meeting.

“The message was: We’re going to bring everything at you against these bills,” he said.

They did. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the powerful trade group known as PhRMA, donated directly to more lawmakers in Louisiana than in any other state in 2016, a new IRS filing shows. When discussion of the measure reached its peak last year, the industry hired a lobbyist for every two legislators.

PhRMA spent thousands entertaining lawmakers at Baton Rouge venues such as Mike Anderson’s Seafood, specializing in shrimp-and-crab gumbo, and the Mestizo Restaurant, home of the Daredevil Margarita, lobbying records show.

“I’ve been in the legislature 10 years. I’ve never in my life seen that kind of effort,” said Kirk Talbot, a Republican who sponsored the bill in the Louisiana House.

With federal officials seemingly unwilling or unable to come up with legislation to control skyrocketing drug prices, that task is increasingly moving to the states. But so is pharma muscle and money opposing the measures, regulatory disclosures and corporate filings from the last two years show.
State lawmakers are likely to consider drug-price transparency bills this year in Connecticut, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and New Jersey, to name just a few. Many of the measures are similar to a new California law that requires drugmakers to justify big price increases. (To fight that law, the industry hired 45 lobbying firms.)

Meanwhile, activists who backed a 2017 law enabling Maryland officials to challenge “unconscionable” price increases for generic drugs now advocate price regulation for all expensive pharmaceuticals. Policymakers in New Mexico, Massachusetts and Arizona are talking about limiting drug coverage or negotiating drug prices under Medicaid.

In Washington, D.C., PhRMA, is widely credited with stalling federal drug-price measures for years, with lobbying, advertising and political contributions.

Now states are getting a dose of the same medicine.

PhRMA set the stage in 2016 by establishing a group that ultimately spent $110 million to defeat a high-profile California ballot initiative requiring state agencies to pay no more for drugs than does the federal Department of Veterans Affairs. A PhRMA-linked group spent more than $50 million to defeat a similar ballot measure last year in Ohio.

Traditionally well represented in statehouses, PhRMA wrote checks to hundreds of legislative candidates and political action committees in dozens of states in 2016, newly available IRS filings show. So did many of its member companies, according to new data published by the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit that works to shed light on corporate political spending.

Merck, maker of a hepatitis C drug called Zepatier that costs $54,600 according to Truven Health Analytics, gave $19 million to PhRMA in 2016 but also gave about $500,000 to candidates and political committees in some two dozen states, sometimes in checks as small as $100, according to the CPA data, compiled from voluntary disclosures on corporate websites.

Amgen, maker of leukemia drug Blincyto, which costs $173,000 for an average treatment, according to the company, donated to more than 100 statehouse candidates in about a dozen states for the 2016 elections. Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Allergan also directly or indirectly supported state candidates in 2016, CPA data show.

Pharma companies “definitely have not seen that kind of activity aimed at them at the state level before and have raised their presence to address that,” said Leanne Gassaway, top state lobbyist for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a major insurance trade group.

Few states got as much pharma attention the past two years as Louisiana, though the money spent there fell short of the tens of millions invested in swaying referenda in California and Ohio. It’s cheaper to influence scores of lawmakers than millions of voters.

I’ve been in the legislature 10 years. I’ve never in my life seen that kind of effort. Kirk Talbot, Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives

Drug prices are “something that’s completely out of control,” Talbot said, adding that he gets constituent requests to rein in prescription medicine prices.

Neither Talbot, chairman of the House insurance committee, nor many others in the conservative state are moving to regulate drug prices. But he and other lawmakers saw promise in an idea from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, a big insurer whose premiums have been driven up partly by rising drug expenses.

The proposal, which got little news coverage even in Louisiana, would have required sales reps promoting their latest, greatest medicines to give doctors the wholesale prices at the same time. Physicians, who are largely unaware of prescription costs, might think twice about ordering $500 worth of brand-name pills when a $30 generic could deliver the same benefit, the thinking went.

The measure died in committee after the pharma lobby staged its flash mob at the 2016 meeting. When the idea came up again last spring, this time with backing from Talbot and Sen. Fred Mills, Republican chairman of the Senate health committee, the industry shifted into high gear.

Mills got “a tremendous amount of calls” on his cellphone from pharma lobbyists as well as emails and texts almost immediately after his bill landed on a legislative website, he recalled. First in line was Pete Martinez, PhRMA’s top Louisiana operative.

“I’ve had this volume” of special-interest pressure “but not the speed,” said Mills, a small-pharmacy owner from St. Martin Parish who said he sees the rising price of pills firsthand. Mills recalled phone calls from “top government affairs people” at Pfizer, “telling me the problems with this bill.”

No fewer than 84 lobbyists representing pill companies blanketed Baton Rouge at the height of the legislative session last year, state records show — the most in at least nine years.

In 2016, PhRMA gave directly to about 80 Louisiana state politicians, more than those in any other state, the IRS filing shows. PhRMA and individual drug companies have made more than $600,000 in contributions to Louisiana state and local political races in the past three years, according to campaign finance files.

Martinez did not respond to requests for an interview. At hearings in Louisiana, PhRMA argued that informing doctors of wholesale drug prices is irrelevant to patients. What matters is consumers’ out-of-pocket payment, not the rest of the cost that’s often picked up by insurance, they said.

“We are committed to engaging with lawmakers, patients and others to find solutions that actually help patients,” a PhRMA spokesman said in a statement for this article.

Proponents countered that rising total drug costs are an increasingly painful burden on taxpayers, employers, workers and everybody else who pays them indirectly through insurance plans and government programs.

PhRMA’s opposition had an effect.

Instead of making salespeople disclose prices, the legislation that lawmakers eventually passed and that Gov. John Bel Edwards signed in June requires the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy to host a website listing the information. Rather than ordering drug reps to tell doctors about the site, the act says they “may” give prescribers the internet address if they choose.

The law “is quite watered-down and basically meaningless,” said Ameet Sarpatwari, an epidemiologist and lawyer at Harvard Medical School who follows pharma laws.

Talbot says he may have lost this battle but will continue the war.

“I’m going to take another stab at it” this year, he said. “We’re on the front wave of this thing. All the states are jumping on this bandwagon.”
KHN’s coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Jay Hancock: jhancock@kff.org, @JayHancock1

Shefali Luthra: ShefaliL@kff.org, @Shefalil


Thank You Mr Hancock, Ms Luthra and KHN.   

PhRMA Pays Back Their Bag Man: Senator Harry Reid

The Washington Examiner has;

Drug Lobby Showers Money On Its Hero Harry Reid

Read it and exhale a disgusted sigh.

It's not as if this Payback were unexpected.

The Examiner's Timothy P. Carney has PhRMA now buying sappy TV ads trying to save Sen Reid's Political Bacon, after Reid - with approval ratings in the 30s - sold out America to Nationalize its Healthcare System. Mr. Carney also delineates Reid's numerous Pharmaceutical Company & PhRMA PAC contributions, with their Dollar Amounts.

"The health sector is Reid's prime source of PAC funds: half a million dollars already -- and that doesn't count the TV buys."

A Lousy Half a Million is All it took to Buy The US Senate Majority Leader? PhRMA spends more on Office Supplies, let alone Lawyers, than it cost them to Buy Sen Reid.

Mr. Carney has more;

What Harry Reid Did For The Drug Companies

And if you've so soon forgotten just how Sleazy this Takeover was, go through the articles Mr Carney's reports Link to.

Here's Firedoglake, (from Dec. 2009, when Pharma's lap dogs were selling out their constituents);

The Insanity Which Is The Double-Double-Cross On Drug Re-Importation

which concluded with;

"This insane, multiple double-double cross is sausage-making at its most ugly. It shows how completely broken our government and especially the Senate truly are. When you have Democrats filibustering their own bill to stop Republicans from voting for an amendment to advance a top promise of the Democratic party, you know something is very, very wrong."

NAMI Discloses Their DRUG MONEY

At the Request of Senator Grassley, NAMI has made available pdfs detailing their major funding sources.

NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness, Major Foundation and Corporate Support

What Ought to have you upset here, is not that a Self Supposed Patient Advocacy Group/Pharma Store Front is predominantly Owned by Drug Money, but that they can be Bought So Cheaply, ..... considering the Hundreds of Billions Pharma's raking in.

Mind Freedom has more.

US Senator Turns Investigation to NAMI State Chapter Drug Company Money.

Thank You Very much, Sen Grassley and Mind Freedom.

Suicide Prevention Drug Pushing Racket: Part 1

Natural News has:

Suicide Prevention Drug Pushing Racket: Part 1
by Evelyn Pringle

(NaturalNews) Nearly every year, as part of the suicide prevention drug pushing racket, drug company shills publish a bogus study with claims that more people are dying from suicide due to a black box warning of an increased risk of suicide in young people on the labels of SSRI and SNRI antidepressants.

Although the FDA did announce that the black box warnings, for children under 18, would be added to antidepressants in October 2004, the warnings were not on the labels until the spring of 2005. The extended warnings, to include young persons through age 24, were not added until mid-2007.

This year's bogus study was announced on June 2, 2009, with a WebMD headline asking: "Are Antidepressant Warnings Causing Harm?" The study titled, "Persisting Decline in Depression Treatment After FDA Warnings," was published in the "Archives of General Psychiatry," with claims that there has been a drastic drop in the diagnosis of depression in both children and adults.

"Policy actions are required to counter the unintended consequences of reduced depression treatment," the authors wrote in the study.

Prescriptions written for antidepressants also have dropped significantly, and these "unintended" consequences of the FDA's warnings are continuing, the junk science co-author of the study, Robert Valuck, PhD, of the University of Colorado Denver's School of Medicine, told WebMD.

On June 16, 2009, Science Daily ran the headline: "FDA Warnings Led To Unintended Changes In Depression Diagnosis," and noted that the researchers report "unrestricted investigator-initiated research grants from Eli Lilly and Company, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Lundbeck and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention."

According to his online CV, Robert Valuck has been a consultant to Eli Lilly, maker of the antidepressants, Prozac, Cymbalta, and Sybyax, since 2005, and has done "Medical-legal consulting" for various firms since 2004.

The CV lists a grant to Valuck from Eli Lilly for $249,417 in 2006, to study the, "Effect of the FDA Black Box Warning (Antidepressants and Suicidality) on Patterns of Depression Care in the U.S. Managed Care Population."

The disclosure section for a study titled, "Spillover Effects on Treatment of Adult Depression in Primary Care After FDA Advisory on Risk of Pediatric Suicidality With SSRIs," in the August, 2007, "American Journal of Psychiatry," reported that the lead author, "Dr. Valuck also is an advisory board member for Eli Lilly."

The study was supported by an "investigator-initiated grant from Eli Lilly and Company to fund the access fees to the independent PharMetrics database and salary support for the investigators," the disclosure section states.

"The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the FDA advisories on patterns of care for adults with depression," the authors noted in the study.

"Time-series analyses of patterns of treatment of adult depression in the community showed statistically and clinically significant spillover effects associated with the 2003 FDA public health advisory and related warnings about a risk of suicidality in pediatric patients treated with antidepressants," they reported in the discussion section.

"After these pediatric warnings were issued, diagnoses of adult depression declined, and among adults diagnosed with depression, antidepressant use declined, with no other treatment modalities increasing to compensate," the authors claimed.

"The present findings underscore the need for careful consideration of unintended consequences of warnings about drug safety concerns by regulatory agencies and pose challenges for protecting patients while offering efficacious treatments," the researchers concluded, with the standard talking point of "unintended consequences."

Valuck's CV also shows another grant proposal was submitted to Lilly with a proposed budget of $413,154, for the funding period of January 2008 through December 2008, to study: "Antidepressant Drug Exposure and Risk of Suicide Attempt: A Focus on Newer Agents."

In 2007, Valuck received a "Distinguished Investigator Award," from the "American Foundation for Suicide Prevention," the Big Pharma front group that serves as a funnel for drug company money in the suicide prevention drug pushing racket

On the AFSP 's website, under "Projects Currently Underway," Valuck is listed as receiving a $100,000 grant to study the "Impact of Antidepressant Discontinuation on Risk of Suicide Attempt."

In late 2007, Emory University announced that Dr Charles Nemeroff was elected president of the Foundation and would start serving a 3-year term in January 2008.

Emory's press release reported that Nemeroff had served on the national board of directors of the AFSP since 1999 and had "been a member of the Foundation's Scientific Council for more than 10 years and was named chair of the Council in 2007."

In roughly the same time period, an investigation led by Senator Charles Grassley, for the US Senate Finance Committee, found that Nemeroff had earned more than $2.8 million from drug companies between 2000 and 2007, but had failed to report at least $1.2 million on disclosure forms with Emory.

In 2008, the AFSP merged with the Suicide Prevention Action Network USA (SPAN), according to a November 6, 2008 press release by the groups.

Eli Lilly's grant report for 2008, shows the AFSP received three grants worth $78,000, and SPAN received one $10,000 grant and another for $70,000. Pfizer gave the AFSP $3,000 in 2008.

Lilly's grant report for 2007, shows the AFSP got $25,000, and SPAN received $10,000 in one quarter, and $70,000 in another.

Back in 2004, the spring issue of SPAN's Network News reports that: "Network News is funded by a grant from the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation."

The Newsletter also announced further funding from the Lilly Foundation. "SPAN USA's efforts to develop and expand its suicide survivor network received a major boost with a recent grant from Eli Lilly and Company Foundation," it said. "The foundation generously provided funding to support training, education and collaborative opportunities for SPAN USA's existing network and enable further expansion into all 50 states."

The 2006 Spring Network News announced the "Friend for Life" fundraiser sponsors. The industry's trade group, PhRMA and Forest Pharmaceuticals donated over $15,000. Pfizer gave between $10,000 and $14,999. Solvay Pharmaceuticals was listed as giving between $6,000 and $9,999, and companies that gave between $2,000 and $5,999, were AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Novartis each donated between $500 and $1,999.

At the end of the donor list, the newsletter stated: "Our continued gratitude goes to those who renewed their commitment from previous Friend for Life fundraisers (as indicated above by an asterisk)." Those companies included Pfizer, Bristol-Myers, Eli Lilly and Novartis.

A September 9, 2006 press release ran the headline: "SPAN USA Kicks Off National Suicide Prevention Week With Memorial March for Suicide Prevention"

Among the sponsors who offered "generous support" for this event were Eli Lilly and Forest Pharmaceuticals.

Three months later, the headline for a December 13, 2006, SPAN press release stated: "Leading Suicide Prevention Researcher Testifies against "Black Box" Notice for Antidepressants at FDA Hearing"

"Warns of Potential Tragedy for Those Discouraged from Treatment Option," the byline read.

The AFSP's 2008 Annual Report shows a grant of $100,000 from the Lilly Foundation. It also lists grants of between $50,000 and $99,999, from antidepressant makers, Lilly, Pfizer and Weyth, between $25,000 and $49,999 from Forest Labs, and between $10,000 and $24,000 from Solvay.

Lilly's first quarter grant report for 2009, shows the AFSP received $69,250, and another $25,000 went to SPAN.

No drop in antidepressant prescribing

There was no drop in antidepressant prescribing in the US over the past five years. In 2008, there were 164.2 million prescriptions dispensed, compared to 143 million in 2004, according to a March, 2009, report by IMS Health, a healthcare information company.

The number of prescriptions dispensed has risen every year since 2004, with 143.9 million in 2005, 153.5 million in 2006, and 160.2 million dispensed in 2007, according to IMS.

For the year 2007, on June 20, 2008, CNN Money reported that, "for the sixth year in a row, anti-depressants ranked as the No. 1 class of dispensed prescriptions in the United States."

The revenues from antidepressants have declined from $11.2 billion in 2004, to $9.6 billion in 2008, but only because competing generic versions are marketed at much lower prices.

Due to the loss in profitability of marketing the off-patent antidepressants, the extremely expensive atypical antipsychotics are now heavily marketed to treat depression. In 2008, they replaced antidepressants as the number one revenue producers in the US.

In fact, there was no decline in the prescribing of any psychiatric drugs in the US over the past five years. In 2004, overall sales of psychiatric drugs in the US totaled $26.7 billion, according to NDC Health Corp, a health information firm.

Four years later, the makers of psychiatric drugs had overall US sales of $40.3 billion in 2008, with $14.6 billion from antipsychotics, $9.6 billion in antidepressants, $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs and $4.8 billion in sales of ADHD drugs, according to IMS Health.

On April 22, 2009, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported that in 2006, more money was spent on treating mental disorders in children aged 0 to 17 than for any other medical condition, with a total of $8.9 billion. By comparison, the cost of treating trauma-related disorders, including fractures, sprains, burns, and other physical injuries from accidents or violence was only $6.1 billion.


Hat Tip & Thanks to The Bitter Pill

Soulful Sepulcher On APA Funding: Who Bought Your Thoughts?

Soulful Sepulcher has another Mind Blowing report on Who, owns, or would Like to own, your every thought, along with every nickel on the planet. Be patient if the page takes time to load.

There's THAT MUCH Drug Company Influence propping the Mental Hygienists: the crowd who are Still working the same THEORIES which brought us the Holocaust (1).

2007 APA Meeting Pharma Funding Disclosure List That Will Blow Your Mind

The Drug Companies underwriting this Symptom Bashing Bucket of Bio-$cience are laid out in:

http://www.psychconfllicts.org/pdfs/2007 APA_Program_2007.pdf

Grab a copy for yourself. Share it with your friends and neighbors, Before, They are tempted to Trust any of these Incurable Incompetents. And if you don't think they're Incurably Incompetent, try finding something they've ever Cured. Then hit our label Side Effects, and do a quick summation of Cost V Benefit.


John Mack at Pharma Marketing Blog has two Stellar posts we recommend to shed further light on the Whatever you want to call it, conflicting today's Academic Medicine.

In Medical Publishing, Is Disclosure Enough?

Nissen Puts Stake Through ACCME's Heart At Senate Hearing On Industry Funded CME


And of possibly, tangentially related (CME) Interest, we have:

Penn & Teller Reveal Stage(d) Magic


Ahhh,nd, ...... yet one More necrotizing nostrum - this one's called Asenapine - appears poised to invade America's medicine cabinet.

Shearlings Got Plowed

Call Congress. Cut the Public Funding/Protection Off, All of it.

Separating Science From Promotion, Evidence From Propaganda

AHRP has a new PDF. It contains some Disturbing, to say the least, factoids & quotes for folks who don't care to sift through laboratory-speak shop-talk.

Separating Science From Promotion, Evidence From Propaganda

pg 4:
Adverse Drug Reactions: 4th Leading Cause of DEATH in the US.

Each year:
1.5 Million Americans are hospitalized due to ADR.

106,000 hospitalized pts DIE of ADR.
JAMA, 1998

pg 5:

1998 - 2005: The DEATHS of 6,225 Americans were linked to Zyprexa, Risperdal, Clozaril
Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007

pg 7: Placebo is Industry's Easy Pass

"Why risk trying to prove you're better than something, when all you need to show is that you're better than nothing?"
Robert Misbin, MD, FDA, Div. Endocrinology, 2001

"4 of every 28 new drugs are clinically superior - and 1 is also safe."
Dr Donald Light, Facts and Myths about Drug Development, 2007


pg 9: Vioxx: Just another pain pill with no therapeutic benefit

Estimated 130,000 to 953,000 cardiac events.
Donald Light, Institutional Foundations of Drug Disasters, 2008

55,000 Estimated DEATHS
David Graham, FDA Whistleblower

"Drug Disasters are literally built into the current system of drug testing and approvals, ..... We are virtually Defenseless against another Vioxx."
Dr David Graham, Senate Testimony, 2004


pg 25: Risperdal Linked To Gynecomastia (Growth of Breasts, in males)

70% of pediatric post marketing Gynecomastia Cases linked to Risperdal (Ed: which, BTW, the FDA has as being "safe & effective" after testing it in a Whole 417 adolescents aged 13-17)


An Informative, and hair raising read; it will take you 4 - 5 minutes Tops to breeze through, and Maybe get you on the phone to your Pharma Drug Money Campaign Contribution COI-ed Representatives, ...... .

HR 801 Would END FREE ACCESS To GOVT FUNDED RESEARCH

SHADOW GOVT ON STEROIDS

The BMJ has:

US Congress Introduces Bill To End Free Access To Federally Funded Research

Why is This a Horror?

The NIH (National Institutes of Health) handed out $28 BILLION of Your Money last year with the glib exculpation (after the Senate Finance Committee zoomed Dr. Seus DelBello) that it would be "Inappropriate and Impossible" to know What the Hell was Done with that $28 Billion.

NIH doesn't Know, because NIH doesn't want (You) to Know, what is done with that Money.

See the August 2007 Letter which Senator Grassley sent to former NIH Director Elias Zerhouni in our post:

FDA Stays Broken: Trifecta DEAD Last Hayburner Returns To Stud

And NIH Funded, Corrupt Research is NOT the only Govt Funded, Corrupt Research which H.R. 801 will Even Further Corrupt.

taxpayeraccess.org has:

OPPOSE H.R.801

February 11, 2009

Last week, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. John Conyers, D-MI) re-introduced a bill that would reverse the NIH Public Access Policy and make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. The legislation is H.R. 801: the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr801).

All supporters of public access – researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others – are asked to please contact your Representative to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she oppose H.R.801. Visit the Action Center for draft letter text.

H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and carves out a subclass of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17) -- precisely those that are supported by taxpayers -- and makes it illegal for the government to require that that special subclass be made freely available to taxpayers as a condition of the federal support. H.R. 801 significantly over-values the contribution made by publishers while ignoring not only the support of taxpayers, but also the interests of researchers, authors and peer-reviewers, all of whom contribute to the process of scholarly publishing without direct remuneration. In effect, it would:

1. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.

2. Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.

3. Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.

4. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.

5. Repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.

Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information through the PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.

All supporters of public access -- researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others -- are asked to contact their Representatives to let them know you support public access to federally funded research and oppose H.R. 801. Again, the proposed legislation would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place.

Thanks to Senator Grassley the NIH subsequently suspended the last of a $9.3 Million NIH Grant to Emory University where Dr Charles Nemeroff - who had received a personal $2.8 Million from the makers of the drugs he was researching - was the Top Shrink. Dr Nemeroff and his $2.8 Million have since pulled a vanishing act.

Corrupt, Govt Funded Research like Nemeroff's needs to be DeFunded.

See our label:

Side Effects

It Must not be HIDDEN By a Shadow Government. The endemic Pharmaceutical COI corruption which is polluting medicine Wholesale needs to be Criminalized.

Private Industry and its Govt Regulatory Agencies (which are becoming virtually the Same entity) do NOT Own it, if even one cent of Your Money Paid for it.

That Research is Your Property: Just Like the FDA Adverse Psych Drug Reactions - which Sam @ psychdrugdangers.com had to dig out of FDA with FOIAs.

Here's that BMJ Extract
Jeanne Lenzer

¹ New York

A bill has been introduced in the US Congress that would end free access to the results of published studies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The HR 801 bill, entitled the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, would, if passed, overturn a public access bill that was passed in October 2007 (BMJ 2007;335:906, doi:10.1136/bmj.39384.638241.DB).

This requires researchers to deposit the results of studies with the National Library of Medicine for publication in PubMed Central within a year of publication in a peer reviewed journal. The current law only affects research funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The 2007 public access bill was supported by 26 Nobel prize winners, who signed a letter to Congress. Advocates of the bill said that patients and doctors would benefit from being able to access research findings in the PubMed database.

GovTrak has the Bill's Summary

Congressional Research Service Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

2/3/2009--Introduced.
Fair Copyright in Research Works Act - Prohibits any federal agency from imposing any condition, in connection with a funding agreement, that requires the transfer or license to or for a federal agency, or requires the absence or abandonment, of specified exclusive rights of a copyright owner in an extrinsic work.

Prohibits any federal agency from: (1) imposing, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any such prohibition; or (2) asserting any rights in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of copyright rights in an extrinsic work.

Defines "funding agreement" as any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a federal agency for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.

Defines "extrinsic work" as any work, other than a work of the U.S. government, that is related to a funding agreement and is also funded in substantial part by, or results from a meaningful added value contributed by, one or more nonfederal entities that are not a party to the funding agreement.

GovTrak also has the Text

This version: Introduced in House. This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for consideration. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.

HR 801 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 801

To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 3, 2009

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, and Mr. COHEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 17, United States Code, with respect to works connected to certain funding agreements.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Fair Copyright in Research Works Act’.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING EXTRINSIC WORKS.

(a) In General- Section 201 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(f) Limitations on the Federal Government-

‘(1) LIMITATIONS REGARDING FUNDING AGREEMENTS- No Federal agency may, in connection with a funding agreement--

‘(A) impose or cause the imposition of any term or condition that--

‘(i) requires the transfer or license to or for a Federal agency of--

‘(I) any right provided under paragraph (3), (4), or (5) of section 106 in an extrinsic work; or

‘(II) any right provided under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 106 in an extrinsic work, to the extent that, solely for purposes of this subsection, such right involves the availability to the public of that work; or

‘(ii) requires the absence or abandonment of any right described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) in an extrinsic work;

‘(B) impose or cause the imposition of, as a condition of a funding agreement, the waiver of, or assent to, any prohibition under subparagraph (A); or

‘(C) assert any rights under this title in material developed under any funding agreement that restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of rights under this title in an extrinsic work.

Any term, condition, or assertion prohibited under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) shall be given no effect under this title or otherwise.

‘(2) CONSTRUCTION-

‘(A) CERTAIN OTHER RIGHTS NOT LIMITED- Nothing in paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II) shall be construed to limit the rights provided to the copyright owner under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 106.

‘(B) NO NEW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION CREATED- Nothing in this subsection provides copyright protection to any subject matter that is not protected under section 102.

‘(3) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:

‘(A) EXTRINSIC WORK- The term ‘extrinsic work’ means any work, other than a work of the United States Government, that is based upon, derived from, or related to, a funding agreement and--

‘(i) is also funded in substantial part by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party; or

‘(ii) represents, reflects, or results from a meaningful added value or process contributed by one or more other entities, other than a Federal agency, that are not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party.

‘(B) FEDERAL AGENCY- The term ‘Federal agency’ means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government.

‘(C) FUNDING AGREEMENT- The term ‘funding agreement’ means any contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a Federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a Federal agency, in whole or in part, for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities.’.

(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to any funding agreement that is entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Report to Congressional Committees- Not later than the date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall, after consulting with the Comptroller General and with Federal agencies that provide funding under funding agreements and with publishers in the private sector, review and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the Register’s views on section 201(f) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, taking into account the development of and access to extrinsic works and materials developed under funding agreements, including the role played by publishers in the private sector and others.

(d) Definitions- In this section:

(1) EXTRINSIC WORK; FEDERAL AGENCY; FUNDING AGREEMENT- The terms ‘extrinsic work’, ‘Federal agency’, and ‘funding agreement’ have the meanings given those terms in section 201(f)(3) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.

(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term ‘appropriate congressional committees’ means the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.


Banning Free Access to Govt funded Research is Exactly the same as Shutting You OUT of the Bathroom in the House You Paid for.

This turd appears to be still afloat in 2 Congressional Committees, and the American People need to phone it into the Tyranny Recycling Tank.

The Congressional Representatives sponsoring HR 801's Shadow Govt are listed below.

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI14]

Cosponsors [as of 2009-04-18]

Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL19]

Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49]

Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14]

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]

Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?

Open Secrets has tallies on their contributors by sector for the 2009-2010 cycle.

Rep John Conyers [D-MI14]
Rep Robert Wexler [D-FL19]
Rep Darrell Issa [R-CA49]
Rep Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14]
Rep Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
Rep Trent Franks [R-AZ2]


In March this year Maplight.org reported Money from the American Assc of Publishers also underfloating this stinker.

Govtrak.us has Rep Darrell Issa as the Ranking member of the US House Committee on Govt Oversight and Reform

We're hoping this HR 801 Shadow Govt will Die or is Already Dead in Committee, but if these 6 tried it once, they'll try it again.

Tyranny has a habit of returning, hidden within larger appropriations Bills.

$253K GSK DRUG MONEY: Another Emory Psych Prof EXPOSED

University Diaries has:

Another Shameless Emory Professor

" … is caught out in conflict of interest. This time the health of pregnant women was compromised as the guy didn’t tell Emory that he was a paid agent of Glaxo even as he was publishing research on the effects of their drug, Paxil, on expectant mothers.

But whaddaya expect? When the chair of your department is Charles Nemeroff, the sky’s the limit. There will be more such stories coming out of Emory." ......

UD has more. Go read her report.

BTW: This Prof was also a guest on the Outed ($1.3 Million Dollars in Drug Money) Fred Goodwin's "Infinite Mind" infomercial.

“,.... it didn’t occur to me that my doing what every other expert in the field does might be considered a conflict of interest,” Goodwin said.

Thank You Sen Grassley, & UD.

Judge Imposes $4.5 Million Fine On Johnson & Johnson

West Virginia Record has:

Judge imposes $4.5M fine on Johnson & Johnson

5/8/2009 11:24 AM

By Steve Korris -Brooke Bureau

WELLSBURG - Circuit Judge Martin Gaughan has imposed a penalty of nearly $4.5 million on drug maker Johnson & Johnson for false and misleading promotion of antipsychotic drug Risperdal and painkiller Duragesic.

Gaughan found 4,450 separate violations of West Virginia consumer fraud law.

He imposed the maximum $5,000 penalty on 400 Risperdal sales calls and 100 Duragesic sales calls. He imposed $500 penalties on 3,900 Risperdal sales letters and 50 Duragesic file cards. That totals $4,475,000.

Johnson & Johnson might have celebrated, for Attorney General Darrell McGraw originally sought more than $20 million.

Instead the company served notice that it would appeal.

McGraw sued Johnson & Johnson in 2004 in Brooke County, claiming it didn't tell customers that Risperdal increased the risk of diabetes.

Chief Deputy AG Fran Hughes signed the complaint. She appointed then-law partners Teresa Toriseva and Barry Hill of Wheeling as special assistants.

Hill amended the complaint to add a claim that Johnson & Johnson concealed the addiction risk of Duragesic.

Rebecca Betts of Charleston answered for Johnson & Johnson that contingency fees for Toriseva and Hill would violate due process.

Hughes replied that Johnson & Johnson would suffer no harm from the fee arrangement and lacked standing to challenge it.

Last year Gaughan set the stage for trial by denying summary judgment to Johnson & Johnson and finding its promotions false and misleading.

At trial in September, Johnson & Johnson proposed to count the Risperdal letters as a single violation.

The company continued to deny that it misled anyone, but Gaughan had made up his mind and didn't appreciate the argument.

In a Feb. 25 order, he wrote that Johnson & Johnson still didn't accept that their promotions were false and misleading.

He rejected its claim that it wasn't conscious of wrongdoing.

"A mass marketing campaign should not be counted as merely one violation as the deterrent effect of a $5,000 civil penalty is minimal," he wrote. "Defendants directly disobeyed a direct Food and Drug Administration mandate to include diabetes warning language within its Risperdal promotional materials."

Hill represented the state at trial. He and Toriseva no longer work together.

Toriseva sent a letter to Gaughan on March 2, claiming a portion of the fees.

Gaughan can't do anything about it, for on March 30 he granted a joint motion to stay post trial proceedings pending appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

Johnson & Johnson's insurer, Federal Insurance, posted a $5,414,750 appeal bond.

Throwing Billions Down a Psych Drug Rat Hole

Lawyers And Settlements Has:

Investigative Journalist Evelyn Pringle on:

Throwing Billions Down A Psych Drug Rat Hole

"..... In 2008, the makers of psychiatric drugs raked in overall sales in the US of $14.6 billion from antipsychotics, $9.6 billion off antidepressants, $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs and $4.8 billion in sales of ADHD drugs, for a grand total of $40.3 billion.

The successful peddling of these drugs is accomplished under the ruse of suicide prevention. Yet in 1987, the year Prozac was approved, and not coincidentally, the year the bogus epidemic in mental disorders began in this country, the number of suicides was 30,796, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control."

In the latest year posted of 2006, after hundreds of billions of dollars were thrown down a psych drug rat hole, the number of suicides was 33,292.

Contrast THAT report with:

Psych Central for:

Half Of Young Adults Have Mental Disorder

Overall, the authors note, the rate of psychiatric disorders is high among young adults, who are at a vulnerable stage of development.

“The vast majority of disorders in this population can be effectively treated with *evidence-based psychosocial and pharmacological approaches,” they conclude.

“Early treatment could reduce the persistence of these disorders and their associated functional impairment, loss of productivity and increased health care costs. As these young people represent our nation’s future, urgent action is needed to increase detection and treatment of psychiatric disorders among college students and their non–college-attending peers.”

The study appears in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Where Alcohol Use among college age young people constitutes a Psychiatric justification to Diagnose/Skunk Spray them for Life, and Drug them, ..... to Death.

* Evidence Based?

See TMAP Players Part I & TMAP Players Part II
& TMAP: Penn Pharmacist Fiorello Sentenced

Hat Tip to Discover and Recover

Dishonest Money & Your Mortgage ~ Rant

Unconstitutional IOUs Dysphorically Inflate the Rule of Law into Non Controlled, Double Blind, Triple Blind, and Deaf Dumb and Blind, Biofiscal Transmission of Reupchuck Inhibiting, Statistically Verifiable, Behavioral Pathologies.

IE. Inflation = Poverty = Depression = Crime.

Enter 'Mental Health', with its Mechanism of Action Is Unknown (1) Bio-Scientifically Incurable Medication Algorithm Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (2),

DSM-IV-TR BILLING Code: 300.3: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

..... to Rip Off Its Own endless trailers of IOUs, ...... by poisoning off the Last of Society/Rule of Law with its Addictive, Psychosis and Sudden DEATH Inducing Pills, ....... when even in a 100% Symptom Bashed, Non COI-ed Peer Reviewed, Adverspeculation Submitted to the FDA (along with $ Millions in User Fees) for Expanded Marketing Approval Scenario Best Case;

Those Psychiatric Pills, ..... Cure, ..... Absolutely, ..... Nothing.


The Constitution is Not Federally Reserved.

The Constitution Does have the Following Reserved:

Article I, Section 8

CONGRESS Shall Have Power:

To Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of Counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

The Federal Reserve is Completely and Unreservedly Off the Federal/Constitutional Reservation.

And Congress likes it that way, because without the Fed Congress couldn't grab all that Vote Whoring Pork, ..... especially the Vote Whoring 'Health Care Pork' which is selling 'Mentally Healthy' ADHD Brain Damage to your kids.

LINK

DISHONEST MONEY ~ WE MUST CONTROL THE MONEY

“Antiquity presents everywhere – the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and fraud.” – Frederic Bastiat

The idea behind government is simple: Citizens grant special power to certain individuals so that those individuals can serve and protect society. Citizens DO NOT grant special power to certain individuals so those individuals can serve (and protect) themselves at the expense of society. –And yet we see this happen over and over again. (Criminals infiltrate government, pervert its purpose and use its power against the people.)

Those who founded the United States Federal Government knew that all government trends toward corruption and tyranny. This is why they repeatedly stressed the need for LIMITED government power.

Our Constitution was meant to LIMIT government power. Our Bill of Rights was meant to LIMIT government power. The Founder’s opposition to “standing armies,” their stance against “fiat paper money,” their aversion to taxation; these all served as limits on government power. What happened?

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” –Mayer Amschel Rothschild

The significance of Rothschild’s arrogant admission cannot be overstated. The one thing that all modern governments need to exercise power is money. Those who control the flow of money to government are the ones who ultimately determine the limits of its power.

If a government must rely on its citizens to voluntarily fund its operations, then that government is almost completely at the mercy of its citizens. However, if men in power can simply confiscate whatever amount of money they want (via taxes or inflation) the people cannot hope to limit government growth or power in any meaningful way. Nor can they hope to prevent its abuses.

In short, to restore legitimate government, we must destroy the illegitimate / destructive mechanisms that confiscate monetary power from the people and transfer it to the political and financial elite. Dishonest Money focuses on the most dangerous and destructive mechanism of all: Our so-called “Federal Reserve System.”

You don't have to be an economist to understand how the Federal Reserve System works or how it’s being used to destroy our country. Nor do you have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to know that extraordinarily wealthy and powerful people always seek to expand their wealth and power (and our “monetary system” just so happens to be the greatest tool ever created to help them do that.)

In his book Tragedy and Hope, elite CFR insider Carroll Quigley wrote:

“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." (Emphasis added.)

Quigley's quote describes exactly what we're facing today. It also points us in the right direction. Assuming we want to remain free - assuming we don't want to be ruled by an unelected financial elite, we must undo their “system of financial control.” We must expose and abolish their dishonest money.

Joe Plummer
December, 2008

DSM-IV-TR BILLING Code: 312.9: Disruptive Behavior Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

If you walked into a bank to take out a $250,000,000 Mortgage from a Loan Officer whose paycheck you and your Country Club were paying 20% of, and signed the papers after stipulating that the Title Company - whose papers you gave the bank to verify that you owned the Club House/Security for that mortgage - couldn't state with any more certainty than that They BELIEVED BUT COULD NOT PROVE (because even the financially conflicted Loan Officer can't Allow them to go any farther than BELIEF) that you owned the Club House/Security for that Mortgage, ...... All Three of you Could, and Should, be Tossed into Prison, ...... Especially when you and your Country Club do Not in fact actually Own the Club House/Chemical Imbalance/Security For that $250,000,000.

And the Evidence that you Do Not own the Imbalance(3)d Club House is So overwhelming that it would Sell itself to Any jury - drunk or sober - in a 12 to Nothing Heartbeat.

So why do we allow Drug Makers (through the Federal Reserve) to Club us with the same act?

DSM-IV-TR BILLING Code: 312.32: Kleptomania

With the Constitution, rather than the Fed Inflating us to death, we wouldn't Have posts like this next one, ..... where it took EIGHT Federal Agencies to Investigate ONE Drug Maker, in a Portion, of One State.

US DOJ BACKLOGGED For YEARS Investigating PHARMA FRAUD

The Department Of Defense was Investigating a Health Care Company. Aren't they usually busy with Aircraft Carriers, Bomber Groups, and Nuclear Missiles?

And In that "Over $60 Billion in DEBT and Damn Near BANKRUPT Already" State of California, ..... Selling more Psychiatric Drugs to Children will Protect the Environment.

California: Prop 1D & 1E: Mental Health Saves Trees

So this Tuesday, May 19th, Vote Early, Vote Often, Vote Green, ...... Drug Money Green.

DSM-IV-TR BILLING Code: 292.89: Other (or Unknown) Substance Intoxication
DSM-IV-TR BILLING Code: 294.9: Cognitive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified

GSK: Senate Finds ANOTHER Possible $80,000 in Undisclosed DRUG MONEY to Dr Wagner

The WSJ has:

Grassley Ups Total Of Undisclosed Fees Paid To Prof By Glaxo

" ..... Wagner is the vice chairman of the psychiatry department at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and at one point, served on the school’s conflict-of-interest committee. A spokesman for UTMB Galveston said Ms. Wagner wasn’t available to comment.

If her outside funds weren’t reported to the National Institutes of Health, which funded the Paxil study, it could create problems for UT in getting future NIH grants. The school has received more than $5 billion in NIH funds since 2000."

There's a 48 page PDF that comes with this WSJ report, so get yourself one while the getting's good.

And, One click today has Dr Karen Dineen Wagner Still listed on the Scientific Council of NARSAD

U Wisconsin: Another RENTED Key Opinion Leader

RENT a Doctor Comes Clean

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online has:

Physician Found Money, Acclaim Seductive

The 1990s was a heady time for the pharmaceutical industry, which had just embarked on what would become known as the Statin Wars. And James Stein, an up-and-coming heart doctor, was ripe to be hooked as a drug company speaker.

Stein, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, was a 29-year-old cardiology fellow in Chicago in 1994 when his faculty mentor asked him to fill in for him at a drug company-funded lecture to a large group of doctors.

It would be his first taste of life as a drug company speaker and consultant.

Stein got first-class airfare to Dallas. A limousine took him to a luxury hotel for the talk.

He walked off the stage, and a doctor from the conference handed him an envelope containing a $500 check.

"I got a pat on the back and he said, 'There's more where that came from, son.' I had no idea what that meant, but I went home and paid off part of my student loans," Stein said in a presentation at UW this month.

Stein was among dozens of UW doctors and an untold number of physicians nationwide who have pulled in large sums doing talks or working as consultants to drug and medical device companies.

Now these financial arrangements are being threatened. Top universities and the medical profession are riding out a gathering storm over the ethics of financial relationships between drug companies and doctors. More and more, restrictions are being placed on these relationships, in part over concerns they raise the cost of drugs, threaten the integrity of medicine and may even be harmful to patients.

Stein's first drug company talk led to more than a decade of work for drug companies before he gave it up for ethical reasons. Now he is speaking out.

Over the years, many of the big names in the drug industry would hire Stein to give speeches or serve as a consultant, eventually leading to fees of $2,000 to $3,000 per talk.

Stein told his cautionary story to medical students, doctors and others at a UW conference this month on conflicts of interest in medicine.

"It was a compelling personal story of someone who tried to have it both ways and realized he couldn't do it," said Norman Fost, a professor of pediatrics and director of the bioethics program at UW.

Changing their approach

Leon Rosenberg, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University, said Stein joins a few other doctors from around the country who have spoken out publicly and turned away from industry money.

"There is a real force in that direction," said Rosenberg, the former chief science officer at Bristol Myers Squibb.

Representatives of Pfizer, a drug company for whom Stein did substantial consulting work, listened to his presentation.

"I think he has had a change of heart," said Joe Hammang, Pfizer's senior director for science policy and public affairs. "We respect the doctor's decision."

However, Hammang said many of the concerns Stein talked about occurred prior to major changes in conflict-of-interest policies at Pfizer and throughout the drug industry.

About a month after his first talk in 1994, Stein was asked by another drug company to give a lecture on cholesterol at a small hospital in Chicago, just as blockbuster statin drugs were coming on the market.

"I was really flattered because over and over again I was told that I was a future thought leader," he said. "I did my talk. I got a $750 honorarium and I was hooked."

Stein said he now realizes that the speech at the hospital was just an audition.

"They wanted to know what I would say and how I would deliver," he said. "And I think they also wanted to know what I would say about their product."

He joined speakers bureaus for several drug companies. It was a kind of badge of honor, he said. The more companies a doctor spoke for, the more highly he or she was regarded.

Stein, now 44, came to UW in 1996. Over the years, he would give talks and do other work for many of the top names in the pharmaceutical industry.

For instance, in 2005 Stein did work for six drug makers, according to a disclosure form filed with UW. That year, Pfizer paid him between $10,000 and $20,000 for four days of work as a speaker and advisory board member.

LipoScience, a firm that markets a cholesterol test, paid him $10,000 to $20,000 for four days of similar work.

Another firm, Schering-Plough, paid him about $12,000 for two days as a lecturer.

Although he said he had concerns about the propriety of his work, Stein said he was assured by his superiors there was nothing wrong with it as long as he did it on his own time. Indeed, they said it enhanced the reputation of the university.

And, he said, he considered himself an educator, not a salesman.

He said he tried to manage any conflicts of interest by disclosing who paid him, controlling the content of what he said and doing the work on personal time.

The ground shifts

Things started to change rapidly beginning several years ago.

Drug companies began referring to the talks as promotional. They wanted him to use their slides; he refused. Then, medical journals and the lay press began printing articles questioning the ethics of the relationships.

A 2006 article in a Madison newspaper listed Stein as being among the UW doctors who reported the most money from the drug industry. Stein said he was embarrassed.

But, he said, he continued to try to manage his relationships with drug companies. He sent letters to patients disclosing his ties to industry. As of December 2006, he donated all the money from his talks to charity.

Why didn't he just stop doing the work?

He said he believed he could save more lives lecturing than by working in the emergency room. Stein said he saw no harm in being paid. But he admitted that giving the talks also made him feel important.

At the same time, new scientific articles suggested that it is impossible for doctors to be unbiased when they receive gifts or payments from drug companies.

"I have learned that human beings, physicians included, are incapable of recognizing bias in themselves, and even when you try not to be biased it is impossible to avoid it, especially when money is involved," he said.

More importantly, huge fines or convictions for gross ethical conduct were being issued against every drug company that he worked with. Doctors were being investigated on allegations of taking kickbacks.

At the same time, the field of continuing medical education was being criticized for promoting the drugs of companies that paid for the courses.

Stein noted a January story in the Journal Sentinel that raised concerns about a UW continuing medical education course on hormone therapy for women that was paid for by Wyeth, a company that makes hormone products.

He said he came to realize that drug and medical device firms were no longer trustworthy partners in medical education.

He also said it has become obvious that patients have the least power and drug companies have the most power.

"I was wrong," he said.

Stein said he stands by what he taught.

But, he added, "I was naïve to think I was not influenced by the money and power of the drug and device companies."

As of last December, he said, he stopped all drug company speaking and consulting other than bona fide research.

This makes it 3 so far from U Wisconsin.

2: Quit Smoking? See "My Time To Gag" At Pharmalittle 1st

3: Getting It In The Neck: $19 Million To 1 Doctor

"Lucius Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset."

"The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, "To whose benefit?"

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Hat Tip to University Diaries