Cherokee Nation: Elizabeth Warren’s Claim To Tribe Is ‘Inappropriate’

dailycaller
Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor 
10/15/2018

The Cherokee Nation called Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s use of a DNA test to justify her claim of Native American ancestry “inappropriate” on Monday.

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” the Cherokee Nation said in a statement released Monday. “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation.”

Inbox: Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test. pic.twitter.com/Sh8aNZgyAT

— Justin Wingerter (@JustinWingerter) October 15, 2018

They added, “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens.”

Warren released the results of a DNA test over the weekend that revealed she is between 0.09 and 1.5 percent Native American and has at least one Native American ancestor between 6 and 10 generations back. (RELATED: Boston Globe Issues Second Correction, Makes Warren’s Native American Claim Look Even Worse) 

The results of Warren’s test did not connect her with any specific tribe, and Carlos D. Bustamante, the Stanford University professor who conducted the test, was unable to use Native American DNA. Native American DNA does not exist in researchers databases because tribal leaders discourage members from participating in genetic testing. (RELATED: The Scientist Warren used Didn’t Test With Native American DNA)

“To make up for the dearth of Native American DNA, Bustamante used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American. That’s because scientists believe that the groups Americans refer to as Native American came to this land via the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago and settled in what’s now America but also migrated further south,” the Boston Globe reported.

Warren has repeatedly been criticized by political opponents for allegedly lying about being Native American. Warren listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory from 1986-1994 and claimed that her parents had to elope because her father’s family did not want him to marry a woman of Cherokee descent.

Warren’s alleged deception led President Donald Trump to nickname the Massachusetts Senator “Pocahontas.”
Follow Amber on Twitter


Thank You Ms Athey and the DC.

Weekend reads: Views on the “grievance studies” hoax; universities play “pass the harasser;” what next for NEJM?

OK. So it's not the weekend. Our bad. Better late than never.

Retractionwatch
 
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured questions about what should happen to a paper published by Theranos; a replication of a famous paper on treatment of writer’s block that led to — well, you’ll see; a researcher joining our leaderboard’s top 10; and a data faker who became chief scientific officer of a cannabis product company. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• They’re at it again: A group of authors has undertaken a “project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research.” In other words, a sting. (Areo Magazine)
• “We’ve learned that when you send in a convincing paper full of fake data, you can get it published. But we’ve known that for decades.” Our Ivan Oransky weighs in on the “grievance studies” hoax. And so does Dan Engber of Slate.
• What happens to taxpayer money when scientists are faced with accusations or findings of wrongdoing? (Francie Diep, Pacific Standard)
• What’s next for the New England Journal of Medicine, as its longtime editor Jeffrey Drazen is retiring?
• It’s “neither wise nor fair to expect self-motivated data vigilantes to police scientific flaws,” writes Keith Baggerly, who was instrumental in uncovering the issues in work by Anil Potti. (Nature)
• “Who Says You Need Permission to Study Yourself?” The Karolinska Institutet does, reports Emily Mullin. (NEO.LIFE)
• A project aims to determine, among other things, “how can society as a whole maintain confidence in a sector more and more suspected of treachery and how is this reflected in funding programs and policy as a whole?”
• “Dr. Oransky said that while Dr. Wansink’s behavior was egregious, it is not something that is isolated to nutrition.” (Anahad O’Connor, New York Times)
• “Editors of book series stop publishing with Springer Nature to protest its acquiescence to Chinese government censorship demands.” (Elizabeth Redden, Inside Higher Ed)
• When Elsevier and Springer Nature work together on retractions.
• A group of authors has written an open letter “to highlight editorial bias at the [British Journal of Sports Medicine] evidenced by a lack of robust and transparent governance of the decision-making processes of the Editor in Chief.”
• “A leading London university is planning to publish annual data on harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct after investigations by the Guardian and the Observer revealed the scale of these issues at top British institutions.” (Sarah Marsh and Hannah Devlin, The Guardian)
• “Around 20% of the articles were written about women, with the highest share of 24% in Arts and Humanities. Both male and female authors write more often about men than about women, a stable situation for the last 70 years.” (Scientometrics)
• Bad Science: PeerJ’s Jason Hoyt talks to Corina Logan.
• “We find that between 1974 and 2014 0.1% of publications in the top 50 economics journals were replication studies.” (Research Policy, sub req’d)
• “I reached out to both the authors and the editors of PLOS, but to date, there are no updates or corrections on the article itself.” Zad Chow on why it’s so difficult to correct the scientific record.
• The CNRS is punishing two scientists for misconduct. (Jef Akst, The Scientist)
• “For most but not all papers in the literature there is only one α-author.” A new way to measure scientific leadership? (J.E. Hirsch, arXiv)
• Six months after the U.S. ORI announced findings in the Murthy case, and almost a decade after the University of Alabama said he likely fabricated a dozen protein structures, Biochemistry has retracted two of Murthy’s papers.
• Sometimes, apparently, retractions need to be corrected. (Cancer Biotherapy & Radiopharmaceuticals)
• “How a failed psoriasis study pushed a whole field forward.” (Sam Herron, Salon/Massive)
• “Science has big plans for the social sciences, including an increased emphasis on interdisciplinarity, methodologically rigorous research, and increased transparency.” Of note: Tage Rai, the incoming editor of the subject for Science, posted this in PsyArXiv.
• CERN has suspended a physicist “after he allegedly denied that physics suffers from a male gender bias and criticized affirmative-action policies,” Davide Castelvecchi reports. (Nature)
• “Must academic evaluation be so citation data driven?” Steve Fuller says “we might wish to consider whether the tail is wagging the dog in the case of academia’s fixation on citations as a measure of intellectual value.”
• When it comes to using the h-index to judge research, “Unfortunately, Indian regulatory and funding agencies have institutionalised such misuse,” writes Vimal Sinha. (Research Matters)
• A social worker was struck from the UK’s Health and Care Professionals Council after “it was found she had plagiarised a colleague’s assignment and lied to her employer about completing and passing the task.” (Luke Haynes, Community Care)
• “I think there are a lot of reasons why researchers should be very hesitant to invoke The Incentives as a justification for why any of us behave the way we do.” (Tal Yarkoni, Citation Needed)
• “I have done reviews on Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve, and pretty much every other day of the year.” And Jay Van Bavel says he is not alone. (Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Undark)
• Tilburg University is investigating a recently awarded PhD to see if “there has been a violation of generally accepted principles of scientific integrity and good scientific practice.” (university statement)
• “In the original version of these 14 articles the reference list was unfortunately not represented according to the journal’s new bibliographical style, which should have been implemented from January 2018.” (Food Science and Biotechnology)
• Could a universal database of conflicts of interest be in the works? (Joyce Frieden, MedPage Today)

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Thank You Retraction Watch.

An article on a controversial topic just disappears; mass resignations from a nutrition journal; the likely mistaken history of the vibrator

Retraction Watch

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of happiness, an apology from a journal, and bad news for a lab with a high “level of disorganization.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• “Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and ‘harass the journal’ he had founded 25 years earlier ‘until it died.’ Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated.” An article on a controversial topic disappears. without a trace. (Theodore Hill, Quillette)
• “I am requesting a silent retraction of this paper…You may wish to consult with your legal advisors, but unless I get a retraction I will hand it over to my lawyer…” (Newsroom)
• All 10 senior editors of the journal Nutrients resigned last month, alleging that the publisher, MDPI, “pressured them to accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance.” (Jop de Vrieze, Science)
• “Peer review is no substitute for fact-checking.” The likely mistaken history of the vibrator. (The Atlantic)
• Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang have “a seven-point approach to reengineering the scientific literature so that it is better able to prevent and correct its failures.” (Journal of Clinical Investigation)
• Starting in 2020, European science funders will require grantees to publish in open access journals. (Martin Enserink, Science)
• Taylor & Francis has divested from its journal Prometheus, following a dispute. (Rachael Pells, Times Higher Education)
• “Repressive Experiences ‘Rare but Real’ in China Studies,” reports Elizabeth Redden. (Inside Higher Ed)
• Two of three authors “had not agreed to be listed in this article’s byline, and…the article had been submitted…without their explicit approval.”
• “A former data registry director and assistant psychiatry professor at the University of Utah has been awarded damages in a whistleblower protection case…” (Ben Lockhart, KSL)
• “Corruption, the Lack of Academic Integrity and Other Ethical Issues in Higher Education: What Can Be Done Within the Bologna Process?” Is that anything like salami slicing? (Elena Denisova-Schmidt, European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies)
• “In fact, Nature Communications lost several reliable reviewers in chemistry when the referees were told their unsigned reviews would be made public if the author opted for it.” (Nature)
• “Can a researcher who (or whose byline) is not well-established, lose credit for an original idea?” (Praveen Chaddha, The Wire)
• “I think what everyone has to understand is that unhealthy discussion leads to unsuccessful funding applications, with referees pointing out that there is a controversy in the matter.” Katarina Zimmer digs into the Smart Flares controversy. (The Scientist)
• “Billed as a documentary, Paywall would be more accurately described as an advocacy film.” Richard Poynder reviews the recently released movie about scholarly publishing for Nature.
• Brian McNaughton wanted a raise. So he made up an offer letter from another university. And then he  “reached a plea deal this week that will allow his case to be dismissed in a year if he remains law abiding and completes 100 hours of community service.” (Jack Stripling and Megan Zahneis, The Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Can anyone parse this notice? “This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief of the Journal of the Affective Disorders, as the choice of data analyzed was found to be inaccurate after updated data was provided by the authors, and this had a significant impact on the original article data and conclusions.”
• “An article in a BMJ journal that criticised a Cochrane review on human papillomavirus vaccine made allegations that were not warranted and gave an inaccurate and sensationalised report of the review’s findings, say Cochrane’s two top editors.” It’s one group of Cochrane editors vs. another group of Cochrane editors. (Nigel Hawkes, The BMJ)
• The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) isending its print edition.
• A group in China has earned a second retraction. Here’s the first.
• If you’ve never heard of the Schön scandal, Douglas Natelson thinks that’s wrong.
• “Data thug” James Heathers has confessions to make. (Two Psychologists Four Beers podcast)
• “In any case, we don’t talk enough about failure, so here’s mine.” (Eiko Fried)
• “That’s right, we made a dreadful mistake in processing a paper for minimizing such mistakes. Boy, do I feel like a fraud.” (Jeff Rouder)
• “Plagiarism has had a comfortable place in Thailand for as long as I can remember, in music, literature, design, education and even politics.” (Surasak Glahan, Bangkok Post)
• “This evidence points to serious, systematic and large-scale fabrication of research results. It has come to our attention that in the meantime, three of these manuscripts were submitted to other journals (two of those submissions simultaneously with our journal!) and were published between March and June of this year. We have contacted and informed the respective journals of our concerns.” Jana Christopher describes how FEBS Letters uncovered likely image manipulation.
• “What and who are medical journals for?” asks Richard Smith.
• The Pasteur Institute has cleared Karolinska Institutet rector Ole Petter Ottersen of misconduct allegations regarding a 1999 paper in the Journal of Neuroscience. (Karolinska release)
• What does this mean, OMICS? An article “accepted for publication…considering the statements provided in the article as personal opinion of the author which was found not having any or biasness towards anything.” Is it even the right article? (Journal of Arthritis)
• “Drug companies routinely tweak their clinical trial designs in ways that seem designed to obtain opportune results. Very often, the FDA doesn’t mind.” (Dan Robitzski, Ashley Lyles & Cici Zhang, Undark)
• “Our results show that [questionable research practice] use is not particularly widespread among students according to their own reports, with less than 20% indicating having engaged in more than one.” (PLOS ONE)
• “It’s a sign of how bad things have got that researchers think it’s acceptable to write this in a Nature journal: ‘we continuously increased the number of animals until statistical significance was reached to support our conclusions.'” (Adrian Barnett)
• “‘A large grain of salt’: Why journalists should avoid reporting on most food studies.” (Kelly Crowe, CBC)
• “The correspondence allegedly reveals that the CEO of the Food and Grocery Council used an intermediary PR company to produce blog posts that denigrated a senior academic psychiatrist advocating for alcohol policy consistent with World Health Organization recommendations.” (Jennie Connor, Kypros Kypri, Drug and Alcohol Review, sub req’d)
• A look at citation sentiment — whether citations to retracted papers are positive or negative — that draws on our retraction database. (by David Ciudad, presented by Daniel Ecer)

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.


Thank You Retraction Watch.

The Great Leap Fraud: China's Wake-Up Call On Scientific Misconduct And Fake Science

 Do you take Pharmaceutical Drugs?

wiki has:

Pharmaceutical industry in China

Big Surprise. Those drugs aren't all 'Made In The USA'. 
 
ABC Australia
Sunday 2 September 2018 1:05PM

China's president wants to turn the country into a scientific superpower, but mass retractions by scientific journals of papers penned by Chinese scientists has exposed a major problem for China and for science globally.

It's home to a thriving black market for fake papers, fake peer reviews, and beyond.

But is China alone?

GUESTS
Ivan Oransky
Medical journalist
Co-founder of Retraction Watch
Distinguished Writer in Residence and Clinical Professor of Medicine, New York University
Professor Cong Cao
Professor in Innovation Studies
School of Contemporary Chinese Studies
The University of Nottingham Ningbo China
David Cyranoski
Asia Pacific correspondent
Nature Magazine
MORE INFO
China introduces sweeping reforms to crack down on academic misconduct. Nature News, 8 June 2018.
A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews. Retraction Watch, April 2017.
Retraction Note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology. Springer, April 2017.
 
China's Scientific Elite
Cong Cao
RoutledgeCurzon, 2004
China's Emerging Technological Edge: Assessing the Role of High-End Talent
Cong Cao and Denis Fred Simon
Cambridge University Press, 2009

China's Black Market In Publishing, And More From Retraction Watch

retractionwatch

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured a high-profile paper about cataract surgery and the risk of death that turned out to be wrong; a press release retraction following outrage over a study of trans teens; and a UConn researcher who “recklessly” used false data in grant applications. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• China: “It’s home to a thriving black market for fake papers, fake peer reviews, and beyond.” Our Ivan Oransky talks to Natasha Mitchell, host of ABC Australia’s Science Friction.
• Hebei University found that the authors of a now-retracted paper on the controversial NgAgo gene editing technique did not commit misconduct. (press release) Background here.
• “We will end this menace of predatory journals.” India cracks down. (Subhra Priyadarshini, Nature)
• “Online Bettors Can Sniff Out Weak Psychology Studies,” reports Ed Yong. “So why can’t the journals that publish them?” (The Atlantic)
• Last Week Tonight host “John Oliver would like to retract a few things.” But he’d also like to retract a retraction. (Matthew Dessem, Slate)
• “But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened.” The U.S. Department of Education’s school shooting data is a wild overestimate, NPR finds.
• “[H]omogeneity between author and gatekeeper gender and nationality is associated with the outcomes of scientific peer review.” (bioRxiv)
• “[W]ith very few exceptions, agency and journal criteria fail to recognize the complexity of sex/gender, including the intersection of sex/gender with other key factors that shape health.” (Research Integrity and Peer Review)
• “We wonder whether some journals inadvertently –or perhaps intentionally –discourage [post-publication peer review] submissions by making it needlessly difficult for authors to prepare and submit them…” (Shashok and Matarese, Research Policy & Evaluation)
• “The claim that effectiveness has been demonstrated in the Parenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health (PEACH) childhood obesity intervention is unsubstantiated by the data.” Another takedown by David Allison and colleagues. (British Journal of Nutrition)
• “And just like those who make a living reporting on politics, science journalists must often relate unflattering facts about the people and institutions they cover.” (Bob Grant, The Scientist)
• “Using citation metrics as part of academic recruitment decisions leads to an increase in self-citations.” (LSE Impact Blog)
• Yale retracted a release about a cardiologist named as an endowed professor after faculty expressed anger that it had gone to someone found guilty of sexually harassment. (Cho/Feibel, Yale Daily News)
• Any authorship system “will be misleading and unfair,” says a new paper. (Learned Publishing, sub req’d)
• Go ahead, self-archive!, say a group of authors. (PsyArXiv)
• An apology and retraction: “In the column, I wrongly stated that Rebel Media publisher Ezra Levant would be “hugging himself and weeping tears of joy at the thought of all those brown people leaving the country.” (The Barrhead Leader)
• An investigation has found that a Finnish member of Parliament — who also ran for president in 2018 — “plagiarised large parts” of her master’s thesis. She says it was unintentional. (Alice Cuddy, EuroNews)
• What’s it like to be called a “scientific zealot” and a “scientific terrorist” in front of a roomful of chemists at the American Chemical Society national meeting? Here’s Raphael Levy’s take. (Rapha-Z-Lab)
• “Long shrouded in secrecy, the contents of peer review are coming into the open.” In Nature, Jessica Polka and colleagues explain that more and more journals have signed a letter at ASAPbio saying that they will publish their peer reviews.
• “[A] professor allegedly copied up to 48% of a report that formed part of [one university’s] National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) submissions, from a number of websites.” (Legally India)
• “Activists are protesting imbalanced conferences, editorial boards, and other professional activities by refusing to join.” (Diana Kwon, The Scientist)
• Ashley Smart explains “How a hidden coding error fueled a seven-year dispute between two of condensed matter’s top theorists.” (Physics Today)
• “A medical watchdog group is calling on the National Institutes of Health to immediately stop the enrollment of patients in a clinical trial of sepsis treatment and launch an investigation of how the study received approval, arguing that it puts patients at risk of serious harm, including death.” (Sharon Begley, STAT)
• The American Geophysical Union “is working with other leading publishers to implement common standards for authorship and recognize and value specific contributions across cultures.” (Brooks Hanson, Susan Webb, Eos)
• “Incorrect Content” indeed! A major mixup causes a case report to be published twice — once without all authors listed, and once under a very incorrect title.
• Has there been a drop in the number of papers with inappropriate image manipulations in one journal? (Arturo Casadevall)
• “We have received notification from the author, Yonghui Shen, that he had added Dr. Wei Zhang (the first author) as a co-author fraudulently, without his permission or authorization, and that he falsified the confirmation from Dr. Zhang.” (Medical Science Monitor)

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.


Thank You Retraction Watch.

Most Direct-To-Consumer Drug Advertisements Do Not Adhere To FDA Guidelines

Few DTC drug advertisements fully adhere to FDA guidelines, the overall quality of information provided in DTC advertisements is low, and some advertisements market off-label indications.

madinamerica
Shannon Peters March 30, 2018

A new study, led by Joseph Ross, associate professor of Medicine and of Public Health at Yale University School of Medicine, examines direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertisements. The results of the study, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, find that most DTC advertisements in the US do not fully adhere to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines, the overall quality of information is low, and some market off-label indications despite this being explicitly prohibited.

“Though proponents argue that DTC advertising is educational and empowering for consumers, our findings suggest that the information provided is unreliable and potentially misleading,” write the authors.

The FDA has allowed DTC advertising in the US since 1985. Today, someone who watches an average amount of television will watch about nine drug advertisements each day, or 30 hours of advertisements a year. Drugs marketed through DTC advertising have increased demand by patients, higher rates of prescribing, and as a result, higher sales. Those who support DTC advertising suggest it empowers people to make informed medical decisions. Others who are cautious of DTC advertising worry it can lead to inappropriate or over-prescribing and have called to end DTC advertising.

The FDA requires that drug companies provide the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) with all advertisement materials and has regulations for what can and cannot be included in an advertisement. For example, DTC advertisements must list major risks in audio and are prohibited from suggesting any off-label uses for a drug (“off-label” refers to using a drug for a reason that has not been approved by the FDA). However, because of limited resources, the OPDP does not review every advertisement, and previous research has shown that many DTC advertisements do not follow FDA guidelines.

The aim of the current study, as described by the researchers, was to “assess the degree to which recently aired DTC ads for prescription drugs adhered to FDA regulations and guidelines” and “examine whether off-label use was suggested.” The researchers reviewed 97 DTC advertisements that aired in the US between January 2015 and July 2016.

The researchers find that the most common types of drugs marketed through DTC advertising are for inflammatory conditions (18%) and diabetes (16%). Psychiatric or neurological drugs made up 10% of the drug indications advertised. Over three quarters (76%) of the drug indications were for chronic conditions. Based on the traits of the main characters in the commercials, drugs were most commonly marketed to young or middle aged women.

“All advertisements included an approved use for the drug,” find the researchers. While there were no blatantly false statements in the advertisements, the researchers did find the information to be low quality and sometimes misleading. In addition, the researchers find that 13% of commercials, all for diabetes medication, “suggested non-FDA-approved—or off-label—uses, all of which were for weight loss and/or reduction in systolic blood pressure.”

The authors note, “only 26% (n = 25) of ads contained quantitative efficacy information” (e.g., the percentage of people who had successful results from a drug). In addition, “none of the commercials contained quantitative information regarding risks or side effects,” find the researchers. Although advertisements are required to audibly list all major risks, 22% had at least one risk only in the running text.

Another important finding was that 60% of DTC advertisements discussed potential savings or payment methods. The researchers highlight that, although drug coupons could reduce costs in the short term, the savings are often time-limited, and may result in a higher societal cost if people are choosing higher cost drugs over less expensive options.

The researchers summarize, “Our findings demonstrate that the quality of information in DTC television ads is low: none described drug risks quantitatively; only one-quarter described drug benefits quantitatively, and suggestions of off-label promotion were common for diabetes medications.”

“The promotion of off-label indications, poor quality of information, distracting risk presentations, and the fact that risks are never quantified could distort the perception of benefit and risk information,” highlight the authors. Therefore, the researchers call for more detailed regulations for what quantitative information about drug risks is required in DTC advertising. They also suggest the FDA charges a “user fee” to DTC advertisers, which could then fund more comprehensive oversight of advertisements. The authors conclude by reminding us why tighter regulations on DTC advertising are essential:

“Broadcast DTC advertising could lead patients to make healthcare decisions and request certain expensive, brand-name medications based on ads containing low-quality and incomplete information.”

Patients deserve quality, comprehensive information about drug benefits and risks in order to provide informed consent and be truly empowered in their healthcare decisions. In their current form, most DTC advertisements are misleading rather than promoting informed consent.

****

Klara, K., Kim, J., & Ross, J. S. (2018). Direct-to-consumer broadcast advertisements for pharmaceuticals: Off-label promotion and adherence to FDA guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4274-9 (Link) 

Thank You Ms Peters and MIA.

Kamala Harris DACA Question Is Making Us Question Her Credentials As AG Again

townhall

Cortney O'Brien
Sept 8th, 2017


Kamala Harris, The Missing Millions

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the former attorney general of California, has a knack for causing us to question her credentials. Last month, shetold President Trump he should not have pardoned Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he had committed a crime. The thing is, people are only eligible for pardons if they've committed a crime or been convicted of one in the first place. It is Pardon 101.

Well, Harris is at it again with her questionable knowledge of the law - this time on the topic of illegal immigration.


Follow
Kamala Harris
✔@KamalaHarris

For Attorney General Jeff Sessions to suggest that Dreamers are anything other than lawful is irresponsible. @TheLastWord

10:20 PM - Sep 5, 2017

1,7181,718 Replies

4,2454,245 Retweets

14,02514,025 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The youth who benefit from DACA came here with their parents, and as such many would agree that they shouldn't be punished for their parent's crimes. However, they are still here illegally. Key word illegally. That is, by definition, breaking the law.

Nevertheless, Harris pledged to defend DACA during a meeting with young undocumented immigrants.

“If the vast majority of people who are expressing opinions about this issue had the opportunity to meet our Dreamers, they would understand it’s just the right thing to do,” she said.

How many more gaffes will we hear from her on her way to 2020? Since she's hintedonce or twice she's ready to take the torch for the Democrats.

Democratic attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia have suedthe Trump administration for its plans to rescind DACA. The White House gave Congress a six-month window for a chance to make DACA constitutional.

Thank You Ms O'Brien and Townhall.

Karma, Boy; Martin Shkreli Convicted of Securities Fraud

dailycaller Reuters
3:59 PM 08/04/2017

By Brendan Pierson

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Martin Shkreli was convicted of fraud by jurors in a U.S. court in Brooklyn on Friday, in a blow for the controversial former drug company and hedge fund executive, who had forcefully and repeatedly proclaimed his innocence.

Jurors found Shkreli guilty of two counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy, but acquitted him of five other conspiracy counts he had faced.

Federal prosecutors had accused the 34-year-old of defrauding investors in his hedge funds and stealing from his old drug company, Retrophin Inc , to pay them back.


Continue reading.

Fierce Health Payer ANTI FRAUD Headline News For Oct 14 2015

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/antifraud/news

Most of this wouldn't be happening if Govt wasn't laying out your money for these fraudsters in the first place.

Second Miami physician charged in $20 million scheme

October 13, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

A Miami physician was indicted for his role in a $20 million fraud scheme in which he is accused of writing prescriptions for unnecessary services after taking kickbacks from home health agencies in the area, according to the Department of Justice.

Data analytics detect fraud schemes in Florida

October 13, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Enforcement officials in Jacksonville, Florida, are relying on data analytics to uncover fraud, waste and abuse, a method that has already paved the way for several multi-million dollar settlements this year, according to the St. Augustine Record.

PharMerica pays nearly $10M to settle case tied to anti-seizure medication

October 13, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

The national nursing home pharmacy PharMerica Corp. agreed to pay $9.25 million to resolve claims that it took kickbacks from Abbott Laboratories to promote the anti-seizure medication Depokate, according to the Department of Justice.

National wound care provider accused of using 'superbills'

October 13, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

A national wound care provider, Healogics, is facing allegations from former employees that the company billed for unnecessary procedures, implicating clincs and hospital partners in 29 different states, according to the Jacksonville Business Journal.

Social Security numbers on Medicare cards: A well-worn welcome mat for fraud

October 13, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

The issue of including Social Security numbers of Medicare beneficiary cards has been discussed for more than four decades, including repeated warnings from the Government Accountability Office. Despite those warnings, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has failed to take even incremental steps to remove the identifying numbers, contributing to pervasive identity theft that exploits seniors and leads to millions in healthcare fraud schemes. 

Senate Committee hearing highlights identity theft risks among Medicare beneficiaries

October 13, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Expert testimony at aSenate Committee on Aging hearing outlined how identity theft can lead to multi-million dollar fraud schemes--and the preventative measures that can protect personal health information.

Scammers take advantage of Medicare beneficiaries in Chicago

October 12, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Scammers commonly referred to as "marketers" are taking advantage of Medicaid beneficiaries throughout Chicago, offering cash kickbacks or free services,  while billing for services that were never provided, according to WBEZ Chicago.

Four New Orleans women plead guilty to $30M home health scheme

October 6, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

A prominent New Orleans businesswoman and owner of Abide Home Care Services Inc. pleaded guilty, along with three others, to orchestrating a $30 million Medicare fraud scheme, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Study identifies $11M in Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse in Delaware

October 6, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

A much-anticipated review of the Delaware's Medicaid program revealed $11 million in potential fraud, waste, and abuse over the last three years, according to the Associated Press.

Senate hearing addresses Medicare and Medicaid overpayments

October 6, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

The federal government spent an estimated $124.7 billion in 2014 inimproper payments across 22 government agencies, most of which came from Medicare and Medicaid programs, according to expert testimony from a senior GAO official.

Salomon Melgen, plus payment data, put ophthalmologists in the hot seat

October 6, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Two multi-million dollar cases against two ophthalmologists, including the headline-grabbing Salomon Melgen, have thrown the specialty into the regulatory hot seat. Add Melgen's high-profile case to payment data that lists Medicare payments to ophthalmologists that reach eight figures and an OIG report that identified $171 million in questionable claims, and you've got a recipe for additional federal scrutiny, plus potentially more fraud cases involving ophthalmologists.

Distinct enforcement themes emerge at AHLA fraud conference

October 5, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Last week's Fraud and Compliance Forum, hosted by the American Health Lawyers Association, outlined current and future fraud enforcement trends straight from the mouths of OIG officials.

OIG identifies $76 million in questionable chiropractic claims

October 2, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

The government isn't doing enough to prevent improper chiropractic payments, particularly claims involving "maintenance therapy," according to a new OIG report, particularly claims involving "maintenance therapy." 

Anatomy of a fraud bust: Collaboration creates efficiency

September 29, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

With more large-scale, multi-million dollar fraud schemes surfacing across the country, enforcement officials are utilizing Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams to dismantle entire fraud operations. Rob Howard, assistant special agent in charge with the FBI in Detroit, explains how fraud enforcement officials discover and unravel large-scale schemes. 

Cardiologists nailed for inappropriate procedures

September 29, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

A cardiologist in Ohio has been convicted for overbilling Medicare $7.2 million for unnecessary cardiac procedures including stents, catheterizations, nuclear stress tests, and recommending patients for cardiac bypass surgery that wasn't medically necessary, according to  the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio. Meanwhile, a Kentucky cardiologist is awaiting trial after pleading not guilty to 27 counts of fraud and making false statements tied to unnecessary cardiac stents.

OIG: Medicare paid $30 million for untraceable ambulance rides

September 29, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Medicare spent more than $30 million during the first half of 2012 on ambulance transports for patients that appear to be ghosts on paper, according to a new report released by the Office of Inspector General Tuesday.

Pennsylvania official plans to assemble homegrown fraud strike force

September 29, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Last year, David Hickton, U.S. Attorney for the District of Western Pennsylvania, requested agents from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to help root out healthcare fraud that was becoming more prevalent in the region. They never showed, so this year he's decided to take matters into his own hands by creating a homegrown fraud task force, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

In fight against fraud, humans just as important as machines

September 29, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Last week's Medical Identity Fraud Alliance survey offered an important reminder that the fight against medical identity theft and fraud needs an equal dose of humans and technology, and that budget dollars should reflect and equal balance between IT and fraud personnel. Although predictive analytics offers exciting possibilities in the world of fraud prevention, these systems should be navigated by critically thinking humans.

After claiming providers committed $823M in dental fraud, Texas settles for just $20M

September 28, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Lingering problems from the previous Texas Health and Human Services Commission administration have forced the state to offer reduced settlement packages to nearly 100 dental providers accused off overbilling Medicaid, according to The Houston Chronicle.

New inspector general at Texas agency aims to alter fraud enforcement perceptions

September 22, 2015 | By Evan Sweeney

Stuart Bowen inherited a difficult job when he was appointed inspector general of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, but nine months later, he's making notable progress.