Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Medical Boards Lack Resources ??? To Punish Dangerous Docs

Dateline: August 10, 2011:

Fierce Healthcare has:

Medical Board Lacks Resources To Punish Dangerous Docs

August 10, 2011 — 11:40am ET | By

Earlier this year, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen called for the Department of Health & Human Services to investigate state medical boards for failing to punish doctors with serious medical practice violations. Since then, not much has changed, as California's medical board failed to discipline 710 dangerous doctors even though they were disciplined by hospitals, surgical centers, and other healthcare organizations where they worked, according to a report released on Tuesday by Public Citizen.

What's more, 35 percent of those doctors were repeat offenders.

Nationwide, more than 200 doctors were deemed an "immediate threat to health or safety" of patients and had their clinical privileges suspended, limited, or revoked; California docs accounted for nearly half of those. Despite hospitals taking action, medical boards let these doctors escape punishment.

According to California's medical board, a lack of adequate staffing and funding may have hindered its ability to follow up on the 710 physicians it failed to discipline, (Ed: ?????) an issue that other medical boards might be struggling with amid state budget cuts.

"We believe more data needs to be obtained, but like many state agencies, we have a 20 percent vacancy rate, and we're trying to focus on our core functions," said Jennifer Simoes, a Medical Board spokeswoman, after reviewing the findings, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The watchdog group recommends boards be independent from state medical societies and other parts of the state government so they can create their own budgets and regulations to effectively ensure patient protection and quality care.

California ranked 35th in the nation for disciplining doctors in Public Citizen's 2011 analysis. The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice has done the worst job, according to the report.

For more:
- read the Public Citizen press release
- read the LA Times article

Related Articles:
Watchdog group ranks the best, worst states for disciplining doctors
State med boards not punishing dangerous docs
Nearly 2,000 dangerous nurses will face disciplinary actions


RELATED STORIES


Thank You Fierce Healthcare and Ms Caramenico


See David Sell's column at Philly.com for The State of Arkansas v J&J/Risperdal which is set to begin, in Court, next week.

"Bright Light Helps Expose Problems, Texas Medicaid Chief Says"


One, Risperdal pushing California City scraped up $200,000,000 to feed its Empire of Mind Control peddlers for just 1 year, and the entire State can't afford to deal with 710 Doctors due to a lack of Funding?



And while we're at it, what criteria is the Medical Board of California using in determining whether a Doctor is Dangerous or not?


Do you think that the NON-EXISTENCE of two entire hospitals worth of Doctors inflicting those Direct Effects of Psychiatric Drugs/Electrocutions might have anything to do with the State Medical Board's Inability to properly Fund themselves?



Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, March 26, 2012

Neuroleptics (Antipsychotics) CAUSING Suicide

psychrights.org has:

"while mainstream neuromythological psychiatry”3 has a biochemical explanation for all human emotions, even for love or being moved by looking into the sunset (“Alles,” 2000), when it comes to the explanation of suicides of “schizophrenics,” psychiatry explains this only by emotional and socio-economical factors."
The drugs, labels, and pile upon pile of dehumanizing Frauds perpetrated upon consumers subjected to Psychiatric 'Treatment' are routinely justified/shuffled off by Psychiatrists as the "patient's lack of insight into their need for treatment".

Take for instance this doublespeak from the 2005 FDA Risperdal label:
"Suicide attempt was associated with discontinuation in 1.2% of RISPERDAL-treated patients compared to 0.6% of placebo patients, but, given the almost 40-fold greater exposure time in RISPERDAL compared to placebo patients, it is unlikely that suicide attempt is a RISPERDAL-related adverse event (see PRECAUTIONS)"
As Mr Lehmann points out, Psychiatry defends itself through blaming the consumer for having Non-Existent, Brain Chemical Imbalances/Genetic Defects.

But as to consumer Suicides/Homicides, Psychiatrists remain singularly reticent to address the business of their drugs, labels, and arrant FRAUDS actually being the Causative Agent.

This paper's only 20 pages long. You can read it in one sitting. Here's a brief refresher on how many suicides they've actually prevented.

Throwing ($40.3) Billions Down A Psych Drug Rat Hole
"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."

Mr Lehmann's paper explains it in just 20 pages.

"In Coming off Psychiatric Drugs (Lehmann, 1998, 2004),7 a book about the possibilities and experiences of coming off psychiatric drugs, Bellion gave a report about her psychic condition under Haldol administered by a community psychiatrist:


“I vegetate behind my neuroleptic wall and I am locked out of the world and out of life. The real world is further from me than Pluto is from the sun. My own secret world is also gone – my last refuge and I had destroyed it with Haldol. This is not my life. This is not me. I may as well be dead. An idea has begun to take shape. Before winter comes I will hang myself. But before that I want to try and see if my life would be different without Haldol. I reduce the number of drops. I take less and less until I arrive at zero. After one month I am clean. Then I begin to notice how unkempt I am. I wash my hair, make the bed, clean the apartment. I prepare a warm meal. I even enjoy doing this. I can think again.” (2004, p. 280)."



The Psychiatric excuse for poisoning these drugs into people is biological.

But, the Suicides and Homicides those consumers commit After being Psychiatrically worked over are Not biological. They're concrete, discrete, unsolvable mysteries which Psychiatrists are working around the clock Bullshitting the un-psychoanalytically converted into believing:

1: They're not responsible for
2: They're going to prove it some day
3: They just haven't created Enough carnage yet on Everybody Else's Money
4: Therefore, Everybody Else must continue handing over their own Life, Liberty and Property to Psychiatry's Shibboleth of "Research Must Continue"

File this next one under, "Beating A Dead Horse":

"the VA health system serves more than 5.3 million people at more than 1,300 sites across the country, and also operates the largest medical education and training program in the US."
Schizophrenia is generally posited to affect 1% of the population. 1% of 5.3 Million would be 53,000 VA consumers treated for Schizophrenia.

"Though a positive outcome has not been observed with the NJ Algorithm to date,

Since the VA's NJ Algorithm is a modified version of the TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) The Bonkers Institute offers a plain english version of MIMA: The Michigan Mutation which is Also a version of TMAP.

"The cutting edge of science

This project was modeled after the Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms. A distinguished panel of 25 Michigan experts very carefully replaced the word "Texas" with the word "Michigan" in all appropriate spots.

As new studies financed by drug companies discover ways to expand the market, and new products developed by drug companies enter the market, "this algorithm will be periodically revised and updated."



53,000 VA consumers is a lot of consumers to test these drugs and brainwashing tactics in without having a single "Positive Outcome" to date.

The Law of Averages suggests that among 53,000, even if the drugs were neutral/no more harmful than a sugar pill, there would have been Numerous, perhaps 40% to 60% spontaneous "Positive Outcomes".

None.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Millions In Medicaid Overpayments Uncollected Due To Faulty Auditing

Fierce Healthcare has;

Millions In Medicaid Overpayments Uncollected Due To Faulty Auditing

March 21, 2012 — 12:17pm ET | By

Medicaid Integrity Contractor (MIC) audits failed to recoup overpayments due to flawed methods of identifying providers who potentially received excess funds, according to a new report from the Office of Inspector General.

Although the 370 assigned audits between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2010 had about $80 million in potential overpayments, the report found that only 11 percent of the audits identified overpayments--recouping only $6.7 million.

Moreover, 42 percent found no overpayments, while 39 percent remained ongoing as of June 2011 and are not likely to identify overpayments.

"Specifically, 109 of the 144 ongoing audits are unlikely to identify overpayments because the methods used to select the audit targets have already proven unsuccessful," the report states.

Incorrect claims data, as well as the misinterpretation of the claims data with regards to state-specific Medicaid policies led to misidentified audit targets, according to the report.

To ensure audits target the right providers, the agency recommends collaborative efforts among Audit MICs, Review MICs, the states and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, according to an OIG statement. Not only does collaboration eliminate duplicative efforts, it also completes audits an average of 2.5 months faster than regular audits, according to the report's authors.

Given the findings, CMS said it has revamped how it selects audit targets--such improvements could save the government money as CMS spent about $17.2 million on MIC audits in fiscal year 2010.

In its accompanying study, the OIG concluded last month that MIC reviews are not being used to their full potential because they can only access incomplete data and cannot make specific recommendations about which organizations should be further scrutinized, FierceHealthFinance previously reported.

To learn more:
- read the OIG announcement
- here's the full MIC audit report (.pdf)

Related Articles:
Providers worry about proposed CMS 10-year overpayments review
State regulators pull back on Medicaid audits
CMS collection plate taking back millions in overpayments
BCBSNC exclusive: Overpayment allegations inaccurate

RELATED STORIES
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Hospital Workers Don't Report 86% of Patient Harm Events.


Fierce Healthcare has;
January 9, 2012 — 12:55pm ET | By
Hospital workers reported only about 14 percent of the patient-safety incidents experienced by Medicare beneficiaries discharged in October 2008, according to a new report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
Hospital staff failed to report the remaining 86 percent of patient harm events, partly due to staff misunderstanding what constitutes patient harm. Hospital administrators labeled 61 percent of the unreported events as those that staff did not identify as reportable and 25 percent as events that staff normally reported but did not report in this case, according to the OIG.
According to the report, all of the 189 hospitals reviewed used incident reporting systems to identify patient safety incidents. Although they rely heavily on such systems to track and analyze problems, administrators admitted they supply incomplete data about how often problems occur, the OIG notes.
To help hospitals ensure patient safety, the OIG recommends the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) join forces to enhance the efficiency of incident reporting systems.
AHRQ agreed that it will work with CMS to create a list of potentially reportable events, as well as offer technical assistance to help hospitals use the list, the report states. Similarly, CMS agreed to provide guidance to accreditors about their assessment of hospitals' patient safety improvement efforts.
In addition to incident reporting systems, hospitals could implement a program that encourages clinicians to report risky incidents before an adverse event happens. The "Good Catch Award" program at John Hopkins led to 27 potentially life-saving changes in only 24 months, according to a September 2011 article in Anesthesiology News.
For more information:
- read the OIG press release
- check out the OIG report (.pdf)


Thank You Fierce Healthcare and Ms Caramenico

Sounds like Hospital Workers are suffering from a 189 Hospital wide, 86% average, DSM Diagnosable, 'Mental Health' problem.

DSM BILLING CODE: 300:29 Specific Phobia, subtype Situational, IE: Suffering Verbal Abuse, Physical Abuse, and/or Getting Fired and/or Blacklisted if they Don't close ranks and Look the Other Way.


"Hospital staff failed to report the remaining 86 percent of patient harm events, partly due to staff misunderstanding what constitutes patient harm."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

DSM-V: New Extra Quack w 13% MORE Financial COI

PLoS Medicine has;


AND, it's from Lisa Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky, who Know COI because they Researched it on the Last DSM.

Results: Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.

And now the new extra quack 2013 DSM has added another 13% worth of Financial Conflicts of Interest for a power packing total of 69% of its panelists being in the tank for Pharma. So just exactly When does the FTC step in, if ever, and demand the APA drop their pretense of this DSM thing being anything more than an advertorial for the makers of Psychiatric Drugs?

And remember that Democracy Rules here. Yes, that much vaunted and brazenly bruited about by Everyone with an Agenda to shove Themselves and Their group to the head of the line: the Tyranny of the 51% Majority.

Psychiatric ‘Illnesses’ are Democratically voted into and out of existence/inclusion/omission. They’re not brain chemical/brain scan/genetically discoverable, or verifiable.

Here's a piece of Psychiatric "DEMOCRACY" for you.

American Journal of Psychiatry: Markers For Schizophrenia

In this example, the screening test identified 174 individuals as at risk for illness; 75 (43%) are correctly classified, and 99 (57%) are incorrectly classified. Thus, even with high specificity, more individuals identified by the screening test are false positive than true positive. Furthermore, as specificity decreases, the proportion that are false positive rapidly increases. For example, if the specificity were 90%, then the screening test would identify 1,065 individuals as at risk, 990 (93%) of whom would be false positive. Dr. Davidson and colleagues reported a "validated specificity" of 99.7% for their screening tool.

So, with the APA's NEW shelf groaner they're admitting they DEMOCRATICALLY screwed up last time and the DSM V is needed to fix it.

Does this mean that everyone who got diagnosed by the APA (which will be admitting they’ve been stuck in an ongoing 13 year welter of schizophrenic/psychotic, diagnostic delusions Themselves), will then receive a Get out of Nutz free card for those diagnoses the DSM V drops, …. as all those State Physician Impairment/Diversion Programs are currently Continuing to hose away the APA’s Mentally/Politically Ill Stink from the 15% of their fellow MD surgeons who show up drunk or hung over, and Certifiably, DSM Nutz?

Study: 15% Of Surgeons Abuse Alcohol

All it takes is 2 drinks.

If it’s medical enough for consumers without a trade guild like the AMA to wear, it's equally DEMOCRATICALLY medical enough for AMA members themselves to be financially, socially, and professionally torpedoed with.


And Now, let's get to those delicious FCOI insights on all those DEMOCRATIC, "Raise your Hand if you Ideate that you can Make A Buck by sliming Other people with This Opinion", Disease Mongering, Scientific FRAUDS.

A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-V Panel Members Financial Associations With Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists

Lisa Cosgrove1,2*, Sheldon Krimsky3

1 Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 2 Department of Counseling Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 3 Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, and Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America

Citation: Cosgrove L, Krimsky S (2012) A Comparison of DSM-IV andDSM-5 Panel Members' Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists. PLoS Med 9(3): e1001190. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190

Published: March 13, 2012

Copyright: © 2012 Cosgrove, Krimsky. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: No specific funding was received for writing this article.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: APA, American Psychiatric Association; DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ; FCOI, financial conflict of interest; KOL, key opinion leader

* E-mail: lcosgrove@ethics.harvard.edu

Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Summary Points

  • The American Psychiatric Association (APA) instituted a financial conflict of interest disclosure policy for the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
  • The new disclosure policy has not been accompanied by a reduction in the financial conflicts of interest of DSM panel members.
  • Transparency alone cannot mitigate the potential for bias and is an insufficient solution for protecting the integrity of the revision process.
  • Gaps in APA's disclosure policy are identified and recommendations for more stringent safeguards are offered.

Introduction Top

All medical subspecialties have been subject to increased scrutiny about the ways by which their financial associations with industry, such as pharmaceutical companies, may influence, or give the appearance of influencing, recommendations in review articles [1] and clinical practice guidelines [2]. Psychiatry has been at the epicenter of these concerns, in part because of high-profile cases involving ghostwriting [3],[4] and failure to report industry-related income [5], and studies highlighting conflicts of interest in promoting psychotropic drugs [6],[7]. The revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), scheduled for publication in May 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), has created a firestorm of controversy because of questions about undue industry influence. Some have questioned whether the inclusion of new disorders (e.g., Attenuated Psychotic Risk Syndrome) and widening of the boundaries of current disorders (e.g., Adjustment Disorder Related to Bereavement) reflects corporate interests [8],[9]. These concerns have been raised because the nomenclature, criteria, and standardization of psychiatric disorders codified in the DSM have a large public impact in a diverse set of areas ranging from insurance claims to jurisprudence. Moreover, through its relationship to the International Classification of Diseases [10], the system used for classification by many countries around the world, the DSM has a global reach.

After receiving criticism that DSM-IV had no financial disclosure of panel members, to its credit the APA instituted a mandatory disclosure policy [11]. The DSM-5 panel members are required to file financial disclosure statements, which are expected to be listed in the publication, and the APA has made a commitment to improve its management of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs).

This new APA requirement makes the DSM's disclosure policy more congruent with most leading medical journals and federal policies on FCOI. FCOIs are widely recognized as problematic because of the data showing a clear connection between funding source and study outcome whereby results are favorably biased toward the interests of the funder [12]–[14]—what has been referred to as the “funding effect”[15]. Some have argued that greater transparency of financial interests may facilitate a decline in FCOIs and a decrease in the potential bias that accompanies them, and that it may encourage professionals and consumers to more critically evaluate medical information [16]. Others are not sure that disclosure will reduce FCOIs and the potential for bias, because transparency alone just “shifts the problem from one of ‘secrecy of bias’ to ‘openness of bias’” [15]. Additionally, there is the concern that disclosure may open the door for subterfuge [17]. That is, when researchers or panel members list every affiliation that they have ever had, including funding from federal agencies, it can create a “signal-to-noise problem,” thereby obscuring the truth about deeply problematic financial relationships with industry.

We have reported elsewhere on industry relationships with DSM-5 task force members [18]. Although the composition of the task force has changed slightly since its formation in 2007 (e.g., Pilecki et al. [19] found 72% of the members had ties in early 2011) industry relationships persist despite increased transparency. Currently, 69% of the DSM-5 task force members report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry. This represents a relative increase of 21% over the proportion of DSM-IV task force members with such ties (57% of DSM-IV task force members had ties). This finding is congruent with emerging data from fields outside of psychiatry suggesting that transparency of funding source alone is an insufficient solution for eliminating bias [20]–[23].

In 2006 we analyzed all DSM-IV panel members' financial associations with industry [24]. We have undertaken a similar analysis for DSM-5 panels, which allowed us to compare the proportions of DSM-IV and -5 panel members who have industry ties. There are 141 panel members on the 13 DSM-5 panels and 29 task force members. The members of these 13 panels are responsible for revisions to diagnostic categories and for inclusion of new disorders within a diagnostic category.

Three-fourths of the work groups (Figure 1; [2],[4]–[6],[8],[10]–[12]) continue to have a majority of their members with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. It is also noteworthy that, as with the DSM-IV, the most conflicted panels are those for which pharmacological treatment is the first-line intervention. For example, 67% (N = 12) of the panel for Mood Disorders, 83% (N = 12) of the panel for Psychotic Disorders, and 100% (N = 7) of the Sleep/Wake Disorders (which now includes “Restless Leg Syndrome”) have ties to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the medications used to treat these disorders or to companies that service the pharmaceutical industry.

thumbnail

Figure 1. Comparison of financial conflicts of interest among DSM-IV and DSM-5 task force and work group members.

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190.g001

Gaps in APA's Disclosure Policy Top

Although the APA has made the disclosure of FCOIs of DSM panel members more transparent, there are important gaps in the current policy that need to be addressed:

  1. The current APA disclosure policy does not require panel members to specifically identify speakers' bureau membership but rather cloaks it under “honoraria.” (A speakers' bureau usually refers to an arrangement between a commercial entity or its agent whereby an individual is hired to give a presentation about the company's product. The company typically has the contractual right to create and/or control the content of the presentation.) Therefore, despite increased transparency, it remains unclear how many individuals participate on speakers bureaus, because panel members may simply list “honoraria.” None of the DSM panel members identified participation on a speakers bureau. When we did an internet search of the 141 panel members, we found that 15% had disclosed elsewhere that they were members of drug companies' speakers bureaus or advisory boards. These internet searches were conducted for sources published in the years 2006 (1 year before the task force was appointed) to 2011, a time period congruent with published research on financial conflicts of interest. Searches included peer-reviewed articles, conferences, participation in continuing medical education events (i.e., courses and/or seminars for health professionals) and self-reporting of any industry ties following interviews with the media. Speakers bureau and advisory board participation were included in our analysis only when there was unambiguous information (e.g., “Dr. Smith discloses that he serves on the speakers bureau for Eli Lilly and Pfizer”) and both authors (LC, SK) were in agreement. The nature of these relationships needs to be spelled out more precisely; speakers bureau participation is usually prohibited elsewhere (e.g., for faculty in medical schools), as it is widely recognized to constitute a significant FCOI. Pharmaceutical companies refer to individuals who serve on speakers bureaus as “key opinion leaders” (KOLs) because they are seen as essential to the marketing of diseases as well as drugs.
  2. Exclusions to the APA DSM-5 disclosure policy include unrestricted research grants [11]; that is, panel members are not required to disclose unrestricted research grants from industry. However, we would argue that this exclusion allows for commercial interests to be reflected in the revision process: there is no evidence to suggest that simply because money comes in the form of a large “unrestricted” research grant it does not create an obligation to reciprocate or invoke an implicit bias.
  3. The current policy places high and arbitrary threshold limits on monies allowed from industry: DSMpanel members are allowed to receive US$10,000 per year from industry (e.g., for consultancies), and panel members are allowed to have up to US$50,000 in stock holdings in pharmaceutical companies.
  4. In contrast to other disclosure policies (e.g., the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2007 and the 2011 US National Institutes of Health policy on conflicts of interest), APA's policy does not require disclosure of the amount of money received from industry.

However, transparency alone cannot mitigate bias. Because industry relationships can create a “pro-industry habit of thought” [25], having financial ties to industry such as honoraria, consultation, or grant funding is as pernicious a problem as speaker's bureau participation. Over four decades of research from social psychology clearly demonstrates that gifts—even small ones—create obligations to reciprocate[26]–[28]. Also, because of the enormous influences of diagnostic and treatment guidelines, the standards for participation on a guideline development panel should be higher than those set for an average faculty member [29],[30].

Conclusion Top

The DSM-5 will be published in about 14 months, enough time for the APA to institute important changes that would allow the organization to achieve its stated goal of a “… transparent process of development for the DSM, and …an unbiased, evidence-based DSM, free from any conflicts of interest” [emphasis added] [31]. Toward that goal we believe it is essential that:

  1. As an eventual gold standard and because of their actual and perceived influence, all DSM task force members should be free of FCOIs.
  2. Individuals who have participated on pharmaceutical companies' Speakers Bureaus should be prohibited from DSM panel membership.
  3. There should be a rebuttable presumption of prohibiting FCOIs among the DSM work groups. When no independent individuals with the requisite expertise are available, individuals with associations to industry could consult to the DSM panels, but they would not have decision-making authority on revisions or inclusion of new disorders.

These changes would accommodate the participation of needed experts as well as provide more stringent safeguards to protect the revision process from either the reality of or the perception of undue industry influence.

Author Contributions Top

Analyzed the data: LC SK. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: LC. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: LC SK. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: LC SK. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: LC SK.

References Top

  1. Tsai AC, Rosenlicht NZ, Jureidini JN, Parry PI, Spielmans GI, et al. (2011) Aripiprazole in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a critical review of the evidence and its dissemination into the scientific literature. PLoS Med 8: e1000434. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000434.
  2. Cosgrove L, Bursztajn HJ, Krimsky S, Anaya M, Walker J (2009) Conflicts of interest and disclosure in the American Psychiatric Association's Clinical Practice Guidelines. Psychother Psychosom 78: 228–232. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  3. Lacasse JR, Leo J (2010) Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Med 7: e1000230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230.
  4. Roehr B (2011) Professor files complaint of scientific misconduct over allegation of ghostwriting. BMJ 343: d4458. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4458.
  5. Harris G, Carey B (2008, June 8) Researchers fail to reveal full drug pay. New York Times. Available:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08c​onflict.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 11 January 2012.
  6. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, Jetzinger E, Kissling W, et al. (2006) Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: An exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 163: 185–194. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  7. Perlis R, Perlis C, Wu Y, Hwang C, Joseph M, et al. (2005) Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 162: 1957–1960. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  8. Angell M (2010) The illusions of psychiatry. New York Rev Books 58: 20–22. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  9. Frances A (2010) Opening Pandora's box: The 19 worst suggestions for DSM5. Psychiatric Times 27: 9.FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  10. World Health Organization (1992) International statistical classification of disease and related health problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Geneva: World Health Organization.
  11. American Psychiatric Association (2007, July 23) APA names DSM-V task force members: leading experts to revise handbook for diagnosing mental disorders [Press release #07-57]. Available:http://www.dsm5.org/Newsroom/Documents/0​7-57%20APA%20Announces%20DSM%20Task%20Fo​rce%20Members.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2011.
  12. Bekelman J, Li Y, Gross C (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA 289: 454–465. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  13. Stelfox H, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky A (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338: 101–106. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  14. Kjaergard L, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 325: 249. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  15. Krimsky S (2010) Combating the funding effect in science: What's beyond transparency? Stanford Law Policy Rev XXI: 101–123. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  16. National Research Council (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice [consensus report]. In: Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available:http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Conflict​-of-Interest-in-Medical-Research-Educati​on-and-Practice.aspx. Accessed 11 January 2012.
  17. Matheson A (2008) Corporate science and the husbandry of scientific and medical knowledge by the pharmaceutical industry. Bio Societies 3: 355–382. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  18. Cosgrove L, Bursztajn HJ, Krimsky S (2009) Developing unbiased diagnostic and treatment guidelines in psychiatry. N Eng J Med 360: 2035–2036. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  19. Pilecki BC, Clegg JW, McKay D (2011) The influence of corporate and political interests on models of illness in the evolution of the DSM. Eur Psychiatry 26: 194–200. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  20. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 331: 782–785.FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  21. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schünemann H, et al. (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J 170: 477–480. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  22. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4: e5. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005.
  23. Cain DM, Lowenstein G, Moore DA (2005) The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. J Legal Stud 31: 1–25. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  24. Cosgrove L, Krimsky S, Vijayaraghavan M, Schneider L (2006) Financial ties between DSM-IV panel members and the pharmaceutical industry. Psychother Psychosom 75: 154–160. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  25. Lexchin J, O'Donovan O (2010) Prohibiting or ‘managing’ conflict of interest?: A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies. Soc Sci Med 70: 643–647. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  26. Katz D, Caplan AL, Merz JF (2003) All gifts large and small: Toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. Am J Bioeth 3: 39–46. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  27. Mather C (2005) The pipeline and the porcupine: Alternate metaphors of the physician-industry relationship. Soc Sci Med 60: 1323–1334. FIND THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
  28. Mauss M (1967) The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (I. Cunnison, Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton Co. 130 p.
  29. Mendelson TB, Meltzer M, Campbell EG, Caplan AL, Kirkpatrick JN (2011) Conflicts of interest in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med 171: 577–584. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.96.
  30. Institute of Medicine (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust: Report brief. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. Available: http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%​20Files/2011/Clinical-Practice-Guideline​s-We-Can-Trust/Clinical%20Practice%20Gui​delines%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf. Accessed 30 March 2011.
  31. American Psychiatric Association (2010) DSM-5 Development: Frequently asked questions. Available:http://www.dsm5.org/about/pages/faq.aspx. Accessed 30 September 2011




Remember folks; THIS, is DEMOCRACY.

Now please review:

Democracy Is NOT Freedom

Cultural Marxism: The Doom Of Language

And Thank You PLoS, Ms Cosgrove and Mr Krimsky
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)