Saturday, December 29, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
If ever there was a paper that deserved to be retracted...
It was this one. But the journal editors, inexplicably, say no.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
"At the end of the day, drug companies own medicine"
Another excellent report by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's John Fauber, this time on treatment guidelines. (If only we could get this kind of sustained reporting here in the Twin Cities.)
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
"A suicide draws attention to the ethics of psychiatric drug testing"
Maggie Koerth-Baker blogs on the Dan Markingson case at BoingBoing.net.
The legal threat against Mary Weiss revisited
On Twitter there has been renewed discussion of the legal action against Mary Weiss by the University of Minnesota demanding $57,000 in 2008. It seemed like a good time to revisit this blog post, "When University Attorneys Play Hardball," from the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Harrison Pope: Markingson case "one of the most important and meritorious malpractice suits I have ever seen"
Just posted on Scribd: the second affadavit by Harvard Psychiatrist Harrison Pope in the lawsuit by Mary Weiss against the University of Minnesota. Read it here.
Stone on the Markingson case: "There are so many obvious conflicts of interest that it is hard to know quite where to start."
Just out: Part 3 of Dr. Judy Stone's series of blog posts on the Markingson case at the University of Minnesota. This one focuses on conflicts of interest. Read it here.
Monday, December 17, 2012
A message to Twitter allies on the Markingson case
Because of the blog posts by Judy Stone and
Matt Lamkin, the case of Dan Markingson has been getting renewed
attention in other places, mainly on Twitter. But it's not clear that
the message is getting through to university officials, such as the
president of the university, Eric Kaler. So if you tweet about the case
-- or, in fact, if you re-tweet posts from the weekend -- be sure to include his
Twitter handle, @PrezKaler, so that he sees it.
Is Pfizer too big to fail?
Sure looks that way. Have a look at what Howard Brody has to say on the Hooked blog.
"There is a sense of it being David against Goliath. But it was, of course, David who won."
The always-interesting Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, reviews Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma.
Cosemtic stem cells will make bone grow in your eyelids?
Man, this sounds really unpleasant. I'll stick with wrinkles.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
"After Markingson killed himself, the university denied any wrongdoing and any responsibility for his death, hid behind statutory immunity from suit, and then sought to make Markingson’s mother pay the university $56,000 for its troubles."
Read about it on the Stanford Law and Biosciences blog: "How Not to Run a Drug Study: the University of Minnesota Puts on a Clinic," by Matt Lamkin
Saturday, December 15, 2012
"The University of Michigan, where he was a professor for decades, has erased any trace of him on its Web sites, and is now reviewing its consulting policy for employees, a spokesman said."
More from the New York Times on the Dr. Sidney Gilman insider-trading case at the University of Michigan.
Friday, December 14, 2012
What happens when drug and device companies fund their own studies?
Spoiler alert: the studies favor their products. Susan Perry writes about a new Cochrane review in MinnPost.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
"The thing that I am most appalled by in reviewing this tragic case is that nothing—absolutely nothing—has happened to Drs. Olson or Schulz, the IRB responsible for overseeing the trial, or the University of Minnesota."
Read Part 2 of Dr. Judy Stone's series of Scientific American blog posts on the case of Dan Markingson. (Part 1 is here.)
A Kiwi mother meets the excecutive whose drug killed her son
Maria Bradshaw is a New Zealander whose son committed suicide after taking an antidepressant. On the Mad in America blog, she writes about her recent encounter with the manager director of the company whose drug caused her son's death. It did not go well.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Scientific American on informed consent and the death of Dan Markingson
Dr. Judy Stone writes, "The suicide of Dan Markingson, a 26 year old man participating in a
psychiatric trial, has again made the news, and will serve us for a
life-time of study and discussion of research ethics, along with the TeGenero and Jesse Gelsinger cases." The first of her series of posts on the case has just come out on the Scientific American blog network.
Monday, December 10, 2012
If you ever doubted that crime pays...
Have a look at this. Employees at Pfizer, a three-time felon, are the happiest in the country.
Friday, December 7, 2012
The dueling stem cell suits in Texas, and why patients should be alarmed
Have a look at this terrific post by Kelly Hills on the stem cell stand-off in Texas.
A constitutional right to sell a date rape drug to 8 year-olds
See this post by Stanford's Matt Lamkin, on the recent off-label ruling.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
A step-by-step guide to filing a complaint to the Minnesota Board of Social Work about Jean Kenney
If you are considering filing a complaint to the Minnesota
Board of Social Work about Jean Kenney and the CAFÉ or CATIE studies, here is a
guide to how you might proceed, based on Mike Howard’s successful complaint.
Start by gathering records from Fairview Hospital and/or the
Ambulatory research Center. If past
experience is an indicator, however, chances are that they will refuse your
request. Don’t be bullied; you have a
right to these records. Contact the Minnesota
Attorney General’s office and have them send a letter ordering the release of
the records to you.
You should ask for all records pertaining to your or your family
member’s medical care and the study in which they were enrolled, but here are
some special requests that you should specifically include:
- Jean Kenney’s handwritten case notes
- All CAFÉ or CATIE study visit logs
- Signed consent forms for the CAFÉ or CATIE study
- Medical records from Fairview Hospital if the patient was
hospitalized
- Records from any outside caseworker or therapist who may
have been involved
- Records of any interaction with Stephen Olson, with special
attention to how often the patient was seen by Olson
- Records of any family meeting with the study team
- Records of Kenney’s phone logs and any emails involving the
CAFÉ or CATIE study between Kenney or Olson and AstraZeneca, Quintiles, the
University of North Carolina or the National Institutes of Mental Health
Second, read the depositions by Jean Kenney
and Stephen
Olson from the lawsuit by Mary Weiss.
Many of the things that are discussed in those depositions may be
relevant to your case.
Third, look at the Minnesota statutes governing social work and see if any of them were violated in your case. If they were, cite the statutes in your letter. Statutes that might be especially relevant include the following:
In addition, see this:
When you begin writing the complaint, here are some general
areas you might cover.
Topic 1: Medical competence
Mike Howard’s complaint successfully challenged Kenney’s
competence. The “corrective action”
found that Kenney was medical unqualified to do many of the tasks she was
assigned as study coordinator, such as dispensing study drugs and
assessing their side effects. You should start by looking through the
records with an eye towards answering these questions.
Did Kenney dispense a study drug to you or your family
member?
Did Kenney take a medical history or sign off on any medical
history forms?
Did Kenney sign off on any “adverse event” forms? (The phrase “adverse event” is medical jargon
for anything that goes medically wrong for a subject in a research study, such
as a side-effect from a drug or an abnormal laboratory finding.)
Did Kenney sign off on any “rating scales” for psychiatric
symptoms or drug side-effects? Examples
might include the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, the Simpson-Angus Scale, the
Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), or the Clinical Global
Impressions (CGI) scale.
Did Kenney make any mistakes about your or your family
member’s medical diagnoses, medications or dosage?
Topic 2: Informed
consent
All of the atypical antipsychotics used in the CAFÉ and
CATIE studies have been linked to hyperglycemia, diabetes, and weight
gain. During the period when the CAFÉ and
CATIE studies were in progress, the drugmakers issued warnings about these
problems to doctors and clinical investigators.
All subjects in the CAFÉ and CATIE studies should have been told about
these new risks and offered the opportunity to drop out of the study or
continue. If they decided to continue,
the subjects should have been asked to sign a new consent form which included
the risks of hyperglycemia, diabetes and weight gain.
So look carefully at the informed consent form. Note whether it includes these risks. If it doesn’t -- and if it is the only
consent form in the chart -- this suggests that you or your family member was never
informed of the new risks. This is a
serious ethical breach. As the Board of
Social Work “corrective action” points out, the failure to inform subjects of
these risks would effectively invalidate their consent.
Topic 3: Privacy
The sponsors of the CAFÉ and CATIE studies did not have a legal
right to see the medical records of anyone they planned to recruit into a
research study unless that person gave them authorization by signing a HIPAA
form. (HIPAA, or the Health Information and Accountability
Act, is a federal law protecting the privacy of health information.) But the depositions from Olson and Kenney in the
lawsuit brought by Mary Weiss suggest that Olson and Kenney may not have always
asked subjects for authorization.
So be sure to look through the medical records for a signed
HIPAA form. Examine the signature
carefully and make sure that it matches that of your family member. If there are irregularities, make a note of
this in your complaint.
Topic 4: Falsified study entries and fraudulent initials
and/or signatures.
The “corrective action” noted that Kenney had signed clinical documents with the initials of a physician, presumably Stephen Olson. Look carefully through the records of study visits and any other relevant documents to see if there is evidence of falsification. Look at any documents that your family member should have signed (informed consent form, HIPAA authorization, etc.) and make sure that his or her signature is genuine. Be sure that the records of any study visits, family meetings, etc. match up with your own records or recollections of what happened.
Topic 5: Standard of
practice for a clinical social worker
The “corrective action” for Kenney noted a number of
instances where Kenney failed to meet minimal standards of practice for a
social worker, such as failing to respond to warnings by family members, and
the failure to document any treatment goals.
Look carefully through the study records
for anything that strikes you as inadequate medical care and make a note of
them in your complaint.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
What's wrong with the Star Tribune?
More embarrassing device industry infomercials in the Strib. Read Gary Schwitzer.
Monday, December 3, 2012
How to file a federal complaint about research subject protection at the U
In the weeks since the “corrective
action” against Jean Kenney was issued by the Minnesota Board of Social
Work, I have been contacted by the families of several patients who were harmed
or mistreated in psychiatric studies at the University of Minnesota. Some of them plan to file their own complaints
to the Board of Social Work. This is an
excellent idea, which is why I posted Mike Howard’s complaint
to the Board about Kenney, so that
others can use it as a model.
But the Board of Social Work is not the only place to file a
complaint. If a person has evidence that
wrongdoing has occurred in a federally funded study, he or she has another
avenue: the federal Office of Human Research
Protections (OHRP). OHRP has
jurisdiction over research funded by federal bodies such as the National
Institutes of Health, and it has genuine power. In fact, in 1990s, its predecessor office, the
Office for Protection of Research Risks, temporarily suspended medical research
at major medical centers such as Duke and Johns Hopkins after serious ethical wrongdoing
was revealed.
Judging from the alarming problems outlined in the “corrective
action” against Kenney, I believe there are grounds for complaints to OHRP
about the CATIE
(Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness) study. The University of Minnesota was a site for
the CATIE study as well as the CAFÉ
study, and Kenney was the study coordinator for both. The principal investigator, Stephen Olson, was
recruiting
subjects for both studies in 2003.
I would be glad to help anyone interested in filing a
complaint. I am ashamed of the way that
my university has handled the egregious ethical violations in the CAFÉ study,
and I am willing to do whatever I can to make sure that justice is done. You can find me here, and I can
be reached at my gmail address, ellio023.
Carl Elliott
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







