Friday, February 27, 2015

“I am particularly gratified—but not surprised—that the panel found no legal or compliance violations, affirming numerous previous reviews and accreditations of our program”

So says The Ministry of Truth.  Apparently, this is how you spin a report that actually says:

"For example, faculty and staff in Psychiatry repeatedly characterized the climate of work as a 'culture of fear.'  They provided stories of intimidation by researchers and fear of retaliation should staff voice opposition to practices that were of concern."

"The review team found little evidence that the University’s IRB engaged in a meaningful process of evaluating research risk."

"Investigators have failed to address issues of vulnerability to coercion or undue influence."

“It was clear to the external review team that the membership of the Medical IRBs did not include sufficient members with the scientific expertise necessary to adequately address the research being reviewed at corresponding meetings.”

“The failure to have either adequate number of IRB members, or adequate expertise, during IRB deliberations raises profound questions about the IRB’s ability to conduct a robust and reliable protocol review.”

“Of the 30 protocols examined for scientific review, five cases were identified where the scientific review was completed by a subordinate faculty member for research in which a department chair was the principal investigator.  In these cases, a conflict of interest exists and the risk of bias in the review is significant.”

“Accordingly, the minutes did not completely or accurately appear to represent what occurred during the IRB meetings. “

“The review process, as documented in the minutes, does not reflect a meaningful discussion of the risks and benefits of research protocols and the necessary steps taken to protect human subjects in the face of scientific or ethical concerns. “


  1. Jeebus. What is wrong with this man? Maybe he would benefit from participating in a trial of an atypical antipsychotic medication.

  2. Toward the end of the report it's stated that the perception both within and out of the university is that the U has always taken a defensive position regarding the Markingson case and obviously everything else related to their psychiatry program is well founded. Somebody at Morrill Hall at the U needs to pull Kaler aside and politely explain to him that denial is not a river in Egypt, and he needs to get a grip on reality...that his University was just exposed for being substandard and highly unethical as far as psychiatric research goes, and his department of psychiatry is now the "Poster Child" on how NOT to run a psychiatry program.

  3. NAZI human experimentation's were a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners, mainly from across Europe. Here in Minnesota we take care of those little experiments right at the UMN and Fairview Riverside Hospital through the U’s department of psychiatry.
    Mentally ill patients are coerced into participating; many do not willingly volunteer and there is never legally and ethically and morally informed consent obtained. Typically, the experiments result in death, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such should actually be examples of medical torture not psychiatric clinical trials.
    At Fairview Riverside and other camps, under the direction of Charles Schulz, selected patients are subjected to various hazardous experiments that are designed to not help the patient but to advance the science known as money laundering, backed by the Third Reich, er...pharma, and their trusted SS agents masquerading as university psychiatry department research investigators.
    After WW2 these crimes were tried at what became known as the Doctors' Trial, and revulsion at the abuses perpetrated led to the development of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics, something only whispered about or spoken in secret in some dark closet at Fairview Riverside, and never in front of Sergeant Schulz MD.

  4. kaler is such a weasel. the u is more interested in appearing they're addressing serious issues than actually addressing them. "look! we have an action plan, see? we've already implemented part of it, see? we're more than on top of it." #fatties can we swear on here? idk so i'll edit. the U is a mothaf*cking for-profit entity, or at least they operate like one. they have s*itty ethics and are more concerned about their "brand" than anything else.