Commentary on Insel's JAMA Commentary Defending Psychiatrists Under Probe
We've written several posts involving Dr. Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health including:
Senator Harkin Takes On Tom Insel at Autism Appropriations Meeting Dr. Insel and the Trick Question About Vaccines
Olmsted on Autism: Why Insel Must Go -- Now!
But There's Mercury in the H1N1 Vaccine! Curiouser and Curiouser.
Below is a post from the HC Renewal blog about Dr. Tom Insel, who is well known to the autism community, regarding a letter he had published in JAMA. We thought you'd find it interesting.
DR. PANGLOSS AS NIH INSTITUTE DIRECTOR
JAMA is out today with a commentary by Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Using indirection, Dr. Insel has risen to the defense of seven academic psychiatrists on whom an ethical searchlight has been trained for the past several years by Senator Grassley and others. With ludicrous optimism and a series of straw man discussions, Dr. Insel makes the case that things are not really as bad as they seemed to be or, if they were, then other specialty physicians were doing much the same things. Dr. Insel needs to recalibrate his ethical compass.
Why is an NIH Institute Director issuing this apologia for the corruption of academic psychiatry? Does he not have better things to do, such as ensuring that longstanding NIH regulations on conflict of interest are enforced? Why does an NIH Institute Director presume to speak for academic psychiatry? Where are the leaders of the major professional and scientific organizations like the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Psychiatrists, the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, and the Society of Biological Psychiatry? Why are they not stepping up publicly to the plate? Perhaps they are confounded by the awkward fact that some of the seven individuals are current and past presidents of these very organizations. Even the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences has not sanctioned those of the seven who are Institute members.
Why is an NIH Institute Director downplaying the gravity of the ethical controversies surrounding these compromised individuals like Charles Nemeroff at Emory (now at Miami), and Alan Schatzberg at Stanford? To hear Dr. Insel tell it, all they did was fail to disclose income from pharmaceutical companies. That is not the half of it...
Read the full post at the HC Renewal blog.
FYI, there was a follow up post to the one you linked. It's as follows:
Monday, April 05, 2010
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
HAPPY TIMES AT NIMH
Two weeks ago I discussed a Commentary in JAMA by Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Over on Danny Carlat’s blog, Dr. Insel took exception to my linking him with Charles Nemeroff, and appeared to be putting distance between himself and Dr. Nemeroff. So, I did some checking, and a correction to one of my statements is in order.
I had said, “ … that Insel appointed Nemeroff as an advisor soon after he (Insel) moved to NIMH.” That was my recollection. It turns out what I recalled was instead Insel showcasing Nemeroff in the NIMH Director’s 7th Annual Research Roundtable June 10, 2003, a few months after Insel moved from Emory University to NIMH. Let the record stand corrected.
At that gala meeting, held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Dr. Insel characterized Nemeroff as one of the “real stars of NIMH’s research community…” Nemeroff used the occasion to pimp GlaxoSmithKline’s drug paroxetine (Paxil), showing data on change in platelet stickiness after Paxil in patients with heart disease and depression. This highlighting of Paxil by Nemeroff focused on the surrogate outcome of platelet function, and contained no evidence that Paxil modified any important clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, Nemeroff speculated liberally about the place of antidepressant drugs in managing heart disease. This is the sort of stuff Insel described at the Roundtable as “ … an excellent sampling of the Institute’s exciting research endeavors.”
My general point two weeks ago was that Dr. Insel, the Director of an NIH Institute, downplayed the seriousness of the ethics issues surrounding the seven academic psychiatrists he mentioned in his Commentary in JAMA. Though he spoke in platitudes about the need for transparency, the spirit of transparency did not move him to disclose his own close ties with Dr. Nemeroff, who is one of the seven. Lest there be any remaining doubt about those ties, here is Dr. Nemeroff lauding Dr. Insel at the 201st meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council September 13, 2002 in the presence of the NIH Director, Elias Zerhouni, MD. From the Minutes: Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Reunette W. Harris Professor and Chair, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, commended Dr. Zerhouni’s selection of Dr. Insel as the next NIMH Director and added that Dr. Insel is the epitome of courage defined as grace under pressure. Dr. Nemeroff added that Dr. Insel will leave his current position as a most beloved professor, a respected scientist, and a great person.
In the comments on Danny Carlat’s blog I called Dr. Insel’s objections to my linking him with Nemeroff disingenuous. I still think that. Dr. Insel and Dr. Nemeroff are closer than Insel now seems comfortable acknowledging. Their record of talking up each other is hard to ignore. The irregularities identified by Senator Grassley involving Nemeroff’s reporting to NIH, his conflict of interest, and his conflict of commitment occurred on Insel’s watch. Considering the appearance of cronyism in their relationship, is it even possible for Dr. Insel to investigate Dr. Nemeroff’s performance in areas like the Emory-GlaxoSmithKline-NIMH Collaborative Mood Disorders Initiative?
Bernard Carroll
Labels: Charles Nemeroff, GlaxoSmithKline, NIH, NIMH, Thomas Insel
posted by Bernard Carroll at 4:52 PM | 4 comments
Links to this post
Posted by: Garbo | April 12, 2010 at 05:05 PM
If Insel and other psychiatrists continue to decide how to spend the millions of federal dollars, why renew CAA? Unless the feds change direction and clean house, CAA is a waste of money.
Four years after CAA passed, it's clear that the late Dr. Rimland was correct when he called the 2006 bill the pretending to combat autism act.
Posted by: Don't renew Combating Autism Act with Insel | March 27, 2010 at 08:43 AM
Well, that last sentence in the HCR post is rather intriguing, isn't it? Anyone up for a dig?
Posted by: Garbo | March 26, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Why? Easy - Insel is up to his eyeballs in it. Thought we all knew that already. The question is, how can we do something about it? Is it even possible to get someone elected who gets it and will do something about it? Or is big pharma too powerful?
Posted by: Lisa | March 26, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Insel's role at the NIMH is to promote psychopharmaceuticals and other forms of modern lobotomy on behalf of industry. Corrupt research is intrinsic for the purpose of promoting dangerous, ineffective products and procedures, so part of his job description is generally defending the machinery which produces corrupt research supporting these things in general-- even if the harmful product being falsely promoted and the researcher in question do not deal directly with psychotropes.
The NIMH has long been criticized for underfunding, ignoring or even censoring outcomes for research of non drug/non surgical (and non-gross, non-shock, non-destructive) interventions for "mental disturbances".
Insel has fallen on the sword in the past to defend the usual suspects, all without getting a nick because he's just fulfilling his expected role-- all part of the game. But with Grassley, he may find himself wriggling on the stick for a while.
Posted by: Gatogorra | March 26, 2010 at 02:09 PM
I answered Beth Clay's autism survey referenced in the article above. My comment at the end was the following:
The fraud and corruption of all medical research is so extensive and pervasive that only the elimination of CDC, NIH and FDA can hope to begin to address the issues associated with a coverup of such proportions. Obviously the missions of these bureaucracies must be carried on, but only by those with a clearly demonstrated committment to a love of God and love of neighbor with no financial interests in decisions related to such medical studies.
Drs Nemeroff and Schatzberg are clear examples of physicians who have perceived the conflicts inherent in this corrupt system and taken them to their logical conclusions for personal gain.
Yes, bensmyson, we must do more than write to our congressperson, who sends our outraged letters to the circular file. The real question is how to awake the sleeping masses of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Moslems and others who fear God, seek to honor and adore Him, respect His creation and treat neighbors with truth and justice. That, my friend, is the real conundrum.
Posted by: mary podlesak | March 26, 2010 at 12:24 PM
I guess it is my computer not working. Harkin takes on Tom Insel at the appropriations- only led to a page that said it had been removed???
Did anyone get this page?
Is this the same meeting from a few months back were Tom Insel said all the autistic kids could be research engineers and that Hep B (his brother's invention) was harmless??? OR Is THIS NEW????
Benmyson is this where you got it that Insel was at Emory?
It seems like Emory Clinic became such a hot bed for pro- vaccine that Dr. Shoffener (first real researcher for acquired mitochondria disorders) had to move to cold Cleveland.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM
I guess it is my computer not working. Harkin takes on Tom Insel at the appropriations- only led to a page that said it had been removed???
Did anyone get this page?
Is this the same meeting from a few months back were Tom Insel said all the autistic kids could be research engineers and that Hep B (his brother's invention) was harmless??? OR Is THIS NEW????
Benmyson is this where you got it that Insel was at Emory?
It seems like Emory Clinic became such a hot bed for pro- vaccine that Dr. Shoffener (first real researcher for acquired mitochondria disorders) had to move to cold Cleveland.
Posted by: Benedetta | March 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM
So Insel is at Emory, as was Thorsen? Now the tool is "downplaying the gravity of the ethical controversies surrounding these compromised individuals like Charles Nemeroff at Emory (now at Miami), and Alan Schatzberg at Stanford? To hear Dr. Insel tell it, all they did was fail to disclose income from pharmaceutical companies. That is not the half of it."
When these ethical violations occur kids die.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/16/1531156/psychiatrist-gets-warning-from.html
Seriously do we just lay down and take it? Or do we form a posse and round up some baby rustlers?
Posted by: bensmyson | March 26, 2010 at 08:49 AM