Recent revelations indicate that pharmaceutical companies have selectively reported partial (favorable) clinical trial results from pediatric antidepressant trials and concealed evidence of harm from physicians, other health care professionals, and the public. It is universally agreed in the literature that failure to disclose all trial results compromises physicians' ability to provide professional care - thereby increasing the likelihood of causing preventable harm. More generally, failure to disclose trial results in scientific publications taints the scientific literature (by rendering it not credible) and, as New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer charged recently, constitutes plain and simple fraud.

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has issued an inaccurate, obfuscating, and misleading statement ON April 23, 2004 -- Antidepressant Medications for Children: Information for Parents and Caregivers -- that continues to encourage the use of antidepressants for children: "Many times, psychotherapy accompanied by an early follow- up appointment may help to establish the persistence of depression before a decision is made to try antidepressant medications." This statement appears to demonstrate the inordinate influence of Big Pharma on NIMH. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/press/StmntAntidepmeds.cfm

A request for comment about NIH proposed new research misconduct rule

See Fed Register:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/42CFRParts50and93.pdf

The new rule, I believe is meant to protect research institutions from the effective sting of a knowledgeable whistle blower.

The new rule would redefine whistle-blower as "complainant" and would limit the role of the complainant. Under the old rule, the whistle-blower participated in the process helping investigators by leading them to the evidence, etc.

Friday's New York Times included the following Editor's Note on the paper's Op Ed page: "An Op-Ed article on Tuesday discussing the vulnerability of the proposed Freedom Tower to terrorist attack should have included additional information about the writer, Daniel Benjamin. Mr. Benjamin was once paid to serve as an expert witness on Al Qaeda in a lawsuit involving Larry A. Silverstein, the developer of the tower. Although the lawsuit had nothing to do with the Freedom Tower, that relationship should."

That editor's note represents responsible journalism. Why does the Times consistently fail to apply the same conflict of interest disclosure policy to its medical news reports and opinion columns by guest writers?