Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to <a href="http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=38545">Frank King, D.C.,</a> many more should be doing just that:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, absent nerve reflexes, and pathological nerve response patterns that the chiropractic adjustment alone does not correct. The appropriate homeopathic remedies will eliminate aberrant nerve reflexes and pathological nerve responses which cause recurrent subluxation complexes.<br /><br />Not only does homeopathy correct nerve interferences, it empowers the doctor of chiropractic to reach the entire nervous system. What this means is that we can now better affect the whole person, and all of the maladies that affect us. Homeopathy’s energetic approach reaches deep within the nervous system, correcting nerve interferences where the hands of chiropractic alone cannot reach. Homeopathy is the missing link that enables the chiropractor to truly affect the whole nervous system!<br /></blockquote><br />But that’s not all:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><strong>Financial Rewards<br /><br /></strong>Homeopathy means a multiple increase in business. Personally, I have been able to see and effectively help more patients in less time. The additional cash flow from broadening your scope of practice, increasing your patient volume and selling the homeopathic remedies is a wonderful adjunct. Better yet are the secondary financial benefits:<br /><br /><ul><li>Homeopathy is like an extension of you that the patient can take with them to apply throughout each day in between visits. The actual therapeutic benefits of homeopathy along with the inner comforts of the patient as they connect you with each dose they take.</li><li>The dynamic broadening of your effective scope of practice multiplies the number of patients you can help and the multiple problems that each patient usually has. As you correct one set of problems, there are commonly other problems most patients don’t even tell their chiropractors. This doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Homeopathy empowers the chiropractor to correct conditions ranging from allergies to warts with incredible effectiveness! </li><li>Obviously, the rule of multiples will exponentially increase when a homeopathic procedure is properly implemented into your practice. Many of the conditions people are suffering with have no viable solution without the dynamic duo of chiropractic and homeopathy.<br /></li></ul>You can be the doctor people will seek out, travel long distances to see, and pay cash for your valuable services. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand, it’s a great position to be in.<br /><br /></blockquote><br />This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022">subluxation</a>” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “<a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirosell.html">practice building</a>.”<br /><br />Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=146">make an extra buck</a>. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4768">diagnostic’ sugar</a> that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out <a href="http://www.bio-proinc.com/site/555888/page/131760">this offering</a> from <strong>“bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”</strong>:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><p><strong>HOWW TOOOO ….</strong></p><p>The “must do” seminars for those who own or are managing a Complimentary [sic]Medicine Practice.<br /><br /><strong>Three day course teaches you</strong>: </p><p>How to relate to the patient, evaluate, test and diagnose</p><p>How to use solutions, mixtures, methods, supplies and equipment</p><p>How to protocol administration for Chelation, Oxidation, Chelox, TriOx, Ascorbates, UVBI</p><p>How to design and organize your office</p><p>How to hire and fire staff and to computerize</p><p>How to use public relations and marketing</p><p>How to manage compliance with Medicare, State Medical Boards and governmental regulatory agencies </p><p><strong>Manuals included…</strong></p><p>Each attendee receives one set of training materials, including:</p><p>Protocol Manual</p><p>Physicians Manual</p><p>Office Procedure Manual</p><p>Forms Book</p><p>Marketing Manual</p><p>Patient Results Manual</p><p>Employee Manual</p><p>Audio tapes</p><p>and other related material.<br /></p></blockquote><p></p>Bio-pro was founded in 1978 by the late Charles H. Farr, MD, PhD, the self-styled “<a href="http://www.sram.org/1101/charlesfarr.html">father of oxidative medicine</a>,” who was also a founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of All Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organizations (<a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=247">PPO</a>). But none of this is surprising, right? After all, <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html">quacks quack</a>.<br /><br />What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was <a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/720244?src=ptalk&uac=27844PK">this offering</a>, just a few days ago, from <em>Medscape Business of Medicine</em>:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><strong>Six Ways to Earn Extra Income From Medical<br />Activities<br /><br /></strong>You’re chasing after claims but watching reimbursement sink.<br /><br />It’s a common story, and primary care doctors and even specialists are keeping their ears to the ground for other ways to boost their bottom line. Luckily, doctors have some fairly lucrative options that can help them maintain their income — and perhaps even increase it.<br /><br />We looked at 6 avenues that physicians have taken to earn extra revenue. None of these activities require a tremendous amount of time. Participating in just 1 or 2 activities can put enough money in your pocket to allow you to breathe a little easier when the bills come in.<br /></blockquote><p>So what are those ‘6 avenues’? Let’s see:<br /></p><ul><li><strong>Work with Attorneys </strong></li><li><strong>See Nursing Home Patients </strong></li><li><strong>Serve as a Medical Director<br /></strong></li></ul><p>So far, so not necessarily bad…<br /></p><ul><li><strong>Team Up with Pharmaceutical Companies<br /></strong></li></ul><p>What??! Team up with pharmaceutical companies? Couldn’t that mean, like, just doing legitimate research and trying like hell to do it right? Uh, nope:<br /></p><blockquote><p>Drug and device companies spend billions of dollars each year to discover and promote new medicines and treatments, and they rely heavily on doctors to participate in these endeavors whether through clinical trials or serving as a speaker or consultant. It’s not uncommon for physicians to earn a minimum of 5 figures a year either speaking or doing clinical studies within their medical practice. Some doctors make in excess of $100,000 annually — on top of their income from seeing patients.</p></blockquote><p><br />O’course, you gotta watch out for those pesky <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/06/when-key-opinion-leader-questions-hand.html">ethics killjoys</a>, warns Medscape:<br /></p><blockquote>Although some extra money is nice, too much can turn heads — and not in a good way. In late January, The Boston Globe reported on an allergy and asthma specialist who was issued an ultimatum by his hospital, the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts): Stop moonlighting on behalf of pharmaceutical companies or resign from your staff position.<br /></blockquote><p>What it all comes down to is this:<br /></p><blockquote><p><strong>Pros</strong>: With typical payments running about $1500-$2500 for a single talk, there’s substantial opportunity to supplement your regular income…<br /></p><p><strong>Cons</strong>: These arrangements are coming under increasing scrutiny from hospitals, legislators, regulators, and the media. In fact, some of the doctors whom we contacted for this article declined to talk about their involvement with drug companies.<br /></p></blockquote><p>Uh, no kiddin’. Funny that the “increasing scrutiny” doesn’t seem to come from organized medicine, medical schools, mainstream medical journals, state medical boards, or doctors in general. A couple of years ago I <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=189">lamented the publication</a> of a couple of book reviews, in the lofty <em>New England Journal of Medicine</em>, that celebrated trendy pseudomedicine. Shortly thereafter I received this from an emeritus editor:<br /></p><blockquote><p>I think the incursion into the bastions of medicine has to do with the fact that everything nowadays—absolutely everything—has become a market. If quackery appeals to the readers of the NEJM, it will be there. ”Is it true?” is no longer the question anyone asks, but “Will it sell?” And I think that applies to the editors of most major journals, as well.<br /></p></blockquote><p>True, dat. As for Medscape, this isn’t its first ethical gaff, and I agree with <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/06/medscapes-cme-ethics-part-ii.html">Bernard Carroll</a> that it seems to have “a right hand – left hand problem.” </p><p>Oh yeah: what were the other 2 “avenues”? Those would be:<br /></p><ul><li><strong>Become a Media Personality </strong></li><li><strong>Consult for Wall Street </strong></li></ul>

Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!

Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to Frank King, D.C., many more should be doing just that: Homeopathy is an energetic...

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - PharmaLot is Back

<span style="color:#006600;">PharmaLot, written by Ed Silverman, one of the best blog sources for news and views about the pharmaceutical industry and related issues, is </span><a href="http://www.pharmalot.com/"><span style="color:#006600;">back in operation</span></a><span style="color:#006600;">. </span>

BLOGSCAN - PharmaLot is Back

PharmaLot, written by Ed Silverman, one of the best blog sources for news and views about the pharmaceutical industry and related issues, is...

Đọc thêm »

A Peabody Award for a Show Featuring Nemeroff's Pontifications

All things that fall must converge?<br /><br />The escapades of the former Emory University Chair of Psychiatry, Dr Charles Nemeroff, now have gotten quite a lot of press, but we were writing about some of them here on Health Care Renewal before the good doctor became so well-known. Dr Bernard Carroll, for instance, posted <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/08/money-and-medical-journals.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/01/variations-on-theme-of-sleaze.html">here</a>, and I posted <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/10/nemeroff-case-vs-anechoic-effect.html">here </a>(with links backward).<br /><br />We have also posted about how well-intentioned public broadcasters seem to have got caught up in the web of health care conflicts of interest. <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/02/pharmaceutical-stealth-marketing-on-pbs.html">Here</a> we talked about how a drug company ended up funding a special on obesity, and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/10/funding-of-mysterious-human-heart-and.html">here</a> we talked about the involvement of a device and a drug company in the "Mysterious Human Heart."<br /><br />In late June, the Columbia Journalism Review included <a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/reprimanded_psychiatrist_bad_a.php">an article </a>by Paul Scott about how a US Public Broadcasting System show won an illustrious Peabody award for a show featuring Dr Nemeroff pontificating about depression.<br /><blockquote><p><br />Last May, a Peabody <a href="http://www.peabody.uga.edu/news/event.php?id=59" target="_blank">was awarded</a> to the film <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/takeonestep/depression/" target="_blank">Depression: Out of the Shadows</a>, a documentary which aired in 2008 on PBS, was produced by Twin Cities Public Television and WGBH Boston, and was written and directed by Minneapolis-based filmmaker Larkin McPhee.<br /><br />But where her film was generous in its inclusion of heartbreaking personal stories about depression, its broad survey of the science of the illness included frequent appearances by <a href="http://www.psychiatry.emory.edu/NeuropsychopharmacologyLaboratory/Charles%20Nemeroff.html" target="_blank">Charles Nemeroff, M.D.</a>, a leading—<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=5w64WC_-jbMC&pg=RA1-PA209&lpg=RA1-PA209&dq=nemeroff+boss+of+bossess&source=bl&ots=nn_8ZPs04I&sig=lvuv6iiJhXfz2vsqaJ-52G9-hYw&hl=en&ei=QqI3SsOrA5nIM4X6vZkN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PRA1-PA210,M1" target="_blank">some say powerful</a>—mood disorders researcher from Emory University. Last fall, Nemeroff also became one of the most prominent psychiatrists to be rebuked <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/health/policy/04drug.html" target="_blank">for failing to disclose</a> funds earned from the drug industry.<br /><br />Last October, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa notified Emory that Nemeroff had received $2.8 million from drug companies between 2000 and 2007, $1.2 million of which he failed to report to the university, as he was required to do according to federal rules. To reduce their risk of bias, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers must limit to $10,000 their annual receipt of payments from the makers of drugs they are studying. As the lead investigator for a five-year, $3.95 million federal grant to study Paxil and other GlaxoSmithKline drugs, Nemeroff pocketed seventeen times the NIH limit from GSK in 2004 alone, and exceeded his limit every year from 2003 through 2006, without informing his employers. Following his rebuke, Nemeroff <a href="http://grassley.senate.gov/private/upload/Emory-to-NIH-2.pdf" target="_blank">lost his chairmanship at Emory, saw $9.2 million in NIH funds meant for Emory </a><a href="http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/10/14/nemeroff_emory_funds.html" target="_blank">frozen</a>, and was banned from federal research for two years.<br /><br />Some might argue that little about this episode matters, since Nemeroff’s downfall took place in October and Depression: Out of the Shadows aired five months earlier. Yet a simple Google search would have alerted McPhee to the fact that Nemeroff, though the author of hundreds of research papers and well respected in his field, has been dogged by conflict of interest allegations for years. In 2003, he <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/us/undisclosed-financial-ties-prompt-reproval-of-doctor.html" target="_blank">came under fire</a> for praising three pharmaceutical products in the journal Nature Neuroscience without disclosing he held a financial stake in their success, one of which he held the patent on.<br /><br />Three years later, Nemeroff <a href="http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2008test/091608%20Grassley%20docs%20submitted%20for%20the%20record/Nemeroff%20defending%20being%20Editor%20of%20ACNP%20%28July%2026,%202006%29.pdf" target="_blank">resigned</a> from his editorship of the journal Neuropsychopharmacology after The Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115654102420045878.html" target="_blank">reported</a> he held an undisclosed financial stake in a treatment for depression he praised in an article. Nemeroff is either great at making excuses for his conduct or extremely unlucky. Following his 2003 misstep, he blamed the journal in question for not requiring him to mention his conflicts. Following his omission in 2006, Nemeroff blamed a clerical error. Following his rebuke by Sen. Grassley, Nemeroff told his employers he did not realize that drug-industry sponsored continuing education appearances were payments requiring disclosure.<br /><br />All defenses aside, by the time of production for Depression: Out of the Shadows, his drug industry entanglements were both widely distributed and widely known. “With financial ties to nearly two dozen drug and biotech companies,” <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0404.brownlee.html" target="_blank">wrote</a>Shannon Brownlee in The Washington Monthly in 2004, “Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff may hold some sort of record among academic clinicians for the most conflicts of interest.”<br /><br />That PBS producers either did not know about Nemeroff’s drug industry entanglements or did not believe they tainted his discussion of the science of depression is disappointing.<br /><br />But what made the praise bestowed on this PBS documentary particularly troubling were the erroneous, drug-industry serving statements made by Nemeroff within the film—statements which had the potential to negatively affect public health, and which the documentary left unchallenged. During a segment on the FDA’s 2004 decision to require “black box” safety warnings stating that antidepressants can increase the risk of suicide in children and teenagers, a risk it extended in May of 2007 to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14suicide.html" target="_blank">users under twenty-five</a>, Nemeroff seized the occasion to claim that the federal safety warning was mistaken.<br /><br />He did so by citing a 2007 study partially funded by Pfizer and published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, a paper ostensibly linking the warning with a subsequent <a href="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/164/9/1356" target="_blank">increase in teen suicides</a>. “The FDA put a black box warning for all age groups,” Nemeroff said in the documentary. “I believe this was a mistake, because in hastening our awareness, what we’ve shown is there’s been a marked drop in prescriptions of antidepressants, particularly for children and adolescents…and an increase in suicides and suicide attempts.”<br /><br />But as <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/24/suicide_rates_as_a_public_relations_tool/" target="_blank">critics</a> <a href="http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2007/09/17/its_premature_to_blame_fda_for_suicide_rise/?page=2" target="_blank">quickly pointed out</a>to The Boston Globe and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/14suicide.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>, the increase in suicides Nemeroff described actually occurred a year before a drop-off in antidepressant use. (You can’t blame a rise in suicides in 2003 on <a href="http://chemicalimbalance.org/?p=158" target="_blank">a drop off in prescriptions in 2005</a>.) At the time, most parties to this debate agreed that the question of whether black-box warnings were inadvertently dangerous would not be further clarified until the release of Centers for Disease Control suicide data from 2005.</p><p>That data came out a month later, and showed that suicides have <a href="http://www.furiousseasons.com/documents/2005prelimdeaths.pdf" target="_blank">fallen overall</a>; a follow-up report showed that suicides have <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/9/1025" target="_blank">fallen among youth specifically</a>. The total number remains higher than in 2003, but less than in 2004, when the FDA warning went into effect.Given the complexity of epidemiological data and the rarity of suicide, those findings prove little except that any effort to link an uptick in suicides to reduced prescribing of antidepressant medications to children and teenagers is not supported by the epidemiological data.<br /></p></blockquote><br /><br />Mr Scott concluded, memorably,<br /><blockquote><br /><em><strong>Something about the simultaneously complex and sympathetic nature of mental health reporting is making reputable journalistic organizations and well-meaning reporters sloppy.</strong></em><br /></blockquote><br />Were health care journalists to dig deeper into the financial entanglements of some of the "key opinion leaders" who may be so eager to appear in well-meaning, and at times feel-good documentaries, the public might learn more about the web of conflicts of interest that now ensnares health care. They might also learn how much of what appears to be health care education is just marketing in disguise. That marketing is often of expensive, and not terribly effective treatments. Realizing that many seeming miracle cures aren't might lead to the skepticism that could help us control health care costs without hurting patients.

A Peabody Award for a Show Featuring Nemeroff's Pontifications

All things that fall must converge? The escapades of the former Emory University Chair of Psychiatry, Dr Charles Nemeroff, now have gotten q...

Đọc thêm »