healthy4u: retalation

Old Mystery Solved? Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety

At my Dec. 2005 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/12/report-life-science-manufacturers.html" target="_blank">Report: Life Science Manufacturers Adapt to Industry Transition</a>" I wrote: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... The recognition of a gap in formally-trained medical informatics-trained personnel in the pharmaceutical industry [by Gartner Group] is welcome. For example, from my own experience: I recall an interview I had last year with the head of the Drug Surveillance & Adverse Events department at Merck Research Labs in a rehire situation [after a 2003 layoff]. I came highly recommended by an Executive Director in the department, to whom I had shown my prior work. This included well-accepted, novel human-computer interaction designs I'd developed for use by busy biomedical researchers for a large clinical study in the Middle East, as well as my work modeling invasive cardiology and leading the development and implementation of a <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/scotsilv/invascard.htm" target="_blank">comprehensive information system</a> to detect new device and treatment modality risks in a regional center performing more than 6,000 procedures/year. In addition, I'd worked with the wife of the Executive Director in years prior, when she ran the E.R. of the hospital where I was director of occupational medicine. Despite all this in my favor, the Executive Director's boss, himself a former FDA adverse events official [a former deputy director of CDER’s office of drug safety, who'd recently moved to the pharma industry he once regulated - ed.], dismissed me in five minutes as I was showing him the cardiology project, saying flatly "we don't need a medical informatics person here." I had driven 80 miles to Rahway for this interview to save the executive a trip to Pennsylvania, where I was originally scheduled to come for the interview, since the executive's father was ill in the hospital. In an instance of profound social ineptness, my effort was not even acknowledged. Perhaps he was in a bad frame of mind, but the dismissal under the circumstances was all the more disappointing.</blockquote> I recall this was one of the most puzzling hiring debacles I'd ever experienced, as all the senior people in his dept. had recommended he hire me - I was really only there for his approval and signoff - and the work I'd shown him had improved care, saved lives, and saved money. I may not need to be puzzled any longer.  This story just appeared: <blockquote class="tr_bq"><a href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/10524-former-fda-reviewer-speaks-out-about-intimidation-retaliation-and-marginalizing-of-safety" target="_blank">Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety</a> By Martha Rosenberg, <a href="http://truth-out.org/" target="_blank">Truthout </a> July 29, 2012 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is often accused of serving industry at the expense of consumers. But even FDA defenders are shocked by reports this week of an institutionalized FDA spying program on its own scientists, lawmakers, reporters and academics that included an enemies list of "actors" and collaborators ... Ronald Kavanagh [FDA drug reviewer from 1998 to 2008]:  ... In the Center for Drugs [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or CDER], as in the Center for Devices, the honest employee fears the dishonest employee. There is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drug ... While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.</blockquote> Read the entire story at the link.  I won't cover it more here, except to say it's certainly possible to believe certain FDA officials don't want serious people around -- who in addition to being MD's can write serious software to detect drug and device problems -- whose work can get in the way of drug approvals. -- SS

Old Mystery Solved? Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety

At my Dec. 2005 post " Report: Life Science Manufacturers Adapt to Industry Transition " I wrote: ... The recognition of a gap in ...

Đọc thêm »

Congressman Darrell Issa: FDA's email monitoring of "whistleblowers" communicating with Congress was illegal

In followup to my post of Jan. 30, 2012 "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/01/can-you-sue-government-fda.html">Can You Sue the Government? FDA Whistleblowers Sue Over Surveillance of Personal e-Mail</a>" I provide a link to a probing letter from Darrell Issa, Chairman, US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to Margaret Hamburg MD, Commissioner of the FDA. The letter raises the issue that FDA's email monitoring of "whistleblowers" communicating with Congress was illegal ("unlawful, and will not be tolerated"), and the illegality was further compounded by harassment and retaliation against the "whistleblowers." Many probing "who? why? when?" questions are asked of FDA. I do not have free text of this letter, just a link to images of the letter. I cannot post the text (no access to OCR of a PDF at the moment), but the letter images are here: <a href="http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/FDAComplaint/issaletter.fdaspying.pdf">http://www.whistleblowers.org/storage/whistleblowers/documents/FDAComplaint/issaletter.fdaspying.pdf</a> Worth reading in its entirety. -- SS

Congressman Darrell Issa: FDA's email monitoring of "whistleblowers" communicating with Congress was illegal

In followup to my post of Jan. 30, 2012 " Can You Sue the Government? FDA Whistleblowers Sue Over Surveillance of Personal e-Mail ...

Đọc thêm »

Can You Sue the Government? FDA Whistleblowers Sue Over Surveillance of Personal e-Mail

From the Washington Post: <blockquote><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fda-staffers-sue-agency-over-surveillance-of-personal-e-mail/2012/01/23/gIQAj34DbQ_story.html?sub=AR">FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail</a> Ellen Nakashima and Lisa Rein January 29, 2012 The Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the personal e-mail of a group of its own scientists and doctors after they [the scientists - ed.] warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show. The surveillance — detailed in e-mails and memos unearthed by six of the scientists and doctors, who filed a lawsuit against the FDA in U.S. District Court in Washington last week — took place over two years as the plaintiffs accessed their personal Gmail accounts from government computers.</blockquote> While accessing Gmail from government computers was not a wise idea, since all traffic over an institutional PC and network can be monitored, these Gmails were apparently to members of Congress. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/documents/fda-whistleblowers-3.html#document/p1/a43233"></a><blockquote><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/documents/fda-whistleblowers-3.html#document/p1/a43233">Copies of the e-mails</a> show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of <a href="http://www.whistleblowers.org/">whistleblower complaints</a> complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers.</blockquote> See sample emails at link above. <blockquote>Information garnered this way eventually contributed to the harassment or dismissal of all six of the FDA employees, the suit alleges. All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes.</blockquote> That's very unfortunate. It will be far more unfortunate if the warnings of the six, as in <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=lawsuit">this whistleblower case</a>, went unheeded, and patients are injured or die as a result. In that case, FDA bureaucrats might have been accessories to those injuries or deaths. <blockquote>“Who would have thought that they would have the nerve to be monitoring my communications to Congress?” said Robert C. Smith, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, a former radiology professor at Yale and Cornell universities who worked as a device reviewer at the FDA until his contract was not renewed in July 2010. “How dare they?” </blockquote> I, on the other hand, would have expected it. It would have been far more prudent to send such emails from a private home computer and ISP. <blockquote>The scientists and doctors denied sharing information improperly. The HHS inspector general’s office, which oversees FDA operations, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/documents/fda-whistleblowers-2.html/#document/p1/a43237">declined to pursue an investigation</a>, finding no evidence of criminal conduct. It also said that the doctors and scientists had a legal right to air their concerns to Congress or journalists.FDA officials sought a second time that year to initiate action against the scientists and doctors. “We have obtained new information confirming the existence of information disclosures that undermine the integrity and mission of the FDA and, we believe, may be prohibited by law,” wrote Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, on June 28, 2010.The inspector general, after consulting with federal prosecutors, declined the second request, as well.</blockquote> The IG office seemed to find the behavior legal, but FDA bureaucrats apparently did not like non-team players. <blockquote>The FDA scientists and doctors, all of whom worked for the agency’s <a href="http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHOffices/ucm115879.htm">Office of Device Evaluation</a>, said they first made internal complaints beginning in 2007 that the agency had approved or was on the verge of approving at least a dozen radiological devices whose effectiveness was not proven and that posed risks to millions of patients. Frustrated, they also brought their concerns to Congress, the White House and the HHS inspector general.Three of the devices risked missing signs of breast cancer, the scientists and doctors warned, according to documents and interviews. Another risked falsely diagnosing osteoporosis, leading to unnecessary treatments; one ultrasound device could malfunction while monitoring pregnant women in labor, risking harm to the fetus; and several devices for colon cancer screening used such heavy doses of radiation that they risked causing cancer in otherwise healthy people, the FDA scientists and doctors said.</blockquote> Permit me to wonder if <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/regulatory%20capture">regulatory capture</a> played a role in these decisions. One might also wonder if complaints about electronic health records or other clinical IT, admitted by FDA to be a medical device "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/04/fda-decides-regulating-implantable.html">political hot potato</a>" they elected to not regulate, were also involved. <blockquote>... The first documented FDA interception was of an e-mail dated Jan. 29, 2009, shortly after the letter from Ferry. In it, device reviewer Paul T. Hardy asked a congressional aide, Joanne Royce, for assurances that “it is not a crime to provide information to the Congress about potential misconduct by another Agency employee.”Royce replied: “[Y]ou and your colleagues have committed no crime. . . . you guys didn’t even provide confidential business information to Congress.”</blockquote> The only 'crime' was apparently not being a 'team player', which on Healthcare Renewal <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/12/ehr-mission-hostile-user-experience.html">has been defined as</a> someone who is silent, or silenced, or a co-conspirator regarding managerial mediocrity, malfeasance, or madness. <blockquote>Hardy, who is among the six employees who filed the suit, was fired in November after a negative performance review; an internal FDA letter obtained in separate litigation quoted managers saying they did not “trust” him. Of the other five scientists and doctors, the suit says two did not have their contracts renewed, two suffered harassment and werepassed over for promotions, and one was fired.</blockquote> Trust him to do - what, I ask? Read the whole WaPo article. Plaintiff's lawyers need to be aware of this event, and I intend to make them aware. -- SS Feb. 13, 2012 addendum: A link to Darrell Issa's letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg is <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/02/congressman-darrell-issa-fdas-email.html">here</a>. -- SS

Can You Sue the Government? FDA Whistleblowers Sue Over Surveillance of Personal e-Mail

From the Washington Post: FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail Ellen Nakashima and Lisa Rein January 29, 2012 The Fo...

Đọc thêm »

Defending Academic Whistleblowers: Call Out the Marines?

At "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/academic-medicine-deploys-logical.html">Academic Medicine Deploys a Logical Fallacy to Avoid Disclosing Inconvenient Truths</a>" Roy Poses wrote about the illogic employed by academia to weaken draft rules for researchers to disclose conflicts of interest. Another major component of research in academia might be termed "gangster tactics against whistleblowers on wrongdoing." In the following <a href="http://www.pogo.org/resources/public-health/amsterdam-complaint-to-gutmann-re-evans-et-al-misconduct-20110708.html">July 8, 2011 letter</a> to Dr. Amy Guttmann, President of the University of Pennsylvania (courtesy the Project on Government Oversight or POGO), a Penn psychiatry researcher, Dr. Jay Amsterdam, has retained a law firm to represent him in alleged research misconduct by others at Penn, specifically Dwight Evans, the Chair of the Department, and an Associate Professor Dr. Laszlo Gyulai (note: I have never met and do not know any of the people involved): <blockquote>"Dear Dr. Guttmann, On behalf of my client, Dr. Jay Amsterdam, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, I would like to inform you that we have filed a charge of research misconduct with the Office of Research Integrity (OR!) against Dr. Dwight L. Evans, Professor of Psychiatry and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Laszlo Gyulai, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. I have enclosed a copy of the complaint and referenced documents for your reference. As chairwoman of President Barack Obama's Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, I feel certain you will deal with this matter in a just and sincere fashion. <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFgtT962Efu8-gpfcRYG7kk8975vsX86dRBFgGFGOIuhWHAVS_vmgK4BDh-U3-t6QFUUjmEEoGlZbwQY-S8LpeJ0B5P6HKSQ9t8X2sFehndKgXueq84E53D7guaE8dn_beFFhbVaOspYgb/s1600/guttman.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5652590687739063698" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFgtT962Efu8-gpfcRYG7kk8975vsX86dRBFgGFGOIuhWHAVS_vmgK4BDh-U3-t6QFUUjmEEoGlZbwQY-S8LpeJ0B5P6HKSQ9t8X2sFehndKgXueq84E53D7guaE8dn_beFFhbVaOspYgb/s320/guttman.jpg" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 255px; height: 320px;" /></a>Letter, page 1 (click to enlarge) </div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1aOv-Vr6o3qy1-iOMV9mh4lSLef5PjGr0sBsNzs7JTKsg92sZAiEiawooTx2fvXV79VTQQTog74xOMnwIG9syuihF_J6gkSNi_4QE6TBtaHJ5TFUDGaB7jDmayO4lJI2eK6m6ztwafotq/s1600/guttman.jpg"> </a> <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie1LrZfOQ_TDSIWFhlGVmINoBbW-bcNkaRe4yWU2JcCrayjDrQN_4czphOnxjnEX81Tpse6FZCRDyn-ryGY7bMd4RDjTHCKOiNM6FM8sUAKMY9J3HXF742VQqbsbsjOgfXYhacTtLMLbuW/s1600/guttmannp2.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5652591223811191458" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie1LrZfOQ_TDSIWFhlGVmINoBbW-bcNkaRe4yWU2JcCrayjDrQN_4czphOnxjnEX81Tpse6FZCRDyn-ryGY7bMd4RDjTHCKOiNM6FM8sUAKMY9J3HXF742VQqbsbsjOgfXYhacTtLMLbuW/s320/guttmannp2.jpg" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 249px; height: 320px;" /></a>Letter, page 2 (click to enlarge) </div></blockquote> The allegations are not in themselves surprising (at least to me). The complaint is that the defendants misappropriated data from a study conducted by the plaintiff, manipulated the data, and used it in a ghostwritten article by a major journal, the American Journal of Psychiatry, in a concealed marketing effort to increase sales of Paxil by GSK. We have documented many examples of this type of behavior in medical research at this blog. (By way of my not being surprised by such allegations, I personally have been involved as junior Yale faulty in that research university's professors' attempts to misappropriate my IP, a computer program I wrote for a Yale collaboration on birth defects in the Arab world, for their own use. My internal complaints were followed by severe retaliation, up to the level of blacklisting and extortion. Those attempts were aided by, of all things, an Associate General Counsel who was not authorized to practice law in the state, apparently not having taken the Law Boards. I put an end to that effort through legal means. This was followed a number of years later by attempted misappropriation of the same property by a Johns Hopkins-affiliated professor with his own software company in a DoD proposal. I also put an end to the latter effort, which involved informing the DoD.) However, my purpose here is not to comment on the allegations of research misconduct. It is to comment on a subject that occupies three of the four paragraphs in the above letter - protection from retaliation: <blockquote>... By filing this complaint, I expect my client to receive full and complete protection from retaliation and/ or defamation by either the University of Pennsylvania and/ or any other parties involved in publishing the referenced study. [E.g., GSK - ed.] It is my client's belief that the data from his study was effectively stolen from him, manipulated and used in a ghostwritten article published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in order to advance a marketing scheme by GlaxoSmithKline to increase sales of Paxil. If any acts of retaliation and/or defamation are taken against my client, I will immediately inform ORI and the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. Furthermore, it is my understanding that several congressional committees have expressed an interest in investigating the problem of research misconduct and ghostwriting in academia and, thus, I intend to allow my client to fully cooperate with any investigation and will inform Congress of any retaliation against him for such cooperation. To ensure this complaint is taken seriously, and to alert interested parties, I am providing copies of this correspondence to Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Herb Kohl, and the Chairman and Ranking members of the House Energy and Commerce, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. </blockquote>About the only resources left out of the list of protectors of the plaintiff from abuse are the Marines ... and perhaps a threat of "Frontier Justice." That a law firm must include explicit threats to expose retaliation against whistleblowers to high-ranking members of Congress suggests Research universities and their corporate allies have become more like the Mafia than centers of novel scientific discovery. This all reminds me of my Jan. 13, 1999 letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) entitled "<a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/281/2/135.2.extract">Academic and Legal Aspects of Authorship Disputes</a>." As a result of my Yale experience (which, incidentally, also probably damaged nascent cross-cultural progress due to the unusual aspect of my work in facilitating improved care of children with birth defects in a Middle Eastern oil-producing Kingdom), I wrote a response to a July 1998 JAMA article on growing authorship disputes and abuses at Harvard Medical School ("<a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/280/3/216.abstract">Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints</a>" by then-Ombud Linda J. Wilcox). I wrote: <blockquote> Jan. 13, 1999 To the editor: I was alarmed by the statement in the article on authorship by Ms Wilcox [1] saying, "It is unreasonable for institutions to promise that they can protect individuals from retaliation for coming forward to complain through formal grievance procedures." Most organizations have policies on retaliation, especially with regard to grievances. If enforced, these policies can discourage such behavior and ensure the victim of redress. In addition, retaliation such as that mentioned in the public and federal sectors is downright illegal, and university employees fall under Department of Labor workplace standards and laws for their respective states. Universities have serious ethical and credibility problems if they have such poor control over their employees that they cannot promise to protect individuals from actions contrary to their own grievance policies and that are probably illegal.</blockquote> I continued on with the argument that lawlessness in universities was counterproductive and needed to be halted, but Ms. Wilcox' reply was more platitudinous than substantive about the 'helplessness' of universities in protecting their own from retaliation. It seems little has changed. To expect the best research from such an environment is like expecting silk purses to be manufactured by pork producers. -- SS

Defending Academic Whistleblowers: Call Out the Marines?

At " Academic Medicine Deploys a Logical Fallacy to Avoid Disclosing Inconvenient Truths " Roy Poses wrote about the illogic emplo...

Đọc thêm »