Antidepressant expose'

[Guest guest]

Dear Annette,

 

Hi, my name is Mark, and I am a bioengineer, doing applied research at a

research university. I work both with engineers in the College of

Engineering and Applied Sciences and with cardiologists and orthopaedic

surgeons in the School of Medicine. I'm in a tenure track and

struggling to get funded, which is the most important criterion for

getting tenured. (which is what we must do if we want to keep our

jobs) What I see here at my institution (no claims about anywhere else,

or anyone else's experience) is that we are strongly rewarded by the

university for obtaining federal funding (National Institutes of Health)

and private, non-profit foundation funding is acceptable as a stepping

stone towards that goal. It is my perception that funding from industry

(pharmaceutical companies and the like) is NOT rewarded, in fact is

punished. I don't think I know anyone who has industrial funding for

their research. No, that may not be true now that I think more

carefully, but it is rare. The pharmaceuticals have their own research

staffs, and they certainly are there to help the company make profits,

so there is the potential for conflicts of interest, and I'm sure that

there are those who succumb to such pressures (in what walk of life are

there not?). Here at the university, there are certainly opportunities

to get sucked into such conflicts of interest as well, so there are

committees who review every grant that gets submitted, there are

procedures in place to keep us honest. And it's my perception that the

vast majority of the scientists here are in favor of such oversight,

because they (we) want to serve mankind with this wonderful gift of

intellect and curiosity. We are not the enemy. Oh some of us are

pretty involved in ourselves and our careers, and seek the freedom to do

as we please. We are humans, so you can always find a corrupt one

somewhere, but to paint with a broad brush and suggest that

pharmaceutical or other health related research endeavor is mostly

motivated by self interest is not (IMO) seeing clearly the reality. ON

THE OTHER HAND, I personally think that we as scientists are too

strongly attached to our models of how things are, and often push in

wrong directions because we think that's where the truth lies. But

science itself is predicated on the idea that we MUST queston every

assumption and that whole structures of "truth" should and will be torn

down when they are seen to be untruth. The process is brutal, and

science is not pretty, but it is effective when done with an open mind,

and I sincerely believe that most scientists want to have open minds.

(and I think also open hearts, but that is lower on the radar screen for

such an intellectual crowd.)

 

I hope this helps us to find the middle way.

 

Love, Mark

 

UnbrknCh8n wrote:

>

> Annette writes:

>

> >Mike, do you think your colleagues on the medical faculty

> >are going to take their precious access to grant funding and

> >prove against the grantors?

>

> For the most part, the researchers (principle investigators of

> studies)

> that I have worked with have been straightforward, honest people who

> seem very committed to *science.* While I do not doubt that

> (consciously or unconsciously) they do have some bias toward the

> medication marketed by the company funding their research, I do not

> believe that the researchers that I know are the type of people who

> would falsify data or overlook side effects or negative outcomes

> solely

> for the purpose of making a buck (or even keeping their research

> funding

> going).

>

> Of course, I could be naive or a poor judge of character, but these

> are

> not observations about me that others have made and then shared with

> me (and I am blessed with friends who don't hesitate to point out my

> many other shortcomings).

>

> Also, I have only dealt on a personal level with researchers from two

> medical schools, so I can't generalize. However, given my experiences

>

> I think it unlikely that serious problems with SSRI's have been

> repressed

> on a widespread scale.

>

> but thanks for asking-

>

> Mike

> -----

>

> -----

> //

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

> perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

> subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

> different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

> nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always

> Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart

> to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the

> Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It

> Self. Welcome all to a.

>

> To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link

> from the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change

> your subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Think all of us are seeking to find the path towards the truth in

all of this. Let's look at an entirely different branch of drugs.

 

The day before the Iraqi War, when the U.S. intelligence already

knew that Iraq was going to invade Kuwait, our FDA approved

the sale of biochemical material to Iraq. That biochemical material

was then used on our own men. Which we then denied up to the

highest levels of government. This has now been cleared up

by the simple weight of evidence to the contrary, and the very

fast and lethal efficaciousness of the drugs, which we sold and

on which we made a profit.

 

So, I would love to believe in the huge growth of humanity,

in our great loving kindness towards one another, to believe

completely in our unselfishness, our humaness, our generosity,

our kindness, our gentleness. And, actually, I think for the

average man and woman this is more or less the case.

 

But in the case of power and greed, we need not to walk with

our rose colored glasses. I own a very huge set of rose-

colored 3D glasses. I cannot tell you how painful it is

when they fall off.

 

It has cost me alot of sensitivity and pain to learn what a

friend recently quoted to me:

 

If you want to know the answers, "follow the trail of the money."

 

Sorry, but those in power are not always, gentle, loving and kind.

 

L*L*L

[Guest guest]

"Mark W. Otter" wrote:

> Dear Annette,

>

> Hi, my name is Mark, and I am a bioengineer, doing applied research at a

> research university. I work both with engineers in the College of

> Engineering and Applied Sciences and with cardiologists and orthopaedic

> surgeons in the School of Medicine. I'm in a tenure track and

> struggling to get funded, which is the most important criterion for

> getting tenured. (which is what we must do if we want to keep our

> jobs) What I see here at my institution (no claims about anywhere else,

> or anyone else's experience) is that we are strongly rewarded by the

> university for obtaining federal funding (National Institutes of Health)

> and private, non-profit foundation funding is acceptable as a stepping

> stone towards that goal. It is my perception that funding from industry

> (pharmaceutical companies and the like) is NOT rewarded, in fact is

> punished. I don't think I know anyone who has industrial funding for

> their research. No, that may not be true now that I think more

> carefully, but it is rare. The pharmaceuticals have their own research

> staffs, and they certainly are there to help the company make profits,

> so there is the potential for conflicts of interest, and I'm sure that

> there are those who succumb to such pressures (in what walk of life are

> there not?). Here at the university, there are certainly opportunities

> to get sucked into such conflicts of interest as well, so there are

> committees who review every grant that gets submitted, there are

> procedures in place to keep us honest. And it's my perception that the

> vast majority of the scientists here are in favor of such oversight,

> because they (we) want to serve mankind with this wonderful gift of

> intellect and curiosity. We are not the enemy. Oh some of us are

> pretty involved in ourselves and our careers, and seek the freedom to do

> as we please. We are humans, so you can always find a corrupt one

> somewhere, but to paint with a broad brush and suggest that

> pharmaceutical or other health related research endeavor is mostly

> motivated by self interest is not (IMO) seeing clearly the reality. ON

> THE OTHER HAND, I personally think that we as scientists are too

> strongly attached to our models of how things are, and often push in

> wrong directions because we think that's where the truth lies. But

> science itself is predicated on the idea that we MUST queston every

> assumption and that whole structures of "truth" should and will be torn

> down when they are seen to be untruth. The process is brutal, and

> science is not pretty, but it is effective when done with an open mind,

> and I sincerely believe that most scientists want to have open minds.

> (and I think also open hearts, but that is lower on the radar screen for

> such an intellectual crowd.)

>

> I hope this helps us to find the middle way.

>

> Love, Mark

>

 

Thanks Mark for a balanced perspective and some insight into how the funding

process works in the academe. It is much appreciated. The diverse insights that

you and Mike (who is actually working on this on a day to day basis with

patients) along with Annette, Dharma, and Amanda and Bruce, Shankra, Linda,

Gloria, and Tim have brought, are informative and enriching. Certainly, this

type of dialogue in good faith can lead to a better understanding between

different constituencies.

 

The stories Mark told of his older brother and Linda told of her daughter and

what Bruce mentioned of his close relative can be heartbreaking for the

families. It can be difficult to watch our loved ones suffer and at that point

philosophical debates become moot and we act in the best way we know how.

 

And Annette, your son is fortunate to have such a loving and well informed and

educated mother who looks after his interests with such passion and energy. I

would wish such mothers for all the children of the world.

 

God bless everyone

Harsha

[Guest guest]

 

Mark W. Otter <mark.otter

Monday, April 10, 2000 11:05 AM

Re: Antidepressant expose'

 

>Dear Annette,

>

>Hi, my name is Mark, and I am a bioengineer, doing applied research at a

>research university. I work both with engineers in the College of

>Engineering and Applied Sciences and with cardiologists and orthopaedic

>surgeons in the School of Medicine. I'm in a tenure track and

>struggling to get funded, which is the most important criterion for

>getting tenured. (which is what we must do if we want to keep our

>jobs) What I see here at my institution (no claims about anywhere else,

>or anyone else's experience) is that we are strongly rewarded by the

>university for obtaining federal funding (National Institutes of Health)

>and private, non-profit foundation funding is acceptable as a stepping

>stone towards that goal. It is my perception that funding from industry

>(pharmaceutical companies and the like) is NOT rewarded, in fact is

>punished. I don't think I know anyone who has industrial funding for

>their research. No, that may not be true now that I think more

>carefully, but it is rare. The pharmaceuticals have their own research

>staffs, and they certainly are there to help the company make profits,

>so there is the potential for conflicts of interest, and I'm sure that

>there are those who succumb to such pressures (in what walk of life are

>there not?).

 

Dear Mark,

 

Thanks for setting this record straight on research funding. So you must have

this whole other non-goofy side to you, huh? If I may add a word here with

regard to the "evil" pharmaceutical companies (gee, who does not think they make

too much money and all that?) and someone's previous comment on their ability to

skew results of research in their favor, this is the safeguard of the FDA being

there to review results. It is their job to ferret out any such possibility and

there is no routine rubber-stamping of studies submitted to them. For one thing,

penalties for doing any cheating include prison time for company executives who

are held responsible. My husband worked for 25 years for the FDA, reviewing such

applications. He was the first chief of the biostatistics staff 20 years ago,

when more sophisticated experimental models for design of clinical studies and

analaysis were needed and created. The real reason so very few studies are

rejected is that the companies already know what the high, rigorous standards

are that must be met for approval. Don't forget things like the way the FDA

prevented the entire thalidomide tradgedy in the USA.

 

Honestly, I don't think people here are just sticking up for their own to defend

against the charges made in that book. The broadbrush of accusations made simply

does not accord with the facts of what is going on either in research or

practice of medicine. The fact that there is very little funding or research for

alternative medicine and herbal cures is not an evil conspiracy, but an entirely

separate problem. Now that greater numbers of people have an interest and there

are practitioners, the NIH is doing studies on accupuncture, for one example.

When it became known that digitalis was effective, it was incorporated into

standard medical use. You can grow your own, but if you want a standardized dose

and want to be sure you need it, see a doctor. Any herb that can actually be

proven effective other than by anecdotal stories would be welcomed with open

arms into medical practice. The final word is not in yet. More natural cures or

simply the effect of better diet on health in general does need more study.

People who do go this route tend to be highly self-motivated and self-educated,

whereas the average sort of patient won't even stick to a doctor's advice to

practice the most obvious health practices like to quit smoking or cut down on

fat in their diet. A great deal of medicine would simply become "not needed" if

people took better care of themselves, but the reality is that they don't.

 

Btw, my friend here who got breast cancer works in the field of designing

studies, so she read the research extensively once she was so motivated. She

completely changed her diet as a result to a mostly vegetarian one, no milk due

to the hormones and fat in it, no meat, etc. The studies and information at this

point take a dedicated researcher, but you know don't blame the doctors for the

eating habits of our culture. The question of how to motivate people before a

crisis is more often psychological than it is medical.

 

So thanks, Bruce, Mark, Mike and others for taking the time to write. I think

the book would have been far more effective if more factual and balanced. Over

prescription happens in part because the public demands it.

 

Gloria