I have little to add, but wanted to provide a roundup of updates about Dr. Fred Goodwin, the one-time director of the National Institute for Mental Health, a well-respected bipolar researcher, and host of a public radio program called The Infinite Mind. An episode of The Infinite Mind was called on the carpet earlier this year for what was largely a biased program emphasizing that there was little evidence linking suicidality to antidepressants (contrary to what the actual research shows). Undisclosed to listeners of the March 2008 broadcast (Prozac Nation: Revisited) was that all four of the commentators — including Dr. Goodwin himself — received funding from the very same pharmaceutical companies whose products they were defending. You can read a very interesting point-by-point analysis of this program — and the fallacies promoted by its discussants — done by Jonathan Leo.
All of this was old news until Senator Charles Grassley’s office began investigating Dr. Fred Goodwin’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as reported by The New York Times on Nov. 22) — ties that the producer of The Infinite Mind show denied having complete and full knowledge of.
A few days ago, Dr. Goodwin released his his own defense of his ties and how he was portrayed in the Harris NY Times story (you can download the Fred Goodwin statement here, PDF). Most of the letter deals with minor details, including the meaning of the word “suicidality,” which seems tangential to the main issue of receiving $1.3 million in money from drugmakers, income not mentioned on the program despite his discussion of products made by the same companies providing him such funding. There’s nothing wrong with receiving such money, but you have to disclose it to your listeners so they know about your conflicts of interests and where your biases lie.
Here’s the most egregious part of his defense statement:
Finally, the article states that my involvement with pharmaceutical companies was “undisclosed.” Again, Mr. Harris simply ignored much of what I told him — that there is ample evidence in the public record disclosing my work with drug companies; it’s never been a secret. It’s extensively acknowledged in papers that I have published, in my book, and in all of my continuing medical education (CME) activities.
Great, but how about for the listeners to your radio show? Where are they supposed to learn of these conflicts? Certainly not from Dr. Goodwin’s CV, his bio or anywhere else on his website. It may be no secret if you attend a CME class Dr. Goodwin has given or read a paper Dr. Goodwin has written, but barring such digging, it would be difficult to discover this information otherwise. If you did do that research, you’d find statements similar to this one:
FKG has received research grant support from Abbott, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly & Co., Pfizer, Sanofi, and Solvay Pharmaceutical Corporations; has received speakers honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly & Co., and Pfizer Corporations; and has also served as a paid consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly & Co., Pfizer, and Solvay Corporations.
As Philip Dawdy over at Furious Seasons noted today, John McManamy again came to Dr. Goodwin’s defense, basically just quoting from Goodwin’s letter and reinforcing whatever he says with little critical commentary or skepticism. At the end of the article, McManamy notes that Goodwin has written and will write a future blurb for McManamy’s books — an important endorsement from one of the leading researchers in bipolar disorder. (Which, ironically, McManamy discloses, but completely misunderstands why it was just as important for Dr. Goodwin to disclose to his listeners a similar conflict whenever he was discussing drug treatments on his show.)
Dr. Goodwin was paid to give promotional lectures for its mood stabilizer drug, Lamictal (according to the NY Times article), a drug that apparently also may have been no more effective than placebo according to new clinical trial data that was previously undisclosed by its maker, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK was previously found to fail to disclose important suicidality data related to its antidepressant Paxil.
Last, I link you to Dr. Carlat’s bizarre story related to Dr. Fred Goodwin, when he appeared as a discussant on a professional psychiatry panel last year:
But instead of discussing our talks, Goodwin decided to use Marcia Angell’s book, The Truth about Drug Companies, as target practice. Angell was not on the program, and her book was only mentioned in passing by one of the presenters. But Goodwin seemed to despise her and her book. He went through her main points, rebutting them systematically, arguing that pharmaceutical companies are wonderful, that medications are very helpful, that there is nothing wrong with making money, and that drug companies are not as profitable as everybody thinks. Then, he went on a bizarre tangent about how one of the major networks is filled with scientologists.
Odd.
Edit: An article in the GW Hatchet (a George Washington University student newspaper) carries a few more quotes directly from Dr. Goodwin and from Harris, continuing to go back and forth about the allegations. Dr. Goodwin, again nitpicking, claims that the $1.3 million figure is not entirely accurate, since it includes reimbursement for travel expenses. Really? This is what you’re arguing when your hand is caught in the cookie jar? “Well, sure, I took a few cookies and didn’t tell anyone, but one of those cookies was really just a bunch of crumbs, so it shouldn’t count.” (Dr. Goodwin really should just stop trying to defend himself at this point, or at least hire a PR firm, because he’s only making matters worse.)
Sadly, Dr. Fred Goodwin will likely be remembered for this episode as much as for his definitive textbook on bipolar disorder.
A quick reminder to any researchers reading this entry — disclosure of conflicts of interest and pharmaceutical funding = Good. Nondisclosure, coverup or failure to report conflicts of interest = Bad. Can’t make it any simpler than that.
8 comments
Hi doc Grohol,
I would like to briefly comment as to all the hoopla surrounding this issue.
First, my position is simply that there should be full disclosure and transparency from all presenters.
Secondly is to question whether or not these oversights, transgressions and/or lapses of presenting financial information and/or relationships are intentional and are they truly influencing or compromising the judgments, viewpoints or opinions of these various health care professionals.
Thirdly, does this also mean that professionals like your self issue a disclosure statement upon each writing, lecture, media presentation etc, etc? I’ve noted you’ve made no disclosure at the end of your blog posting on this subject.
I know my spouse’s psychologist had been paid by corporations in the past to run some studies. Does this mean his professional judgment and mentoring to my spouse has been compromised and I should question his advice?
Lastly as a very long-time support person does this also mean that each patient being attended to by a health care professional require the same full disclosure and transparency?
As I noticed from a couple of comments to John McNanamy’s blog several of Goodwin’s patients had the highest of regard for their doctor. In my opinion I think the relationship of patient and physician obtaining favorable results is the most significant point of all.
I also have not read of any of Grassley’s exposé leading to any criminal prosecution of these physicians.
Maybe it all simply boils down to inappropriate professional behaviors and the need to institute formal regulations pertaining to disclosure and transparency.
Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com
Disclosure: I am a very, very long-time support person and caregiver and lay-depression expert to my spouse and I receive absolutely no remuneration of any kind from any sources.
Hi Herb, lots of good points and questions in there. I suspect Dr. Goodwin was an unwitting professional like many of the other researchers recently caught in this net of failure to disclose financial payments that could influence their research, writings, or discussions on certain topics.
The times have changed drastically over the past year or two, and I’m not certain every researcher and professional has yet gotten the message.
Yes, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for a professional to say to a client or patient, “Hey, I have some free samples of Drug X, but you should know they were given to me by the drug company for free. If you find the side effects of this drug intolerable or aren’t receiving beneficial therapeutic effects from it, we’ll try something else.” That’s how the game has pretty much always worked, though.
In terms of your spouse’s psychologist, depends on the corporations and types of studies run. If a company paid a therapist to learn X therapy and then push it onto their clients, then yes, that’s an appropriate disclosure that should be made (typically, though, it’s the other way, where the therapist pays company or university X to learn about a new therapeutic technique, not the other way around).
It would become unwieldy for me to make a disclosure statement every time I wrote something on this site, so we’ve conveniently provided a link to such a statement at the bottom of every page on our site.
At the end of the day, I think it’s largely well-meaning professionals who have been doing a lot of what has been industry-standard practices (even to the point of not disclosing every dollar earned from outside companies), practices and standards which arguably have changed in the past 2 years with the shine of a Congressional investigation’s spotlight into them. I think this is a good thing, though, as it will ensure greater disclosure in the future.
My primary diagnoses is Bipolar II Disorder, with BPD, PTSD, Schizoaffective, OCD and other lovely extras. My mood has become increasingly depressed and suicidal.
I have spent an average of two months a year, over the past nine years, on a locked-down ward. After my third stay, I agreed to ECT, as the doctors said that was my only hope. I lost three years of memory, but was still cutting open my wrists. After 22 “treatments”, I stopped.
So, I have been on almost every psych med out there, in various cocktails. I build up a tolerance and then crash. It took me until last year to actually be pro-active in fighting. I now call my p-doc asap, when I feel the familiar dread. So, I have been “free” for 18 months, a record!
That said, my p-doc is my hero. Given enough warning, he can make swift and effectual changes in my meds. He also told me that I do have a future without p-meds in the picture. We streamline, but then I slip down.
When I was released from Belmont after three months, in 2006, one of the drugs I was on was 600mgs of Thorazine. (I’d slit my wrists a few days before I was released, with a scalpel blade given to me by another patient). My p-doc said that Thorazine is “barbaric” and took me off it. It took me months to get over the hangover.
Recently, I crashed again. I take Ritalin, which was added last September. I’d read Temple Grandin’s books, and that amphetamine concept struck me. My doc agreed. In the am, Effexor was my routine, but we added Prozac for the terrible suicidal PMS, the ten days before my flow. At nights, Seroquel 200mgs and Mirtazipine 90 mgs are my dose. He is given Pristique, so we added that, as I’m on 300mgs of Effexor, the insurance limit.
So, he has and he does use the free meds to help. I was worried I’d have to go off Effexor. Instead, I just take a free sample that is only two molecules off. I am functioning amazingly well for me.
I also see a CBT once a week. This should never be discounted. It has given me tools to help me handle my life and helped me with my view on myself and my life.
Two new updates worthy of note. Dr. Goodwin responded to Dr. Carlat’s note about his take on the Goodwin matter:
http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2008/12/dr-frederick-goodwin-responds-to-carlat.html
And Dr. Carlat responded in kind:
http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2008/12/open-letter-to-dr-frederick-goodwin.html
…and in all of my continuing medical education (CME) activities
—————————————
ROFL! Right. Because we ALL peruse that for potential conflicts prior to tuning in. What a loser.
If you find the side effects of this drug intolerable or aren’t receiving beneficial therapeutic effects from it, we’ll try something else.†That’s how the game has pretty much always worked, though. they will be helpful.
Hi Doc Grohol,
I want to add an interesting article I came across relating to another of the vilified doctors on Dawdy’s blog which he’s omitted to share from the standpoint of a balanced perspective. I’m not here defending anyone’s position but what concerns me most from the standpoint of a support person and caregiver is whether or not the research, clinical practices and presentations offered up by these professionals were or are tainted.
“The University’s investigation, to date, has found no evidence that Dr. Nemeroff’s outside speaking activities affected clinical care for patients or persons enrolled in clinical trials, and no evidence that his activities biased scientific research in which he was engaged. Dr. Nemeroff has contended that his lectures were not product-specific but were limited to general medical topics such as depression and bipolar disorder. A review to date, based on his speaker slides and on interviews with attendees at presentations, supports that contention.â€
http://www.emory.edu/home/news/releases/2008/12/conflict_of_interest_action.html
It is shameful that individuals are often easily led to judgment lacking facts and/or evidence.
To you and your readers I wish a Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous New Year.
Warmly,
Herb
VNSdepression.com