Thursday, December 9, 2010

APA: Earlier NY Times Article Incorrect

The following comment was added to an earlier post ( As it involves a correction in the original source that was used as the basis of that post, I thought in fairness it should be highlighted also as a new post. I append it without further comment:

I'm with the communications office at the American Psychiatric Association. Please not[e] this correction from The New York Times:Correct, December 8, 2010:A headline on Nov. 30 with an article about SmithKline Beecham’s role in the publication of a book about treating psychiatric disorders overstated SmithKline’s actions. While documents show that SmithKline (now known as GlaxoSmithKline) hired a writing company for the book, they do not indicate that the company wrote the book for the authors, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff and Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg. The article also described incorrectly, in some editions, events outlined in a letter from the writing company to Dr. Nemeroff. The correspondence proposed a timeline for the writing company to furnish the doctors and SmithKline with draft text and final page proofs for approval; the letter did not say that the company had already provided those materials for final approval. And the article misstated the context under which Dr. David A. Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, commented about the book’s production. The letter and other documents were described to him; he did not personally review the documents. [no name signed]

1 comment:

shocked... shocked I say said...

This is just chaff being thrown up by the APA to obscure the real issues. We don't know how much money was paid as an 'unrestricted educational grant.' We don't know who the grantee was -- it's a reasonable guess that the grantee was Nemeroff himself. We don't know how much of the grant was directed to the nominal 'authors.' We don't know how much STI was paid for their services. We don't know whether the APA got a piece of the action. Come on already! How about some transparency?