Comments on: Senate Targets Stanford Psychiatrist Over Conflicts http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/ News, Comment and Conversation Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:44:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Lana Keeton http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-366486 Lana Keeton Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:28:32 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-366486 Dear Frustrated Physician, So what pharmaceutical company do you work for? It's always easy to spot bloggers from the pharmaceutical companies and their big time advertising agencies....always pointing fingers at others to distract attention from themselves. People who have hearts, write from the heart. Easy to see you do not have a heart with all those big adjectives...just too slick to be real! I sincerely hope you remain frustrated. All the negative publicity these doctors are getting because they are hired guns for the pharmaceutical companies is well deserved. They are the page turners at the conferences. They are the paid consultants getting other doctors to prescribe drugs for off-label purposes. It is illegal for the pharmaceutical companies to advertise off-label uses, so they pay "consultants" to do it. The latest big revenue for pharmaceuticals is to use their adult drugs for children. Pharmaceutical companies are pedophiles, preying on children and destroying childrens lives with their poisonous drugs. Anti-psychotic drugs, cholesterol drugs, Motrin...you name it. The pharmaceutical companies have doctors prescribing all of them for children to increase their profits. To hell with the kids... It's an awful world we live in because snake oil salesmen parading themselves as "pharmaceutical companies" steal people's lives every single minute of the day! Praise the Lord for Chuck Grassley!!! Lana Keeton Dear Frustrated Physician,

So what pharmaceutical company do you work for?

It’s always easy to spot bloggers from the pharmaceutical companies and their big time advertising agencies….always pointing fingers at others to distract attention from themselves.

People who have hearts, write from the heart.

Easy to see you do not have a heart with all those big adjectives…just too slick to be real!

I sincerely hope you remain frustrated.

All the negative publicity these doctors are getting because they are hired guns for the pharmaceutical companies is well deserved.

They are the page turners at the conferences. They are the paid consultants getting other doctors to prescribe drugs for off-label purposes.

It is illegal for the pharmaceutical companies to advertise off-label uses, so they pay “consultants” to do it.

The latest big revenue for pharmaceuticals is to use their adult drugs for children.

Pharmaceutical companies are pedophiles, preying on children and destroying childrens lives with their poisonous drugs.

Anti-psychotic drugs, cholesterol drugs, Motrin…you name it. The pharmaceutical companies have doctors prescribing all of them for children to increase their profits. To hell with the kids…

It’s an awful world we live in because snake oil salesmen parading themselves as “pharmaceutical companies” steal people’s lives every single minute of the day!

Praise the Lord for Chuck Grassley!!!

Lana Keeton

]]> By: Cosmic Shrink http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-366477 Cosmic Shrink Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:14:34 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-366477 Chuck Grassley has the right to pursue conflicts of interest. He and his colleagues are picking on the weakest of medicine's specialities, weakest in terms of scientific support and financial support. He neglects the opulent medical device manufacturers and their sweetheart deals with surgeons. If he were an honorable man, he would also be investigating his colleagues for their lobbyist generated conflicts of interest, particularly the way managed care companies and insurance companies take profits ahead of patients. At least Dr. Schatzberg is trying to help someone other than big donors. Chuck Grassley has the right to pursue conflicts of interest. He and his colleagues are picking on the weakest of medicine’s specialities, weakest in terms of scientific support and financial support. He neglects the opulent medical device manufacturers and their sweetheart deals with surgeons.
If he were an honorable man, he would also be investigating his colleagues for their lobbyist generated conflicts of interest, particularly the way managed care companies and insurance companies take profits ahead of patients. At least Dr. Schatzberg is trying to help someone other than big donors.

]]> By: BS http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-364597 BS Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:12:21 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-364597 Looks like Lee Majors had nothing on Schatzberg, a real life Six Million Dollar Man. Looks like Lee Majors had nothing on Schatzberg, a real life Six Million Dollar Man.

]]> By: RD http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-364338 RD Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:48:42 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-364338 In the spirit of transparency, Chuck Grassley should disclose every nickel and other perk he has received from lobbyists and special interest groups over the past decade. I sincerely doubt we're going to see that happen. Turnabout is fair play. Alan Schatzberg is a man of unimpeachable integrity whose work has contributed to relieving the suffering of millions of people. If only Grassley and his ilk could make the same claim. The only thing that's really transparent here is the politically-expedient and self-serving nature of Grassley's witch hunt. The pharmaceutical industry makes significant contributions to our health care system. If you really want to start a crusade to expose the health care demons take a good look at the managed care industry and the pharmacy benefits organizations. These entities contribute nothing to our health care system and profit perversely from restricting access to care and to medicines. A frustrated physician In the spirit of transparency, Chuck Grassley should disclose every nickel and other perk he has received from lobbyists and special interest groups over the past decade. I sincerely doubt we’re going to see that happen. Turnabout is fair play.

Alan Schatzberg is a man of unimpeachable integrity whose work has contributed to relieving the suffering of millions of people. If only Grassley and his ilk could make the same claim.

The only thing that’s really transparent here is the politically-expedient and self-serving nature of Grassley’s witch hunt.

The pharmaceutical industry makes significant contributions to our health care system. If you really want to start a crusade to expose the health care demons take a good look at the managed care industry and the pharmacy benefits organizations. These entities contribute nothing to our health care system and profit perversely from restricting access to care and to medicines.

A frustrated physician

]]> By: Thom http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-363868 Thom Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:02 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-363868 My guess is that Stanford is going to put up a fight for their doctor. Take a look at this op-ed that appeared last year. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-rubin11dec11,1,3436804.story "For example, in an August 2002 Stanford University news release, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, chair of Stanford's Psychiatry Department, stated that treatment of psychotically depressed patients with the abortion drug, RU-486, "may be the equivalent of shock treatments in a pill.…" Given that electroconvulsive therapy is the most effective treatment for such patients, this was a hugely exaggerated claim, particularly because there was no significant evidence for effectiveness of the drug at that time. (Indeed, later FDA-monitored clinical trials also have been uniformly negative.)" My guess is that Stanford is going to put up a fight for their doctor. Take a look at this op-ed that appeared last year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la-oew-rubin11dec11,1,3436804.story

“For example, in an August 2002 Stanford University news release, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, chair of Stanford’s Psychiatry Department, stated that treatment of psychotically depressed patients with the abortion drug, RU-486, “may be the equivalent of shock treatments in a pill.…” Given that electroconvulsive therapy is the most effective treatment for such patients, this was a hugely exaggerated claim, particularly because there was no significant evidence for effectiveness of the drug at that time. (Indeed, later FDA-monitored clinical trials also have been uniformly negative.)”

]]> By: Bernard Carroll http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-363652 Bernard Carroll Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:39:27 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-363652 ATTEMPTS TO SELL STOCK Aside from the unreported sale of shares to which Sen. Grassley called attention, which netted Dr. Schatzberg a little over $100,000, Stanford and Dr. Schatzberg might claim that he made almost no money from the company. This was not for want of trying. In connection with Corcept’s planned IPOs, Dr. Schatzberg made 2 very determined runs at selling large parcels of stock. Reflecting Sen. Grassley’s concern about oversight, it seems these would never have been reported to Stanford under the institution’s existing rules or, if they ever were, it would only have been after the fact. Here are the specifics. 28 January 2002. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. filed an S-1-A statement with the SEC containing the terms of its proposed IPO of company stock. The total number of shares offered was 4,500,000 at a projected sale price of $14-$16 per share. Proceeds from the sale of 4,000,000 shares were slated for company operations. Proceeds from the sale of 500,000 shares by a selling stockholder were not slated for company operations. The selling stockholder was identified as Alan F. Schatzberg, M.D. Had this plan been consummated, Dr. Schatzberg would have benefited by $7,000,000 at an IPO sale price of $14 per share. The cost basis of these 500,000 shares to Dr. Schatzberg was less than $200. This planned IPO in 2002 was later withdrawn due to market conditions. 19 March 2004. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. filed an S-1-A statement with the SEC. This document provided details of the proposed second attempt to consummate the company’s IPO. A total of 5,000,000 shares was proposed for sale at an issue price of $15-$17 per share. A selling stockholder proposed the sale of an additional 750,000 shares pursuant to the underwriters’ exercise of their over-allotment options. Proceeds from the sale of the over-allotment were not slated to go to the operating capital of the company. The selling stockholder was identified as Dr. Alan Schatzberg. Had this plan been consummated, Dr. Schatzberg would have benefited to the extent of $11,250,000 at an IPO price of $15 per share. The cost basis of these 750,000 shares to Dr. Schatzberg was less than $300. 14 April 2004. IPO occurred, with Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. selling 4.5 million of 5 million offered shares at $12.00, which netted $54,000,000 to working capital of the company. An over-allotment option of 750,000 shares owned by Dr. Schatzberg was withdrawn when the opening price was reduced to $12 from a projected $15 - $17. It is indeed problematic when financial transactions of this magnitude can potentially go unreported to the University by faculty members who are required to recuse themselves from hands-on involvement in related NIH-supported projects. Sen. Grassley’s call for a review of Stanford’s reporting requirements is timely. ATTEMPTS TO SELL STOCK

Aside from the unreported sale of shares to which Sen. Grassley called attention, which netted Dr. Schatzberg a little over $100,000, Stanford and Dr. Schatzberg might claim that he made almost no money from the company. This was not for want of trying. In connection with Corcept’s planned IPOs, Dr. Schatzberg made 2 very determined runs at selling large parcels of stock. Reflecting Sen. Grassley’s concern about oversight, it seems these would never have been reported to Stanford under the institution’s existing rules or, if they ever were, it would only have been after the fact. Here are the specifics.

28 January 2002. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. filed an S-1-A statement with the SEC containing the terms of its proposed IPO of company stock. The total number of shares offered was 4,500,000 at a projected sale price of $14-$16 per share. Proceeds from the sale of 4,000,000 shares were slated for company operations. Proceeds from the sale of 500,000 shares by a selling stockholder were not slated for company operations. The selling stockholder was identified as Alan F. Schatzberg, M.D. Had this plan been consummated, Dr. Schatzberg would have benefited by $7,000,000 at an IPO sale price of $14 per share. The cost basis of these 500,000 shares to Dr. Schatzberg was less than $200. This planned IPO in 2002 was later withdrawn due to market conditions.

19 March 2004. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. filed an S-1-A statement with the SEC. This document provided details of the proposed second attempt to consummate the company’s IPO. A total of 5,000,000 shares was proposed for sale at an issue price of $15-$17 per share. A selling stockholder proposed the sale of an additional 750,000 shares pursuant to the underwriters’ exercise of their over-allotment options. Proceeds from the sale of the over-allotment were not slated to go to the operating capital of the company. The selling stockholder was identified as Dr. Alan Schatzberg. Had this plan been consummated, Dr. Schatzberg would have benefited to the extent of $11,250,000 at an IPO price of $15 per share. The cost basis of these 750,000 shares to Dr. Schatzberg was less than $300.

14 April 2004. IPO occurred, with Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. selling 4.5 million of 5 million offered shares at $12.00, which netted $54,000,000 to working capital of the company. An over-allotment option of 750,000 shares owned by Dr. Schatzberg was withdrawn when the opening price was reduced to $12 from a projected $15 - $17.

It is indeed problematic when financial transactions of this magnitude can potentially go unreported to the University by faculty members who are required to recuse themselves from hands-on involvement in related NIH-supported projects. Sen. Grassley’s call for a review of Stanford’s reporting requirements is timely.

]]> By: Lisa Van S http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/senate-targets-stanford-psychiatrist-over-conflicts/#comment-363619 Lisa Van S Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:57:57 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14316#comment-363619 Grassley's Investigators should check into Dr. Rajiv Tandon, who was a clinical investigator for Bristol Meyer Squib, for Abilify (BETA STUDY), Abilify carries a Black Box Warning of suicide and violence in children and adolescents. Dr. Rajiv Tandon: Principles of Antipsychotic Prescribing for Policy Makers, Circa 2008 Missouri Minnesota Indiana Massachussetes *NEW JERSEY* Pennsylvania Ohio *FLORIDA* A.G. Ann Milgram should investigate Dr. Tandon's conflicts of interest in New Jersey's Health Services since Abilify is the top selling antipsychotic for children in New Jersey's Foster Care Program. Our Taxpayer dollars hard at work!!! Grassley’s Investigators should check into Dr. Rajiv Tandon, who was a clinical investigator for Bristol Meyer Squib, for Abilify (BETA STUDY), Abilify carries a Black Box Warning of suicide and violence in children and adolescents.

Dr. Rajiv Tandon: Principles of Antipsychotic Prescribing for Policy Makers, Circa 2008
Missouri
Minnesota
Indiana
Massachussetes
*NEW JERSEY*
Pennsylvania
Ohio
*FLORIDA*

A.G. Ann Milgram should investigate Dr. Tandon’s conflicts of interest in New Jersey’s Health Services since Abilify is the top selling antipsychotic for children in New Jersey’s Foster Care Program. Our Taxpayer dollars hard at work!!!

]]>