See http://chemicalimbalance.org/?p=113

It is worth stating that the list was created by discredited journalist Jeanne Lenzer. Lenzer’s own lengthy relationships with trail lawyers was chronicled in the Jan. 17, 2005 issue of the New York Times (article by Barry Meier). Lenzer’s employer has had to apologize to pharmaceutical companies for her lapses in credibility and integrity. This alone should make the entire list suspect.

This list is a shill list for trial lawyers. Period.

I wouldn’t have ANY objections if the two pseudo-journalists who created it (Lenzer and Brownlee) said only that it was a list of pharma-free experts. However, when they begin to introduce the word “independent,” I take exception (hell, they call their list INDEPENDENT EXPERTS). This is nothing less than an INTENTIONAL mis-representation of these individuals.

You can split hairs and ask: is Peter Pitts more of shill than Lenzer is a shill? I wouldn’t call Pitts indepdent and I won’t call anyone on this list indepedent either. If the issue behind all of this is UNDISCLOSED conflicts of interest in the industry, then the anti-pharma foes of Lenzer, et al, are just as guilty as Peter Pitts and the pro-pharma shills. Pitts didn’t close on NPR and Lenzer and the trial lawyer shills aren’t disclosing either.

[Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I don't get on the computer all the time.]

If I were a paid, essentially full-time lobbyist for “Trial Lawyers, Inc.” - whatever independent convictions and relevant experience I thought I had - I would certainly feel obligated that that fact be known if I were to speak publicly on an issue in which my “client” had a direct interest.

From what I know, none of the poeple on the list have even close to that kind of relationship with lawyers. But it was pretty close to the situation on the “other side” that started all of this.

“Below the “Independent Experts” title on the list, the explanation is “Independent list members state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.” I can’t imagine it would mean anything else. Is there anyone in the world who is “independent” of having some opinion, bias, perspective, orientation?”

Thus, I think it would be clear to the average peruser of such a list that no one was claiming some sort of metaphysical independence, but specifcially independence of “financial ties to drug or device manufacturers.”

So, indeed, the list is full of people who have been “all-stars” in the critque of industry - Angell, Wolfe, Lurie, Goozner, Brody, et. al.. They are biased, indeed. And if someone asked me (no one has, darn it!) to comment on NPR on preemption, I would obviously also be biased.

Is there something I should disclose other than my views, which would be obvious as soon as I opened my mouth? Can “independent” only mean one has no opinion one way or other.

Can you even imagine such a person would even be asked to be on NPR. “And now, we turn to Dr. John Smith, who has no opinion whatsoever on the issue we are discussing.”

Would be as really compelling and informative show.

When this tempest in teapot first arose, the suggestion was that the list of independent experts was “rife” (DDL’s word) with people who were paid expert witnesses for “Trail Lawyers, Inc.” (again, DDL) and not disclosing it.

As it has played out, it turns out that 2 or 3 names out of a very long list have been “outed” as having been expert witnesses. And in most of those cases they have disclosed that fact.

So we end where we began. The effort to create some sort of “immoral equivalence” failed.

In the meantime, the more challenging question - what is the threshold that _should_ compel disclosure (on any side) in relevant situation remains undiscussed.

Both results are, to my mind, pathetic.

I assume the link you provide to the piece by Adriane FB is the evidence of that.

Sorry, I just don’t see it. There is, in the piece, no content that could be considered promotion of the goods and services of trial lawyers. The fact that AFB has been a paid expert witness is clearly stated in her bio blurb. What more disclosure do you think is needed?

This is certainly not comparable to Peter Pitts, whose livelihood essentially depends on promoting the interests of the industry (for which I don’t criticize him). The issue re: NPR was the absence of any disclosure of that fact.

He didn’t. She did.

Is there more to know?

The same folks who add their names to this list (and accept money shilling for trial lawyers) are the same individuals who criticize doctors for conflicts of interest with pharma. Ironic, don’t you think?

If someone wants to be an independent expert, then I absolutely applaud them for it. But don’t get all righteous for being anti-pharma when you (or your employer on your behalf) accept money for providing biased “expert” testimony. If you’re going to be independent, then be independent.

No claim was ever made by anyone that Marcia Angell dooes not have the opinions Marcia Angell repeatedly states she has.

Again, rather than dealing with what are actual issues and challenging questions, this “discussion” easily lapses into drivel.