The information you shared about the person is very informative. I was not aware about the experience and I am glad I visited here and come to know about it.
By Casey Michel
By Dianna Wray
By Dianna Wray
By Sean Pendergast
By Casey Michel
By Cory Garcia
By Jeff Balke
By Craig Malisow
Miller was a "guest author" for one of Janssen's ghostwritten articles. Upon receiving the manuscript, Miller wrote, "Yes, I am happy to be included as a co-author. I made a few minor edits and comments in the manuscript."
Rothman writes: "That he was willing to serve as a co-author after making admittedly only minor edits and comments demonstrates Miller's readiness to serve J&J's interests rather than uphold professional standards. His claims that none of his activities with J&J biased him cannot substitute for active management or elimination of conflict of interest and commitments to professional integrity."
Upon attending a J&J advisory board meeting at Dallas's posh Rosewood Mansion at Turtle Creek, Miller asked J&J employees "where in the algorithm we [J&J] thought that Consta be positioned," Rothman writes. "The record is filled with evidence demonstrating how often Miller discussed the placement of Consta in the TMAP algorithm."
Dr. John Chiles, former Professor of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio/Chief of Psychiatry Services for the University Health System; former Professor of Psychiatry at University of Washington School of Medicine
For his work in helping pushing Risperdal through TMAP, Chiles accepted at least $151,254 over seven years from Janssen and its contractors. The Rothman report cites an internal J&J e-mail stating, "My goal with Dr. Chiles is to keep him informed of advances with Risperdal research data and neutralize the influence of our competitors...As we get new data and slides into his hands, I believe he will use them...I will also include him in all advisory functions that we hold in the southwest part of the country."
Chiles told the Press that no one from Janssen ever told him what to write or say, and that industry-funded research was part of the "climate" in the '90s. He also said that Janssen "actually came out not looking very good when we analyzed the data."
"In light of their special standing, J&J should have placed a firewall between their marketing departments and advocacy organizations," Rothman wrote. But there was a lack of transparency regarding J&J's contributions to NAMI. Johnson & Johnson worked closely with NAMI and other advocacy groups in order to integrate pro-atypical information into their literature and speaking engagements.
But the Rothman report notes that Lovelace profited personally from his relationship with J&J. Citing Lovelace's deposition, Rothman states that Lovelace deposited some of J&J's funding into the account of his wife's law firm, because "she needed the money...there was a loss there." He admitted accepting "honoraria" and travel payments for functions in Hawaii and Europe. Other documentation showed that Lovelace wanted to "partner with Janssen as a consultant."
Rothman also wrote, "Many of the activities that Lovelace carried out in conjunction with J&J violated principles of transparency. When asked if he let state officials know that he was copying the e-mails with them to J&J, he replied no."
Lovelace originally told the Press he would answer questions about how he felt about the continued use of ghostwritten articles and other conflicts of interest in the state's latest atypicals guidelines for foster children, but after he was sent the portion of the Rothman report detailing his participation with J&J, he replied via e-mail that, "I may be subpoenaed as a witness and would rather not comment for the article."