Paul Scott writes about the documentary, “Depression: Out of the Shadows,” which won a Peabody Award.
He criticizes that “its broad survey of the science of the illness included frequent appearances by Charles Nemeroff, M.D., a leading–some say powerful–mood disorders researcher from Emory University. Last fall, Nemeroff also became one of the most prominent psychiatrists to be rebuked for failing to disclose funds earned from the drug industry.” …
The heart of his critique, though, is this:
“That PBS producers either did not know about Nemeroff’s drug industry entanglements or did not believe they tainted his discussion of the science of depression is disappointing. Indeed, the science of the illness and antidepressant medications is far less uniformly agreed upon than is depicted in the documentary. Disputes are ongoing over the efficacy, mechanism of action, and “targeted” nature of antidepressants–blockbuster drugs that remain the recipient of favorable press coverage even while now going off patent.
But what made the praise bestowed on this PBS documentary particularly troubling were the erroneous, drug-industry serving statements made by Nemeroff within the film–statements which had the potential to negatively affect public health, and which the documentary left unchallenged.”
Read the entire piece.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Health Guide
June 25, 2009 at 9:59 amI found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.
Leslie
June 25, 2009 at 1:30 pmI think it’s in PBS’s best interest to do one of 2 things:
1. Add a disclaimer to the beginning of the video to warn others that Nemeroff’s words may be tainted becuase of his entanglement in the drug industry.
2. Add an additional doctor’s viewpoint to the documentary to challenge the erroneous, drug-industry serving statements made by Nemeroff within the film.
Do you think this would make a difference Gary?
Paul Raeburn
June 26, 2009 at 8:28 amGary,
Here’s a comment I left on the CJR post, if you want it:
I wouldn’t defend Nemeroff. But you don’t offer a remedy. Should journals refuse to publish studies by Nemeroff and the like?
Psychiatric research is notoriously underfunded. The National Institute of Mental Health does a handful of expensive, important studies, but the overwhelming majority of studies are paid for by drug companies. Virtually all psychiatrist researchers take money from drug companies because it is the only money available.
Our choice, sadly, is largely between drug-company-linked research, and no research. As someone who’s written about personal experiences with mental illness in the family, I’ll take any research over none.
The solution is vastly more government funding for psychiatric research. A trillion-dollars stimulus bill for mental health research could arguably do much more for the country than a bailout of the banks. But I don’t expect that view to prevail.
In the meantime, I’ll take drug-company-funded studies.
And you’re wrong about one thing: Antidepressants have now been proven to work. They have side-effects, as all drugs do, but they are far superior to what preceded them: millions of people getting no treatment at all.
Paul Raeburn
http://www.fathersandfamilies.blogspot.com
Mike
June 26, 2009 at 10:30 amI didn’t see the documentary. Sounds like they are pushing drugs though. It’s a shame that that is what all doctors are becoming. Drug pushers. Go fill this prescriptions, take 2 pills before each meal and see me in a month. They don’t ask about your habits, like nutrition, fitness, job, stress, family life. Most things can be cured by getting to the root of what caused the illness. Pushing drugs is so much easier for them. I think they get a cut or something. They are killing us. Anti this, anti that drugs are not good for the body and most are addictive & liver killers.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like