Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Wayne Macfadden - "Say Seroquel is good, baby!"

I don't want to write about it and Philip Dawdy has already made an article that says it all:
"From 2001 to 2006, Macfadden was the US medical director for Seroquel and director of clinical research for central nervous system efforts by AstraZeneca. In a deposition in the case in 2008, given under oath, Macfadden admitted to a lengthy sexual relationship with a researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College in London, England and with a ghostwriter who worked at Parexel MMS (Medical Marketing Services) in the USs, according to court records. Neither woman is named in court papers, due to the obviously sensitive nature of their dealings with Macfadden. Both women were intimately tied to publications favorable to Seroquel and AstraZeneca, according to court records."
Read the whole story here.

It seems that in the future we will have some amazing X-rated novels about psychiatrists, researchers, key opinion leaders, ghost-writers... the whole brothel. "The confessions of a psychiatrist" was written in 1954 but is about doctor-patient relationship.
Wow! What a relief that plenty other characters will be in action. I guess writers have already a good start with Wayne Macfadden's story.
Can you imagine that scene at the table? Dialogue "Say Seroquel is good, baby!"


skywind said...

Hehe, it seems almost like that. : D


Ana said...

I have nothing to do with this post.
He did the whole plot!
I can even read the book. It has 167 pages.
It's ready! No need to use your imagination.
I'm even reading the scenes during psychiatrists meetings where the Labs representatives are there!
The best of it all is that patients are no longer characters of the seductions!

D Bunker said...

The Amer Journal of Psychiatry identified their problem in March 2001

Psychiatrists Disciplined by a State Medical Board

James Morrison, M.D., and Theodore Morrison, M.P.H.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the risk of discipline by a medical board for psychiatrists relative to other physicians and assessed the contributions to such risk. METHOD: Physicians disciplined by the California Medical Board in a 30-month period were compared with matched groups of nondisciplined physicians. RESULTS: Among 584 disciplined physicians, there were 75 (12.8%) psychiatrists, nearly twice the number of psychiatrists among nondisciplined physicians.

The disciplined group included significantly more psychiatrists who claimed child psychiatry as their first or second specialty and significantly fewer psychoanalysts. CONCLUSIONS: Organized psychiatry has an obligation to address sexual contact with patients and other causes for medical board discipline.

In the full report's body (free at the link)

Dehlendorf and Wolfe (7) reported that child specialists were disciplined for sex-related offenses to about the same extent as were other psychiatrists, whereas in our study they were nearly three times more at risk.

Perhaps that explains Psychiatrys lack of any problem with drugging and brain damaging little kids.

Ana said...

"...and significantly fewer psychoanalysts."
It's amazing that in public opinion's eyes psychoanalysts are more keen to do such things.
Thank you D. Bunker!
This is a very good source.

Fiddy said...

Love those book covers :-)


Ana said...

In a serious way you're right!
I like this "insinuating" kind of appeal.
I guess I'm getting old but I believe that with all the nudity and sex exposed there's no room for imagination.
We know that imagination/fantasies plays a big... you know how to end this sentence.

Anonymous said...

Please check the facts on the Philip Dawdy story. He is implicating a PAREXEL MMS 'ghostwriter' when in fact it clearly states in the Florida court filings and reference documents that Mcfadden had an affair with a program manager at PAREXEL MMS. In the medical communications industry, program managers neither write nor influence writing. Wjile it makes for a good story, it's uterrly implausibale in real life. Worse than that, by perpetuating this error in Dawdy's blog, you are implicating any of several writers at PAREXEL MMS, none of whom would ever have an affair with the likes of McFadden.

Ana said...

Dear Anonymous,
You have already said it at Furious Seasons.
I believe you're overreacting saying that I'm implication ANY of the several writers.
I believe the majority of people have values not the contrary as you are suggesting.
Thank you for dropping by.

Ana said...

First: I believe that it is a woman who works at Parexel and she must be nervous because even I can see the typo errors;

Second: I trust human nature and I believe that the vast majority is ethical not the contrary as this person is suggesting when she/he(?) says that I'm implicating ANY of the several writers;

Third: "In the medical communications industry, program managers neither write nor influence writing."
I believe this is a young person that is still naive.
In all human associations there is always a tiny little bit of conflict of interests that is the normal human behaviour and don't have anything to do with lack of ethical and don't influence people's view on a subject. It would not be different in the medical communications industry.
The huge problem is when you're dealing with serious conflict of intereSts that harms the health of people and has such implications;

Fourth: I would really like to hear the from Parexel but not this way: anonymously and without too much proofs;

Fifth: "none of whom would ever have an affair with the likes of McFadden." What do you mean by "likes of McFadden?

Sixth: I've post it here because it has to do with Furious Seasons and Philip.

This is the answer I posted to you at Furious Seasons since I believe it's where you would like to write it.
You have already left a message there.
I believe you are a good person but, please, be more specific.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Sorry my post upset you! I did not single you out--I followed this story and read several blogs and felt compelled to comment on those that appeared to not have all the facts straight. I am neither young nor naive--am 50 and have worked in medical communications for ~20 years. My typos were the result of posting from my blackberry without my reading glasses, not youth or stupidity! My comments about 'the likes of McFadden' refer to the things that were revealed about him in the court documents. He is certainly the exception and not the rule in this industry. I do not work for Parexel--I work for one of their competitors, the name of which I'd prefer not to say. I did not respond to your blog to defend Parexel, but to defend my industry in general, and my fellow medical writers specifically. I must say that not only do most of us adhere to Good Publication Practice (eg, international guidelines that ensure we don't engage in 'ghostwriting'), but I have never encountered a situation where a Client could use sex to influence the content of any publication. Anyway, my outrage over hearing about this story resulted in me reading the court documents (posted on another site) and it was there I discovered there was no 'ghostwriter' involved at all, but a program manager. I have worked in several agencies over the years, and have never seen a program manager given the authority to edit or re-write a manuscript (most don't even review them). From my point of view, reading some of the commentary and blogs on this story, I can only imagine a bunch of innocent medical writers at Parexel being forced to defend themselves. Anyway, you didn't start this--I have written to those that did in the hopes they will re-check their information.