Joay D. Ámsterdam: The Paroxetine 352 Bipolar Study Ethical Conduct
1. Email exchange between Jay D. Amsterdam and Thomas A. Ban
Thank you for your nice email, and for your suggestions regarding the INHN posting of the paroxetine 352 documents
Pursuant to your suggestions (below), please allow me to respond to each numbered item (below), with my responses embedded beneath each numbered suggestion:
Many thanks for agreeing to post these vital historical documents about an ongoing, if terribly unfortunate, aspect of our field on the INHN historical website.
Yours most kindly,
Thank you very much for sending me the impressive documentation of your "paroxetine" project. My suggestion is that we should post for our "historical record":
Your letter to the Office of Research Integrity
There have been several letters from my attorney to the ORI that include (a) my original July 8, 2011 research misconduct complaint (containing all of the Penn email and other related documents). I already sent this to you as attachment #1. Although not sent to you, I would be happy to provide the actual attachment evidence documents contained in the July 8, 2011 complaint.
The reply of the Office of Research Integrity to you with their findings of the Inquiry
Regrettably, the letter to me from the ORI in response to my July 8, 2011 and June 25, 2012 research misconduct complaints has been designated by the ORI as ‘confidential; and my attorneys have advised me against posting any document designated as ‘confidential”. On the other hand, in lieu of your requested ORI letter to me, I do have a non-designated letter from my attorney to the ORI discussing their findings of my research misconduct complaints, that are not designated as confidential. I would be happy to see if I could obtain clearance from my attorney to post this letter in lieu of the ORI letter to me.
Your letter to the University (if there was a letter) related to 1:
Regrettably, the letter from the University to me containing the University’s investigatory findings of my misconduct complaints against their professors, is also designated as “confidential.” As a result of Penn’s designation of confidentiality, my lawyer wrote the June 25, 2012 (2nd research misconduct) letter to the ORI, in which he noted most of the findings in the University’s letter to me. This 2nd research misconduct letter of June 25, 2012 was already sent to you as attachment #2. Thus, it contains a point by point rebuttal of the University’s findings (or cover up).
The reply of the University to your letter or the document in which they let you know the result of their inquiry.
Regrettably, all University documents were designated as ‘confidential’ and, thus, I have been advised by my attorney not to post these documents. However, my point by point response to the University’s finding are contained in my June 25, 2012 letter to the ORI (see #3 above). However, I do have other letters to the ORI (by my attorney) that describe in exquisite detail the shortcomings of the University’s investigation (or their obfuscation thereof) that are not designated as confidential, and which would be of historical interest to INHN readers (one of which I sent to you as attachment #3). I would be happy to see if I can obtain clearance to post these letters on the INHN website.
5. Documentation of misappropriation (1 piece)
Are you suggesting that I select only one (1 of the inculpatory STI documents that I sent to you that demonstrates “misappropriation”; or, are you suggesting that I provide you with some other evidence of “misappropriation”? I’m not exactly certain of what you mean by “misappropriation.” Can you give me an example of what you mean?
Documentation of falsification (1 piece)
Are you suggesting that I select only one (1 of the inculpatory STI documents that I sent to you that demonstrates “falsification”? I’m not exactly certain of what you mean by “falsification.” Falsification of what? Can you give me an example of what you mean?
Documentation of corruption (1 piece)
It may be difficult for me to select only one (1) item from the STI documents to demonstrate corruption; given that the numerous examples of the corruption demonstrated within the STI documents that I provided to you range from the corruption of ghost writing of the Am J Psychiatry article, to plagiarism by the academic authors (who were not involved in either the writing of the article or in the conduct of the research study), to the corruption of the editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry in publishing the rejected manuscript, to the cover up by the University of the wrong doing of their professors, to the corruption of the academic authors and the Universities lying to the ORI investigators and the public about there being no ghost writers involved in the production of the published article (while email documentation clearly shows evidence of this practice on the University email servers, etc, etc, etc. Put simply, there was so much corruption involved in this case, that I’m not sure which of the STI documents I would pick first! They all show inculpatory evidence. Finally, please be aware that there were other STI-related documentary evidence of grave research misconduct, that were not provided to you because they had a ‘confidential’ designation affixed to them. But from what has been provided to you for the historical record of our field, strains the limits of academic and professional ethics – to put it simply. Please advise.
Items 5, 6 and 7 could be summarizing essays that would set the stage for an active exchange.
August 5, 2021