Jay D. Amsterdam: The Paroxetine 352 Bipolar Study Ethical Conduct

Jay Amsterdam’s reply to Samuel Gershon’s comment

        Thank you so much for posting your recent commentary on the Paroxetine 352 ethical misconduct case. 

        In my experience, this type of overt collegial support for endeavors to correct this type of academic and corporate misconduct has been rare and far between (especially since the passing of Barney Carroll and Mickey Nardo). Your willingness to bravely speak out on this egregious conduct in our field has given me some measure of comfort and hope.

        As the collated Paroxetine 352 INHN postings have revealed, the best that the field could offer was weakly expressed in the letter by Dr. Frances Collins, paraphrased, (a la Claude Rains in Casablanca): I’m shocked, shocked to see that ghostwriting is going on at the NIMH and in academia! And even this disingenuous acknowledgement by Collins that there might be a “ghost in the garden,” pales to the silence of so many of our academic colleagues who, like so many current politicians, are fearful of being “primaried” by Big Pharma (out of easy money) if they were to speak truth to power.

        So, thanks for your ongoing support in this collaborative INHN endeavor to correct the record on ghostwriting and plagiarism in academia. I hope that you will be willing to contribute future supporting posts, as the primary source documents of personal emails and letters begin to make their INHN appearance.

Reference:

Attachment G (Letter to the Office of Research Integrity – Lawyer’s letter excerpt) (Jay D. Amsterdam: The Paroxetine 352 Bipolar Study Ethical Conduct). inhn.org.archives. September 2, 2021.

November 25, 2021