- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 1,086
Who is David Haddox and what are his two big contributions to the field of pain medicine?
Oxycontin and pseudoaddiction?
1+
Who would have predicted - present company excluded - that the coiner of the term 'pseudoaddiction' (1) would subsequently go to work for Purdue Pharma and be given a patent for Oxycontin (2)? Moreover, how many here realize that Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to 2007 to misleading the public about the abuse potential of Oxycontin and settled for for $600M (3).
Even more interesting, Haddox still works for Purdue, is a past president (4) - serving while employed by Purdue - of the AAPM, and still sits on the board of the ABPM (5). If these types of disclosures don't change disclosure rules and ethics charters then our pain professional societies might as well just shut down.
1. Opioid pseudoaddiction--an iatrogenic syndrome. Weissman DE, Haddox JD.
Pain. 1989 Mar;36(3):363-6.
2. http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week32/OG/html/1381-1/US08236351-20120807.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/business/11drug-web.html?_r=1&hp
4. http://www.painmed.org/MemberCenter/Council_Past_Presidents.aspx
5. http://www.abpm.org/boardofdir
I am in agreement that full disclosure is important. That is why it is disingenuous for the Propsters to not disclose fully all relationships they have had with government and industry when pontifcating about opioids. How many have served on task forces to limit opioid prescribing, hospital committees to restrict access, governmental agency advisory committees, work for plaintiffs lawyers in suing doctors for prescribing opioids, served as consultants to medical boards on opioids, are employees of a hospital system, have worked as consultants for the insurance industry, have rendered IME opinions on those taking opioids, are members of NADDI, have worked with police or other law enforcement agencies on drug diversion cases, have rendered opinions for or sat on the Washington Agency Directors Committees that defined opioid regulations, have written journal articles or opinion pieces regarding the malevolent effects of opioids, or have served on a board of directors for organizations that oppose the use of opioids. All of these pose potential conflicts of interest yet are not disclosed by propsters. I am all for full disclosure.
Any physician being paid as a consultant on opioids, whether it be by the state, a lawyer, an insurance company, or agency, etc has just as much conflict of interest as a person being paid to be a spokesman for a drug company.
Ok, then anyone paid as a consultant in dollars for any antiopioid position they postulate would have a conflict of interest that would be measurable.
Only if there were an 'anti-opiod' industry that produced profits by selling 'anti-opioids' to someone🙂 Maybe there is a secret narcan industry connection with PROP🙂
It would be reasonable to have Kolodney, Ballantyne, Von Korff list all sources of income for the past 10 years.
And I'd like to know what Chou made and from who to write the nonsense he espouses.
Hmmm...it will be interesting to see if that is actually true once the sunshine numbers become publicly searchable. But how about taking money from Washington agencies to advocate against opioids? Or lawyers each has done work for and rendered opinions regarding opioids. Sunshine act will not pick up those numbers. Or any dinners they have attended with drug speakers, any sessions they have attended at national meetings sponsored by opioid manufacturers, or lunches provided for their office staff. And if they have not received any "drug money" then how much self funded research have they engaged in regarding opioids....if they haven't are they really experts?
lol not me: I prefer full disclosure. It is the propsters that have failed to disclose. It is disingenuous to critique one group of individuals for their disclosure while defending the contrarian view of those that refuse to disclose.
On the national boards and committees on which I have served, it was required to disclose ALL potential conflicts, no matter how remote. Ownership of stock, bonds, any potential speaking fees, possible company ownership, product development reimbursement, future potential revenues from dividends or possible future ownership, any legal fees for consulting, expert witnessing, working for a medical board, speaking fees for anything even remotely medically related, etc. You should see the NASS disclosures.....very very exhaustive.