Nevronik, Tim Deer and ASPN conflict of interest

[Snowmen96]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hi,

Am I the only one finding it completely inappropriate that Tim Deer, a Nevronik employee (as chief clinical advisor) is:

1) Still running ASPN
2) Running a study for Nevronik
3) Presenting that study at ASPN

Companies handing out grants and funding to allow studies to be run is something. This is something else...

What's your opinions?

 

[mille125]

I agree with you

 

[lobelsteve]

Hi,

Am I the only one finding it completely inappropriate that Tim Deer, a Nevronik employee (as chief clinical advisor) is:

1) Still running ASPN
2) Running a study for Nevronik
3) Presenting that study at ASPN

Companies handing out grants and funding to allow studies to be run is something. This is something else...

What's your opinions?

Why do you think they set up ASPN?

Blue pointy toes shoes for allllllll.

 

[Snowmen96]

Why do you think they set up ASPN?

Blue pointy toes shoes for allllllll.

Pointy shoes are so 2021. The new craze is sneakers with a suit.

 

[buddababa]

Pointy shoes are so 2021. The new craze is sneakers with a suit.

hey, i've been rocking that since 2005

 

[Agast]

What are the requirements for leadership positions in our field? No industry attachment? I wonder who would be left standing.

 

[Status Sciaticus]

Hi,

Am I the only one finding it completely inappropriate that Tim Deer, a Nevronik employee (as chief clinical advisor) is:

1) Still running ASPN
2) Running a study for Nevronik
3) Presenting that study at ASPN

Companies handing out grants and funding to allow studies to be run is something. This is something else...

What's your opinions?

I agree with you, though I dont think he is an 'employee', probably an independent contributor or paid spokesperson.
I'm surprised that he is leading ASPN though, as opposed to the other co-founder, Sayed, who doesnt seem to have so many conflicts of interest.

 

[Snowmen96]

What are the requirements for leadership positions in our field? No industry attachment? I wonder who would be left standing.

Receiving funding from industry for research is one thing. Being so closely related to a company (which I wouldn't be surprised to learn he has shares in), leading their research and presenting said research at your very own scientific conference is something else. And it's not like it's his only potential conflict of interest with how close to industry he is.

Something else I find concerning is fellowship program directors (and to a point program faculty) serving as paid faculty for industry sponsored labs. Training should be devoid of any commercial considerations, and being involved with the industry in this manner raises concern in my opinion.

 

[Gauss]

Why do you think they set up ASPN?

Blue pointy toes shoes for allllllll.

vaguely recall gator leather or had some freaky stitch design. been slicking back that head of hair for as long as gavin newsom

 

[Gauss]

Receiving funding from industry for research is one thing. Being so closely related to a company (which I wouldn't be surprised to learn he has shares in), leading their research and presenting said research at your very own scientific conference is something else. And it's not like it's his only potential conflict of interest with how close to industry he is.

Something else I find concerning is fellowship program directors (and to a point program faculty) serving as paid faculty for industry sponsored labs. Training should be devoid of any commercial considerations, and being involved with the industry in this manner raises concern in my opinion.

 

[hyperalgesia]

You have to start with the premise that every organization and institution is the arm of some $$$ enterprise. Pain organizations are no exception.

Someone was asking me about "axon therapy" the other day and pointed to the main justifying research for it, done at the VA. Turns out the lead author of the VA study is now the Medical Director at Neuralace, the company that sells axon therapy.

 

[mille125]

You have to start with the premise that every organization and institution is the arm of some $$$ enterprise. Pain organizations are no exception.

Someone was asking me about "axon therapy" the other day and pointed to the main justifying research for it, done at the VA. Turns out the lead author of the VA study is now the Medical Director at Neuralace, the company that sells axon therapy.

Yep that is all correct. VA Augusta was main centet.

Axon works though.....

Unsurprisingly the VA covers it.

 

[drusso]

Hi,

Am I the only one finding it completely inappropriate that Tim Deer, a Nevronik employee (as chief clinical advisor) is:

1) Still running ASPN
2) Running a study for Nevronik
3) Presenting that study at ASPN

Companies handing out grants and funding to allow studies to be run is something. This is something else...

What's your opinions?

In your view, what kind of hazard does the conflict create?

 

[Snowmen96]

In your view, what kind of hazard does the conflict create?

If a company employee is running the study, they have a conscious or unconscious incentive to make sure the study is successful so that the product and company are profitable. Up to a degree, this reality is also present when you receive industry funding for an independent study because you want to keep receiving funding and also have an incentive to publish but it is not as obvious as it is here.

Normally, scientific organizations or journals would act as a neutral player identifying biased literature and either preventing it from being published or at least amending it. In this case, the person running the study and deciding if the study should be published are also the same which removes another guardrail. In this specific case, Tim Deer is essentially judge, jury and executioner.

 

[drusso]

If a company employee is running the study, they have a conscious or unconscious incentive to make sure the study is successful so that the product and company are profitable. Up to a degree, this reality is also present when you receive industry funding for an independent study because you want to keep receiving funding and also have an incentive to publish but it is not as obvious as it is here.

Normally, scientific organizations or journals would act as a neutral player identifying biased literature and either preventing it from being published or at least amending it. In this case, the person running the study and deciding if the study should be published are also the same which removes another guardrail. In this specific case, Tim Deer is essentially judge, jury and executioner.

Interesting theories about the motives of the mind...Set aside any speculation about Freudian unconscious drives and just assume for a minute that any incentive is purely in the realm of conscious awareness--no one is hiding the ball from you. Tim Deer wants this gizmo to work. The patient wants this gizmo to work. The doctor wants this gizmo to work. The CEO wants this gizmo to work. The PE investors want this gizmo to work, etc.

Couldn't an informed reader just account for that in their understanding of the findings? Isn't that what the disclosures are for?

Is it still a conflict if someone tells you that they are consciously biased? It seems like it's all "informed consent" and "disclosure" once you know that.

We all know that industry-funded studies are conducted to produce an intended result, and are even surprised when, once in a while, they don't!

What's the problem?

 

[Ducttape]

placebo effect. that costs the patient money.

most patients have no inkling about conflict of interest. most patients hear "medical study" and assume that the treatment they are signing up for has been vetted, proven to be safe and effective, and have no consequences.

look at all the bogus stuff marketed by health influencers - from supplements vitamins to peptides to IV infusions.


fwiw, by this logic, chiropractic therapy, herbology and reflexology should be the front line recommendation for your patients.

 

[drusso]

placebo effect. that costs the patient money.

most patients have no inkling about conflict of interest. most patients hear "medical study" and assume that the treatment they are signing up for has been vetted, proven to be safe and effective, and have no consequences.

look at all the bogus stuff marketed by health influencers - from supplements vitamins to peptides to IV infusions.


fwiw, by this logic, chiropractic therapy, herbology and reflexology should be the front line recommendation for your patients.

Most patients already try and fail that stuff before they get referred to me. They end up saying, "That didn't work." I'm not sure I see your point.

 

[Snowmen96]

Interesting theories about the motives of the mind...Set aside any speculation about Freudian unconscious drives and just assume for a minute that any incentive is purely in the realm of conscious awareness--no one is hiding the ball from you. Tim Deer wants this gizmo to work. The patient wants this gizmo to work. The doctor wants this gizmo to work. The CEO wants this gizmo to work. The PE investors want this gizmo to work, etc.

Couldn't an informed reader just account for that in their understanding of the findings? Isn't that what the disclosures are for?

Is it still a conflict if someone tells you that they are consciously biased? It seems like it's all "informed consent" and "disclosure" once you know that.

We all know that industry-funded studies are conducted to produce an intended result, and are even surprised when, once in a while, they don't!

What's the problem?

This is all good if the gizmo works. If the gizmo doesn't work but people push it to the market with a flawed study for financial and egoistical interests, it's a different matter. I'm not saying this is what Tim Deer is doing, but the mere fact that some people are asking themselves these questions is a problem in and of itself.

 

[Agast]

A study with 8 patients is pretty pitiful. What happened there?

 

[Ducttape]

Most patients already try and fail that stuff before they get referred to me. They end up saying, "That didn't work." I'm not sure I see your point.

purposefully obtuse?

clearly, pushing treatment with no or next to no data to support is deceiving to patients. your pushing these expensive and invasive treatments without data is akin to pushing chiro.

then again, maybe your clinic owns some chiros and you tell your patients that chiro is going to cure their back pain, spine subluxations, chronic liver disease, diabetes, colon cancer......

 

[drusso]

purposefully obtuse?

clearly, pushing treatment with no or next to no data to support is deceiving to patients. your pushing these expensive and invasive treatments without data is akin to pushing chiro.

then again, maybe your clinic owns some chiros and you tell your patients that chiro is going to cure their back pain, spine subluxations, chronic liver disease, diabetes, colon cancer......

What about a Type II error?

 

[Ducttape]

from my understanding, most "researchers" doing these small preliminary studies have a null hypothesis that the treatment is going to work, not that it is not going to work.

you can reduce the risk of error by ensuring the null hypothesis is one where the treatment does not work and to have large enough sample size - or at least run power analysis to determine the minimum amount needed. which is what most studies in pain medicine lack.

which is why i posted the internal medicine studies as an example of studies with sufficient sample size.