Hey wait! We didn’t say you could actually track the patients to see whether our device works. We’re going to destroy your academic career now, because we told you what to do, you knew that your job was to provide university cover for our claim that the device works, and your university needs to know that you went off half-cocked like the madman you are and actually tracked your patients to see if the device actually worked.
The University of Saskatchewan’s Daryl Fourney is in big trouble. A big powerful company is filing complaints against him with his employer, and now the New York Times has noticed. After all, a 2010 article by one Chopko totally contradicts Fourney’s findings.
In response, Dr. Fourney noted that Dr. Chopko’s positive 2010 report failed to disclose his financial ties to Vertos; Dr. Chopko, who is Vertos’s director of physician education, described the omission as a “clerical error” and said it would be rectified.
Pesky clerical error! When it comes to conflict of interest, UD, who follows the topic, can tell you that this specific little fuckup occurs with astounding frequency in the scientific literature. I’m sure it will be rectified, along with the study protocol, which will once again specify that you must under no circumstances follow up with your patients beyond the point where we tell you to stop.
September 6th, 2012 at 10:41AM
“Dr. Chopko, who is Vertos’s director of physician education, described the omission as a “clerical error” and said it would be rectified.”
It’s the Nemeroff defense…I will say that underlings failed to send disclosure forms.