Recently in Consumer Rights Category

The United States Supreme Court reduced the amount of punitive damages Exxon Mobile will have to pay for its destruction of the Alaska coastline from $5 billion to $500 million.   This gift of funds comes on the heels of a reported $40 billion profit by the oil giant for the year 2007.  This is the largest annual profit for a corporation in history.

Originally a jury awarded the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill $5 billion in punitive damages.  Later an Appellate Court to $2.5 billion reduced that.  The Supreme Court showing they are more generous than any appellate jurisdiction reduced it to just $500 million.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in 1989 and the original jury verdict was made in 1994.  The giant oil corporation, by balking at paying the jury's award, was able to save $4.5 billion in penalties, plus the cost of money over 14 years.    If Exxon had put the original award of $5 billion into a certificate of deposit at 7%, it would have earned $500 million in interest in less than two years.

That's Exxon's punishment for its reckless misconduct in spilling 10.8 million gallons into Prince William Sound.  It remains one of the greatest environmental disasters in our history. 

But the real story is the Court's decimation of the important role of punitive damages to punish outlaws and hold them publicly accountable.

Corporations and the corporate controlled media like to perpetuate the mythology that punitive damages awards are excessive.  Punitive damages are only used against a defendant when a jury has determined an egregious wrong was committed.   The jury in the Exxon Valdez found that the company knew that the Captain of the vessel was an alcoholic and that he had been drinking on the ship.  They also found that compensatory damages to commercial fisherman would never be sufficient for their loss.

In addition, the court found Exxon was slow to act to clean-up the disaster and executives of the company had little remorse for the actions of the company that led to the disaster.

The 33,000 plaintiffs in the case would have received $150,000 after the jury award, $75,000 after the reduction by the Appellate Court and $15,000 after the today's ruling.  Fifteen thousand dollars is the equivalent of $7,000 placed in a bank in 1994 at five percent interest.

The Court's ruling is a travesty for protecting the environment.  Scientists have concluded it will take over 30 years for the coastline to recover.  There is no reason, given the new guidelines for punitive damages, that giant corporations should fear be deterred from reckless or intentional misconduct, as long as they have correctly calculated their economic risks. 

Environmental destruction, contaminated foods, toxic products, and dangerous toys for children will not be detrrred as a result of this decision. 

There's other lesson from the Exxon Valdez case.  Corporations now are assured that if they stretch litigation out and get to a very friendly Supreme Court they can maximize their profit and limit their liability.  The only real danger they face is from a qualified attorney in front of a jury who can justly determine the damages.  

That's why corporations are supporting John McCain for president.  With four right-wingers just waiting for one more vote, the election of McCain guarantees a decade of corporate protection at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Across the board the right-wing minority on the Supreme Court relishes its power to eviscerate the rights of consumers whenever it can scare up one more vote.   Check the recent history on prescription drugs and medical devices.  

We need the Supremes to sing a different tune.  That will only be possible if we elect a candidate for change in November.  He's not the old white guy riding in a golf cart with President Bush.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

There is no doubt the "good hands" people have been using them to pick Californian pockets.

Allstate Insurance Company was ordered to reduce their homeowner's rates by $255 million statewide by the California Department of Insurance.  Now the question remains whether it will issue the refunds owed their customers.

More than 850,000 customers will see their insurance rates reduced by about $250 as a result of the order.  The order represents a 28.5% reduction in the cost of homeowner's insurance premiums.  Incredulously, Allstate initially sought a 9.3% increase in premiums.

This is the second time in less than a year that Allstate was found to be overcharging its customers.  In March, the Department of Insurance ordered the company to reduce its auto rates by 15.9%, saving Allstate auto customers $124 per car.

The real story is that Allstate has taken its sweet time in reducing these excessive rates.   Allstate initially sued the Department of Insurance for reducing their rates, but later dropped its appeal.

The acrimony between Allstate and the California Department of Insurance has been going on for three years.  Lt. Governor, and former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, rightfully called for the company to issue refunds to consumers for the last three years.  That's how long Allstate has been overcharging customers while it fought the Department.

"The company has pocketed far more of the policyholders' money than was warranted," Garmendi said. "But, frankly, they must in my view provide a rebate for the three years in which they charged an illegal amount."

Now it will be up to a Republican, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, to see those past illicit gains are not kept by the rogue company and that refunds are issued in a timely manner to the victims of Allstates' excesses.

But the real heroes of this story are the folks at Consumer Watchdog, a group led by Harvey Rosenfield, Doug Heller, Jamie Court and Pam Pressley.    Rosenfield, especially, deserves credit for crafting Proposition 103.

Proposition 103 provided for an elected Insurance Commissioner in the State of California.  More importantly, it gave the Commissioner the power to lower rates when they were excessive.

So far, Proposition 103 has saved California Consumers over $62 Billion.  In addition, Consumer Watchdog and their folks will take the lead in holding the current Commissioner accountable for making sure that Allstate refunds its illegal overcharges.

This should not be difficult.  The current Republican Commissioner has been outspoken in his desire to seek refunds from the company and he has seen, first hand, the arrogance and intransigence Allstate has demonstrated since he took office.

Further, Consumer Watchdog is already leading the charge to get these refunds for victims of Allstate.  Initially, the group had put the issue of refunds on hold until the California Department of Insurance determined the excessive rate issue.   Now they are free to pursue claims against the company because of the provisions of Proposition 103.

Allstate is sure to fight back.  They take a no-hold barred approach to their fight.  Earlier this year Allstate made good on its pledge to pull out of the property insurance business in California altogether.  A move that was designed to scare Californians into meeting Allstate's demand for excessive rates.

But the numbers don't lie.  In 2006 Allstate took in over $5 billion.  The total shareholder return from 1994-2006 was a whopping 590%.   It is noteworthy that Allstate can give-up the California market and still make billions of dollars.

"Allstate boasted of record profits to Wall Street, then came to California claiming it's not making enough money in order to charge its policyholders higher premiums. Proposition 103's prohibition on excessive rates protected California consumers with home and auto insurance policies from Allstate's price gouging and saved them over half a billion dollars this year," said Pamela Pressley, litigation director at Consumer Watchdog.

But Allstate, incredulously,  still claims increases are necessary.   And there are troubling signs at the Department of Insurance that the current Commissioner is tacking right in an effort to please his Republican breathren in order to position himself for Governor. 

Poizner, who came to the office as a moderate and promised to run the department in a nonpartisan manner, recently has looked increasingly like the old Republican model --  including taking a position as Co-chair of the John McCain Campaign Committee and putting part of  his vast personal fortune into rightwing Republican registration efforts.

But the most disturbing signs of trouble come in the recent reorganization of his executive staff, as two major consumer advocates have left the department.   Moreover, there are troubling signs that he has left the day to day operations in the hands of a longtime Republican idealogue, Jim Richardson, who is the former chief of staff to archconservative and former Republican minority leader Jim Brulte, while Poizner campaigns for Governor.

But one can only assess a politician's record by results and, so far, Poizner's actions in recovering excessive claims from thieves like Allstate have been good, but it is not over by a longshot.

So we need to be vigilant in helping Consumer Watchdog in its quest to get the current Commissioner to fulfill the promises of his campaign.  If he does so, he just might become Governor.

In the meantime, next time you see the your friends with the "good hands"--keep yours in your pocket, lest they pick them clean again.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Losing your house in a fire is devastating, but having your Insurance Company renege on their promise to cover your loss is beyond the pale.   But that is exactly what is happening all over California as increasing firestorms destroy happy lives.

From Lake Tahoe to San Diego, from Santa Cruz to Malibu the insurance industry is ducking and weaving in an attempt to deny homeowners the full replacement value of their home.

It is these Insurers who set the replacement value of your home in the first place. 

The scam starts by insurance companies offering low premiums to homeowners as a marketing tool to get their business.  To do so, the agents and/or companies undervalue the cost of the dwelling.  Then, when the catastrophe hits, the company refuses to pay the full replacement value of the home, much to the surprise of the victimized homeowner.

A recent survey by United Policyholders found that 75% of homes were undervalued by an average of $240,000 in the recent fires in San Diego and San Bernardino Counties.  And only 46% of the victims had received offers eight months after the fire.

This is not a new problem.  Insurance companies have been trying to get away with this fraud for years.  

When Katrina hit New Orleans most, if not all, of the victims found they were underinsured.  Moreover, the insurance companies began to utilize the small print in their adhesive contracts to avoid paying claims.

An "adhesive" contract is one in which the terms are dictated by one side and are not the subject of mutual negotiation.  In other words, the companies "stick" you with their terms.

Fortunately the law is on the side of the victims. 

Gigantic State Farm was held liable for $2.5 million for its bad faith in handling the losses of its insured.  State Farm claimed that its contract provided protection against wind, but not water and it did not have to pay the homeowners claim.

A federal judge ruled that State Farm was liable for the damages and a jury awarded punitive damages to the victims for the bad faith actions of State Farm.

But was this insurance company contrite?  Did it do the right thing for other victims?

No.  Here is State Farm's response:

Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said before the jury announced its decision that a punitive damage award would be "distressing" for insurers. "It adds even more cost and more uncertainty to the other problems that already exist in the Mississippi homeowners insurance market," he said.

Note to Mr. Hartwig:  There is no uncertainty if you pay the rightful claims owed to people who acted in good faith.  Nonetheless State Farm continues to argue that the result of this case will make it harder for them to "settle" future claims.

State Farm customers should not be settling for anything less than what they are rightfully owed.

The actions of the Insurance Industry have been so heinous that it forced one former U.S. Senator to see the light.  Trent Lott a one-time political beneficiary of these companies lost his own house and vowed to fight the Industry to his dying day.  It is unfortunate that it took a personal calamity to change the Senator's views, but he joins the thousands of victims who must continue to fight their insurance company, even as much of their life remains in ruins.

There are several ways to get help.  The California Department of Insurance will help investigate disputes with the companies.    http://www.insurance.ca.gov/

Consumer Advocates such as United Policyholders http://unitedpolicyholders.org will advocate for consumers and have a wealth of information regarding how to deal with your insurance company. 

In addition, all consumers should research how different companies handle these catastrophes before buying insurance.  There are actually some companies who pay their claims in a timely manner.  You should probably avoid the mass advertisers who claim to be a "good neighbor" or will put you in "good hands."   

But the best way to fight these corporations is to have a strong advocate, your own personal lawyer to deal with these companies for you.   Victims should not have to fight for their own money.  The insurance industry is in a position of power and many victims walk away with less than their due, simply because the process seems hard.  And given the complete destruction of their lives many victims are often not mentally or physically able to take on their insurance company.

So, if you are ever the victim of a fire, fight back.  Don't get burned after the fire.  Hire qualified legal counsel and insure your rights are protected. 

As we know well, your insurance company is only a "good neighbor" if you never make a claim.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

It is unconscionable for the Mercury News to devote its editorial page to the mythology that citizens who sue wrongdoers who have ruined their lives should give up their rights to aid the economy.  

The Mercury is guilty of publishing the propaganda of Lawrence McQuillan, the darling of right-wing crazies, without a shred of fact or reality checking.  

Even in the opinion section of the newspaper, lying should be discouraged and certainly not perpetuated without an appropriate warning.  But, that's to be expected after the Mercury lost its corporate memory when it fired nearly all of its experienced writers and reformulated itself to compete with the National Enquirer in supermarket checkout lanes.

The Mercury op-ed throws around alleged statistics and studies that have absolutely no relevance to reality. 

Th3 Mercury's bogus views of our tort system fly in the face of the truth.   A report recently released by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics deflates the myths that so-called "tort reformers" use to condemn our civil justice system. 

But you wouldn't know that from reading the Mercury News.

The Mercury is right there with the Republican scream machine using tort reform to justify the criminal acts of corporate and government leaders.  What an embarrassing patsy.

If the Mercury truly wants to help the economy it can focus his attention on the corporate criminals that make daily headlines stealing with impunity from the American people. 

Tort reform is a "get-away-free" card for the most heinous criminals on our planet.  If a criminal steals a loaf of bread three times in the wrong way, he can get life.  Corporate criminals, abuse the public, steal millions and walk away with golden parachutes.

 And where is our government? 

Does anybody really believe the Food and Drug Administration will protect them?  We have salmonella from our tomatoes or peppers, mad cow disease from our cattle, and nobody knows what coming from China to poison our children.

But don't offend China.  As of December 2007, China's Treasury securities holdings were $406 billion, accounting for 17.2% of total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasury securities and making China the second largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries after Japan, according to China's Holdings of U.S. Securities: Implications for the U.S. Economy. CSR Report to Congress, February 28, 2008.

But what is especially galling about the Mercury's op-ed page is that it attempts to correlate tort reform with loss of jobs in California: "entrepreneurs opt for states with balanced tort systems that discourage excessive litigation . . . ."

That's not the law.  It doesn't work that way.

Anyone who puts his or her products into the stream of commerce is subject to being sued for a defective product in the state where it is sold.  Ford cannot mandate that you can only sue in Detroit for deaths or injuries caused by its outrageously defective Explorer in Colorado. 

Silicon Valley was built by entrepreneurs before corporate plans to deny citizens the right to sue ever existed.  The loss of business in California is not because of our litigious nature, it is because corporations would rather pay starvation wages by exporting production to China, Indonesia and Mexico, where environmental controls don't exist, unions do not advocate for safe working conditions, fair pay and an 8 hour day and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration does not exist.  

The Mercury even goes so far as to claim that Volkswagen, Hitler's favorite car company, did not market its three-wheeled green car that goes over 46 miles per gallon because of potential lawsuits. 

Obviously the Mercury has been living under a bushel basket.  

Since 1969 U.S. Federal Motor Safety Standards have mandated that gas tanks not leak in crashes, passenger compartments doe not crush in expected crashes and that roofs of passenger vehicles survive a rollover.  Many foreign cars cannot meet those standards. That is why, for example, you don't see new Peugeots on our roads.

By the way, a Prius gets 46 miles per gallon and it has air bags. 

We have seen the likes of the corporate criminals who say "greed is good."  They sell tobacco to drag our youth into the pit of cancer, paint their toys with lead, put asbestos in cribs, and formaldehyde in trailer homes. 

They would prefer that families devastated by these crimes have no recourse.  The tort system is the only chance for justice for many people. 

When O.J. Simpson killed is wife, it was the tort system that provided justice.  When a child suffered brain damage due to his mother being exposed to toxins, it was the tort system that provided justice.  When corporate criminals knowingly hurt other people, it is the tort system that provides condemns the wrongdoing and makes the bad buys pay.

Finally, the biggest and most positive changes in the health care industry are the result of the tort system.   The escalating cost of healthcare is not because of litigation, it is because of the enormous greed by insurance companies, HMOS, pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. 

The next time the Mercury News gives up its opinion page to a one sided diatribe it should not refuse to print opposing views.

Onward,

Richard Alexander

Two members of the Tongan Royal Family, visiting the San Francisco area to discuss political reforms in their tiny South Pacific nation, stepped into a Ford Explorer for a short ride to a meeting with the Tongan community. Instead, because of decisions made by Ford executives, the Explorer gave the royals a ride to their deaths.

A teenage driver in a 1998 Ford Mustang on U.S. 101 in Menlo Park, California cut off the 1998 Explorer in which Prince Uluvala Tu'ipelehake and Princess Kaimana Tu'ipelehake were passengers.  The Mustang was going no more than 10 miles hour faster than the Explorer when it moved left into the Explorer's lane and struck the bumper.  The Explorer swerved to the right, and the driver over-corrected, causing the Explorer to trip and roll, killing both passengers and their driver. 

The teen driver, Edith Delgado, was found guilty of misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter, and was sentenced to two years in county jail, but the Explorer was the real culprit. 

Ford executives deserve jail time for the deaths of the Tongan visitors and the deaths of hundreds of others whose fates were sealed in Explorers.

Delgado cut off the Explorer and caused it to make a swerve to the right.  Then, as expected, the driver lost control of the Explorer when she jerked the wheel back to the left and the Explorer did what it was designed to do. It rolled on a flat level road. 

The real proof of the Explorer's instability is Delgado's Mustang. 

The Mustang suffered minor damage.  I bought it and had it driven to my warehouse for storage as evidence in the lawsuit I filed against Ford on behalf of the Prince's two sons.

Ford's management knew that the Explorer would roll and kill people when they first marketed it in 1990. The Explorer was a replacement for the equally dangerous Bronco II, and Ford's decision to sell a new model that was certain to cause deaths and horrific injuries continued a pattern of behavior that went back at least 20 years to the Pinto and its exploding gas tank.

Ford engineers told management the Explorer was unstable and had major handling flaws long before the first Explorer came off the assembly line, but Ford's decision makers smelled big profits from the "First Mover" market position that the Explorer would give them.

As the executives hoped, they made their huge profits. As expected, Explorers rolled, people died, and continue to die.

In California alone, from 1990 to 2000, the Explorer earned Ford more than $2 billion in profits, and Dr. Alan Goedde, an expert witness, calculated the First Mover portion of the profits at between $383 million and $442 million.

Rollover problems began with the Explorer as soon as it hit the streets. Its center of gravity was too high and its wheelbase was too narrow. Every extra passenger raised the center of gravity even higher, making the vehicle even more unstable and the roof was not nearly strong enough to protect passengers when rollovers did occur.

Defective Firestone tires were a major contributing factor in many Explorer rollovers. Those tires frequently separated and caused Explorers to spin wildly out of control.  Disintegrating tires caused severe personal injuries and deaths, but when Ford became aware of problems with tires, it approved replacement tires from other manufacturers that made the Explorer even more dangerous.

Knowing the risks that the Explorer presented, Ford never slowed its marketing efforts. Suburban housewives and city residents who thought they were driving the equivalent of a station wagon were placing their families in trucks that didn't meet federal automobile safety standards.  And when evidence showed that Explorers were killing and maiming people, Ford sent out its lawyers and PR people to attempt to cover up its misdeeds.

Despite all the deaths, injuries, and lawsuits, the Explorer is still on on a roll - literally. In government tests on the 2008 Explorer, it received only a 3 (of a possible 5) in rollover safety. 

Henry Ford wouldn't be happy with the profits-before-lives approach that his company has taken. Mr. Ford was a pacifist who once faced a lawsuit from his own shareholders because he was more interested in the welfare of his workers than in maximizing his profits.

Henry Ford was a socially responsible manager with a conscience.  We know what Henry would say about the Explorer if he were alive today.  Too bad his conscience is no longer at the helm.

Onward.

Richard Alexander

Kudos to Evelyn Pringle of the Media Monitors Network for an excellent case study of how drug companies promote profits by paying for research supporting off-label uses for their products.  "Just What Kids Need - Sparlon - Another ADHD Drug" (March 2006).

The report features DuBose Ravenel, MD, a pediatrician with 25 years experience with ADHD children, who testified for the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology at the FDA's March 23, 2006 meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee and blew the whistle on Joseph Biederman's conflict of interest in his research supporting an off-label use for an ADHD drug.

Together Evelyn Pringle and Dr. Ravenel raised ethical questions of Dr. Biederman relationships to a drug companies.  Add that to the recent revelations by the New York Times'  "Researchers Fail to Reveal Drug Pay" June 8, 2008 and you will see why I recommended in my previous article on this topic that Harvard make a public example of their "payola" faculty by firing them.  

Here is what Ms. Pringle wrote in March 2006.

"The pharmaceutical company, Cephalon Inc, is going through the motions of legitimizing the sale of Sparlon for the treatment of ADHD even though its active ingredient, modafinil, has been heavily promoted and sold under the name Provigil, for off-label treatment of ADHD by Cephalon for years.

"Last October, the FDA sent an "approvable" letter to Cephalon for the pediatric use of Sparlon pending a March 23, 2006, meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee to review the drug's approval.

"Modafinil-based Provigil is currently only approved for narcolepsy, sleep apnea and shift work sleep disorder, according to the FDA. However, it is estimated that half of all Provigil prescriptions are written for off-label use.

"Doctors now prescribe it to treat everything from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis and depression," according to the November 1, 2004 Business Week Online.

"Cephalon gets nearly half of its $1.2 billion in annual sales from modafinil.

* * *

"With Sparlon's application to FDA approval, Cephalon claimed 3 studies involving more than 600 children aged 6 to 17, found the drug to be more effective than a placebo.

 * * *

"Dr DuBose Ravenel, MD, who will testify on behalf of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology at the advisory committee hearing on March 23, makes the point that although "48% of drug treated subjects at final follow-up were "much" or "very much" improved clinically, 52% were not."

"This is a substantially lower response rate than has been reported for traditional stimulants," the doctor notes.

Dr Dubose Ravenel is a pediatrician with 25 years experience in private practice with a heavy emphasis upon behavioral issues, including diagnosing and managing ADHD.

"In addition, she notes, with regard to potential conflicts of interest, itemized conflicts for each of the Pediatric study's authors are numerous.

"For instance, "Dr. Biederman received research support from 10 companies, serves on speakers' bureaus for 4 companies, and is on advisory boards of 6 companies,"" Dr Dubose Ravenel reveals.

"Other authors have numerous listed conflicts as well she notes.

"In light of recent widely publicized articles showing widespread deceptive practices engaged in by pharmaceutical companies in designing, selective reporting, and interpreting studies," she says, "the large number of pharmaceutical company ties with the authors of the study do not lend confidence to the reader even beyond the aforementioned concerns."

And "thank you" to Dr. Ravenel for reporting on conflicts of interest in drug research investigations.  Good job.

Onward.

Richard Alexander

Drug company money influences and corrupts research.  That is a given.

What is less understood is why drug manufacturers spend billions for research on off-label uses for their products - uses that were never cleared with the FDA when the drug was submitted for approval.

Off-label use allows drug companies to get "through the back door" what they could never, and I mean never, get away with by going directly to the FDA for approval for a new use of a product - what is known today as an off-label use.  

You would hope that researchers wouldn't corrupt the commercial experimentation of a new, or off-label, use of a drug to treat children by covering up their consulting fees from Big Pharma.  But that's what happened.

More important than what happened is why it happened and at the bottom of all this is a terrible mistake the U.S. has made in allowing the exploitation of off-label use.

The devil is in the details, so here is the story as it has unfolded.

Leading Harvard professors studying off-label uses, the gold mine of the drug industry, have violated National Institute of Health reporting requirements when more than $10,000 has been received from a subject company, according to the New York Times, "Researchers Fail to Reveal Drug Pay" June 8, 2008.  

Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Merck and the other big time operators, the leading exploiters of junk science, thrive on talking the FDA into approving a drug for one use and then encouraging research so doctors will use it for other purposes. Everybody knows the FDA can't stop toxic food from being unloaded on Americans.  Yet few realize that the drug companies have hired off the FDA's most seasoned researchers, leaving juniors guarding our public health. 

So it is easy to wing a drug application past the FDA's lap dogs and once that occurs, off-label use can exploited by the manufacturers. 

Off-label use is allowed under our law on the theory that the doctor knows best, and once a drug is approved by FDA for one purpose, a physician can prescribe the medication for other uses.  That's where the big money is in pharmaceuticals.  Off-label drug use accounted for more than 20 percent of drug sales in 2006, according to the Annals of Internal Medicine, which provides an excellent overview of who's in charge of safeguarding patient welfare and FDA off-label policies.  

Drug companies cannot directly market off-label use.  That's against the law and major companies such as Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Astrazenica have been prosecuted for doing so and causing serious personal injuries and deaths.  

In many cases the harm caused by off-label continues for years.  That's the case with Wyeth's Pondimin® and Redux®, better known as Fen-Phen, an off-label use for weight loss that is responsible for primary pulmonary hypertension. Fen-Phen continues to devastate lives with tragic and deadly personal injuries a decade after its marketing demise.  I know.  These innocent victims are my clients.

But what the FDA takes away from drug manufacturers on one hand it gives back on the other.  Today there is a loophole in prohibitions against marketing off-label use big enough to drive a train through.  Our FDA watch-kittens have eased the rules which allow drug companies to republish and distribute scientific articles on the topic. 

It's a bad policy that has been blasted by a leading Stanford researcher, Dr. Randall Stafford who said so in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2008. 

The drug companies know the trick is to get someone else to talk about new ways to use their drugs and then pass on copies of the research articles they cannot publish themselves to every doctor in the western world under the companies' First Amendment right to free speech.  That's why Merck wrote drug studies for doctors.  

Drug companies need to have researchers finding new off-label uses.  Since pushing research for off-label use is a key to profitability, that is what drug companies do and to the extent that it promotes scientific discovery that's good, but it has to be above board. 

Turns out that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist and his Harvard sidekick Dr. Timothy Wilens have been operating below the board.  They either cannot count over $10,000, or they have willfully violated NIH mandates and federal reporting requirements.

The duo collected $1.6 million in unreported consulting fees from drug makers since 2000 to experiment with antipsychotic medicines in children, but nary a disclosure.

They are not the only ones.

Dr. Thomas Spencer, another Harvard professor, pulled down at least $1 million in unreported drug money and reporting also slipped his mind.

So there must be more.

Thank you Senator Charles Grassley for forcing them to disclose.  Good work.

Harvard needs to end this skullduggery by requiring their big league faculty to annually turn in their tax returns with the W-2s and 1099s attached to guarantee full disclosure and compliance with ethical research requirements.  Then post it on a website.  Let them complain.  If they want the Harvard imprimatur, that's the price.

Other major research institutions also need to make sure that disclosure requirements are mandatory, not merely "ethical" expectations.  If the public and regulators are to have any confidence in research, the source of funds and the amounts must be publicly disclosed.

Harvard needs to make a strong public statement by making a public example of these outlaws. Saying "sorry" isn't enough.  

If Harvard doesn't fire them, it will be complicit in the cover-up.  

Throw them off campus.  Ring the bell loud and clear that no matter how renown or stellar, if you don't play by the rules, you can't play at all.  And the NIH should forever ban them from receiving grants.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.  Once appropriate punishment has been served, give these researchers a chance to polish their tarnished reputations. Allow them to conduct research under the supervision of a responsible administrator who knows that "veritas," means truth, accuracy, honesty, and uprightness and that it's more than just a motto.

Onward. 

Richard Alexander 

Congress needs make Internet privacy a national priority.

The U.S. Supreme Court has done little to protecting individual privacy and since 1976 it routinely has sided with government over the rights of individuals.

In 1976 The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. United States that the right to privacy does not protect checks written by individuals on their individual checking accounts. In short, every time a check is written in the United States, there is no expectation of privacy in what many believe are their personal bank records.

The Miller decision was startling because the Supreme Court ignored a mew approach to privacy it had recognized in 1965 and the subsequent strong support the concept has received from distinguished jurists who have recognized that respect for individual privacy must keep pace with the perils of new technology.