Jay D. Amsterdam: The paroxetine 352 bipolar study Ethical conduct

1. Email from Jay D. Amsterdam to Thomas A. Ban

Dear Tom:

Thank you for your nice follow up email, and for your suggestions regarding the posting of the second tranche of the primary source documents pertaining to the study 352 paroxetine misconduct case.

As you may recall, there have been several letters from my lawyers to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the Department of Health and Human Services that include the original July 8, 2011, study 352 paroxetine research misconduct complaint letter (containing primary source email and other documentation. These documents have already been posted on the INHN historical website from August 5, 2021, to January 13, 2022.

Regrettably, however, the letter from the University of Pennsylvania ORI Inquiry Committee, who was designated by Penn to investigate the allegations of research misconduct of July 8, 2011, was also designated by the Penn administration as being confidential. therefore, the Penn Inquiry Committee report of allegations of misconduct is not directly available for posting on the INHN website.

However, despite this designation by Penn, a point-by-point rebuttal of the Penn Inquiry Committee’s conclusions are now provided to the INHN historical record as part of a second, follow up complaint of research misconduct to the ORI by my lawyer. This second misconduct complaint provides the INHN reader with additional primary and secondary source documentation rebutting the original Penn Inquiry Committee’s conclusion that no research misconduct had occurred when the Penn (and other) professors had appended their names to a ghost written, plagiarized article published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. This second complaint was made to the ORI on June 25, 2012.

 As previously indicated, this second ORI complaint describes in exquisite detail, a point-by-point rebuttal of Penn’s assertion that their professors did not engage in any form of academic or scientific misconduct.

In contrast, this second ORI misconduct complaint now includes additional evidence that ghost writing, plagiarism, editorial corruption, data manipulation and university obfuscation had indeed occurred, and that the university and its professors would assert plausible deniability of wrongdoing by denying the existence of these vital inculpatory documents showing evidence to the contrary.

I believe that this second tranche of historical documents is vital to the understanding of how the clinical and scientific record can become corrupted by the Academy itself; and why a knowledge of this evidence is so important to the health and well-being of our field writ large.

With kind regards,

Jay