(hi everyone--in trying to edit this piece  from Aug 15, it got messed up.  The only way I could fix it was by reposting it--so some of you may have read it already-sorry!  I also changed the name because I didn't like the orginal one)

An article in August 14's Wall Street Journal caught my eye, about a controversial medical therapy to treat a condition known as sepsis, in which one's entire body is overrun with infection, leading to multisystem organ failure.  Think of it as the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death for your computer--major malfunction, all systems gone, with very little chance of a successful reboot.

 The cool thing about this therapy, developed by a doc at Henry Ford Hosptial in Detroit, is that compared to the standard treatments for sepsis (antibiotics, fluids, drugs to keep blood pressure and heart rate up, the kitchen sink), the therapy was shown to substantially reduce the rate of death. 

 Impressive.   

Or so we thought.

It turns out that on closer exam, the studies the doctor used to prove his methods worked were, to use the moniker of another Detroit native...Slim Shady.  For example, in designing his study he systematically excluded patients whose outcomes may have made his methods look less effective than everybody initally thought.  That's such a problem that the National Institutes of Health has moved to redo the study and double check the results. 

Just as bad, if not worse, I think, is that it was revealed that he and his hospital received tons of money from the maker of the medical equipment his protocol required.  Here's a copy of the receipt, according to the journal:

$158,000 to make speeches about his research

$20,000 to reimburse him for patent legal fees,

$36,000 in reimbursed expenses

$40,000 in consulting fees

 That's a nice take. Oh, and the hospital got $150,000 dollars for its participation. 

Doctors taking money like this is, sadly, nothing new.  Too many of us live in the pocket of drug companies, despite efforts to "reform" the relationship between docs and drug reps--the smooth talking/smartly dressed/gift giving/ free lunch/free dinner/game tickets/money throwing lobbyists that have way too much influence over what we prescribe.  That's not an accusation--it's backed up by a lot of evidence looking at the effects of academic detailing on doctors' prescribing habits. 

Whether all of this turns out to be something or nothing, it's a pretty bad story, one that will continue to erode the public's confidence in doctors.   But it's not the worst one I've heard:  My favorite was about a company that hired a doctor to go around the country speaking about their new drug.  His wife was a budding concert pianist.  So he insisted to the company that wherever they sent him, not only would his wife come, but that she would have to be booked to play a concert in that city.  Really. 

Now imagine the poor schmuck, probably a very smart, highly educated MD, PhD, or MBA, calling around trying to reserve a concert hall for this pianista. 

What to do?  Easy--just stop it.  Cut off this kind of stuff and make all exchanges between doctors and drug companies.  If you don't want to do that, just make those relationships transparent not just within the profession, but to the public as well.  Wouldn't you like to know how many filets mignon your interest has gotten say, from the makers of Lipitor, espeically if it happens to be his drug of choice to treat high cholesterol?   In this day of the internet, that seems quite easy to do.  A common database, where drug companies add the names of all paid consultants and how much they're receiving.  One that's open to anybody to look at. 

 Why, really, should any of our takes be a secret if we all have the right motives?  To First, Do No Harm.