I don't understand Mr. Fumento's statement: "... many people found to have diabetes soon after starting an atypical medicine already had the disease, but their schizophrenia had prevented them from being diagnosed."

What is there in the collection of symptoms called "schizophrenia" that could possibly hide the presence of diabetes? And yet he says "it's widely accepted" that this is so. That doesn't make any sense. What drug has he been taking?

Scripps Howard News Service announced Jan. 13 that it's severing its business relationship with columnist Michael Fumento, who's also a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. The move comes after inquiries from BusinessWeek Online about payments Fumento received from agribusiness giant Monsanto (MON ) -- a frequent subject of praise in Fumento's opinion columns and a book.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060113_2851_db035.htm

Interesting that Fumento is part of the Hudson Institute.

Former Lilly CEO (and OBM head for GW Bush) Mitch Daniels, once ran the Hudson Institute. Hudson's ties with Lilly go way back.

Interesting that the Hudson Institute used to have its headquarters in Indianapolis...

Fumento also had an article on ADHD in The New Reupblic in 2003. After it came out that Fumento had accepted money from Monsanto I emailed the New Republic editors and asked if they were concerned that he might have been paid by a pharmaceutical company for his ADHD article. In fact I have written them several times and have never gotten a reply.

I never took a dime from Lilly. They are one of the largest pharmaceuticals in the world and in approximately 130 columns written for Scripps it was rather inevitable that I would write on some of their products. That was also the case with the seed and biotech company Monsanto. Specifically, as BusinessWeek actually points out in its article, Hudson received a BOOK grant from the agri-business giant in 1999 that was properly put into my account. It was spent during the course of that year and the book appeared in 2003. My column with Scripps began in 2004. Even though biotech was my specialty then, I only wrote two columns on Monsanto. (A third mentioned them in one sentence.) Not much of a pay-off case there, is it. Scripps dropped me without even consulting me, on nothing but a whiff of scandal. (BusinessWeek called them and said they were doing a hit piece on me.) Insofar as they are the same people who fired me in 1991 the very day I published a controversial book on AIDS, cowardice seems to be intrinsic to their business plan.

Hudson actually moved from New York to Indy because it was so heavily underwritten by Lilly's PHILANTHROPY. I think one of their scholars also got money directly from Lilly Corp. But the very reason I'm no longer with Hudson is that we're only paid out of our own accounts. No Lilly philanthropy or corporate money ever went into mine. Indeed, the last corporate donation I got was Monsanto's in 1999. Hence, in 2007 Hudson cut me free because I couldn't cover my expenses. I am now NOT making a living off my freelance fees. Corporation donors want somebody they can rely on; they cannot rely on me.

Thanks you for your candor. I am curious if you feel led astray by Lily as virtually nothing in your article, mentioned above, has turned out to be accurate.

Mr. Fumento:

Someone is showing worrying signs of disorganized thought patterns. Compare what you wrote with BusinessWeek's reporting:

You write: "Even though biotech was my specialty then, I only wrote two columns on Monsanto. (A third mentioned them in one sentence.)"

They write: Fumento didn't disclose the payment from Monsanto either in the book or in at least eight columns he has written mentioning Monsanto since 1999. http://tinyurl.com/cntpq

In your June 26, 2003 article you wrote: "The newest class of anti-psychotic drugs causes diabetes. We know this because trawling lawyers tell us so. Fortunately, almost nobody in the media is buying it – yet. But frivolous lawsuits have sullied the reputation of many a safe and critical drug. This time, schizophrenics and others with severe mental illness could suffer horribly when frightened away from their medication." ..."Lawyers? That's impressive! But what do medical researchers believe and why is Zyprexa being singled out?" ..."To some lawyers these represent dollar signs. But to those suffering the demons of madness, they're miracle drugs."..."Based on all this, two studies from the University of Buffalo presented at medical conferences in May led the researchers to conclude that atypicals "may actually have a protective effect" against diabetes." http://tinyurl.com/2jpp2r

But an article in the Baltimore Sun published March 19, 2003, three months before your article, which even a perfunctory Lexis-Nexus search would have found, you can read the following:

"It's clear this is not rare," says Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, director of the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, which studies the causes and cures of schizophrenia. "How common it is is not clear yet, but it's very serious. Torrey contends that the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the safety of medications, should require a "black-box" warning - with the text in bold type - on Zyprexa's label about the risks of hyperglycemia and diabetes. "There's almost no one who's aware of it out there," he said. "You may be getting deaths of individuals, but no one is putting it together."

"Japan's Health Ministry, concerned by reports of two deaths and seven comas, barred doctors last year from prescribing Zyprexa for any new patients with diabetes, and warned them to monitor closely those already on the drug by regularly measuring blood-sugar levels. British drug regulators issued a warning in April." http://tinyurl.com/2lhafn

In other words, it wasn't just "trawling lawyers" but lawyers, a medical researcher and patients' advocate, and even regulatory authorities. Did you, or did you not, run a Lexus-Nexis search before you wrote your article?

You write: "Hudson actually moved from New York to Indy because it was so heavily underwritten by Lilly's PHILANTHROPY. I think one of their scholars also got money directly from Lilly Corp," which serves to underscore the distinction between Eli Lilly & Co and the Lilly Endowment.

This page pointed out that their fortunes are not quite that separate: The Endowment's assets, $15.4 billion, consist primarily of Eli Lilly and Company stock. Therefore, the performance of the stock market affects ...the amount of future year grants ... If Eli Lilly and Company stock decreases in value, as it did in the 1970s, the size and/or number of grants will also decrease. http://tinyurl.com/2loxxl

In other words, you wrote an article that was strongly supportive of a product whose sales partially funded an employer of yours, and conveniently neglected to disclose these financial entanglements.

Can you understand why I think your credibility is irretrievably shot? What would you tell a Zyprexa consumer who made treatment choices based on your slipshod column and went on to develop diabetes while on Zyprexa?