Seroquel Research Scandal At Univ. Of Minnesota

The St. Paul Pioneer Press has a fine article out today detailing how one University of Minnesota psychiatry professor, Charles Schulz, claimed that Seroquel's performance was superior to older drugs like Haldol when in fact the research data he was working with showed Haldol to be more efficacious. Schulz made this claim in 2000. From 2002 to 2007, he receieved $112,000 in fees from AstraZeneca, the drug's maker, plus about $450,000 from Eli Lilly, the paper reports.

The details of this are stunning, so read the article and remember that the anonymous blog referred to in the paper's account of Schulz, who defends his work, is none other than Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look, authored by none other than CL Psych, which broke the news around Schulz on March 2. And that news came out of the Seroquel documents, which CL Psych got from this website.

Check out how the paper attributed to Cl Psych:

"An Internet psychiatry blog first raised questions March 2 about the research Schulz presented at the APA conference and why it lacked any of the company's findings.

"'It raises troubling questions when an independent academic author presents results that are in direct opposition to the underlying data,' wrote the blogger, an anonymous academic."

I've never before seen a paper attribute to an anonymous blog, except for some of those satirical blogs such as the one allegedly detailing Steve Jobs' life.

Meanwhile, AZ spokesman Tony Jewell issued this statement, which says in part:

"AstraZeneca believes the totality of the science around Seroquel – including company-sponsored studies, research sponsored by the federal government, and physician experience – confirms it is an effective and appropriate treatment choice for patients with serious mental illness."

Would AZ like to include unpublished studies and buried studies in the "totality of the science around Seroquel?" Or is the company planning to make Study 15 available to the public?