Enter Professor Martin Keller
Leanne Pethick is the woman behind DepressioNet, an apparently independent consumer website for people suffering from depression that claims to attract more than 1 million visits every three months.
And international pharmaceutical giant Wyeth, which markets antidepressants, is the company behind Leanne Pethick.
"DepressioNet would not exist today without Wyeth," Ms Pethick readily admits. "Wyeth is a company I am extremely proud to be associated with."
Wyeth has provided $150,000 over the past three years to keep the Melbourne-based DepressioNet running. But the links do not stop there.
Ms Pethick is also on the editorial board of Wyeth's own depression website Yes To Life, (not available anymore) and is a member of DepressioNet's medical advisory board. The Yes To Life website links through to DepressioNet, which it describes as "an independent resource", without disclosing that it is substantially funded by Wyeth.
Ms Pethick helps with training seminars for Wyeth's sales team and last year took part in a promotional tour the pharmaceutical company organised for a visiting US depression expert, Professor Martin Keller.
Ms Pethick even thanked Wyeth on her website for the opportunity to help with the national tour, which saw her costs paid by the company to take part in panel discussions at meetings of doctors.
But what Wyeth did not tell Ms Pethick was that Professor Keller had been at the centre of a row in his home town of Boston in 1999, when The Boston Globe reported he failed to disclose more than $500,000 in consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies, including Wyeth. The newspaper alleged Professor Keller had praised the products of the companies at conferences and in journal articles.
"No I wasn't aware of that," Ms Pethick told The Age. "On that particular tour, no particular product was mentioned."
DepressioNet's stated aim is to "significantly increase the proportion of Australian depression sufferers who seek help and treatment".
Ms Pethick, who started the website in 2000 after her own battle with depression, agrees that encouraging more people to seek medical treatment will expand the market for antidepressants in Australia. But she sees no conflict of interest in accepting drug company sponsorship.
She also insists her website, which also received a one-off grant of $20,000 from another pharmaceutical giant and the makers of Prozac, Eli Lilly, is able to remain independent.
"The money we got from Wyeth was totally unconditional and helped us and continues to help us to provide a vital service," she said.
"Any money we get, we disclose."
When her own savings ran out in 2001, Ms Pethick deliberately approached companies in the antidepressant market because she thought they would be more interested in sponsorship.
DepressioNet is not the only non-profit organisation advocating for patients with mental illness that receives pharmaceutical industry financial backing.
The peak national body Sane Australia, the operating name of the Schizophrenia Australia Foundation, relies on drug companies for about 25 per cent of its annual $1 million budget.
Last year Sane Australia used a grant from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, which markets two schizophrenia drugs, to commission an Access Economics report on the cost of schizophrenia to the community. The report found that many sufferers were missing out on treatment and said some newer medicines could be "extremely effective" in reducing symptoms.
Earlier this year Sane used a grant from GlaxoSmithKline, which markets a lithium-based drug for bipolar disorder, to commission a second Access Economics report, this time on the cost of bipolar disorder to the community. The report found that average treatment levels for sufferers was less than a quarter of what was considered best practice.
Sane Australia's executive director, Barbara Hocking, said the organisation accepted only unrestricted educational grants from pharmaceutical companies. "We receive grants for specific purposes. The purposes we receive them for are driven by us. We have our own guidelines," she said.
Sane deliberately targeted Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline to fund the two Access Economics studies because they produced drugs in those markets.
"The reality is you go to where you feel the money is likely to come from and it is precisely because those companies have products in that area that we felt they would be interested in having this independent information," Ms Hocking said.
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125658355.html
Well for Leanne she is unfortunately the cause of the demise of depressionet, since the site became supported by the government it has been successful in helping people. Alas her greed, and her legal case against the site for money has caused the site to close, reading between the lines the money donated cannot be put in the hands of heartless person who doesnt care for those she started the service for. Dont worry about the staff, its the users like me dont have anything anymore.
ReplyDeletetime to get some facts straight:
ReplyDelete1. The site was supported by the Government in 2005, long before Leanne left depressioNet.
2. "her greed" was to pay back a massive loan she acquired to keep depressioNet running. depressioNet was always supposed to repay this money.
3. how about you focus on the CEO that has now seen 2 not-for-profits fail with him at the helm while the taxpayer continues to be rorted. A company that goes into voluntary administration needs to look at the CEO for answers, not to a founder that was booted out 3 years prior.
4. Please provide the evidence that depressioNet was successful in helping people at any time? online peer support has no efficacy studies proving or disproving this.
Sadly, the anonymous commentator did not leave a name or address - then again neither did you.
ReplyDeleteIf you want debate then may I suggest that both of you state who you are.
Fid
Author
From: Keith Blumfield
ReplyDeleteSubject: depressioNet
I work for the Internet site depressioNet.com.au that provides one place for Australian
depression sufferers and their families and friends to find all their information, help and
support needs.
There is no commercial advertising on depressioNet.
The site is free from 'Internet glitz' and
is designed with the specific needs of depression sufferers in mind. depressioNet exists to
serve the Australian public and is produced by 'people like us' - who come from a variety of
backgrounds and have personal experience with depression.
I did not make the anonymous comments on March 13 2010. However, I do have something to say having worked on the 'new' depressioNet site, which incidentally is using the same url as the professionally run depressioNet that went into voluntary administration. Leanne Pethick seeks to separate herself from that version of depressioNet and yet links to that site now lead to her new site. She was also well aware that the major federal government funding obtained was conditional upon turning the site into a professional service. She subsequently opted out. It was a brilliantly staged fund raising drive drawing on the 'dNet community spirit' and threat of closure to bring it about.
ReplyDeletePethick (now Jansse) did indeed cause the closure of the site with litigation brought by her for unpaid licence fees/intellectual property. She admitted to me personally that it was her litigation referred to but it was 'complicated'. The complication as I see it is the hiding behind her company DIRS for her own deeds.
There was/is no visible commercial advertising but plenty of subtle advertising. The upshot being the list of psychologists, counsellors, etc., provided for members was limited to those who paid the site's fees.
I do not see how there could not be with the old or the new site, a conflict of interest with monthly payments received from a drug company and donations from drug companies. It will be claimed there is no conflict of interest and she will cloud it by saying it is her company DIRS providing the services and receiving the fees or that the donations are unconditional. She has also claimed payments received training drug company staff is donated to depressioNet. Any astute member of depressioNet will notice how frequently she mentions one particular antidepressant that she says is the only one that works for her. It has been shown that GPs are bribed with material rewards for prescribing new medications. How can there not be a conflict of interests?
The new depressioNet (dNet - People Like Us) is I believe as far as she is concerned a business venture. The new depressioNet is akin to pyramid selling imho, but vulnerable people with depression are really not as vulnerable as she might think. It would take too long to explain how it works here but it is engineered so there will be a continuous stream of donations or more properly payments, from people using the site. This is apart from Grants that may be obtained and no doubt new 'donations' from drug companies and psychologists.
The new depressioNet is purportedly a ‘co-operative’ venture provided by ‘old dNetters’. A new company has also been formed for this version but the Directors were chosen by Leanne Pethick without consulting the key workers. She is CEO and I believe Chair of the new Company, so effectively can do what she likes as she has the final say on everything.
I have not said anything here I have not conveyed to her directly. She has chosen to explain herself to others behind closed doors and has never responded directly to me.
May not be 'internet glitz' on the site Keith but also not much honesty either.
Eve Knox
Thanks for this Eve
ReplyDeleteI notice also that on the site under the title "How Long Do I Continue Medication" Professor Keller's advice is still recited.
ReplyDeletehttp://depressionet.org.au/treatments/medications/how-long/