The Coast is sorry.
Faced with allegations of defamation, political bias and being a Scientologist, news editor Tim Bousquet was forced to retract his story about Halifax's Liberal candidate, a popular antidepressant and a study that's been blackballed in the medical community.
And all because of two words.
A mere five days before the May 2 election, Bousquet published a story about candidate Stan Kutcher. In the story, Bousquet quoted author Alison Bass, stating that Kutcher and the research team “essentially lied" about a controversial drug study that took place in 1992.
That didn't sit well with Kutcher.
Coast editor Kyle Shaw posted a to the website that read, “The Coast referenced, without limitation or criticism, statements to the effect that, Dr. Kutcher, being one of the authors of a research paper, distorted the outcome measures and essentially lied.”
And with that, the original article was erased from the internet.
The story itself was a 800 word 'News Bite' briefly detailing Kutcher's involvement in study 329, a clinical trial of Paxil - an antidepressant drug made by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. Aside from the offending assertion that Kutcher all-but-lied, Bousquet mostly deals with the controversy around the study. Bousquet barely delves into Kutcher's involvement in 329.
Kutcher is quoted, however, as saying that there was no real controversy over the study. He acknowledges a group of people had spoken out about it, but chalks it up to science being “nasty, brutish and long.”
THE DRUG
The story is indeed a long one.
In 1992, Kutcher, along with doctors across North America, conducted a study on the efficacy and safety of Paxil, coming to the controversial conclusion that;
“[Paxil] is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.”
And by the peak of 2003, Paxil was the most popular anti-depressant in America. That success is due, in part, to Dr. Kutcher.
Bass' book, Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial, tells the story of Paxil, and how the New York Attorney's office unearthed suppressed information about the drug.
Bass says that GlaxoSmithKline manipulated data in order to make Paxil a “blockbuster drug.” She lays much of the blame on the head doctor on the study, Martin Keller. The company wanted to market the drug to teenagers and children, so they commissioned a series of studies to convince doctors and regulators to prescribe the drug to youth.
According to her research, the drug company didn't get the results they wanted. Not wanting to miss a marketing opportunity, she says that the company and the doctors hid data showing that Paxil was less effective than a Placebo in treating depression in adolescents. Worse yet, she asserts that it drove teenagers to thoughts of suicide. Five times as many youth had “serious psychiatric effects” on Paxil. Worse yet, she argues, some of those teens that became suicidal were removed from the study and their reactions weren't properly categorized in the study.
Keller himself admitted in a letter that, “10 experienced psychiatric symptoms, including...suicidal ideation," but blames it not on the drug, but instead on. “a variety of situational factors,” such as “arguments with boyfriend and parents [and] torment by peers.”
The study records no patients in Halifax that experienced extreme adverse reactions while taking Paxil under Kutcher's supervision.
According to an internal email obtained by the BBC, GSK executives were well aware that Paxil wasn't performing.
"Essentially the study did not really show it was effective in treating adolescent depression, which is not something we want to publicize," reads the memo.
That conclusion was reached by numerous peer-reviewed journals and by the New York attorney general, who led a class-action lawsuit that accused GSK of misrepresenting Paxil.
Not content with the report, GSK hired PR consultant Sally Laden to ghost-write the study. In a deposition for a Californian court, she says that most doctors weren't involved in the process. However, a handful were “very very involved.”
She says that one of those involved in writing the report was Dr. Kutcher. And, according to numerous medical journals, the study they wrote came to a conclusion that was not reflective of the data.
Kutcher was also involved in study 377. The results were dismal, showing that Paxil was no better than sugar for treating depression in youth. While 329 was subject to a market-friendly makeover, 377 was suppressed by the drug company. It didn't see the light of day until the New York district attorney's office forced GSK to release it.
377 discloses each author's involvement in the pharmaceutical industry. Of Kutcher, it lists that he had been a paid consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. It also says that he had "received research grants from, has been a consultant for, or participated on advisory boards of" pharmaceutical heavy-weights GSK, Pfizer, Eli Lilly. He disclosed nine drug companies in total.
THE RETRACTION
The matter had been largely put to rest. Both the FDA and Health Canada recommend against prescribing Paxil to anyone under the age of 18. In a GSK-submission to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry published this year, the company admits that Paxil may increase suicidal thoughts in both adolescents and adults.
The Coast didn't mention study 377, Kucher's role as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline nor the doctor's involvement in writing 329.
Despite that, the Liberal campaign team jumped on the story within hours of its being released. In a letter published online, Layton Dorey, president of the Halifax Liberal riding association, defended Kutcher and 329. He cites the doctor's background as an "international leader in the field of adolescent mental health” and attacked Coast author Tim Bousquet as being out of his depth.
The letter goes after Bass' credibility with guilt-by-assocation, stating that she is one of the most cited authors by the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights - a Scientology-sponsored group that questions the safety of the mental health field.
“I'm not a Scientologist ... I have never been a Scientologist. It's a very silly accusation. I'm an investigative journalist,” Bass says. “It's a very sad indictment of the people around Dr. Kutcher that they would stoop to such levels."
Dorey's letter concludes that due to the Coast's use of “inflammatory innuendo" and because the story may harm Kutcher's reputation, the candidate would launch defamation suit against the paper.
The harsh reaction raised the eyebrows of many, as the sticking point appeared to be the “essentially lied.”
Normally journalists would be permitted to quote a reasonable opinion such as that, but many protections that writers receive under the Defamation Act go out the window within five days of an election.
The whole ordeal garnered barely an afterthought in Nova Scotia's largest newspaper, the Chronicle Herald. The story, focusing mainly on the retraction and Kutcher's problems with missing election signs, makes no mention of the allegations or Paxil.
Local tabloid Frank Magazine, undaunted by the looming threat of a lawsuit, wrote that Kutcher was “full of shit” and proceeded to detail the study's sordid reputation amongst medical journals.
THE REACTION
With appropriate irony, the day The Coast retracted the Kutcher story, a conference was being held in Toronto dealing with the ethical issues around ghost-writing.
“Everyone that night was talking about Stan Kutcher.” Says Paul Thacker, investigator with the Washington-based Project On Government Oversight.
According to Thacker, the room was incredulous that someone so involved in 329 could consider defending it. He, like many other experts and bloggers who follow the pharmaceutical industry, are amazed that the issue is still up for debate. There no longer appears to be any defense of these studies.
“That study is the classic example of corrupt medical research,” he says. “there’s nothing in [the Coast] story that's factually inaccurate.” And points out that a wealth of information on the story is available readily on Google.
Thacker argues that Kutcher should take responsibility for the study.
“If you’re signing your name on the study, you must be agreeing with what the results are,” he says.
