Several points:

1.Dr. Yatham is no doubt a consultant/promotional speaker for multiple drug companies-not just AZ. (In waht way was he "compelled" to admit his AZ links- he didn't fess up willingly? These guys dip into as many wells as they can. The larger question is whether federally funded or academically appointed physicians should be barred from any association with drug companies during their tenure/appointment.

2.The ultimate recommendations regarding medication is always based on non-biased double blind research. If the concern is that such findings are manipulated and dishonest then the number of "rotten apples" involved is huge. The number of safeguards in such research is impressive. Money is obviously a big draw but in theory science is science.

3. The overriding issue seems to be whether drug companies' concern for profit trumps their desire to produce effective products. I submit that the efficacy and safety of current psychotropics versus those of 50 years ago answers that. When one ignores the economics (new meds are much much more expensive) current antidepressants and antipsychotics are clearly better.

To answer HS' concerns: Yes, I know many doctors receive funding from many different sources and wouldn't be able to do key research without said funding. This doesn't lessen, to me, the conflict of interest in certain cases. Yatham's primary affiliations seem to be with AZ; therefore his endorsement of AZ's medication appears to be tainted by self-interest. I am aware that's holding someone to a pretty high standard, but why not? At medical conferences the list of disclosures (where I found info about Yatham; he was forthright) is always lengthy, but there are a few doctors who don't accept pharma money at all. Would I pay more attention to their assessment of a drug? As a layperson, yes.

Also, Yatham would be dismissed as a promotional speaker for AZ (very different from receiving funding) if he said negative things about its meds. Given that the vast majority of promotional speakers receive money in exchange for their services, it would be in Yatham's best interest to quell his doubts and amplify his praise.

Does this mean Yatham's career is suspect? Of course not. Sounds to me like he's done lots of very good work. But I don't believe such relationships can be easily untangled. As an editor and journalist who has to be hypervigilant about conflict of interest, such ties are exceedingly uncomfortable. I know clinicians are held to different standards than reporters, but I'm not persuaded they should be.

I was a promotional speaker for AZ for a while, so I got a sense of how they operate. I never took any money from them, but I stopped doing speaking gigs for them as soon as I realized I'd have to write about Seroquel's deficiencies. It's almost impossible to maintain a positive relationship with a company when you're criticizing them. Lunches last a lot longer when everyone's happy.