Charles Schulz Deposition Part Two 2008

265 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT court
2 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Wrongful Death 3 -------------------------4 Court File No. Mary Weiss, on her own behalf 27CV07-1679 5 and as next of kin and trustee of the Estate of Dan Markingson, 6 deceased, 7 8 -vsPlaintiff, Videotape Deposition (Vol. 2)
9 Board of Regents for the University of Minnesota; Dr. Stephen Olson; 10 Dr. Charles Schulz; Institutional Review Board for the University of Minnesota; 11 Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP; Astrazeneca LP and Zeneca, Inc., 12 Defendants/Respondent 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Volume 2, pgs. 265 - 338 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 By MARTHA M. FIER, court REPORTER 12151 Gantry Lane Deposition of: CHARLES SCHULZ, M.D. Taken at: Pearson, Randall & Schumacher 100 South Fifth Street Suite 1025 Minneapolis, Minnesota Date: January 18, 2008
Commencing at: 8:30 a.m.
schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]
25
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 800-844-6420 * 952-431-1252
266 Deposition of CHARLES SCHULZ, M.D., taken pursuant to Notice to Take Oral Deposition, under the 2 Rules of Civil Procedure, for the District Courts of Minnesota, at Pearson, Randall & Schumacher, 100 3 South Fifth Street, Suite 1025, Minneapolis, Minnesota, commencing at approximately 8:30 a.m., on 4 the 18th day of January, 2008, before Martha M. Fier, Notary Public, in and for the State of Minnesota. 5 - * 6 APPEARANCES: 7 R. CHRIS BARDEN, Esq., and GALE D. PEARSON, 8 Esq., of the law firm of Pearson, Randall & Schumacher, Fifth Street Towers, 100 South Fifth 9 Street, Suite 1025, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 appeared for and on behalf of Plaintiff. 10 DAVID P. ALSOP, Esq., and ANGELA M. NELSON, 11 Esq., of the law firm of Gislason & Hunter, 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 500, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 12 appeared for and on behalf of Defendants Olson and Schulz. 13 DAVID C. HUTCHINSON, Esq., and CHARLES A. 14 GROSS, Esq., of the law firm of Geraghty, O'Loughlin & Kenney, Alliance Bank Center, 55 East Fifth Street, 15 Suite 1100, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeared for and on behalf of Defendant Board of Regents of the 16 University of Minnesota. 17 BRIDGET M. AHMANN, Esq., of the law firm of Faegre & Benson, 2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South 18 Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3901 appeared for and on behalf of Defendants Astrazeneca 19 and Zeneca. 20 Also present, Ruth Flynn, Esq., Risk Management Operations Director, University of 21 Minnesota Physicians, Suite 200, 720 Washington, Avenue SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. 22 - * 23 Examination:
24
By Dr. Barden ........... 268
25 Exhibits: V - Amended Videotape Deposition Notice marked on page 324
267 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
2 video record. This is the continuing deposition of 3 Dr. Charles Schulz being recorded Friday, January 18, 4 2008 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. At this time, will 5 the attorneys please identify themselves for the 6 record. 7 DR. BARDEN: My name is Dr. Chris
8 Barden, and I'm here for Mary Weiss. 9 MS. PEARSON: My name is Gale Pearson
10 on behalf of Plaintiff Mary Weiss. 11 MS. AHMANN: Bridget Ahmann on behalf
12 of Defendant Astrazeneca. 13 MR. GROSS: Charles Gross on behalf
14 of the University of Minnesota. 15 MR. HUTCHINSON: David Hutchinson for
16 the University of Minnesota. 17 18 Schulz. 19 MR. ALSOP: David Alsop on behalf of MS. NELSON: Angela Nelson for Dr.
20 Dr. Schulz. 21 VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 8:38
22 a.m. Will the court reporter please administer the
23 oath. 24 25
268 1 2 3 4 5 CHARLES SCHULZ, M.D. called as a witness, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION
6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 8 9 Q. A. Q. Okay. Good morning, Dr. Schulz. Good morning, Dr. Barden. Since the last time we've spoken, have you
10 done anything to prepare for the continuing 11 deposition? 12 A. I've had a meeting with counsel, Mr. Alsop
13 and Ms. Flynn, and I've reviewed my deposition. 14 Q. Okay. The same rules apply as in the
15 previous day. That is, I'll never ask you for any 16 names of your other clients, I'll never ask you for 17 any conversations you've had with your lawyers. Fair 18 enough? 19 20 A. Q. That sounds fair. If you need a break, just ask. That will
21 be fine. And if you ever have any questions about 22 what I'm asking you, if it's not clear, just ask me
23 and I'll try to rephrase it. Does that sound fair? 24 25 A. Q. Yes. Okay. Have you hired your own lawyer?
269 1 2 A. Q. No. Okay. Do you know who the expert witnesses
3 are who have been listed as part of your defense? 4 MR. ALSOP: What do you mean? Know
5 their names or -- it's vague. Go ahead. You can 6 answer. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. I met with
8 Mr. Alsop and I've talked with him on the phone, and 9 I -10 MR. ALSOP: Well, don't tell him
11 about discussions with me. 12 THE WITNESS: Pardon me. I'm aware
13 that there are three experts: A Dr. Jan Fawcett, a 14 Dr. Ira Glick and a Dr. David Dunner. 15 BY DR. BARDEN: 16 Q. Okay. And you mentioned that you have
17 spoken to them by phone? 18 A. No. I've had no contact with these three
19 people. 20 21 Q. A. Okay. Do you know any of them? Yes, I do.
22
Q.
And what is your relationship with Dr.
23 Fawcett? 24 A. I met Dr. Fawcett probably during the 1980s
25 at scientific meetings. He was doing some research
270 1 work related to depression that I was very interested 2 in, so I would talk with him in the corners after 3 presentations, et cetera. 4 Q. You've had no conversations with Dr.
5 Fawcett related to this case whatsoever, correct? 6 7 8 9 10 A. Q. A. Q. A. Correct. Dr. Glick. Uh-huh. Have you ever known Dr. Glick? Yes, I have. Dr. Glick also I have met at
11 scientific meetings over the years. I can't remember 12 exactly the first time I met him, but I would 13 estimate at least 20 years I've known Dr. Glick. 14 He's published extensively in our field and I've 15 talked with him on occasion regarding scientific 16 projects or scientific ideas. 17 18 19 20 Q. A. Q. A. Okay. And the third one was Dr. -David Dunner. Uh-huh. And do you know Dr. Dunner? Yes, I do, in essentially the same
21 capacity. I've known Dr. Dunner for about 25 years,

22 an estimate, and again, meeting with him at 23 scientific meetings and talking with him about 24 research, et cetera. 25 Q. Okay. Have you ever done any research with
271 1 any of these three? 2 A. I have done some research with Dr. Ira
3 Glick about, I would say, 20 years ago. He was 4 working -- I can't remember where, but he was part of 5 a group called The Treatment Strategies Study for 6 Schizophrenia, and I worked with him on that project 7 a little. I wasn't an author or co-investigator, but 8 we were working on a study together in which, after 9 people finished the treatment strategy study, the 10 subjects were entered in a trial to see if an added 11 medication might help them respond. And so we worked 12 together on that project in the late 1980s. 13 Q. Okay. Have you done any research with any
14 of the other of the three of these? 15 A. I can't recall that I've done any research.
16 I've talked with them, but I don't think I've 17 co-authored papers or anything like that with them. 18 Q. Have you given any talks or been on any
19 seminars with any of these three? 20 A. You know, I just -- I can't recollect that
21 I have. 22 Q. Have you ever had breakfast, lunch or
23 dinner or any other meals with any of these three? 24 A. I would imagine at a science meeting that I
25 might have had lunch or dinner or breakfast with them
272 1 as part of a group. 2 3 4 Q. A. Q. And when and where would that have been? Oh, I wouldn't have any recollection. So these are people that you've known for
5 many years. 6 7 A. Q. Correct. Okay. Do any of them receive money from
8 the same drug companies that you have received money 9 from? 10 MR. ALSOP: Object on the basis of
11 foundation. Go ahead. 12 13 vague. 14 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't MS. AHMANN: Same objection. Also
15 know who they've received money from. 16 BY DR. BARDEN: 17 Q. Do you know if any of them have acted as
18 paid consultants to any of the same drug companies 19 that you are a paid consultant to? 20 MS. AHMANN: Same objection.
21
THE WITNESS: I don't have any
22 knowledge of that. 23 BY DR. BARDEN: 24 Q. Do you know if any of these three have been
25 involved in national scandals in the field of
273 1 psychiatry? 2 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague,
3 ambiguous. But go ahead. 4 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any.
5 BY DR. BARDEN: 6 Q. Do you know if any of them have been forced
7 to resign from their position as a result of one of 8 the most widely publicized scandals in the history of 9 American psychiatry? 10 MR. ALSOP: Same objection. It's
11 also argumentative. But go ahead. 12 THE WITNESS: No.
13 BY DR. BARDEN: 14 Q. You've never talked to Dr. Fawcett about
15 how he ended up in New Mexico, for example. 16 17 A. No. MR. HUTCHINSON: I missed the last
18 part of the -19 THE REPORTER: How he ended up in New
20 Mexico, for example. 21 BY DR. BARDEN: 22 Q. Do you know where Dr. Fawcett worked before
23 he was in Southwest? 24 A. My recollection is that he worked at Rush
25 Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago.
274 1 Q. Do you know the circumstances under which
2 he left Rush? 3 4 A. Q. No. Are there any changes to your resum since
5 the last time we've spoken? 6 A. I believe in the last month that -- I don't
7 have like a specific memory -- but that our research 8 group has published, I think maybe two or three new 9 papers. 10 Q. Do any of them have anything related to the
11 Cafe Study? 12 13 14 15 A. Q. A. Q. No. Nothing related to that at all. Correct. Okay. Have you done anything -- strike
16 that. 17 The Cafe Study that is the subject of this
18 lawsuit, have those data been published, to the best 19 of your knowledge?
20
A.
To the best of my knowledge, they have
21 been. 22 23 24 Q. A. Q. And how many studies have they been in? I'm not quite understanding the question. I'm sorry. How many publications have
25 those data appeared in, either in whole or in part,
275 1 to the best of your knowledge? 2 A. To the best of my knowledge, I'm aware of
3 the publication of the main findings of the study I 4 believe was in the American Journal of Psychiatry. 5 Q. What, if any, steps have you taken to
6 inform the American Journal of Psychiatry that one of 7 the research subjects listed in the study as having 8 been on the medication was, in fact, not taking any 9 of the medication? 10 A. I've not taken any steps to -- I haven't
11 talked to the American Journal of Psychiatry. 12 Q. Okay. As the chairman of psychiatry, what,
13 if any, steps have you taken to instruct Dr. Olson to 14 contact that Journal to correct any errors in those 15 data? 16 17 A. Q. I have taken no steps. Are you currently involved in any drug
18 trial research?
19
A.
I am currently involved in two studies.
20 I'm trying to think, make sure I'm accurate, but the 21 best of my knowledge, right now I'm involved in two 22 studies. One is a -- well, I'm involved in two 23 studies. 24 Q. Okay. Do those studies involve random
25 blood testing of the subjects to ensure that they're
276 1 actually taking the medication involved in the study? 2 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
3 irrelevant. Go ahead. 4 5 MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: No.
6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 Q. Do you consider that a potentially fatal
8 flaw to the research design used in the Cafe Study, 9 that is that none of the subjects were randomly 10 tested using blood samples to determine whether or 11 not they were actually taking the medication? 12 13 A. Q. No. So you're continuing to use the research
14 methodology of just counting pills; is that correct? 15 MR. ALSOP: It's vague and also
16 irrelevant. But go ahead. 17 THE WITNESS: In the studies I'm
18 working on now, we're doing pill counts. We ask

19 people if they're taking their medication and we are 20 not obtaining blood levels to -- for any reason. 21 BY DR. BARDEN: 22 Q. Okay. Are you aware of a history in the
23 field of psychiatry of efforts to conduct research in 24 such a way as to hide or minimize negative findings? 25 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague. Go
277 1 ahead. 2 3 MS. AHMANN: Join in that objection. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, with all the
4 discussion, would you mind repeating the question for 5 me? 6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 Q. Well, are you aware in the history of
8 psychiatry of a pattern of the hiding of negative 9 research results? 10 A. I think the best way for me to answer the
11 question, especially in light of news that's come out 12 this week, that in research studies, specifically in 13 the material that came out this last week, that in 14 depression trials, there was a significant difference 15 in the rates of publication between the studies that 16 were positive and the studies that were negative. 17 And that was on the APA. You know, they have a daily
18 thing. It was on that. And I can't remember which 19 journal that it was published in, but certainly quite 20 prominent in looking at an exploration of those 21 reports. 22 Q. Was that actually published in the New
23 England Journal of Medicine? 24 A. Seems I saw it on the Internet. I'm sorry,
25 I don't have a picture in my mind of where that was
278 1 published. 2 Q. Okay. As a chairman of psychiatry, did you
3 find that troubling? 4 5 A. Q. Yes, I did. And what about that did you find to be
6 troubling? 7 A. Well, as was stated in the abstract even of
8 that article, the authors indicated there may be many 9 sources or many reasons that that might have 10 happened. The first thing that I found troubling, 11 however, was that authors or sponsors may have 12 discussed not publishing the negative finding in some 13 way to enhance the outcome of the medicines being 14 studied. 15 In addition to that, as was pointed out by
16 the authors of the paper, and I think common 17 knowledge over the years, is that journals will
18 frequently not publish negative results. Although I 19 believe they're doing a better job more recently. In 20 the past, I've been aware of journal editors saying 21 this is not -- a negative trial is not newsworthy, so 22 we don't want to publish it. 23 So that has also been, I'm sure you're
24 aware, discussed in our field and in other medical 25 specialties.
279 1 Q. Could you explain for the record what you
2 mean by "negative results"? 3 A. Oh, sure. By negative results, I would
4 mean that a study would -- a protocol would be 5 planned, the investigators would lay out what their 6 so-called primary findings or specific gains could 7 be, and then they would, you know, have -- they may 8 design the study to have a primary outcome. Pretty 9 common. And a negative study would be that there was 10 no, say in the placebo-controlled trial, that there 11 was no difference between the active compound and 12 placebo. 13 So to answer your question, that would be
14 one example of negative outcome of the study. 15 Q. What, if any, dangers to the public are
16 there when medical professionals were to minimize or
17 hide negative data like that? 18 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague,
19 ambiguous and irrelevant. Go ahead. 20 21 22 MS. AHMANN: Join. MR. HUTCHINSON: Join. THE WITNESS: I think I'll start my
23 answer by saying hypothetically, because you're kind 24 of asking it, it appears to me, in a hypothetical 25 fashion, but it was pointed out that if you do a
280 1 large number of studies with an intervention and for 2 whatever reason all the results are not published, 3 subsequent analyses of those studies may conclude 4 that there is a specific effect of the treatment. 5 And I know you're aware of assessments of treatments 6 such as effect sizes or meta-analyses, and if all the 7 data is not published from the results, then a 8 meta-analytic analyses of the studies will not 9 reflect all of the work done, say, for a specific 10 compound. 11 BY DR. BARDEN: 12 Q. So specifically in this, the New England
13 Journal of medical -- the New England Journal of 14 Medicine article discussed that there was -- there 15 had been an over-estimate of the benefits of those 16 drugs, right?
17
A.
To my recollection, that was one of their
18 conclusions. 19 Q. And that would be to the financial benefit
20 of the drug companies, wouldn't it? 21 22 A. I -MS. AHMANN: Object, lack of
23 foundation. 24 MR. ALSOP: Lack of foundation. Go
25 ahead, if you know.
281 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that I don't
2 know, because I don't know all the studies that were 3 involved and which ones may have been with generics 4 or not or anything like that. 5 BY DR. BARDEN: 6 Q. Well, if they're hiding studies that say
7 the drug has no benefit or actually injures people 8 and the publishing studies would say the drug is of 9 benefit and thus overestimating the benefit of the 10 drug, wouldn't that sell more drugs? 11 MR. ALSOP: Object as argumentative
12 and lacks foundation, vague. But go ahead. 13 14 MS. AHMANN: Same objection. THE WITNESS: I don't know how to
15 answer that.
16 BY DR. BARDEN: 17 Q. Are you aware of other research indicating
18 that the financial interests of the investigators has 19 an effect on the results of drug studies? 20 21 A. Q. No, not to my knowledge. You haven't seen any studies showing that
22 when the study is funded by the manufacturer of the 23 drug, they tend to have more positive results for 24 that drug. 25 MR. ALSOP: Repetitious and
282 1 argumentative. Go ahead. 2 THE WITNESS: Well, Dr. Barden, I
3 think the best answer for me is that I have heard 4 conversations at scientific meetings, but I can't put 5 my finger on an article or a presentation. So, yes, 6 I'm aware of that. Some academicians have looked 7 into the matter you're questioning me about, but I 8 can't provide a more specific answer. 9 BY DR. BARDEN: 10 Q. If there was evidence showing that the
11 financial interest in the investigators appeared to 12 taint the research results, would that concern you as 13 a psychiatrist? 14 MR. ALSOP: It's vague and
15 irrelevant, but go ahead.

16
THE WITNESS: I think before drawing
17 a conclusion, I would really want to, you know, know 18 in more specifics how the data had been collected and 19 more specifics about the issue. 20 BY DR. BARDEN: 21 Q. Okay. We've been talking about the recent
22 New England Journal of Medicine article indicating 23 that researchers dealing with antidepressants have 24 been hiding or not publishing negative results, and 25 I'm just wondering, looking back through the history
283 1 of psychiatry, can you think of other examples of 2 similar types of problems: That is, the misreporting 3 or the selective reporting of data in order to make a 4 treatment appear to be more effective than it 5 actually is? 6 MR. ALSOP: Vague, ambiguous and
7 irrelevant. Go ahead. 8 9 MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: A specific example
10 doesn't come to my mind. 11 BY DR. BARDEN: 12 Q. Are you aware of Dr. Freeman's research on
13 lobotomies, for example? 14 A. Well, I'm familiar with it, yes.
15
Q.
Are you familiar with any of the
16 methodological problems with Dr. Freeman's data or 17 how he reported those data? 18 A. I don't have a specific memory that comes
19 to my mind of he, say, for example, worked with the 20 prefrontal lobotomy data and then didn't report or 21 reported in any different way. But to be truthful, I 22 have read Dr. -- Mr. Jack El-Hai's biography of Dr. 23 Freeman in which -- and it goes through his entire 24 career and the ways that he began to become 25 interested in this technique, and I'm aware of his
284 1 practicing this technique all around the country. 2 But I'm not aware of any specific area of, say, where 3 he collected data and then didn't report it or 4 didn't, say, report to the literature that he was 5 having certain side effect rates or anything like 6 that. 7 Q. Okay. Are you aware of the research of Dr.
8 Bennett Braun? 9 10 A. Q. No, that name's not familiar to me. Okay. As a practicing psychiatrist, are
11 you aware of the world record in a settlement for a 12 psychotherapy negligent lawsuit against a 13 psychiatrist? 14 MR. ALSOP: Objection, irrelevant,
15 immaterial. 16 17 18 MR. HUTCHINSON: I'll join. MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: No, I'm not.
19 BY DR. BARDEN: 20 Q. As a psychiatrist, are you interested in
21 the history of methodology errors and problems in the 22 field of psychiatry? 23 MR. ALSOP: Vague and ambiguous,
24 irrelevant. Go ahead. 25 THE WITNESS: I am interested in
285 1 that, yes. 2 BY DR. BARDEN: 3 Q. But you have never heard of Dr. Bennett
4 Braun. 5 6 A. Q. That's correct. Isn't it, in fact, the case that the Cafe
7 Study that is the subject of this lawsuit in fact 8 suffered from this very same difficulty, that is, the 9 study was constructed in such a way -- that is, 10 without any random blood testing of the subjects -11 it was constructed in such a way as to minimize the 12 risk that negative findings would be discovered? 13 MS. AHMANN: Object, lack of
14 foundation and vague. 15 16 17 MR. ALSOP: I'll join. Go ahead. MR. HUTCHINSON: Join. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, Dr. Barden,
18 when you ask the question and then there's all that 19 conversation, I sometimes kind of lose it. If you 20 wouldn't mind just asking it again, I'd appreciate 21 it. 22 BY DR. BARDEN: 23 Q. In the Cafe Study that's the subject of
24 this lawsuit, there was no random blood testing of 25 the subjects, correct?
286 1 2 A. Q. That's my understanding, yes. So you were counting on your paid
3 employees' pill counting methodology to determine 4 whether the patients were actually taking the 5 medication or not, correct? 6 A. I believe I would say, seeing as I was not
7 a designer of the study, et cetera, that the 8 principal investigators designed the study in this 9 way to rely upon pill counting and/or asking people 10 if they're using the medicine. 11 12 13 Q. A. Q. Right. No random blood testing, correct? That's correct. And you mentioned the principal
14 investigators. Who were the principal investigators 15 of the Cafe Study that's the subject of this lawsuit? 16 A. To the best of my recollection, Dr. Jeffrey
17 Lieberman was the principal investigator of the Cafe 18 Study. And I'm not aware if he had like a 19 co-principal investigator or anything like that. 20 Q. And then just once again, to clarify for
21 the record, what was your role in the Cafe Study? 22 A. I was a co-investigator at the site at the
23 University of Minnesota. 24 Q. So you were a co-principal investigator at
25 that site?
287 1 2 A. Q. That's not what I said. Okay. Let's make sure we get it clear for
3 the record. 4 5 6 7 A. Q. A. Q. I said I was a co-investigator. Okay. So you were a co-investigator. Correct. Okay. Now, isn't it true, Dr. Schulz,
8 that, to be frank, even an undergraduate psychology 9 student would have seen that the failure to do random 10 blood testing was, in fact, a fatal flaw in the 11 methodology of the Cafe Study? 12 MR. ALSOP: It's argumentative and
13 it's repetitive. It's been asked already, but go 14 ahead. 15 16 MS. AHMANN: Join. MR. HUTCHINSON: Same objection.
17 What grades is this undergraduate work? Same 18 objection. 19 MR. ALSOP: You can answer, Doctor,
20 if you know. 21 THE WITNESS: I do not know what an
22 undergraduate psychology major would -- what their 23 comments would be about this study. 24 BY DR. BARDEN: 25 Q. Do you know the ranking of the psychology
288 1 department at the University of Minnesota? 2 3 4 A. Q. By who? By anybody. MR. ALSOP: Vague and ambiguous and
5 irrelevant. Go ahead. 6 MR. HUTCHINSON: Join.
7 BY DR. BARDEN: 8 Q. Well, first of all, there are rankings that
9 are published, correct? 10 MR. HUTCHINSON: Is this the
11 psychology department you're asking about? Is that 12 the question?

13 14 know. 15
MR. ALSOP: I think so. I don't
DR. BARDEN: We're getting off of
16 legal objections again. You can make a legal 17 objection, not a speech. 18 MR. HUTCHINSON: I'm asking what the
19 question is. 20 DR. BARDEN: Yeah, the question is to
21 him. If you want to say "vague," that's a legal 22 objection. 23 MR. HUTCHINSON: Vague.
24 BY DR. BARDEN: 25 Q. Okay.
289 1 A. My understanding of the question is you
2 asked me am I aware of the ranking of the Department 3 of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. I 4 asked you whose rankings, and you said there are 5 published rankings out there. 6 7 Q. A. I said are there published rankings? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I heard you say
8 there are. I'm aware the Department of Psychology at 9 the University of Minnesota has an outstanding 10 national, international reputation. 11 Q. Did you consult with anyone at the
12 psychology department in terms of the quality or the 13 usefulness of your methodology for the Cafe Study? 14 MS. AHMANN: Objection, lack of
15 foundation. 16 THE WITNESS: No.
17 BY DR. BARDEN: 18 Q. Did you ever consider consulting with
19 anyone from the world famous psychology department at 20 the University of Minnesota for the Cafe Study? 21 22 A. Q. No, I did not. Do you -- as a matter of simple logic,
23 would you agree that the study would have been far 24 better had you had random blood testing of the 25 subjects to determine if any of them were actually
290 1 taking the medication as prescribed? 2 MR. ALSOP: It's argumentative and
3 the question has been asked at least three times and 4 now it's repetitive. Go ahead, Doctor. 5 MS. AHMANN: Join in the lack of
6 foundation. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. Could you repeat
8 the question so I make sure I understand what you're 9 asking? 10 BY DR. BARDEN: 11 Q. As a matter of simple logic, isn't it, in
12 fact, the case that your failure to include random 13 drug testing, that is of a random sample of some 14 size, some representative size of the subjects in the 15 Cafe Study, your failure to do that random blood 16 testing to determine whether people were actually 17 taking their medication is a fatal mistake in your 18 design of that study? 19 20 ahead. 21 22 23 MS. AHMANN: Same objection. MR. HUTCHINSON: Join. THE WITNESS: First, I'd like to say MR. ALSOP: Same objections. Go
24 I was not the designer of the study. Dr. Lieberman 25 and his colleagues were. We were one side of many.
291 1 Secondly, I do not agree with your statement that 2 random blood tests would have made a difference in 3 interpretation of the compliance of the subjects in 4 the study. 5 BY DR. BARDEN: 6 Q. Have you ever heard the term "study of
7 nature"? 8 9 A. Q. I'm not sure I have. What is that? Have you ever heard of accidents and acts
10 of nature that provide interesting and important
11 scientific data? 12 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
13 ambiguous. Go ahead, if you understand. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have, as a
15 matter of fact, and -16 MR. ALSOP: That's the question, have
17 you heard it. That's all he's asking. 18 19 Yes. 20 BY DR. BARDEN: 21 Q. What's your understanding of that term as a THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Pardon me.
22 practicing research psychiatrist? 23 A. The case that I'm most familiar with, and
24 I'm sorry, I can't remember the name of the person in 25 this case, Finnias Gage comes to mind. Finnias Gage
292 1 was a -2 Q. He was the one who was injured by the
3 railroad spike, neurological patient. 4 A. Well, he was a railroad worker, and he was
5 working at his job, and an explosive cap -6 7 Q. A. Right. -- evidently went off and a railroad spike,
8 as I recollect, went up under his jaw, but it was of 9 such a force that it went entirely through his brain. 10 He did not die, and he was taken home, and I would
11 suspect you recollect that he had a change in 12 personality. And even to this day, people will talk 13 about how the study, and I believe I've seen slides 14 at meetings of studying his skull and where the spike 15 might have gone, leads us to an understanding of his 16 impulsivity. 17 18 Q. A. Uh-huh. So that would be a case that I'm aware of a
19 -- which you're calling a study of nature. 20 Q. Right. That's a case of things that happen
21 that are not predicted that can sometimes illuminate 22 interesting and important information of a science, 23 right? 24 A. I guess I'd say I generally agree with
25 that.
293 1 Q. Don't you think it's the case that Dan
2 Markingson's suicide will be a famous example of a 3 study of nature in that it exposed the fatal 4 limitation of the Cafe Study? That is, had Dan not 5 died, had he not received an autopsy, had his blood 6 not been tested, we would never have known that he 7 was not taking any medication, even though the 8 research protocol shows that he was taking his 9 medication as directed.
10
MR. HUTCHINSON: Objection,
11 argumentative. 12 MR. ALSOP: It's argumentative, it's
13 a multiple question, it's vague and ambiguous, 14 irrelevant. Go ahead, Doctor. 15 16 17 18 MS. AHMANN: Join. MR. HUTCHINSON: Lack of foundation. MR. ALSOP: Answer. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: I don't agree with your
19 initial statement that this will be a famous study of 20 nature. 21 BY DR. BARDEN: 22 Q. Well, doesn't Dan Markingson's death and
23 the blood test and the fact that it's documented that 24 he was not taking medication when, in fact, the study 25 claims he was, doesn't this invalidate all such pill
294 1 counting methodology studies that fail to do random 2 blood testing? 3 4 A. Q. I don't believe so, no. Isn't it, in fact, the case that the
5 failure of the Cafe Study to include random blood 6 testing is yet another example of the attempt of 7 psychiatry and the drug companies to construct 8 research in such a way as to hide negative evidence? 9 A. I can't make that conclusion, no.
10
Q.
Since the last time we talked -- when was
11 that? Was that -- it was last spring or summer. 12 Since the last time we did part one of the 13 deposition, what, if any, funding have you received 14 from drug companies? 15 A. I'm just trying to gather my thoughts. And
16 I'm trying to place it in time, et cetera. So 17 some time ago. 18 MR. ALSOP: Just so -- the time frame
19 is June 22, '07. 20 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. ALSOP: So from that point on I
22 think is the question he's asking, I believe. 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. So since -- let
24 me begin my answer by saying, I'm not exactly sure 25 when I have received grants because the process is so
295 1 long from application to resubmission, et cetera. 2 But in this last year, perhaps in the second half of 3 the year, I applied for a grant to study extended 4 release with Triapine for borderline personality 5 disorder. 6 To the best of my knowledge, I
7 haven't received any other grants from the 8 pharmaceutical industry since our last -- since the
9 last deposition. 10 BY DR. BARDEN: 11 Q. Okay. So you haven't received a check or
12 any funding for speaking, consulting or anything else 13 from a drug company since the last time we spoke. 14 A. So regarding receiving any other money, I
15 have received, I believe, $3,000 from Astrazeneca to 16 serve on their national advisory board. I'm not 17 aware of other checks. That's just to the best of my 18 knowledge. 19 Q. When were you asked to be on the national
20 advisory board for Astrazeneca? 21 A. My understanding is that Astrazeneca each
22 year takes a look at who they would like to have come 23 work with them on the national advisory board. So I 24 would imagine they asked me this, say, the late 25 summer, and I believe the meeting was in October.
296 1 Q. Okay. Have you ever served on the national
2 advisory board for Astrazeneca in a year in which you 3 were not a co-defendant in a lawsuit with 4 Astrazeneca? 5 6 ahead. 7 8 yes.
MR. ALSOP: Object as vague. Go
THE WITNESS: I would have to answer
9 BY DR. BARDEN: 10 11 Q. A. And what year was that? I believe I served on the national advisory
12 board with Astrazeneca 2001-2002. I was not a 13 defendant in a lawsuit in those years. 14 Q. And they paid you $3,000 to do that back
15 then? 16 17 A. Q. To the best of my recollection, yes. What is your role as a member of the
18 national advisory board for Astrazeneca? 19 A. I have, in the past, served as -- so I have
20 -- you asked what my role was? 21 22 Q. A. Uh-huh. I have served as the moderator for the
23 national advisory board meeting in recent years, but 24 my general role is to listen to the agenda, examine 25 the data, discuss the results of studies and/or
297 1 future plans for the development of their medication. 2 Q. Okay. And these are meetings that are
3 funded by Astrazeneca. 4 5 A. Q. Correct. And your travel to and from these meetings
6 is paid for by Astrazeneca? 7 A. That's correct.
Q.
And you receive a fee for being there
9 that's paid by Astrazeneca. 10 11 A. Q. That's correct. And the Cafe Study in which Dan Markingson
12 died in was funded by Astrazeneca. 13 14 A. Q. That's correct. Mary Weiss sent you three letters. Do you
15 recall that? 16 A. I believe I've talked at our last
17 deposition that I recall receiving one letter from 18 Mary Weiss. 19 Q. Okay. When did you review your transcript
20 of the deposition that we took earlier? 21 22 23 24 A. Q. A. Q. Yesterday. Yesterday. So you just saw that yesterday. Yes, that's when I reviewed it. Okay. So to the best of your knowledge, as
25 you sit there now, you've only received one letter
298 1 from Mary Weiss. 2 3 A. Q. That's correct. And that was the one that was sent return
4 receipt, or certified. 5 A. Well, I don't know about that. If you
6 could give me the date, but it was in, I believe, 7 April. April of 2004.
Q.
In that letter, did Mary Weiss say Dr.
9 Olson would not speak to her? 10 MR. ALSOP: Doctor, do you want to
11 see the letter? 12 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. ALSOP: If you recall, you can
14 answer the question now. 15 16 no. 17 BY DR. BARDEN: 18 Q. You just saw the transcript yesterday, THE WITNESS: I don't recall that,
19 though, in which we discussed this letter in detail. 20 A. I've reviewed my transcript. I do not
21 recall, from the deposition transcript, that we 22 discussed Mary Weiss indicating that Dr. Olson 23 wouldn't talk to her. 24 Q. Do you recall the letter indicating that
25 Dan was not being treated by Dr. Olson, that is he
299 1 hardly ever saw him? Do you recall that? 2 3 A. Q. I don't recall that in the letter, no. Do you recall Mary Weiss complaining about
4 the treatment that her son was receiving? 5 6 A. Q. That's not the way I remember it, no. What is the way you remember it?
A.
The way that I remember it is that Ms.
8 Weiss indicated that she was concerned for how Dan 9 was doing, that she recollected that when he was 10 first hospitalized, that he had taken an antianxiety 11 medication, and that she thought he felt better then, 12 and she expressed concern in the letter that she was 13 aware -- that she had the opinion that Dan had an 14 inner rage and that concerned her. 15 16 17 18 Q. A. Q. A. Have you ever heard the term akathisia? Yes, I have. What does that term mean? Akathisia is, I guess I would say, a
19 technical term for what I think most people now know 20 as restless leg syndrome in which a person can feel a 21 creepy-crawly, uncomfortable feeling in their legs or 22 other parts of their body. 23 Q. Are you aware of anything beyond restless
24 leg syndrome that's related to akathisia? 25 A. I'm -- I thought I had described my
300 1 understanding of what akathisia was. 2 Q. Are you aware of any relationship between
3 akathisia and suicide, for example, as a licensed 4 psychiatrist practicing in the State of Minnesota? 5 A. I have a general memory, without a
6 reference, that some psychiatrists have published

7 that the discomfort of akathisia, which has been 8 associated especially with some of the high potency 9 traditional antipsychotic medications, made patients 10 feel so uncomfortable that they -- that they had 11 suicidal thoughts. 12 Q. Were you aware of that research when you
13 gave me your answer about "restless leg syndrome"? 14 15 A. Q. Sure. I'm going to read you some statements. I'd
16 like to know whether you agree or disagree with them. 17 "Knowledge of patient preferences is essential to 18 good clinical care, since the patient's cooperation 19 and satisfaction reflect the degree to which medical 20 intervention fulfills the patient's choices, values 21 and needs." 22 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
23 ambiguous. Go ahead. 24 BY DR. BARDEN: 25 Q. Do you agree with that statement?
301 1 A. You know, I would have to say that sounds
2 like a very nice general statement, that in practice, 3 if I were sitting with a patient, that I would want 4 to include those items. And I'm sure you're aware of 5 a term called the therapeutic alliance, and it seems
6 to me that in that paragraph there are the essential 7 building blocks of how you develop a good 8 relationship with your patient. 9 Q. The therapeutic alliance is important,
10 isn't it, Doctor? 11 12 A. Q. Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. And that emphasizes the ongoing nature of
13 informed consent, doesn't it, that informed consent 14 isn't just a signature on a page, it's an ongoing 15 therapeutic alliance between the doctor and the 16 patient; isn't that correct? 17 MR. ALSOP: It's vague and ambiguous,
18 calls for a legal conclusion. But go ahead, Doctor. 19 20 MS. AHMANN: Join. MR. HUTCHINSON: Same. Lacking
21 foundation. 22 23 MR. ALSOP: Go ahead, Doctor. THE WITNESS: So let me take a minute
24 to answer this, if that's okay with you. I agree, I 25 have lectured that informed consent is not a
302 1 signature such as a sub prime loan mortgage that you 2 can just hold up and say, "Look, you signed this. 3 You owe me the money." The informed consent process 4 is one that needs to be discussed if the research 5 subject in the project has questions or has doubts
6 about whether they would like to continue. It's, I 7 consider, part of -- I'll invent a term, but research 8 building of your relationship in the study. 9 BY DR. BARDEN: 10 Q. And informed consent needs to be
11 readdressed at various times sometimes with the 12 patient, doesn't it? 13 14 A. Q. Yes. Such as like when you're recommending they
15 be committed would be a time to readdress informed 16 consent, wouldn't it? 17 MR. HUTCHINSON: Objection, lack of
18 foundation. 19 20 21 MR. ALSOP: Join. MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: I don't know if I could
22 agree to that specifically as it would need to be, 23 but I agree with your statement that informed consent 24 is an ongoing process and that questions by the 25 subject or concerns that the research team have need
303 1 to come up -- when they come up need to be addressed 2 with the patient, with the research subject. 3 BY DR. BARDEN: 4 Q. Next, Doctor, agree or disagree: "Patient
5 preferences are legally significant because the 6 American legal system considers the patient-physician 7 relationship to be a fiduciary relationship in which 8 the fiduciary, such as a physician, has an obligation 9 to promote the best interests of persons who have 10 entrusted themselves to their physician's care." 11 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
12 ambiguous, calls for a legal conclusion. Go ahead. 13 THE WITNESS: I believe we discussed
14 the fiduciary responsibility in the past, and I don't 15 have an opinion on that quote you read. 16 BY DR. BARDEN: 17 Q. Okay. Next, agree or disagree: "Above
18 all, fiduciaries must avoid financial conflicts of 19 interest that could prejudice their clients' 20 interests." 21 MR. ALSOP: Same objections, vague
22 and ambiguous. Go ahead. 23 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't
24 know how to answer that. 25 BY DR. BARDEN:
304 1 Q. Okay. Next -- well, strike that. As a
2 licensed physician practicing in Minnesota, it's your 3 testimony under oath that you do not agree or don't 4 know how to answer my question to that statement,
5 Doctor? 6 MR. ALSOP: It's now argumentative
7 and it's repetitious. He's answered the question. 8 Go ahead, Doctor. 9 10 MR. HUTCHINSON: Join. THE WITNESS: What I said was I don't
11 know how to answer that question, not that I 12 disagree. 13 BY DR. BARDEN: 14 Q. You are subject to the licensing rules and
15 regulations of the State of Minnesota, correct? 16 17 A. Q. That's correct. And as part of those regulations, you are
18 responsible to know the code of ethics that govern 19 your behavior as a physician, correct? 20 21 A. Q. Yes, I am. Next statement: "If patient preferences
22 are ignored or devalued, patients are likely to 23 distrust and perhaps disregard physician's 24 recommendations." Do you agree or disagree with that 25 statement?
305 1 MR. ALSOP: Same objection, vague and
2 ambiguous. Go ahead. 3 THE WITNESS: I would only ask -- I
4 know you're reading these and asking me to agree or 5 disagree. I would say in general clinical care, I 6 agree with that statement. 7 BY DR. BARDEN: 8 Q. Next, "Informed consent is defined as the
9 willing acceptance of a medical intervention by a 10 patient after adequate disclosure by the physician of 11 the nature of the intervention, its risks and 12 benefits, as well as of alternatives with their risks 13 and benefits." Do you agree or disagree? 14 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
15 ambiguous. It calls for a legal conclusion and 16 misstatement of the law. But go ahead. 17 18 19 20 MS. AHMANN: Join. MR. HUTCHINSON: Join. MR. ALSOP: You can answer, Doctor. THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I know how
21 to answer that question. 22 BY DR. BARDEN: 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Once again -Give some time -As a licensed practicing physician in the
306 1 State of Minnesota, it's your testimony under oath 2 that you don't know how to answer whether you agree 3 or disagree with what I read you; is that correct?
MR. ALSOP: That's argumentative and
5 repetitious. He's answered the question. Go ahead, 6 Doctor, you can answer. 7 8 MR. HUTCHINSON: Same. Join. THE WITNESS: Well, given your
9 response, and just to be very careful and sure, would 10 you reread the quote for me? 11 BY DR. BARDEN: 12 Q. "Informed consent is defined as the willing
13 acceptance of any medical intervention by a patient 14 after adequate disclosure by the physician of the 15 nature of the intervention, its risks and benefits, 16 as well as of alternatives with their risks and 17 benefits." 18 19 ahead. 20 THE WITNESS: In my clinical practice MR. ALSOP: Same objections. Go
21 as a psychiatrist in Minnesota, I agree with that 22 statement. 23 BY DR. BARDEN: 24 Q. Next, "It is clearly unethical to do
25 anything to a patient that will not benefit and may
307 1 even harm the patient in order to benefit the 2 physician or some other party." Do you agree with
3 that? 4 A. My pause is that I can't think of a
5 situation to which that applies. 6 Q. Do you agree with that statement or not,
7 Doctor? 8 9 A. Q. I don't know how to answer that. Next, "In order for patients to be allowed
10 to make reasonable choices, they must be provided 11 with adequate and truthful information. This 12 includes disclosure about the physician's financial 13 incentives that could influence the recommendations 14 that the physician makes to the patient." Do you 15 agree or disagree with that? 16 MR. ALSOP: Same objections, vague
17 and ambiguous and argumentative, but go ahead. 18 THE WITNESS: I don't agree with that
19 statement. 20 BY DR. BARDEN: 21 22 Q. A. And why not? My personal opinion is that a person in any
23 medical specialty may collaborate or work with 24 industry and/or device makers, et cetera, and going 25 through all of the different relationships they may
308 1 have, in my opinion, could confuse and diminish the 2 communication between a doctor and his patient
3 deciding on the course of treatment for that person. 4 Q. And in your model, Dr. Schulz, that you've
5 just described to us, who's the person that gets to 6 decide what financial conflict of interest 7 information is disclosed or withheld from a patient? 8 9 go ahead. 10 THE WITNESS: If you could repeat -MR. ALSOP: It's argumentative, but
11 I'm sorry. I just didn't understand the question. 12 Just the way -- I think you were asking about who -13 MR. ALSOP: Well, just have him
14 rephrase it. 15 BY DR. BARDEN: 16 Q. Have you had any training in biomedical
17 ethics? 18 A. I have had -- I've taken the courses at the
19 University of Minnesota that are required for us to 20 participate in clinical research. 21 Q. And isn't this statement part of that
22 training? 23 24 A. Q. I'm not aware. I don't recall that, no. Do you recall anything at all like this
25 being taught to you?
309 1 MR. ALSOP: It's vague and ambiguous,
2 but go ahead. 3 4 this time. 5 BY DR. BARDEN: 6 Q. Okay. I'm going to read it to you again. THE WITNESS: No, I don't. Not at
7 We're kind of running low on time, but let me go over 8 this again. "In order for patients to be allowed to 9 make reasonable choices, they must be provided with 10 adequate and truthful information. This includes 11 disclosure about the physician's financial incentives 12 that could influence the recommendations the 13 physician makes to the patient." Do you agree or 14 disagree with that? 15 MR. ALSOP: That's been asked and
16 answered, it's repetitious. Go ahead, Doctor. 17 THE WITNESS: Again, the best I can
18 say is that I don't know how to answer your question 19 yes or no. 20 BY DR. BARDEN: 21 Q. Okay. So you were a co-investigator on the
22 Cafe Study, correct? 23 A. For the University of Minnesota site. And
24 just to remind you, remember that Cafe was a study, 25 to the best of my recollection, designed by Dr.
310 1 Jeffrey Lieberman who, I think you know, is an expert

2 in first episode schizophrenia, and that he proposed 3 to have a multi center trial, and our -- the 4 University -- Dr. Olson, I guess I should say, as a 5 faculty member at the University of Minnesota, was 6 selected to be the principal investigator at our 7 site, and I was a co-investigator to Dr. Olson at the 8 University of Minnesota. 9 Q. Okay. We discussed last time, you wrote a
10 letter to Mary Weiss. 11 12 A. Q. Yes, I did. And Dr. Olson participated in crafting that
13 letter with you, correct? 14 A. I think I would explain it that I received
15 a letter, I met with Dr. Olson, and I believe also 16 Jeanne Kenney, reviewed Ms. Weiss' letter with them, 17 drafted a response and I believe Dr. Olson may have 18 changed one or two words in my letter. 19 Q. And the letter you sent out reflected his
20 changes, correct? 21 A. I incorporated his changes in my final
22 letter back to Ms. Weiss, yes. 23 Q. Thus you worked together to craft the
24 letter. 25 A. Correct. Uh-huh.
311
Q.
In your meeting with Dr. Olson and Ms.
2 Kenney to review Ms. Weiss' letter and the treatment 3 of Dan Markingson, did you suggest to Dr. Olson that 4 he should obtain Dan's high school records? Yes or 5 no? 6 7 A. Q. No. Did you suggest to Dr. Olson that he should
8 obtain Dan's college records? 9 10 A. Q. I did not. Did you suggest to Dr. Olson that he should
11 obtain Dan's fraternity records? 12 13 A. Q. I did not. Did you suggest that he should interview
14 Dan's former girlfriend? 15 16 A. Q. I did not. Did you suggest that he should review Dan's
17 previous medical records? 18 A. I did not suggest that to Dr. Olson when we
19 met about Ms. Weiss' letter. 20 Q. Did you suggest that Olson, Dr. Olson had a
21 duty to report Mary's letter of complaint to the IRB? 22 Yes or no? 23 24 A. No, I did not. DR. BARDEN: Okay. Our tape is going
25 to expire shortly. So I suggest we take a five
312
1 minute break and we'll see how much time we have 2 remaining. 3 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off the
4 video record. 5 6 (A brief recess took place.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
7 video record. 8 BY DR. BARDEN: 9 Q. Dr. Schulz, we were discussing experiments
10 of nature earlier. 11 12 A. Q. Yes. And the notion of Dan Markingson, his
13 death, leading to an autopsy, leading to a blood 14 test, documenting that he was, in fact, taking no 15 medication being an experiment of nature. Do you 16 recall those questions? 17 18 A. Q. Yes, I do. If someone were to write up that as an
19 experiment of nature in order to argue that it 20 exposed the fatal flaw in the so-called pill counting 21 methodology, what would be the best journal to 22 publish that in? 23 MR. ALSOP: It's vague and ambiguous,
24 argumentative -25 BY DR. BARDEN:
313
1 2
Q.
To the best of your knowledge. MR. ALSOP: Vague and ambiguous,
3 argumentative and irrelevant. But go ahead. 4 MR. HUTCHINSON: Objection, lacking
5 foundation and join in the other objections. 6 7 MS. AHMANN: Join in all. THE WITNESS: I really don't have an
8 opinion of which would be the appropriate journal for 9 such a case report. 10 BY DR. BARDEN: 11 Q. Okay. We talked earlier about the theory
12 that Dan Markingson's death, the failure of the pill 13 counting methodology to dramatically underreport the 14 number of people who are failing to take medication 15 was, in fact, the last in a long stream of 16 experiences in psychiatry in which this had happened, 17 starting with Dr. Freeman, going through Dr. Bennett 18 Braun, talking about the -- well, I guess we haven't 19 talked about it yet -- the flat lining research, the 20 famous psychiatrist who tried to erase his patients' 21 memories and build their personalities from scratch, 22 et cetera, et cetera. Do you recall that discussion? 23 MR. ALSOP: Object as multiple in
24 nature, argumentative and a misstatement of 25 testimony. Go ahead.
314 1 MR. HUTCHINSON: Same objection.
2 Misstating the evidence. 3 4 MS. AHMANN: Join. MR. HUTCHINSON: Join in the lack of
5 foundation. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry to say again
7 that the question was really very long and it had 8 some kind of multiple parts -9 BY DR. BARDEN: 10 11 Q. A. Fair enough. But I do remember we started talking about
12 Finnias Gage and experiments of nature. But could 13 you maybe amplify or clarify the points about the 14 measurement of medications as parts of the studies? 15 Q. Sure. Do you recall talking about Dr.
16 Freeman? 17 18 A. Q. Oh, sure. He was the lobotomizer. And you were not
19 aware of him manipulating data though, right? 20 21 A. Q. Correct. And we talked about Dr. Bennett Braun, but
22 you didn't seem to be aware of Dr. Braun. 23 24 A. Q. I don't recognize that name. Okay. Are you aware, in the history of
25 psychiatry, of other psychiatrists who have used
315 1 nefarious research methods? 2 MR. ALSOP: It's irrelevant and
3 argumentative, but go ahead. 4 5 6 MS. AHMANN: Object as vague as well. MR. HUTCHINSON: Join. THE WITNESS: I'm aware of a case, I
7 believe, around the mid '80s, and I'm sorry I don't 8 remember the psychiatrist's name, but let me take a 9 minute to describe what happened. A psychiatrist, I 10 think psychiatrist or psychologist, working in the 11 department of psychiatry, was publishing papers about 12 the effects of antipsychotic medications on people 13 with developmental deficiencies at public 14 institutions. His work led everybody to be very 15 cautious about the use of, I think especially 16 antipsychotic medications. And people were extremely 17 impressed with his productivity. And clarification 18 of his records led to finding out that he had not, 19 indeed, collected the data that was part of his 20 report. 21 So, yeah, I'm aware of that, an
22 instance -- I'm aware of that instance. It was kind 23 of a dramatic one for me. 24 BY DR. BARDEN: 25 Q. Okay. And then we talked about the recent
316 1 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine 2 where it looked like, in terms of the antidepressant 3 literature, that negative results, that is, the drug 4 not being very effective, tended to be suppressed, 5 correct? We discussed that? 6 A. Well, we discussed the paper. I'm not sure
7 I necessarily agree with your conclusions that -8 because I said that there may have been -- and the 9 author said, there may have been multiple reasons for 10 the difference in the positive reports and negative. 11 We did discuss it may have also had to do with 12 editors of scientific journals wanting the most 13 newsworthy things in the their publications and 14 saying, "Gee, this is a negative trial. I don't want 15 to publish it." And we know in our field that 16 happened. 17 Q. And I think we discussed briefly why that
18 was troubling to you. 19 20 A. Q. Yes, we did. Have we talked about the research
21 indicating that the research on antipsychotics has 22 been skewed in that it didn't compare new and old 23 drugs, it just compared between the new drugs, and 24 finally, when someone looked at it, the new and old 25 drugs aren't that different, they're just much, much
317 1 more expensive? Are you aware of that particular 2 controversy? 3 MS. AHMANN: I'm going to object,
4 lack of foundation and vague. 5 MR. ALSOP: I'll join. Go ahead.
6 You can answer. 7 THE WITNESS: So I'm aware there was
8 a controversy, and I'm aware that when the group of 9 medicines I think you know are called the atypical 10 antipsychotics began to emerge, that initial trials 11 would have, as a general design, that they would use 12 one of the new compounds like an atypical 13 antipsychotic, they would compare to an older 14 antipsychotic -- I think almost all is Haloperidol in 15 these studies, and placebo. And so although more 16 recently, there have been discussions of, are the 17 atypicals really any better than the old ones, my 18 recollection of the early trials is the atypical 19 antipsychotics were compared to traditional 20 antipsychotics versus placebo. 21 So for example, Dr. Stephen Marder at
22 UCLA and Dr. Mibach (phonetic) described the results 23 of the Risperidone versus Haloperidol versus placebo 24 studies, and to the best of my recollection, what
25 they reported is that the Risperidone and Haloperidol
318 1 were both better than placebo, but that at 2 recommended doses, the Risperidone had many fewer 3 movement disorder side effects. 4 And so then that was kind of, at the
5 time that the atypicals were coming out, that was 6 felt to be a pretty important thing. 7 BY DR. BARDEN: 8 Q. Are you aware of any lawsuits -- are you
9 aware of any lawsuits by states to recover billions 10 of dollars spent on the newer drugs when the old ones 11 were just as effective? Are you aware of such a 12 lawsuit? Yes or no? And our time is limited, so I'm 13 going to ask you to answer yes or no whether you're 14 aware of those or not. 15 16 A. Q. I'm not aware of those. Those are brought by state attorneys
17 general. You're not aware of any of that. 18 19 A. Q. No. Okay. You're not aware of any criticism in
20 the literature of recent studies that have just 21 looked at the differences between the newer drugs 22 failing to compare them with the older drugs? Are 23 you aware of any criticisms of that nature? 24 A. Well, I don't know if I'd phrase it
25 criticisms, but even in our last deposition we did
319 1 discuss the, what's called the Cady Study which did 2 have an older medicine, and I think you even brought 3 up some thoughts by Dr. Lieberman. So I'm aware 4 there's some controversy and there's a lot of 5 discussion. 6 Q. And that would be perhaps -- could be
7 considered another example of the literature skewing 8 the data to enrich drug companies, correct? 9 10 A. Q. I can't agree with that. Okay. And then -- okay. So you don't
11 subscribe to the view that the Cafe Study is simply 12 the last in a long chain of business as usual which 13 is constructing research to minimize negative results 14 and to produce data that will overestimate the 15 effectiveness of the most expensive medication 16 possible. 17 18 A. Q. I don't agree with that statement. Okay. All right. Last time we talked
19 about an audit that was done at the University of 20 Minnesota. Do you recall that? 21 22 A. Q. Yes, I do. Has there been any update on that audit
23 that you're aware of? That is the audit on the
24 performance of the Department of Psychiatry. 25 A. Uh-huh.
320 1 2 Q. A. Do you recall that discussion? No. I do recall the discussion in that all
3 departments at the University of Minnesota have 4 audits. I don't know if they're like every seven or 5 10 years. And then -- I'm answering your question. 6 Q. I don't mean to break you off, but my time
7 is limited. Has there been an update to that audit 8 or not? 9 A. There has been -- there was an action plan
10 that was recommended by the auditor, and the 11 department of psychiatry has responded to those and 12 then those are reported to the regents. 13 Q. Okay. Have they collected any further data
14 such as the data showing that many employees were 15 afraid to report problems? 16 MR. ALSOP: Object on the basis of
17 foundation. Go ahead, if you know. 18 THE WITNESS: To my understanding,
19 they have not reassessed the staff and the faculty on 20 that question, but what we did in response to their 21 request about that, our remedy was to have quarterly 22 all-department meetings, not just faculty meetings, 23 and I've done that.
24 BY DR. BARDEN: 25 Q. Okay. How much does a blood test cost, for
321 1 example, just a simple blood test to see if a patient 2 is taking medication or not? What is the typical 3 cost of that? 4 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
5 ambiguous, lacking foundation. Go ahead. 6 7 THE WITNESS: I don't know the cost. MS. AHMANN: Join.
8 BY DR. BARDEN: 9 10 11 12 13 Q. A. Q. A. Q. Do you have any idea at all? No. It would be $100 maybe? I'm sorry. I don't know. Have you ever ordered a blood test for any
14 of your psychiatry patients in your practice, any 15 kind of blood test? 16 A. You mean a blood test to determine the
17 level of medication in the person's body? 18 Q. Let's start there. Have you ever done
19 that? 20 21 22 A. Q. A. Yes, I have. How much did that cost? I don't know.
23
Q.
This is very commonly done, for example,
24 for Lithium, correct? 25 A. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't maybe understand
322 1 the direction. Yes, I do obtain, in the patients I 2 work with who take Lithium, Lithium blood levels. 3 4 Q. A. And how much are those blood tests? I don't know how much those cost. The
5 patient goes to the laboratory, the laboratory is in 6 the hospital, the hospital sends the bill to the 7 patient. 8 9 10 Q. A. Q. But you have no idea how much they are. No, I'm sorry, I don't. But they're not very expensive, to the best
11 of your knowledge. 12 MS. AHMANN: Object.
13 BY DR. BARDEN: 14 Q. You don't think they're -- do you think
15 they're $1,000? 16 MR. ALSOP: That's argumentative,
17 it's speculative. 18 MR. HUTCHINSON: Same. Lack of
19 foundation. 20 MS. AHMANN: Join.
21 BY DR. BARDEN: 22 Q. As a psychiatrist practicing in the State
23 of Minnesota in the year 2008, do you have any 24 understanding at all, within $100, of how much a 25 blood test costs to determine the level of medication
323 1 in a patient's blood? 2 MR. ALSOP: Repetitious,
3 argumentative and irrelevant. Go ahead, Doctor. 4 MR. HUTCHINSON: Same. Lack of
5 foundation. 6 7 MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. We started
8 off talking about Lithium. 9 BY DR. BARDEN: 10 11 12 Q. A. Q. I'm sorry. My time is limited. I understand that. Do you have any idea what it costs or not,
13 as a licensed psychiatrist practicing in Minnesota? 14 A. I have clarified that it is my
15 understanding that tests for different medications 16 are different, that a Lithium level may be 17 inexpensive, that a level for another medication 18 might be a lot higher, because the methodologies are 19 different. 20 Q. How much higher would they be for the
21 medications in the Cafe Study?
22
A.
I have no idea what the charges are for
23 medication levels for the medications in the Cafe 24 Study. 25 Q. And you couldn't even guess to within a
324 1 $1,000, for example. 2 MR. ALSOP: It's argumentative,
3 Doctor. Don't guess. 4 5 6 7 8 MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: No, I can't. (WHEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit No. V was marked for identification by the Reporter.)
9 BY DR. BARDEN: 10 Q. Okay. I'll show you what's been marked as
11 Exhibit V. Could you identify that for us, Doctor? 12 DR. BARDEN: And can I ask how much
13 time we have left as we're proceeding? 14 15 16 17 VIDEOGRAPHER: You had 33 to start? DR. BARDEN: Yes. VIDEOGRAPHER: Eighteen minutes. MS. AHMANN: Counsel, do you have any
18 extra copies of V? 19 DR. BARDEN: This is the subpoena
20 notice. I think you all have copies of that. 21 BY DR. BARDEN:

22 23 24 25
Q. A. Q. A.
Okay. Did you receive this notice, Doctor? Well, I'm not -Let me ask you this --- I'm no not familiar with this notice.
325 1 2 3 as vague. 4 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I'm having Q. Have you ever seen one of these before? MR. ALSOP: "One of these"? Object
5 trouble identifying what this is. 6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 Q. Okay. Do you recall the last time I took
8 your deposition I showed you one of those? 9 10 A. Q. No, I don't. I'm sorry. You don't. Okay. I'm looking at what's
11 been marked as Exhibit V, Mary Weiss versus Board of 12 Regents for the University of Minnesota, et al. It 13 says, "Amended videotape deposition notice of Dr. 14 Charles Schulz." Do you see that on the front page? 15 16 A. Q. Yes, I do. And it says on page 2 of what's been marked
17 as Exhibit V that we will take the videotape 18 deposition of you, Charles Schulz, on Friday January 19 18th. That would be today, correct? 20 A. That's today.
21
Q.
Starting at 8:30 a.m., and that's pretty
22 much when we started, isn't it? 23 24 A. Q. Uh-huh. And that you are to bring with you for
25 inspection and copying a complete copy of the medical
326 1 record file on plaintiff Dan Markingson from the 2 University of Minnesota. Do you see that language? 3 4 A. Q. Yes, I do. Okay. So my question to you is, did you
5 bring any files here today pursuant to that lawful 6 subpoena? 7 MR. HUTCHINSON: Objection, that's
8 not a subpoena. I just -9 MR. ALSOP: I object as a
10 misstatement. It's a deposition notice. 11 BY DR. BARDEN: 12 Q. Subject to that notice, did you bring any
13 records here today? 14 15 A. Q. No. Have you ever brought any records to this
16 deposition or the previous deposition? 17 18 A. Q. No, I have not. Have you examined any records in this case
19 at anytime, either before the last deposition or 20 before this one?

21 22
A. Q.
No. You haven't looked at any medical records
23 of any kind whatsoever. 24 25 A. Q. That's correct. You haven't looked at any Cafe Study data
327 1 records? 2 3 A. Q. No. You haven't looked at any medical files of
4 any kind. 5 6 A. Q. Correct. You haven't looked at the informed consent
7 for this study? 8 A. I don't have a recollection, but in the
9 period of time from the startup, I may have seen the 10 informed consent form. 11 Q. Okay. So you have not looked at anytime at
12 any medical files whatsoever for Dan Markingson. 13 14 A. Q. Correct. Okay. Have you ever heard anyone claim
15 that it's "unethical" to take a blood test? 16 MS. AHMANN: I'm going to object,
17 vague and ambiguous. 18 THE WITNESS: I don't recall hearing
19 a person say that.
20 BY DR. BARDEN: 21 22 Q. A. Have you ever heard anyone say it's -Oh, I'm sorry. I have a recollection of
23 discussion of times when we're working on the ward 24 that, if a patient comes on to, say, one of our wards 25 at the University of Minnesota Medical Center, if a
328 1 patient refuses a blood test that's been ordered by 2 the psychiatrist, to go ahead and take the blood when 3 they're refusing, would be unethical. 4 Q. Sure. Just like any other medical
5 procedure, correct? 6 7 A. Q. Correct. Okay. And that would be true whether it's
8 part of a research protocol or not. I mean, there 9 are research protocols that require the taking of 10 blood tests, correct? 11 MS. AHMANN: I'm going to object as
12 to multiple questions and vague. 13 MR. ALSOP: I'll join. It's vague.
14 Go ahead. 15 THE WITNESS: Within -- as a general
16 comment, I'm aware that there are studies in which 17 blood tests are required for -- at various points in 18 the study. 19 BY DR. BARDEN:
20
Q.
Okay. Have you ever read any research
21 about akathisia relating it to rage or -22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. No. -- anger? No. Pardon?
329 1 2 A. Q. No. Have you ever seen any research relating
3 akathisia to violent acts? 4 A. To the best of my recollection, I recall
5 some work by Dr. Van Putten at UCLA at the Wadsworth 6 VA discussing in his paper about Haloperidol and 7 Thiothixene that patients with akathisia on their 8 wards were agitated. I don't recall his saying that 9 it led to violence. But to the best of my 10 recollection, I am aware of his published paper about 11 that in the Archives of General Psychiatry. 12 Q. Okay. I'm not sure if I asked you this
13 last time, but I just want to clarify for the record: 14 You did not report Mary Weiss' certified letter to 15 you to the IRB, correct? 16 A. You asked me that before and I said I did
17 not. 18 Q. Okay. You did not instruct Dr. Olson to
19 report Mary Weiss' letter to the IRB, correct? 20 21 A. Q. That is correct. When you met with Ms. Kenney and Dr. Olson
22 to go over the treatment of Dan Markingson, did they 23 report to you that Mary Weiss had complained to them 24 repeatedly about the nature of the study and its 25 impact on her son, Dan Markingson?
330 1 MR. ALSOP: Object as a multiple
2 question. Go ahead. 3 THE WITNESS: My recollection is that
4 they indicated that Ms. Weiss had raised concerns 5 with him during the time of the study, but that's 6 just thinking back to a meeting that occurred a 7 number of years ago. 8 BY DR. BARDEN: 9 Q. Uh-huh. And at that time, you did not
10 instruct Dr. Olson and Ms. Kenney to report those 11 complaints to the IRB, did you? 12 A. No, I did not instruct them to report that
13 to the IRB. 14 Q. And you did not report what they told you
15 about Mary Weiss' numerous complaints, you did not 16 report that to the IRB yourself, correct? 17 18 A. Q. Correct. What, if any, independent investigation of
19 the situation with Dan Markingson, that is, his 20 mother making multiple complaints -- did you make any 21 other independent investigation, other than talking 22 to Dr. Olson and Ms. Kenney? 23 24 A. Q. I did not. In your letter responding to Mary Weiss,
25 you failed to disclose your financial conflict of
331 1 interest as a co-investigator of the Cafe Study; is 2 that right? 3 MR. ALSOP: Object as argumentative,
4 but go ahead, Doctor. 5 6 7 8 9 left? 10 11 VIDEOGRAPHER: Ten minutes. DR. BARDEN: We'll reserve 10 minutes MR. HUTCHINSON: Same. MS. AHMANN: Same. THE WITNESS: I did not. DR. BARDEN: How much time do I have
12 for rebuttal, if necessary. We'll reserve those 10 13 minutes for final rebuttal. 14 15 there's -16 DR. BARDEN: Well, you're going to MR. ALSOP: So you want to rebut if
17 ask questions, right?
18 19
MR. ALSOP: No. DR. BARDEN: You're not. Is anyone
20 going to ask questions? 21 22 23 24 rebuttal. 25 DR. BARDEN: Why don't we take a MR. HUTCHINSON: I have no questions. MS. AHMANN: I have nothing. MR. ALSOP: So there's no need for
332 1 brief break. I'll look through my notes and see if 2 we're done. 3 4 5 record. 6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 Q. Okay. In our last 10 minutes, Dr. Schulz, (A brief recess took place.) VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now on the video
8 I just have a few more questions for you. When did 9 you first became aware that when Dan Markingson 10 signed the informed consent form in this study he was 11 under a court-ordered stay of commitment? 12 MR. ALSOP: It's a misstatement of
13 the evidence, and if you've learned anything from me, 14 just -15 16 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. ALSOP: Go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: I don't know when I
18 learned that. 19 BY DR. BARDEN: 20 Q. When did you first learn that when he
21 signed the informed consent form he was under a court 22 order to comply with the recommendations of his 23 treatment team, including Dr. Olson? 24 A. I'm sorry, I can't recollect. I don't
25 know.
333 1 Q. When did you first became aware that Dr.
2 Olson attempted to recommit or get another stay of 3 commitment against Dan Markingson without redoing the 4 informed consent? 5 6 A. Q. I don't recollect when I learned that. When did you first learn that Dan
7 Markingson had no medication in his blood stream, 8 that is, he was not taking medication when he died? 9 A. I think my best answer would be that I was
10 aware, and I can't remember how, that in the autopsy 11 report, that there was -- that no medication, none of 12 the medications in the study were in his blood. 13 Q. When did you first become aware of that
14 autopsy report? 15 16 A. Q. I don't know. I'm sorry. Was it during the deposition, the first
17 deposition? 18 19 MR. ALSOP: Object as speculative. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'll just say I
20 don't know. Sorry. 21 BY DR. BARDEN: 22 Q. Okay. When did you first became aware that
23 Mary Weiss had warned the study staff that her son 24 might become violent and that he was decompensating? 25 A. I'm not --
334 1 MS. AHMANN: I'm going to object,
2 lack of foundation and a misstatement. 3 4 MR. ALSOP: Go ahead, Doctor. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm not aware I
5 ever learned that. 6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 Q. Were you aware that Mary Weiss ever warned
8 the staff that there might be violence if Dan 9 continued in the study? 10 MR. ALSOP: It's vague and ambiguous.
11 Go ahead. 12 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not aware of
13 her saying that to the study staff. 14 BY DR. BARDEN: 15 Q. That he might hurt himself or someone else?
16 Never said anything like that?

17
A.
To the best of my recollection, the
18 information I have about that is that in her letter 19 to me, she expressed concern about him having, what I 20 think she termed, an inner rage. But that's the 21 closest I can come to your question. 22 Q. Okay. So in your consultation with Dr.
23 Olson and Ms. Kenney regarding the treatment of Dan 24 Markingson, they did not inform you of any specific 25 warnings or fears that Mary Weiss had regarding
335 1 potential violence. 2 3 A. Q. No, not to the best of my recollection. I'd like to read you a statement once again
4 and see if you agree or not agree: "The 5 responsibility for the human subject must always rest 6 with a medically qualified person and never rest on 7 the subject of the research, even though the subject 8 has given his or her consent." 9 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague and
10 ambiguous, but go ahead. 11 12 MS. AHMANN: I'm going to join. THE WITNESS: You read me that, but
13 are you asking me whether I agree or disagree with 14 that? 15 BY DR. BARDEN:
16 17
Q. A.
Yes. I don't really understand the quote to have
18 an opinion one way or the other. 19 Q. Okay. Let me read it to you one more time:
20 "The responsibility for human research must always 21 rest with a medically qualified person, and never 22 rest on the subject of the research, even though the 23 subject has given his or her consent." 24 As a licensed physician practicing in the
25 State of Minnesota, do you agree or not agree with
336 1 that statement? 2 MR. ALSOP: Same objection. It's
3 also repetitive now. But go ahead. 4 5 6 MS. AHMANN: Same. MR. HUTCHINSON: I'll join. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Out of
7 context, I don't know how to answer that. 8 BY DR. BARDEN: 9 Q. Are you aware of any research subjects at
10 the University of Minnesota, other than Dan 11 Markingson, who were under court order to obey the 12 treatment recommendations of the their physician 13 who's also the PI in the study? 14 MR. HUTCHINSON: Objection, calls for
15 -- asks about privileged information.

16
THE WITNESS: I am not aware, no.
17 BY DR. BARDEN: 18 Q. Okay. So Dan Markingson is the only one
19 that you're aware of. 20 MR. ALSOP: That's a misstatement and
21 argumentative, but go ahead. 22 23 MR. HUTCHINSON: Same objection. MS. AHMANN: Join.
24 BY DR. BARDEN: 25 Q. I'm not interested in any names, of course.
337 1 2 A. Q. No, I understand. I'm interested in the uniqueness of the
3 situation. 4 5 6 7 A. I am not aware of others, no. DR. BARDEN: Okay. Thank you. MR. ALSOP: We'll read and sign. VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now off the
8 video record. The time is 10:30 a.m. 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
338 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA )
2 COUNTY OF BLUE EARTH) 3 BE IT KNOWN that, I took the foregoing deposition
4 of CHARLES SCHULZ, M.D., pursuant to Notice; 5 That I was then and there a notary public in and
6 for the County of Blue Earth, State of Minnesota; 7 That said witness before testifying was duly
8 sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 9 but the truth relative to the cause specified in the 10 Notice; 11 That the witness did not waive the reading and
12 signing of said deposition; 13 That I am neither attorney nor counsel for, not
14 related to or employed by any of the parties to the

15 action in which this deposition is taken and, 16 further, that I am not a relative or employee of any 17 attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or 18 financially interested in the action; 19 That the testimony was taken down in stenotype by
20 me; then reduced to typewriting under my direction by 21 means of computer-aided transcription, and is a true 22 and correct transcript of my stenotype notes. 23 Witness my hand and seal this 25th day of
24 January, 2008. 25 MARTHA M. FIER

Charles Schulz Deposition Part Two 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charles Schulz Deposition Part Two 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

265 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT court

Commencing at: 8:30 a.m.

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 800-844-6420 * 952-431-1252

By Dr. Barden ........... 268

25 Exhibits: V - Amended Videotape Deposition Notice marked on page 324

267 1 VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the

10 on behalf of Plaintiff Mary Weiss. 11 MS. AHMANN: Bridget Ahmann on behalf

12 of Defendant Astrazeneca. 13 MR. GROSS: Charles Gross on behalf

14 of the University of Minnesota. 15 MR. HUTCHINSON: David Hutchinson for

20 Dr. Schulz. 21 VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is now 8:38

22 a.m. Will the court reporter please administer the

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

269 1 2 A. Q. No. Okay. Do you know who the expert witnesses

19 people. 20 21 Q. A. Okay. Do you know any of them? Yes, I do.

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

And what is your relationship with Dr.

23 Fawcett? 24 A. I met Dr. Fawcett probably during the 1980s

25 at scientific meetings. He was doing some research

21 capacity. I've known Dr. Dunner for about 25 years,

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

21 I have. 22 Q. Have you ever had breakfast, lunch or

25 might have had lunch or dinner or breakfast with them

5 many years. 6 7 A. Q. Correct. Okay. Do any of them receive money from

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

THE WITNESS: I don't have any

25 involved in national scandals in the field of

273 1 psychiatry? 2 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague,

3 ambiguous. But go ahead. 4 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any.

5 BY DR. BARDEN: 6 Q. Do you know if any of them have been forced

11 also argumentative. But go ahead. 12 THE WITNESS: No.

13 BY DR. BARDEN: 14 Q. You've never talked to Dr. Fawcett about

18 part of the -19 THE REPORTER: How he ended up in New

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

23 he was in Southwest? 24 A. My recollection is that he worked at Rush

25 Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago.

274 1 Q. Do you know the circumstances under which

16 that. 17 The Cafe Study that is the subject of this

To the best of my knowledge, they have

25 those data appeared in, either in whole or in part,

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

I am currently involved in two studies.

25 blood testing of the subjects to ensure that they're

3 irrelevant. Go ahead. 4 5 MS. AHMANN: Join. THE WITNESS: No.

6 BY DR. BARDEN: 7 Q. Do you consider that a potentially fatal

16 irrelevant. But go ahead. 17 THE WITNESS: In the studies I'm

18 working on now, we're doing pill counts. We ask

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

23 England Journal of Medicine? 24 A. Seems I saw it on the Internet. I'm sorry,

25 I don't have a picture in my mind of where that was

278 1 published. 2 Q. Okay. As a chairman of psychiatry, did you

6 troubling? 7 A. Well, as was stated in the abstract even of

24 aware, discussed in our field and in other medical 25 specialties.

279 1 Q. Could you explain for the record what you

2 mean by "negative results"? 3 A. Oh, sure. By negative results, I would

16 there when medical professionals were to minimize or

schulz depo part two.txt[5/1/2013 6:47:36 PM]

17 hide negative data like that? 18 MR. ALSOP: Object as vague,

To my recollection, that was one of their

18 conclusions. 19 Q. And that would be to the financial benefit

20 of the drug companies, wouldn't it? 21 22 A. I -MS. AHMANN: Object, lack of

23 foundation. 24 MR. ALSOP: Lack of foundation. Go

25 ahead, if you know.

281 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that I don't