Archive for March, 2010

Doctor Who Criticizes Senators For “Attacking” Pharma in Washington Times Article Failed to Mention He’s Served Prison Time for Fraud

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

By Allen Jones
Former Investigator,
Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General

On March 4, 2010, The Washington Times posted a scathing op-ed by Dr. Gilbert Ross in which Ross slammed Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus and FDA Whistleblower David Graham.   In a rambling tirade Ross accuses the trio of tinkering with the practice of medicine by unfairly criticizing pharmaceutical companies and defends GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and their discredited drug Avandia.

Ross fails to disclose that he has a personal reason for being angry with the Federal Government. In June of 1993, Ross was found guilty in Federal Court of 13 counts of fraud in a scheme to operate medical clinics for the purpose of obtaining payments directly and indirectly from the Medicaid system. He served 2 years in Federal Prison. http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/0522fed2dd2160ff852568c0004e894a/85b1e5abf211b2a585256a4a0047eb10/$FILE/ATTH2LGV/lc116347.pdf

Ross is identified as “medical director of the American Council on Science and Health,” but Ross discloses no financial ties to GSK.  The ACSH website however acknowledges that 40% of ACSH’s budget comes from “corporations.”  Does this include Pharma funding? http://www.acsh.org/about/pageID.85/default.asp

It is disgraceful that The Washington Times would post Ross’ criticism of great men and their worthy cause without disclosing very relevant facts relating to Ross’ credibility.

Allen Jones worked as an investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and gained widespread national and international attention as a whistleblower after uncovering pharmaceutical industry payments to government officials for the purpose of implementing a national mental health screening/psychotropic drug treatment plan based on the controversial Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). In May 2004, the British Medical Journal reported Jones had uncovered evidence major drug companies sought to influence government officials.

« Return to news items


Share

Ghostwriting 101: Pharma hires firms to write glowing reviews of a drug, then pays docs to sign off as authors

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Scoop Independent News
By Evelyn Pringle
March 4, 2010

A month before the first Paxil birth defect trial against GlaxoSmithKline was set to begin, the Associated Press ran the headline, “Glaxo Used Ghostwriting Program to Promote Paxil,” in reporting on a program called “CASPPER,” which allowed doctors to “take credit for medical journal articles mainly written by company consultants.”

“Drug companies frequently hire outside firms to draft a manuscript touting a company’s drug, retain a physician to sign off as the author and then find a publisher to unwittingly publish the work,” the Associated Press said on August 19, 2009. “Drug company salespeople often present medical journal articles to physicians as independent proof that their drugs are safe and effective.”

Between 2000 and 2002, articles from the CASPPER program appeared in five medical journals. On August 21, 2009, Jim Edwards on BNET, described the CASSPER ghostwriting brochure. The document shows that the intent of CASSPER was to flood the market with ghostwritten information, he said. It stated: “Paxil Product Management has budgeted for 50 articles for 2000.”

The trial in Kilker v Glaxo ended on October 13, 2009, with a jury in Philadelphia finding that Glaxo “negligently failed to warn” the doctor treating Lyam Kilker’s mother about Paxil’s risks and the drug was a “factual cause” of Lyam’s heart defects. The family was award $2.5 million.

Read entire article:  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1003/S00045.htm

« Return to news items


Share

Congressional Hearings Held On Antidepressant-Induced Suicide In The Military

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

The Huffington Post
By Peter Breggin
March 3, 2010

On February 24, 2010 the Veterans’ Affairs Committee of the U. S. House of Representatives chaired by Bob Filner (D-CA) held hearings on “Exploring the Relationship Between Medication and Veteran Suicide.” Military suicides have risen rapidly in recent years at the same time that the prescription of antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs has escalated. The hearing focused on the dangers of the newer antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, Cymbalta, and Effexor.

Starting in the early 1990s, I was the first psychiatrist to write and speak extensively about the newer antidepressants causing suicide, violence, and mania. It was gratifying when Rep. Filner decided to hold the hearings after reading my new book, Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime (2008) and called me as his lead witness. I presented scientific evidence that antidepressants cause suicide, violence and mania. I also emphasized the profound danger of prescribing drugs that cause impulsivity, hostility and suicidality to heavily armed young men and women under stress on active military duty. I recommended that the armed services curtail the use of these drugs and rely instead on psychotherapeutic and educational processes that have already proved effective. I also called for additional research in the military and the VA concerning suicide and violence caused by antidepressants.

There is scant evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants, and overwhelming evidence for their harmfulness. The military is already moving toward the implementation of better educational programs to help active duty soldiers handle stress. These educational programs, and counseling, need to replace the use of psychiatric drugs.

Read entire article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/congressional-hearings-on_b_480613.html

« Return to news items


Share

The New Yorker — “Head Case: Can psychiatry be a science?”

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

The New Yorker
By Louis Menand
March 3, 2010

You arrive for work and someone informs you that you have until five o’clock to clean out your office. You have been laid off. At first, your family is brave and supportive, and although you’re in shock, you convince yourself that you were ready for something new. Then you start waking up at 3 A.M., apparently in order to stare at the ceiling. You can’t stop picturing the face of the employee who was deputized to give you the bad news. He does not look like George Clooney. You have fantasies of terrible things happening to him, to your boss, to George Clooney. You find—a novel recognition—not only that you have no sex drive but that you don’t care. You react irritably when friends advise you to let go and move on. After a week, you have a hard time getting out of bed in the morning. After two weeks, you have a hard time getting out of the house. You go see a doctor. The doctor hears your story and prescribes an antidepressant. Do you take it?

However you go about making this decision, do not read the psychiatric literature. Everything in it, from the science (do the meds really work?) to the metaphysics (is depression really a disease?), will confuse you. There is little agreement about what causes depression and no consensus about what cures it. Virtually no scientist subscribes to the man-in-the-waiting-room theory, which is that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, but many people report that they feel better when they take drugs that affect serotonin and other brain chemicals.

There is suspicion that the pharmaceutical industry is cooking the studies that prove that antidepressant drugs are safe and effective, and that the industry’s direct-to-consumer advertising is encouraging people to demand pills to cure conditions that are not diseases (like shyness) or to get through ordinary life problems (like being laid off). The Food and Drug Administration has been accused of setting the bar too low for the approval of brand-name drugs. Critics claim that health-care organizations are corrupted by industry largesse, and that conflict-of-interest rules are lax or nonexistent. Within the profession, the manual that prescribes the criteria for official diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the D.S.M., has been under criticism for decades. And doctors prescribe antidepressants for patients who are not suffering from depression. People take antidepressants for eating disorders, panic attacks, premature ejaculation, and alcoholism.

« Return to news items


Share

Manufacturing Depression—Are Docs Over Prescribing Antidepressants to a Tune of $10 Billion a Year for Drug Companies?

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

AlterNet
By Amy Goodman
March 3, 2010

A psychotherapist says depression can be debilitating — but that it’s also been largely created by doctors and drug companies as a medical condition.

Is depression manufactured? Two decades after the introduction of antidepressants, it’s become commonplace to assume that our sadness can be explained in terms of a disease called depression. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates more than 14 million Americans suffer from major depression every year and more than three million suffer from minor depression. Some 30 million Americans take antidepressants at a cost of over $10 billion a year.

My next guest argues while depression can be debilitating, it’s also been largely manufactured by doctors and drug companies as a medical condition with a biological cause that can be treated with prescription medication. Psychotherapist and writer Gary Greenberg participated in a clinical trial for antidepressant medication and found that more often than not the drugs failed to outperform placebos. His latest book is a scientific, medical, historical and cultural exploration of the antidepressant revolution here in the United States. It’s called Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease.

Read entire article:  http://www.alternet.org/health/145850/%27manufacturing_depression%27:_are_doctors_over-prescribing_antidepressants_to_a_tune_of_$10_billion_a_year_for_drug_companies/

« Return to news items


Share

The Australian: Psychiatry’s alarming medicalization of human behavior for their “bible of mental disorders” the DSM

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

The Australian
By Janet Albrechtsen
March 3, 2010

MEDICAL advances can take your breath away. Over the past decade, medical experts have started decoding the human genome to provide genetically-personalised medicine.

The experts behind these advances are geniuses. Perhaps in the same vein, the psychiatric profession imagines that their new bible of mental disorders — more than 10 years in the making — will be hailed as milestone of medical achievement. If so, they’d be wrong.

Released last month as a draft, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is a depressing testament to the medicalisation of modern society where every deviation from what is deemed normal behaviour is labelled as a mental disorder.

Known colloquially as DSM 5, the manual routinely used worldwide as the diagnostic tool for mental disorders is proposing to add a range of new mental disorders to the mushrooming list of existing ones. Your house is getting cluttered because you can’t bring yourself to throw anything away? Perhaps you have hoarding disorder. Having trouble with maths? Maybe you have mathematics disorder or discalculia as the experts call it. You’re approaching 70 and not remembering things like you used to? We call it ageing. The American Psychiatric Association wants to call it minor neurocognitive disorder. Your seven-year-old child is having frequent temper tantrums? Put it down to temper dysfunctional disorder with dysphoria.

Do you spend a “great deal of time” consumed by sexual fantasies? Using sex to deal with a stressful life? Having too much sex? We might say good luck to you. What is too much sex anyway? The experts know and they call it hypersexual disorder. Hence Tiger Woods was in a medical clinic apparently being cured of his sexual attraction to strippers.

When you lost someone you loved, did you grieve for longer than deemed normal? DSM 5 wants to medicalise that, too. How does society decide what is normal grieving and what is not? How can experts measure the depth of a love that may explain the intensity of the grief? Death and grief — like life and love — are deeply personal experiences beyond the realm of something called normal behaviour.

Read entire article:  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/not-sick-just-behaving-badly/story-e6frg6zo-1225836275463

« Return to news items


Share

Drug Giant AstraZeneca to drop psychiatric drug research for schizophrenia, bipolar, depression & anxiety drugs

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Reuters
By Ben Hirschler
March 2, 2010

AstraZeneca (AZN.L) is to stop researching some disease areas that form the backbone of its current business — including schizophrenia and acid reflux — in a drive to focus R&D efforts and cut costs.

The Anglo-Swedish drugmaker, which faces one of the sector’s worst “cliffs” of expiring drug patents, told its staff on Tuesday it would cease discovery in 10 of its current disease areas, or around one quarter of the total.

A wide-ranging overhaul had been expected since the group said in January it was cutting a further 8,000 staff, or some 12 percent of the workforce, including a net 1,800 in research. But it is only now that staff know where the axe will fall.

AstraZeneca is not alone in taking the knife to previously sacrosanct R&D, though its cuts are particularly deep. Pfizer (PFE.N) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) are also ditching drug discovery work that does not pay its way. [ID:nLDE61408I]

Read entire article:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62019Q20100302?type=marketsNews

« Return to news items


Share

How psychiatry invents mental disorders

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Natural News
By Mike Adams
March 2, 2010

The Disease Mongering Engine, which I invented a couple of years ago and posted on NaturalNews, was initially created as a joke to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the fictitious diseases that are constantly created by the psychiatric industry. This hilarious online disease generator (http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-…) allows you to instantly create your own fictitious diseases and disorders such as:

• Repetitive Dysmorphic Nose Picking Disorder With Itching (RDNPDWI)
• Oppositional Disorganized Speaking Disorder With Indigestion (ODSDWI)
• Chronic Bipolar Anticipation Dysfunction With Smelly Feet (CBADWSF)

… and so on.

Here’s the bizarre part: All of a sudden, the new psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-V) appears to have adopted as medical fact many of the disorders that were created by the Disease Mongering Engine!

This new manual, for example, now says that spending a lot of time thinking about sex is a disorder. (That immediately paints every teenage boy as “diseased.”)

Another new disease is “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” (ODD), which includes anyone who disagrees with authority. All those who are skeptical about the safety of vaccines, for example, are about to be diagnosed with ODD.

Read entire article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/028280_psychiatric_industry_disease_mongering.html

« Return to news items


Share

Former DSM Chairman: Beware of psychiatry creating false epidemics of “mentally ill” as they did with Bi-polar & ADHD

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Los Angeles Times
By Allen Frances
March 1, 2010

Psychiatry’s latest DSM goes too far in creating new mental disorders.

As chairman of the task force that created the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), which came out in 1994, I learned from painful experience how small changes in the definition of mental disorders can create huge, unintended consequences.

Our panel tried hard to be conservative and careful but inadvertently contributed to three false “epidemics” — attention deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder. Clearly, our net was cast too wide and captured many “patients” who might have been far better off never entering the mental health system.

The first draft of the next edition of the DSM, posted for comment with much fanfare last month, is filled with suggestions that would multiply our mistakes and extend the reach of psychiatry dramatically deeper into the ever-shrinking domain of the normal. This wholesale medical imperialization of normality could potentially create tens of millions of innocent bystanders who would be mislabeled as having a mental disorder. The pharmaceutical industry would have a field day — despite the lack of solid evidence of any effective treatments for these newly proposed diagnoses.

Read entire article:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-frances1-2010mar01,0,1656826.story?track=rss

« Return to news items


Share