Posts Tagged ‘conflicts of interest’

Grassley Probes WebMd’s Ties To Eli Lilly for running TV ad encouraging depression screening—sponsored by Eli Lilly

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

Pharmalot
By Ed Silverman
February 19, 2010

Grassley, who is the ranking Republican on the US Senate Finance Committee, is investigating the relationship between WebMD and drugmakers after learning the web site is running a TV ad that encourage people to take a depression-screening test sponsored by Eli Lilly, which sells Cymbalta.

So he wants WebMD, which lots of folks visit for medical info, to disclose its ties to the industry, in general, because the Lilly sponsorship raises questions about WebMD’s “independence,” according to this Feb. 18 letter to WebMD exec Wayne Gattinella. The ad encourages people to visit WebMD’s site to take a depression-screening test.

Read entire article:  http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/02/grassley-probes-webmd-ties-to-eli-lilly/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

The biggest Pharma Front Group of all—The American Psychiatric Association—unveil their newest invented mental disorders

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

GoozNews
February 10, 2010

The American Psychiatric Association yesterday gave the press an advance view of its proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the reports were highly skeptical. Will Tiger Woods soon be diagnosed with “hypersexual disorder”? He could be if the proposals go into effect. The APA will be accepting comments through April.

The news reports barely noted the fact that dozens of psychiatrists who serve on the DSM-V (it’s the fifth edition) task force and working groups have financial ties to the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, as well as to numerous patient advocacy groups, which themselves are often funded by industry. A quick check of the APA website reveals that none of the financial disclosures for committee members have been updated since 2008, when the committees were intially appointed.

The APA promises to “relaunch” the website later today. Hopefully, the update will include new biographies and financial disclosures for all the committee members. It is crucial that the disclosures include all relationships with industry during 2009 and 2010 — the period when the committees were actively engaged in coming up with the proposals.

Read entire article:  http://www.gooznews.com/node/3266

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Senator Grassley’s investigation of pharma funded psychiatrists leads to National Institute of Mental Health probe

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Science Insider
By Jocelyn Kaiser
January 20, 2010

As part of his ongoing investigation of conflicts of interest in biomedicine, Senator Charles Grassley (R–IA) now wants to comb through the e-mails of Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Grassley points out in a letter today to NIH Director Francis Collins that his 2-year probe has found five psychiatrists who failed to report drug company income or had other conflict issues—all of them researchers with funding from NIMH. “I wonder if there is something in particular about this institute that leads to so many funding problems,” the letter says. It asks for Insel’s e-mails and his calendar since 2 May; his phone records for 2009 and 2010; and NIMH staff members’ e-mails and communications regarding Senate investigations or conflicts of interest back to June 2008. Grassley wants all of this by 3 February.

Read entire article:  http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/grassley-goes-f.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

In Santa Cruz CA, where 9% of adults have taken psych drugs, advocates launch 1st Green Mental Health Care Day

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

Kim Wein
GOOD TIMES Santa Cruz
December 28, 2009

Is Santa Cruz County one of the most drugged counties in the United States? Some might quickly reply with a yes. But it’s not for the reason you might think.

According to the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project Comprehensive Report for 2009, in the past 12 months, 9.2 percent of adults in Santa Cruz County have taken prescription medication for mental health or emotional problems almost daily for two weeks or more. This fact has some local medical practitioners asking: What are the consequences of having a significant portion of the population reliant on psychiatric drugs?

The issue is illuminated somewhat in The Marketing of Madness, a film recently released by Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). In it, revealing details suggest that disorders listed in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM)—diseases found here are voted into existence by a panel of psychiatrists—have no proven pathology and therefore cannot be called medical diseases. According to the APA, 19 of the 27 psychiatrists on the [DSM] top panel … have financial ties to drug companies.” With an obvious conflict in interest, these psychiatrists are allowed to serve on a panel, voting in diseases with pharmaceutical money in their pockets.

Read entire article: http://www.goodtimessantacruz.com/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-local-news/455-drug-me-please.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

How Vested Interests Created the Perfect Marketing/Lobbying Machine: Mental Health “Advocacy” Groups—Funded by Pharma

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

by CCHR International

An ongoing U.S. Senate investigation headed by Senator Charles Grassley has  sought disclosure of pharmaceutical funding paid to researchers, physicians,  medical schools and medical journals.  Some of the nation’s most prominent psychiatrists have now been exposed for extensive conflicts of interest amounting to millions in undisclosed pharmaceutical funding, including Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Dr. Joseph Biederman, Dr. Melissa DelBello, Dr. Timothy Wilens, Dr. Thomas Spencer, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, Dr. Martin Keller, Dr. A. John Rush, Dr. Karen Wagner, Dr. Jeffrey Bostic and Dr. Frederick Goodwin — many of which serve as advisory board members to mental illness “advocacy groups” which are now also the subject of the Senate investigation for their undisclosed pharmaceutical funding.

The majority of the public may or may not be familiar with these so-called mental health advocacy organizations, such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) or the myriad of bipolar, depression or ADHD “support groups” that are inundating the internet.

But they need to be.

These are groups operating under the guise of advocates for the “mentally ill,” which in reality are heavily funded pharmaceutical front groups – lobbying and working on state and federal laws which effect the entire nation — from our elderly in nursing homes to our military, pregnant women, nursing mothers and school children. Presenting themselves as patient advocacy groups is highly disingenuous not only to their membership, many of which may have a sincere desire to help a loved one or a family member with mental problems, but to legislators, the press and the American public — for they have consistently lobbied for legislation that benefits the mental health and pharmaceutical industries which fund them, and not patients they claim to represent.

Certainly any organization claiming to be for the rights of patients diagnosed mentally ill would have as their primary goal, full informed consent in the field of mental health – including full and complete disclosure of all drug risks, the right to refuse treatment, the right to know that psychiatric diagnoses are not medical conditions (evident by the fact there is not one confirmatory medical/scientific test). Above all such groups would provide patients with an abundance of information on non-harmful, non- drug, medical solutions and options considering the dangerous and well documented risks of psychiatric drugs by international drug regulatory agencies.

These groups do not.

A patients rights group for the mentally ill would never endorse something as absurd and obviously dangerous as giving electroshock to pregnant women, nor condone schools being able to require children to take a psychiatric drug as a condition of attending school. Furthermore, they would never be opposed to the FDA actually doing its job and finally issuing long overdue warnings that antidepressants can cause children to commit suicide, or issue warnings that ADHD drugs have serious and even deadly side effects. Yet these are just some of the actions condoned and promoted by these so-called patients rights groups.

As another example take the federally proposed bill, The Mothers Act; a previous version of this bill called on using a method of “screening” pregnant women and new mothers called EPDS, a screening method documented to triple the number of women diagnosed with Postpartum depression, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health stated that EPDS screening was unethical and should not be used. None of the so called advocacy groups for the mentally ill had any objections to this bill whatsoever, or endorsing such an unethical screening tool. They supported it. The bill would have passed with no objections from them whatsoever, if not for the dedication of real advocacy groups with no vested interests (ties to Pharma) opposing language in this bill that would have led to women being falsely diagnosed and put on dangerous psychiatric drugs to “treat” them, unnecessarily placing new mothers and their infants at great risk.

To put it simply, these groups are not what they appear to be. Yet their influence over legislation, lobbying, drug regulation (or lack thereof), and public relations campaigns is substantial and effects the entire nation. For they claim to be the voice of the “mentally ill.” But are they? Or are they the result of a brilliant marketing/lobbying campaign designed to benefit the industry that funds them—the Psycho/Pharmaceutical industry.

To find out how it all started click here: http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Believe it or not, NAMI says ’safest way to treat severe depression in a pregnant woman is probably electroconvulsive (ECT) therapy’

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Believe it or not, The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI),a “patient’s rights group” for the mentally ill, is promoting Electroshock (ECT) for pregnant women as safe and effective. NAMI has recently been exposed for their extensive Pharma funding (3/4 of their donations; $23 million came from Pharma ) which may help explain their long standing promotion and fierce endorsement of psychiatric drugs which they are now attempting to downplay after being the subject of a Senate investigation. Not surprising then is the fact that NAMI also lists Cyberonics, an ECT machine manufacturer as one of NAMI’s Corporate Sponsor in 2008.

From NAMI’s website “The safest way to treat severe depression in a pregnant woman is probably electroconvulsive (ECT) therapy. Patients and families are sometimes frightened by the idea of “shock treatment,” but in fact ECT is safer than antidepressant medication for a depressed pregnant woman. It can be used during any state of pregnancy, but is less risky after the first trimester. The most common side effect of ECT is short term memory loss. Less frequent side effects usually respond to simple treatment. These may include: headaches, mild muscle soreness, nausea, adverse reactions to anesthetic or muscle relaxants, and heartbeat irregularities.

Read entire article: http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/Helpline1/Pregnancy_Pointers_for_Women_with_Psychiatric_History.htm

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Australia: ADHD guidelines pulled after scandal on U.S. child psychiatrist Biederman’s tainted/pharma funded research

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Kate Sikora
The Daily Telegraph
November 23, 2009

CONTROVERSIAL guidelines on ADHD have been pulled by the Federal Government following claims drug company payments to a doctor have tainted the work.

The Government has been forced to stop the release of the draft guidelines and may have to rewrite them following the embarrassing scandal.

A cloud has been cast over the draft’s validity after one of the psychiatrists, whose research into anti-psychotic drugs helped form the guidelines, was accused of failing to reveal payments from drug companies.

US-based child psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Biederman is under investigation in America by authorities who have uncovered $1.6 million in payments.

The US Congress investigation has found Dr. Biederman failed to declare where all the money came from and has possibly breached federal and Harvard University research laws.

Australian authorities have been forced to admit the embarrassing discovery that has now put the guidelines – which recommend medication such as Ritalin as the best form of treatment for ADHD and are designed to help parents and doctors – in jeopardy.

Read entire article: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26386776-421,00.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

U.S. Sen Grassley-Demanding transparency for Pharma funds paid to doctors, researchers, patient ‘advocacy’ groups

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

IowaPolitics.com
November 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — Senator Chuck Grassley has asked leading medical schools to describe their policies on ghostwriting as part of his continuing effort to shed light on financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and medical professionals.

“I’m interested in transparency, and academic institutions play an important role in establishing adequate and meaningful disclosure. Letting the sun shine in and making information public is basic to building people’s confidence in medical research and the practice of medicine,” Grassley said.

Last July, Grassley wrote to eight leading medical journals to ask the same kinds of questions he’s presented to the medical schools. Prior to that, he asked two major drug companies about allegations that they hired ghostwriters to draft articles promoting company products and seek academics to sign on as primary authors.

Grassley also has conducted oversight and sought disclosure with physicians, continuing medical education and the patient advocacy community. He has worked to expose cases where there was vast disparity between drug-company payments received and reported by leading medical researchers. The National Institutes of Health is working on new disclosure guidelines for federal grant recipients in response to Grassley’s work.

In January, Grassley and Senator Herb Kohl introduced, for the second time, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. The legislation would require annual public reporting by drug, device and biologic manufacturers of payments made to physicians nationwide. It was included in the health care reform bill passed in October by the Senate Committee on Finance.

Read entire article: http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=177376

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

70% of psychiatrists in charge of adding new mental disorders to psych billing bible (DSM) have conflicts/ties to Pharma

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Roger Collier
Canadian Medical Association Journal
November 17, 2009

Former editors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) have publicly declared their concerns that the ongoing revision process of the influential publication has been cloaked in secrecy. In recent months, debate about the confidentiality agreement that contributors must now sign has been playing out in the pages of the Psychiatric Times. Dr. Allen Frances, editor of DSM-IV, has written several editorials slamming the DSM-V task force for their lack of transparency.

The “real problem now is the almost complete lack of openness about [DSM-V] methods, progress, timelines, and products,” Frances writes in an email.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, editor of DSM-III, has expressed a similar opinion. In 2008, he wrote an open letter criticizing the confidentiality agreement (Psychiatr News 2008; 43:26). In the letter, Spitzer says that he requested the minutes of a DSM-V meeting but was refused. The confidentiality mandate, he wrote, would prohibit the free exchange of information between the DSM task force and outside experts that is essential to effectively revising the manual.

Read entire article: http://www.cmaj.ca/earlyreleases/17nov09-dsm-revision-surrounded-by-controversy.shtml

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

One of the Pharma funded psychiatrists that spearheaded national child drugging campaign

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Catherine Lewis
Alternative Health Journal
November 9, 2009

Unfortunately it is becoming more and more common to hear reports of how the pharmaceutical industry is manipulating scientific findings and in turn readily handing out prescriptions to children, often unnecessarily. The factor that seems to be driving this trend is very simply the almighty dollar. Keep reading to find out who is responsible for this recent trend, and why your doctor may be getting your child hooked on unnecessary drugs.

There seems to be no choice but for Americans to question the validity of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex and the desire of its leaders to prey on unsuspecting people with the ultimate goal of padding their pockets. It seems that this industry has joined with the mental health profession as well.

Who Is Responsible for Putting Children on Psychiatric Drugs?

When asking the question, “Who is responsible?” there is at least one name that stands out. Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard University is a world renowned child psychiatrist.  Biederman has received awards of excellence from both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. He is on the editorial board of multiple journals, a reviewer for most of the psychiatric journals, and served as a grant reviewer in the Child Psychopathology and Treatment Review Committee of the NIMH.

Biederman is a very high-profile doctor that spear-headed the outbreak of children on psychiatric drugs. Biederman reportedly received $1.6 million from drug makers between 2000 and 2006. However, he failed to report most of this to his university, which may well have considered this to be a conflict of interest.

Read entire article: http://www.alternativehealthjournal.com/article/why_is_your_doctor_getting_your_child_hooked_on_unnecessary_drugs/3859

And the others: http://www.cchrint.org/cchr-issues/the-corrupt-alliance-of-the-psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industry/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark