OpEdNews – July 21, 2011
by Martha Rosenberg

Most people blame direct-to-consumer advertising, especially on TV, for elevating everyday anxiety to depression, depression to bipolar disorder, childhood behavior problems to psychiatric illnesses, lack of sleep to excessive sleepiness, migraines to epilepsy drug deficiencies and old age to hormone deficiencya.

But ghostwriting also helps the national malaise of people suffering from and treating diseases that didn’t even exist before and ballooning government and private health plans costs.

There are 200 US medical education and communication companies (MECCs) who ghostwrite medical journal articles for pharma for $20,000 to $40,000 per article. Companies like Complete Healthcare Communications (CHC) whose phalanx of 50 medical writers, editors and medical directors promise a “84.5 percent acceptance rate for first-time manuscript submissions.”

Ghostwriting was behind the blockbuster Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004 for doubling the risk of heart attacks. “Merck designed the trial, paid for the trial, ran the trial,” Dr. Jeffrey R. Lisse told the New York Times about a Vioxx study he authored in the Annals of Internal Medicine that left out three cardiac deaths. Oops. “Merck came to me after the study was completed and said, ‘We want your help to work on the paper.’ The initial paper was written at Merck, and then it was sent to me for editing.”

Medical journals themselves can make $450,000 off one such ghostwritten article, because pharma orders reprints which reps disseminate as sales pieces (“look, Doc, it says RIGHT HERE”).

Click image to watch Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Video

In 2006, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Dr. Catherine DeAngelis had to apologize for a pharma-tainted article that defended the use of antidepressants during pregnancy and an article linking migraines to coronary risks in women. The doctor authors, it turned out, were getting money from antidepressant and heart medication manufacturers.

But ten months later, JAMA ran a study “designed jointly by the non-Merck investigators and Merck employees” and “supported by contracts with Merck and Co” that extolled the virtues of Fosamax, a Merck bone drug. Three Merck authors on the study disclosed they potentially owned Merck “stock and/or stock options” and the article’s 11 other authors disclosed 40 research grants, consultancies and other financial relationships with drug companies including Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, SmithGlaxoKline, Wyeth (now Pfizer) Novartis, Procter & Gamble and Merck. Since then, the FDA has issued several warnings about Fosamax and other bone drugs.

In 2007, the AMA itself was criticized for playing both sides of the enterprise street and making $50 million a year selling the names, office addresses and practice types of its members to data miners. The AMA’s defense? Doctors could “opt out” of the privacy-invading program if they wanted to.

And then there are pharma’s “unbranded” campaigns designed to look like real public health messages or communications from grassroots groups. Who can forget PR firm Cohn and Wolfe’s faux grassroots group Freedom From Fear to sell Paxil, a pill now linked to birth defects? And the Wyeth (Pfizer) campaign, The Change You Deserve which said, whoever you are, you have depression and need Effexor?   Now, a new unbranded pharma campaign, Depression Is Real, running on radio stations, compares depression to cancer because it kills and diabetes because it doesn’t go away. Kind of like pharma’s huckstering.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-You-Taking-Pills-You-D-by-Martha-Rosenberg-110721-870.html?show=votes

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• Pharma’s Drug Ads: From Million Dollar TV Ads to $1.7 Billion Internet Marketing Campaign (15)
• Bad Side-Effects Ahead For Pharma? (0)
• Drug Industry Fraud—The Whistle Has Been Blown, But Where’s the Enforcement? (0)
• Stop the Stigma of Mental Illness? Try Stopping the Pharma Funded Campaigns & Groups Behind the “Stigmatizing” (0)

Huffington Post
By Bruce E. Levine
May 20, 2010

Children covered by Medicaid are far more likely to be prescribed antipsychotic drugs than children covered by private insurance, and Medicaid-covered kids have a higher likelihood of being prescribed antipsychotics even if they have no psychotic symptoms. This is reported in the May19, 2010 Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) article, “Studies Shed Light on Risks and Trends in Pediatric Antipsychotic Prescribing.”

Researchers at Rutgers University and Columbia University found that children and adolescents covered by Medicaid were four times as likely as those with private insurance to receive an antipsychotic in 2004. Among those aged six to 17 years who were covered by Medicaid, 4.2 percent were prescribed at least one antipsychotic drug. In contrast, among those in this same age group who had private insurance, less than 1 percent were prescribed an antipsychotic. Nearly half of these Medicaid-covered pediatric patients receiving antipsychotic drugs had nonpsychotic diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or some other disruptive behavior disorder. In contrast, of the privately insured pediatric patients receiving antipsychotics, about one fourth were diagnosed with ADHD or some other disruptive behavior disorder.

The current issue of JAMA also reports another troubling study published earlier this year in the journal Pediatrics. This study, conducted by Robert Penfold of the Department of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, examined the use of the antipsychotic Geodon (ziprasidone) in pediatric patients covered by Medicaid in Michigan in 2001. Of the pediatric patients who had been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and had received Geodon, only 53.3 percent actually had a diagnosis of psychosis. The other children who received Geodon had one or more of the following diagnoses: 24.1 percent were diagnosed with explosive personality disorder, 17.6 percent were diagnosed with depressive disorder, and 13.1 percent of these kids who were prescribed Geodon had oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). What exactly does it take to get an ODD diagnosis?

Read entire article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/psychiatric-drugs-and-poo_b_583568.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• The National Post: “Message to disease industry — That’s why they call it ‘acting like a child’” (0)
• 1 million misdiagnosed ADHD children for $80B drug industry (0)
• MomLogic.com “Babies on Antipsychotics?…Why would anyone put a BABY on antipsychotic meds?!” (0)
• ADHD: Has this diagnostic fad run its course? (0)
• “Drugging Pre-School Children: A crime against childhood—children as young as 2 prescribed powerful anti-psychotics” (0)

Pharmalot
By Ed Silverman
March 25, 2010

Two essays published in separate periodicals this week raise troubling questions about the extent to which psychiatrists may be unduly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, and how this relationship may effect public trust in psychiatry. The upshot? The concern about corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption is palpable. Sigmund Freud would not be pleased. Interestingly, one of the authors is Tom Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health.

For instance, Lisa Cosgrove and Harold Bursztajn write in Psychiatric Times that they looked at the two philanthropic arms of the American Psychiatric Association – the American Psychiatric Foundation and the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education – and found that APF’s 15-member board includes four high-level pharma execs that either make meds recommended by APA or are developing products targeted to treat mental disorders. Other board members include two more with industry ties and a senior vp at Fleishman Hillard, the public relations firm whose clients include six drugmakers.

APF’s corporate advisory council lists drugmakers, they continue, that contribute “significant funding” to APF and that make meds recommended in the APA’s clinical practice guidelines. Although it was not possible to discern the total amount of industry funding given to APF, in fiscal year 2008 APF lists 11 pharmaceutical companies and 1 medical device manufacturer that contributed monies; 6 of the companies are listed as giving $40,000 “and above” per year.

They go on to write that APIRE, like APF, doesn’t require disclosure of financial conflicts of interests, and that nine of 16 APIRE board members have ties to drugmakers. They also note current disclosure policies don’t require reporting of pooled industry money to academic departments, units, hospitals, and med schools. And because there is no independent monitoring of industry ties, they maintain “underreporting is very likely a problem. For example, one board member who reported ‘no disclosure’ in an APA publication was found to be on the speakers’ bureau of multiple pharmaceutical companies.”

Read entire article:  http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/03/psychiatrists-and-pharma-undue-influence/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Citing public’s growing distrust of psychiatry, NIMH Chief says psychiatry must “Clean up our act” (3)
• Sen Grassley’s bill now requires public disclosure of ALL Pharma $$ to doctors— Top Psychiatrist calls for “Ethics Cleanup” (1)
• The Troubling Link Between Big Pharma and the American Psychiatric Association (0)
• DSM Panel Members Still Getting Pharma Funds (4)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)

Natasha Singer and Duff Wilson
The New York Times
September 17, 2009

The scientific integrity of medical research has been clouded in recent years by articles that were drafted by drug company-sponsored ghostwriters and then passed off as the work of independent academic authors.

Yet the leading medical journals have continued to rely largely on an honor system of disclosure to detect such potential bias, asking authors to voluntarily report any industry ties or contributors to their manuscripts.

But now, in light of recently released evidence that some drug makers have gone to great lengths to turn scientific articles into marketing vehicles for their products, some influential medical editors are cracking down on industry-financed ghostwriting. And they are getting help from some members of Congress.

Read entire article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/business/18ghost.html?_r=1&hp

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Doctors’ Conflicting Interests Can Cost Money and Lives, and Hinder Medical Discoveries (1)
• Psychiatrists And Pharma: Undue Influence? Concern about corruption increasing… (1)
• Grassley & Senate Watchdog Target Doctors Prescribing Mass Amounts of Dangerous Drugs (0)
• U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors (0)
• Doctors rarely face consequences for drug kickbacks (0)