Natural News
By PF Louis
August 29, 2011

A highly effective public relations technique is the “third party technique” of creating front groups to endorse or promote the need of any service or product. The first party is the original group or client that would benefit more from increased public trust or affinity. The second group is the public or consumers. A third group is created with a contrived name to appear publicly as a disinterested party endorsing the industry of the first party.

Often, the third party, or front group, uses a name that implies authority or concern for the public’s welfare or concerns. You can be sure these bogus front groups are usually only concerned about their clients welfare and themselves.

Edward Bernays Pioneered Front Groups

Edward Bernays, a notorious spin doctor throughout the 20th Century, is considered USA’s original front group creator as well as the father of public relations. The public relations industry is concerned with creating a favorable image more than direct sales advertising, although they can be closely associated at times.

The womens rights movement peaked in 1919 with the passage of the 19th amendment, granting women the right to vote. A very few years later, Edward Bernays created an image to help promote the tobacco industry. He had photographs published in newspapers and magazines of several women marching in a New York City Easter parade brazenly smoking cigarettes, which until then was considered unladylike. The idea was to link a womans struggle for more rights with openly smoking anywhere, just like the guys.

Besides making tobacco appear healthy over several years using fake doctors to promote various cigarette brands, Bernays also used front groups to glorify fluoridating water supplies. He was a very important contributor to our mass poisoning.

Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and Front Groups

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) focuses on psychiatry’s irrational and barbaric treatment of mental illness with its propensity for categorizing behavior in order to dispense harmful drugs. It’s a cozy arrangement with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and Big Pharma.

Ever since the APA was accepted as a regular medical organization a few decades ago, Big Pharma’s sales for psychotropic drugs have gone through the roof. What was once pen and pad for taking notes by a psychiatrist during talk therapy became the pen and prescription pad.

For children, psychiatry’s categorizing behavioral problems enables educational and child care institutional personnel virtual prescription power as well. Children are kidnapped “legally” by social services agencies if parents refuse to medicate them according to psychiatric decree. Big Pharma’s reach into TV advertising enables depressed adults to demand prescriptions for drugs that lead to bad health, actual insanity, and death.

Front groups exposed by CCHRI include the following: The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHAAD) and several bipolar, depression or ADHD “support groups” that flourish on the internet.

CCHRI has several more front groups listed on one of their site pages with links to explanations of who they really are and how they function for psychiatry and Big Pharma. (see CCHRI source below)

CCHRI’s depth of investigative reporting offers the premier site for understanding the true nature of psychiatry and its relationship with Big Pharma’s destructive psychotropic drug racket.

Front Groups Everywhere

Front groups can also lobby directly to government officials, elected or appointed. And they are created for almost any controversial issue that needs to be white or green washed.

A former health insurance insider, Wendell Potter, became a whistle blower with his book Deadly Spin. He explained that a front group “Health Care America” was used to attack Michael Moore’s “Sicko” documentary.

APCO Worldwide created Health Care America with Big Pharma money. The insurance industry used APCO in 2007. APCO recruits think tanks and other agencies as allies for their campaigns. The public is unaware of who is really supplying the media’s information.

Earlier in 2011, New York Republican Congresswoman Nan Hayworth submitted a press release photo of her receiving a plaque from a representative of a purported senior citizen support group called 60 Plus Association. The sign above those two declared in large letters “Senor Citizens Thank You for Protecting Medicare and Social Security.”

There are two lies here. Nan Hayworth had voted against Medicare, and 60 Plus has hardly any senior citizen members at all. They remain afloat financially from Big Pharma’s funding, according to AARP.

All this crassly corrupt activity backed by government and corporations continues to escalate through the mainstream media. A lyric from a 1980s jazz tune rings true “We are Caught in a Blizzard of Lies.” The upside is we are forced to distinguish between truth and fiction and become our own informed authority.

Sources for this article include:

List of Front Groups for Psychiatry and Big Pharma http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharm…

Main page CCHRI site http://www.cchrint.org/

Insurance whistle blower Wendell Potter http://www.commondreams.org/view/20…

60s Plus Group outed by AARP as Big Pharma front group http://my.firedoglake.com/junkyardd…

Edward Bernays pioneered third party technique of PR and advertising http://www.frontgroups.org/node/418

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Behind the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex; Pharma-funded front groups masquerading as “patient advocates” (0)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)

Minyanville
By Minyanville Staff
July 28, 2011

When the DSM-II was published in 1980, it became “the bible of psychiatry,” writes Angell, who adds, “but like the real Bible, it depended a lot on something akin to revelation. There are no citations of scientific studies to support its decisions.”

For any mental illness or passing mood swing that may trouble a person, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — better known as the DSM — has a label and a code. Recurring bad dreams? That may be a Nightmare Disorder, or 307.47. Narcolepsy uses the same digits in a different order: 347.00. Fancy feather ticklers? That sounds like Fetishism, or 302.81. Then there’s the ultimate catch-all for vague sadness or uneasiness, General Anxiety Disorder, or 300.02. That’s a label almost everyone can lay claim to.

These codes are used by doctors, psychologists, and regulators to maintain a mutual language; it’s a handy shorthand system for bureaucratic purposes. But over the past few decades, the staggering, ever-expanding influence of the ever-expanding DSM, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association, has also played a lead role in building wealth and off-label product uses for the major drug manufacturers. In an insightful essay in this week’s New York Review of Books, Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, explains how.

The medical director of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), Melvin Sabshin, declared in 1977 that “a vigorous effort to remedicalize psychiatry should be strongly supported."

Angell’s essay is based on a review of three current books examining the psychiatric industry: The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth, by Irving Kirsch; Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America by Robert Whitaker, and Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry–A Doctor’s Revelations About a Profession in Crisis, by Daniel Carlat. She also cites the DSM-IV, the most recent edition of the manual, while her review traces big pharma’s role in our current mental disorder epidemic to the DSM-III, published in 1980.

To begin, Angell describes the psychiatric profession’s backlash against a developing perception in the 1960s and 1970s that the practice was a “soft” almost pseudo science:

In the late 1970s, the psychiatric profession struck back–hard. As Robert Whitaker tells it in Anatomy of an Epidemic, the medical director of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), Melvin Sabshin, declared in 1977 that “a vigorous effort to remedicalize psychiatry should be strongly supported,” and he launched an all-out media and public relations campaign to do exactly that. Psychiatry had a powerful weapon that its competitors lacked. Since psychiatrists must qualify as MDs, they have the legal authority to write prescriptions. By fully embracing the biological model of mental illness and the use of psychoactive drugs to treat it, psychiatry was able to relegate other mental health care providers to ancillary positions and also to identify itself as a scientific discipline along with the rest of the medical profession. Most important, by emphasizing drug treatment, psychiatry became the darling of the pharmaceutical industry, which soon made its gratitude tangible.

Of the 170 contributors to the current version of the DSM (the DSM-IV-TR), ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.

These efforts to enhance the status of psychiatry were undertaken deliberately. The APA was then working on the third edition of the DSM, which provides diagnostic criteria for all mental disorders. The president of the APA had appointed Robert Spitzer, a much-admired professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, to head the task force overseeing the project. The first two editions, published in 1952 and 1968, reflected the Freudian view of mental illness and were little known outside the profession. Spitzer set out to make the DSM-III something quite different. He promised that it would be “a defense of the medical model as applied to psychiatric problems,” and the president of the APA in 1977, Jack Weinberg, said it would “clarify to anyone who may be in doubt that we regard psychiatry as a specialty of medicine.”

When the DSM-II was published in 1980, it became “the bible of psychiatry,” writes Angell, who adds, “but like the real Bible, it depended a lot on something akin to revelation. There are no citations of scientific studies to support its decisions.”

Despite its lack of citations, that DSM named 265 disorders doctors were meant to identify by matching (or mostly matching) a list of symptoms in the book with symptoms described by a patient. The drug companies were quick to see this radical shift in psychiatry as an opportunity. From the 1980s until now, as Angell demonstrates, the drug makers have supported the move away from talk therapy to the drug therapy, which also benefits practitioners, since doling out drugs and tweaking prescriptions earns a psychiatrist more money for less time spent with a patient.

Here Angell explains how companies influence the DSM itself. The bold typeface is ours.

Drug companies are particularly eager to win over faculty psychiatrists at prestigious academic medical centers. Called “key opinion leaders” (KOLs) by the industry, these are the people who through their writing and teaching influence how mental illness will be diagnosed and treated. They also publish much of the clinical research on drugs and, most importantly, largely determine the content of the DSM. In a sense, they are the best sales force the industry could have, and are worth every cent spent on them. Of the 170 contributors to the current version of the DSM (the DSM-IV-TR), almost all of whom would be described as KOLs, ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.

The drug industry, of course, supports other specialists and professional societies, too, but Carlat asks, “Why do psychiatrists consistently lead the pack of specialties when it comes to taking money from drug companies?” His answer: “Our diagnoses are subjective and expandable, and we have few rational reasons for choosing one treatment over another.” Unlike the conditions treated in most other branches of medicine, there are no objective signs or tests for mental illness—no lab data or MRI findings—and the boundaries between normal and abnormal are often unclear. That makes it possible to expand diagnostic boundaries or even create new diagnoses, in ways that would be impossible, say, in a field like cardiology. And drug companies have every interest in inducing psychiatrists to do just that.

Eli Lilly gave $551,000 to NAMI

In addition to the money spent on the psychiatric profession directly, drug companies heavily support many related patient advocacy groups and educational organizations. Whitaker writes that in the first quarter of 2009 alone, “Eli Lilly gave $551,000 to NAMI [National Alliance on Mental Illness] and its local chapters, $465,000 to the National Mental Health Association, $130,000 to CHADD (an ADHD [attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder] patient-advocacy group), and $69,250 to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.”

And that’s just one company in three months; one can imagine what the yearly total would be from all companies that make psychoactive drugs. These groups ostensibly exist to raise public awareness of psychiatric disorders, but they also have the effect of promoting the use of psychoactive drugs and influencing insurers to cover them. Whitaker summarizes the growth of industry influence after the publication of the DSM-III as follows:

“In short, a powerful quartet of voices came together during the 1980’s eager to inform the public that mental disorders were brain diseases. Pharmaceutical companies provided the financial muscle. The APA and psychiatrists at top medical schools conferred intellectual legitimacy upon the enterprise. The NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] put the government’s stamp of approval on the story. NAMI provided a moral authority.”

And now here we are in 2011, with almost everyone we know taking two or three different mood disorder drugs. (This trend is not limited to mental disorder, mind you. See Disease Branding.)

Work started on the DSM-V in 1999, which is due out in 2013. It will contain many new disorders, such as “binge eating” and “restless leg disorder.” It will also expand existing categories by tacking on words like “spectrum” to the end of a known disorder, Angell reports. “It looks as though it will be harder and harder to be normal,” she writes.

But the curtain gets pulled back further still.

In her review of Daniel Carlat’s book, Angell calls attention to the “disillusioned insider’s” frank admission that when he prescribes a drug, his decision process is largely guesswork. Carlat’s view is that although any psychiatrist will acknowledge that he or she has had great success with mental disorder drugs for say, depression or anxiety, no doctor can say with certainty whether the drugs are working or if a placebo effect has taken effect.

[Carlat's] work consists of asking patients a series of questions about their symptoms to see whether they match up with any of the disorders in the DSM. This matching exercise, he writes, provides “the illusion that we understand our patients when all we are doing is assigning them labels.” Often patients meet criteria for more than one diagnosis, because there is overlap in symptoms. For example, difficulty concentrating is a criterion for more than one disorder. One of Carlat’s patients ended up with seven separate diagnoses. “We target discrete symptoms with treatments, and other drugs are piled on top to treat side effects.” A typical patient, he says, might be taking Celexa for depression, Ativan for anxiety, Ambien for insomnia, Provigil for fatigue (a side effect of Celexa), and Viagra for impotence (another side effect of Celexa).

As for the medications themselves, Carlat writes that “there are only a handful of umbrella categories of psychotropic drugs,” within which the drugs are not very different from one another. He doesn’t believe there is much basis for choosing among them. “To a remarkable degree, our choice of medications is subjective, even random. Perhaps your psychiatrist is in a Lexapro mood this morning, because he was just visited by an attractive Lexapro drug rep.”

Messy. And, of course, the whole system is now being exported to China and other countries where the middle class is growing and the mental health industry is still in a developing stage.

Angell’s latest book is The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.

Read the rest of her essay, which examines the controversial use of brain chemistry drugs to treat children, here.

http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/2011/07/25/harvard-expert-links-our-mental/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Behind the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex; Pharma-funded front groups masquerading as “patient advocates” (0)
• Seriously great article: “New Psychiatry Manual Defines Almost Anyone as Insane” (3)
• Psychiatrists And Pharma: Undue Influence? Concern about corruption increasing… (1)
• 7 Reasons America’s Mental Health Industry Is a Threat to Our Sanity (0)
• The Huffington Post—Life is Not a Mental Disorder (0)

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Stop the Stigma of Mental Illness? Try Stopping the Pharma Funded Campaigns & Groups Behind the “Stigmatizing” (0)
• Behind the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex; Pharma-funded front groups masquerading as “patient advocates” (0)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• The Illusions of Psychiatry (0)
• Campaign to “Stop the Stigma” of Mental Illness—Is a Pharmaceutical Marketing Campaign (1)

20 million kids are being prescribed dangerous mind-altering drugs

By CCHR

Today’s Huffington Post features an article from psychiatrist Harold Koplewicz, frequently seen in the press leading the cheer for more psychiatric diagnosing and drugging of children.   In today’s article, Koplewicz makes a plea to ‘Stop the Stigma’ which is preventing children from being diagnosed mentally ill.   Pretty catchy slogan isn’t it? “Stop the Stigma.”  It ought to be, it’s a brilliant marketing campaign, brought to you by Big Pharma, via the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a group that  masquerades as a “patient’s rights group for the mentally ill”  but receives tens of millions in Pharma funding.

But here’s the real rub—What entity is most responsible for stigmatizing millions of children? What group has pathologized childhood behavior and repackaged a list of behaviors into a “disease” called ADHD?  Psychiatry and Pharma.   You can’t be a kid anymore.  If you display child-like behaviors you can be  branded mentally ill for life. And its not just us saying this.  Consider that the former Chairman of the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM task force,  psychiatrist Allen Frances, stated “Our country is in the midst of a fifteen year ‘epidemic’ of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). There are six potential causes for the skyrocketing rates of ADD—but only five have been real contributors. The most obvious explanation is by far the least likely – that the prevalence of attention deficit problems in the general population has actually increased in the last 15 years. Human nature is remarkably constant and slow to change, while diagnostic fads come and go with great rapidity. We don’t have more attention deficit than ever before-we just label more attentional problems as mental disorder.”

He  also talked about “stigma,” but sourced the industry creating it—psychiatry: “The ‘epidemic’ of childhood Bipolar Disorder has created a public health dilemma” and that it is  “based on much hype and very little scientific evidence. The label Bipolar Disorder also carries considerable stigma, implying that the child will have a lifelong illness requiring lifetime treatment.”

Exactly.

The title of Dr. Koplewicz’s article is “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes to Children’s Mental Health?” so we’d like to answer that question, as it’s pretty simple —Some of us are for children’s rights and putting their best interests above all else, while others are for Psycho/Pharma and putting their best interests above all else.

That’s the short version.  Here is a bit more detailed answer;

Point 1) Millions of children have been stigmatized with bogus psychiatric “labels” that are based solely on opinion, and not one shred of medical evidence that there’s anything physically wrong with them.  No blood tests, brain scans, X-rays, MRIs or any proof whatsoever they are “mentally ill” and require drugs euphemistically being called “medicine.”    Unlike real medical diseases which are discovered in labs, psychiatric diagnoses are invented by psychiatrists in committee, by  the following “scientific” process;  Cluster a number of behaviors into a nice little package, give it a name and add “disorder” on the tail end of it,  then take a vote.  Majority wins.   That’s about it. And that’s why mental disorders can be here one day and gone the next, because of majority opinion — namely, psychiatry’s.   So while psychiatrists talk about the “amazing progress” they’ve made, and how “close” they’ve come to proving mental disorders are “real medical conditions,” we’d like to point out the obvious—they haven’t.   They couldn’t prove mental disorders were physical/medical conditions 50 years ago, and can’t prove it today despite billions in government funding.    No progress.  Whatsoever.   Zippo.  Nada.    So understandably, Dr. Koplewicz,, as people become more educated about this ludicrous subjective process of disorders made to order, they are concerned about the lack of real science to psychiatric “diagnoses” particularly where their children are concerned.

Point 2) The majority of psychiatrists within the American Psychiatric Association that “decide” on what will and will not be a mental “disorder” are funded by Pharma.  That’s called a Conflict of Interest.  A serious, egregious conflict of interest.  No “conspiracy” here Dr. Kopelwicz, just some facts about your colleagues and their incentives for developing more mental disorders.

Point 3) Due to these subjective, invented mental disorders,  20 million children are currently taking mind-altering, life-threatening drugs, acknowledged by international drug regulatory agencies to cause future drug dependence, stunted growth, mania, psychosis, violence, aggression, hallucinations, heart attack, stroke, sudden death and suicidal ideation.  All international studies and warnings on psychiatric drugs along with all the reports filed with the U.S. FDA’s Medwatch by doctors, pharmacists and healthcare providers reporting suicidal ideation and death from psychiatric drugs given to toddlers, young children and teenagers can be found here:  http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/

Point 4) While Koplewicz has the audacity to call the “over-drugging” of children “a myth”,  consider that the Government Accountability Office has launched a federal investigation into the massive increase of drugging children in foster care.  “The investigators will attempt to account for estimates in the hundreds of millions of dollars of possible fraud arising from prescriptions for drugs explicitly barred from Medicaid coverage.  The GAO is collecting data from six states to search for patterns of abuse.  According to a number of foster care experts who spoke with Politics Daily, children in foster care, who are typically concurrently enrolled in Medicaid, are three or four more times as likely to be on psychotropic medications than other children on Medicaid. Alarmingly, many of these drugs are medically prohibited for minors and dangerous to the children taking them.”

Point 5) Senate investigations this past year revealed that some of the “leading” psychiatrists touting the wonders of diagnosing and drugging kids, and largely responsible for massive increases in kids unnecessarily placed on dangerous psychiatric drugs, were on Pharma’s payroll, and failed to disclose this.  Psychiatrists such as Joseph Biederman, who was being paid millions of dollars by the Pharmaceutical companies while skewing the results of drug trials to show false benefits for kids, in order the launch a nationwide campaign to get children diagnosed as “bi-polar.”

And he’s not the only one: Here are some of the “leading” psychiatrists exposed by Senate investigations:

Melissa DelBello, Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati, was exposed in 2007 by the Senate Finance Committee for concealing $180,000 she received from AstraZeneca in 2003 and 2004.  DelBello’s studies of the antipsychotic Seroquel, made by AstraZeneca, in children helped to fuel the widespread pediatric use of antipsychotic drugs.

In 2008, Joseph Biederman, a leading Harvard child psychiatrist whose work helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic drugs in children, was exposed for withholding earning at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers between 2000 and 2007.

Alan Schatzberg, president-elect of the APA, and Professor and Department of Psychiatry Chair of Stanford University was also investigated in 2008 by the Senate Finance Committee.  Schatzberg was forced to step down as principal investigator in an NIH funded research project into a drug called Mifeprestone, to treat “psychotic depression.” Senate investigators found that Schatzberg failed to report $4.8 million worth of stock in Corcept Therapeutics, a drug company which he co-founded and acted as lead researcher on a drug development project for until he was forced to surrender that role after being exposed.

A Senate investigation found Charles Nemeroff, Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Chairman of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine had concealed $2.8 million he earned from drug companies. He was forced to step down as Chairman of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory due to being exposed for his hidden pharmaceutical pay and attempted cover up.

In December 2009, Sen. Charles Grassley filed a complaint about Fernando Mendez-Villamil to federal authorities for his excessive prescribing of antipsychotics to children that were not approved by the FDA.  This cost taxpayers $43 million over six years.  Mendez-Villamil is apparently also currently under investigation by the Medicaid program.  Mid 2009, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration reported that that Mendez Villamil is the top Medicaid prescriber of mental health drugs in the state—for all ages.  It was calculated that he wrote more than 150 prescriptions a day, seven days a week for six years

So to summarize, we don’t have an epidemic of mentally ill children, we have an epidemic of psychiatry stigmatizing children with mental disorders that cannot be medically/scientifically proven to exist.  We have an epidemic of children prescribed dangerous and potentially lethal psychiatric drugs, including infants and toddlers.  And we have the real source of stigmatization—the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical industry.

To read Koplewicz’s article, click here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-harold-koplewicz/mental-health-being-openminded_b_791706.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• The Death of Mental Illness (0)
• CCHR Int Releases New Psychiatric Drug Search Engine—310 International Drug Regulatory Warnings & Studies & 194,000 Adverse Psychiatric Drug Reaction Reports (3)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)

Scoop Independent News
By Evelyn Pringle
June 22, 2010

Non-Profit Advocacy Groups

As a main component of the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex, the so-called “patient advocacy” organizations have become the leading force behind the American epidemic of mental illness over the past two decades.

Drug makers, and their foundations, funnel millions of dollars to these non-profits every year. In return, the leaders recruit their members as foot soldiers to carry out the latest marketing campaigns and to provide a fire-wall so that no money trail can be tracked back to the drug companies.

Gigantic Pyramid

The psychiatric front groups form a gigantic pyramid and once pharmaceutical money enters the system through a major organization, it gets channeled into a huge spider-web that weaves through many groups, making it nearly impossible to keep track of where it came from or where it all went. Often, when the grant reports of the drug companies list a large donation to one organization, the annual reports of the other groups will show smaller gifts from that same organization.

The “charity” groups are exempt from income tax and the “contributions” funneled through them are tax deductible. The money is used for disease mongering campaigns to both market disorders and pressure public health care programs and private insurers to pay for expensive treatments.

“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,” according to Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, a mental health watchdog group.

In a June 2, 2010, commentary titled, “Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis,” on the Psychology Today website, Dr Allen Frances points out that it “is too bad that there is no advocacy group for normality that could effectively push back against all the forces aligned to expand the reach of mental disorders.”

The leaders of the supposedly “non-profits” earn outrageously high salaries, along with excellent benefit packages, while many of the patients they claim to represent are encouraged to seek federal disability payments of under $700 a month, and apply for public housing, food stamps, and Medicaid, to make ends meet. The top officials will often move from a leadership role in one organization to a higher position in another.

The drug makers rely on the front groups to do their bidding any time profits are threatened. For instance, if the FDA is considering adding a black box warning about a deadly side effect to a drug’s label, which may result in a drop in sales, representatives of front groups will show up at the FDA advisory panel hearings to testify against adding the warning.

They will also lobby FDA panels whenever there is a chance to increase profits, such as enlarging the drug customer base. In June 2009, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee was set to meet to evaluate AstraZeneca’s Seroquel, Pfizer’s Geodon and Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa for use with 13 to 17 year-olds diagnosed with schizophrenia, and 10 to 17 year-olds diagnosed with pediatric bipolar disorder.

On June 8, 2009, nine front groups issued a joint statement urging the panel to vote to approve all three drugs for kids. The groups signing the letter included the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Psychiatric Association, Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Families for Depression Awareness, Mental Health America, National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare.

Read entire article:  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1006/S00162.htm

Also see:  http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• CCHR exposes list of psycho-pharma front groups (0)
• Antipschotic Drugs—Side Effects May Include Lawsuits (0)
• Time Magazine: Why Are So Many Foster Care Children Taking Antipsychotics? (1)
• Cause for alarm: Antipsychotic drugs for nursing home patients (0)

MinnPost.com
By Susan Perry
April 15, 2010

This month’s Lancet contains a short, romping, and highly readable essay on the history of psychiatry. It’s written by Andrew Scull, professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, who has steeped himself in the topic for four decades.

Scull talks about how psychiatry has revolutionized itself during the span of his career. The Freudian movement dominated the field through the 1960s — a period, he notes, when mental illnesses like schizophrenia were often attributed to such now discredited causes as the “refrigerator mother.”

Then, “more swiftly and silently than the Cheshire cat, psychoanalytic hegemony vanished,” writes Scull. Its replacement: drugs, the “new Holy Grail of the profession.”

But has this Holy Grail turned out to be yet another false icon? Here’s Scull’s scathing conclusion:

Read entire article:  http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2010/04/15/17392/from_psychobabble_to_biobabble_how_drug_money_has_come_to_dominate_psychiatry

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Mainstream psychiatry is failing – but there is another way (1)
• The Voices Inside Their Heads – Gail Hornstein’s Approach To Understanding Madness (0)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)
• The Total Failure of Modern Psychiatry (0)
• “Drugged Warriors: Sharp Rise in U.S. Military Psychiatric Drug Use and Suicides” by Psychologist Bruce Levine (1)

Ed Silverman
Pharmalot
December 15, 2009

The National Alliance on Mental Illness is on the defensive. After reports that most donations made to the big advocacy group came from drug makers in recent years, NAMI agreed to disclose its funding sources. The disclosure, however, came after protracted criticism of NAMI for coordinating lobbying efforts with drug makers and pushing legislation that also benefits the pharma industry.

The embarassing episode prompted NAMI’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, to acknowledge industry donations were excessive and that things would change. Meanwhile, board member Richard Lamb resigned over the issue, complaining little was changing, saying NAMI’s dependence on drugmakers made some actions impossible, such as warning against the use of some mental health drugs with life-threatening side effects.

Read entire article: http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/nami-runs-a-survey-on-pharma-funding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pharmalot+(Pharmalot)

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Sen. Grassley’s bill requires disclosure of Pharma $ to doctors, ghost writers & “patient advocacy” groups like NAMI (0)
• CCHR exposes list of psycho-pharma front groups (0)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• The Illusions of Psychiatry (0)
• Why Mental Health “Advocacy” Groups Aren’t Calling for Psychiatric Drug Investigation in Arizona Shooting: They’re Pharma Funded (0)

United States Senate
Committee on Finance
Washington, D.C. 20510-6200

December 7, 2009

Via Electronic Transmission

Laurie Flynn
Executive Director
TeenScreen National Center for Mental Health Checkups at Columbia University
1775 Broadway, Suite 610
New York, NY 10019

Dear Ms. Flynn:

The United States Senate Committee on Finance (Committee) has jurisdiction over the Medicare and Medicaid programs and, accordingly, a responsibility to the more than 100 million Americans who receive health care coverage under these programs. As Ranking Member of the Committee, I have a duty to protect the health of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and safeguard taxpayer dollars authorized by Congress for these programs.

For the last three years, the Committee has been looking into various aspects of the pharmaceutical industry, including consulting arrangements, and industry funding for Continuing Medical Education (CME). My inquiry was spurred, in part by press accounts documenting the lack of transparency in the relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and nonprofit organizations. For instance, in April 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported that industry representatives, including ten major drug
companies, formed a coalition to promote looser restrictions on off-label marketing. The coalition asked the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) to speak in favor of this issue.

On October 6th of this year, I sent letters to all fifty state chapters of NAMI asking them to disclose income from pharmaceutical companies. In that letter, I explained that NAMI National receives almost two-thirds of its funding from the drug industry.  I learned recently that a few days after I sent those letters, one of the founders of NAMI and member of the NAMI National Board of Directors emailed his resignation,
stating that he was shocked at NAMI’s reliance on pharmaceutical industry funding. In particular he said: “This financial dependency presents a number of problems.”

Read entire letter: http://www.psychsearch.net/Letter_to_TeenScreen.pdf

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Why Mental Health “Advocacy” Groups Aren’t Calling for Psychiatric Drug Investigation in Arizona Shooting: They’re Pharma Funded (0)
• Grassley asks more mental health ‘patients rights’ groups (for ADHD, Bi-Polar, TeenScreen, etc.) to disclose Pharma $$ (0)
• CCHR exposes list of psycho-pharma front groups (0)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• The Illusions of Psychiatry (0)

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

News Feed

Related Posts

• American Psychiatric Association Called Upon to Cut Drug Company Ties and Put Lives of Children Before Profits (5)
• National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) – A Pharma front group (0)
• Behind the Psychopharmaceutical Industrial Complex; Pharma-funded front groups masquerading as “patient advocates” (0)
• DSM Panel Members Still Getting Pharma Funds (4)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)

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

News Feed

Related Posts

• Think They Don’t Electroshock People Anymore? Think Again–Even toddlers and pregnant women are being shocked (26)
• How Vested Interests Created the Perfect Marketing/Lobbying Machine: Mental Health “Advocacy” Groups—Funded by Pharma (5)
• Now Psychs are recommending Electroshock for pregnant women who are depressed. Yep. Electroshock. (0)
• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• Not the Only Psychiatrist Who Opposes ECT (2)