Posts Tagged ‘pharma-funded’

Psychiatry Tops List of Medical Professionals Making a Mint from Big Pharma

Monday, March 11th, 2013

Dollars for Docs Mints a Millionaire

by Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein
ProPublica, March 11, 2013, 11 a.m.

Half of the top earners are from a single specialty: psychiatry.

Dr. Jon W. Draud, the medical director of psychiatric and addiction medicine at two Tennessee hospitals, pursues some eclectic passions. He’s bred sleek Basenji hunting dogs for show. And last summer, the Tennessee State Museum featured “African Art: The Collection of Jon Draud.”

But the Nashville psychiatrist is also notable for a professional pursuit: During the last four years, the 47-year-old Draud has earned more than $1 million for delivering promotional talks and consulting for seven drug companies.

By a wide margin, Draud’s earnings make him the best-paid speaker in ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs database, which has been updated to include more than $2 billion in payments from 15 drugmakers for promotional speaking, research, consulting, travel, meals and related expenses from 2009 to 2012.

Payouts to hundreds of thousands physicians are now included.

Draud is not the only high earner: 21 other doctors have made more than $500,000 since 2009 giving talks and consulting for drugmakers, the database shows. And half of the top earners are from a single specialty: psychiatry.

“It boggles my mind,” said Dr. James H. Scully Jr., chief executive of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)P, referring to the big money paid to some psychiatrists for what are billed as educational talks.

Paid speaking “is perfectly legal, and if people want to work for drug companies, this is America,” said Scully, whose specialty has often been criticized for its over-reliance on medications. “But everybody needs to be clear — this is marketing.”

When Dollars for Docs launched in 2010, it gave the first comprehensive look at the money that drug companies spend to enlist doctors as a sales force. The new data show how payouts to psychiatrists like Draud and other doctors have added up over time. And they underscore the key role physicians play for drugmaker profits even as scrutiny and criticism of such payments grows.

Read the rest of the article here

 

« Return to news items


Share

American Psychiatric Association’s Ghost Written (Allegedly Pharma Funded) Book Magically ‘Disappears’

Tuesday, April 12th, 2011

Pharmalot

by Ed Silverman – April 12, 2011

File this under The Case of The Missing Book. When last seen, Scientific Therapeutics Information was at the center of an ongoing controversy over an allegedly ghostwritten book – yes, an entire book – that was published in 1999 by the American Psychiatric Association. Funding came from a grant provided by SmithKline Beecham, which is now part of GlaxoSmithKline (back story).

The listed co-authors were Charles Nemeroff, who chairs the psychiatry department at the University of Miami medical school, and Alan Schatzberg, who until recently chaired the psychiatry department at the Stanford University School of Medicine. Both men were at the center of a long-running probe by the US Senate Finance Committee into undisclosed conflicts of interest among academic researchers. They were also regular speakers for Glaxo, which makes the Paxil antidepressant (see here and here).

STI, which was also targeted by the same committee over alleged ghostwriting activities surrounding Merck’s Vioxx painkiller (see here), provided drafts directly to Glaxo for comments and sign-off, as well as this 1997 status report and page proofs to the credited authors. Nemeroff and Schatzberg, however, have insisted they did all the work on the book. For its part, the APA has denied any ghostwriting, although the organization has stonewalled requests to disclose paperwork that might support its position (see this).

However, MI Watch, a non-profit devoted to tracking mental illness issues, discovered STI listed the book, entitled “Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care,” in the portfolio section on its web site (see this). At least, until recently. A visit to the site now yields a message saying the page cannot be found. None of its published work, in fact, is currently visible. This is an odd turn of events for a firm that boasts “STI’s dedicated and experienced editorial staff can create a strategic publication plan to meet your goals and messaging.”

So we called John Romankiewicz, a PharmD who started the firm 26 years ago, to ask about the missing info. His explanation? “Thanks for the inquiry,” he responded abruptly, “but we don’t display that kind of stuff on our web site.” We replied by noting that the info had been there previously, but then we heard a loud…click. Perhaps, he realized that listing the book as a portfolio product does not easily square with the APA position that ghostwriting did not take place. And taking down the product portfolio might also make it more difficult to scrutinize other STI work. Given how fast he hung up, though, one might have thought we uttered the magic word: “Boo!”

http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/04/a-ghostwritten-book-mysteriously-disappears/

« Return to news items


Share

New Study Links ADHD Drugs, Antidepressants, Hypnotics & Anti-Smoking Drug to 1,527 Acts of Violence

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Pharmalot, December 16, 2010

by Ed Silverman

For years, there were contentious debates about links between certain prescription meds, notably antidepressants, and suicidal behavior. Now, the focus is turning to violent behavior directed toward others. And a new study is linking 31 widely prescribed drugs – most notably, the Chantix anti-smoking pill – with 1,527 serious acts of violence, such as physical abuse, physical assault and homicide.

The study, which was published in PLoS One, identified 484 drugs that accounted for 780,169 serious adverse event reports of all kinds, including 1,937 cases meeting the violence criteria determined by the researchers. There were 387 reports of homicide, 404 physical assaults, 27 cases indicating physical abuse, 896 homicidal ideation reports and 223 cases described as violence-related symptoms.

Besides Pfizer’s Chantix, 11 antidepressants, three ADHD meds and five hypnotics or sedatives were linked to 79 percent of the violence cases. Looked at another way, no cases of violence were reported for 324 of the 484 drugs evaluated. And so an association with violence appeared “highly unlikely” for nearly 85 percent of all evaluated drugs in widespread clinical use.

This is not, by the way, the first time that Chantix has been linked to violent behavior. The same authors published a study last summer in The Annals of Pharmacotherapy that found Chantix is not only associated with violent and aggressive thoughts and acts, but they also identified some of the common characteristics among people using the pill and their subsequent behavior (see this).

“Acts of violence towards others are a genuine and serious adverse drug event associated with a relatively small group of drugs. (Chantix), which increases the availability of dopamine, and antidepressants with serotonergic effects were the most strongly and consistently implicated drugs,” the researchers write. Interestingly, this finding appears just after the infamous Zoloft defense case drew to a close. That involved a 12-year-old boy who killed his grandparents and his lawyers blamed the antidepressant (read here).

The authors do, however, cite some limitations. The submission of an individual adverse event report does not itself establish causality,” the note, “only that a reporting individual suspected a relationship existed.” And they add that the quality and detail in each report varies. On the other hand, they also say that, “given that violent thoughts or actions are not typically attributed to drug therapy or recorded in medical records, the reporting rate for violence cases could be very low. The selected violence cases do not provide a reliable estimate of how often they might occur.”

In the end, they recommend prospective studies to “establish the incidence, confirm differences among drugs and identify additional common features.”

http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/12/chantix-prescription-drugs-and-violent-acts/

Note from CCHR:  As far back as 1991, the FDA held hearings into antidepressants causing suicidal ideation and violence, largely prompted by CCHR’s demands for an investigation. CCHR testified along with dozens of victims and medical experts.   The FDA panel, largely Pharma funded, refused to issue warnings despite the evidence presented. It would take the FDA another 13 years to finally admit antidepressants cause suicidal ideation and issue black  box warnings on the drugs.  The FDA has still never fully investigated the overwhelming evidence linking antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs to acts of violence and homicide.

Watch this video, produced by CCHR, of the 1991 FDA hearings into antidepressants causing suicide and violence http://www.youtube.com/cchrint#p/c/B9EA75455D155D89/6/FxJomeak4V4

Also Watch This Fox National News Special Report’s from Douglas Kennedy Deadly Drugs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A

« Return to news items


Share

Stop the Stigma of Mental Illness? Try Stopping the Pharma Funded Campaigns & Groups Behind the “Stigmatizing”

Friday, September 17th, 2010

(Image taken from: http://herinst.org/sbeder/corppower/pharm-agenda.html)

by CCHR Int

A new study, the result of a joint collaboration between Indiana University and Columbia University, and published  by the American Journal of Psychiatry, reports that prejudice and discrimination still exists among people with serious mental illness.  Headlines include “Mental Illness Stigma Hard to Shake, Survey Finds” and “Despite Deeper Understanding of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers.”

So what exactly is behind this study? Taking aside the fact that Columbia University is well known for its collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, its medical center having collaborated with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer. Or the fact that Indiana University received a $1 million grant from Eli Lilly.

With a seemingly altruistic agenda, the fact is the campaign to end the “stigma” of mental illness is one driven and funded by those who benefit from more and more people being labeled mentally ill—pharma, psychiatry and pharmaceutical front groups such as  NAMI and CHADD to name but a few.   For example, take NAMI’s campaign to stop the “stigma” and “end discrimination” against the mentally ill—the “Founding Sponsors” were Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (For an in-depth look at what else Pharma funds and how this funding not only helps set mental health policies but campaigns such as this, read Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies at the bottom of this post)

The fact is that the  “stigmatization ” is coming from those that benefit from people being labeled/stigmatized with mental disorders that have no medical/biological evidence. Case in point, if you are rebellious, you are “stigmatized” with the label “oppositional defiant disorder.” If your kid acts like a kid he is “stigmatized” with the label “ADHD.” If you are sad, unhappy (even temporarily) you are “stigmatized” with the label “depressive” or “bi-polar disorder.” If you are shy you are “stigmatized” with the label “social anxiety disorder.” Moreover, you or your child are now stigmatized for life as this label, which is based solely on opinion, is now part of your medical record, despite the fact there is no medical evidence to prove you are “mentally ill”.

This is also true of people diagnosed “schizophrenic.” There is no medical test to verify someone has a brain abnormality or medical condition of schizophrenia. And while no one claims  people can’t become psychotic, the fact remains there is no biological evidence to support schizophrenia as a brain disease or chemical abnormality.  And consider this, if people do become psychotic, or irrational,  is it in fact caused by some  underlying medical (not psychiatric) problem?   And why did a 15-year multiple follow up study find that there was a 40% recovery rate for those diagnosed schizophrenic who did not take antipsychotics, versus a 5% rate for those who did?  What happened to their supposed “brain disease?” Did it simply vanish?  Moreover, if they could recover from such a mental state, do they deserve the “stigma” of “schizophrenia” still being part of their permanent medical record?  For life?   Think about it.  Imagine you were extremely overweight—obese.  You lose all the weight so you are no longer obese.  Yet your medical records continue to say that you are.

And if schizophrenia is in fact a “disease” despite the fact there is no medical or biological evidence (note we did not say speculation, or theories, but evidence) then why is it that psychiatrist Loren Mosher, the former Chief of Schizophrenia Research for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) openly state that there is no biological condition of schizophrenia as a disease or brain malfunction? And why didn’t the mental health industry take advantage of his 2-year-outcome studies proving that those diagnosed schizophrenic could recover without the use of drugs? Is it because this proved that recovery was possible and thereby disproved the theory that something was wrong with their brain? Or was it the fact that they recovered without the use of drugs, thereby threatening a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry?  Maybe this explains why Mosher was fired from his position at NIMH (http://www.moshersoteria.com/)

As a final note regarding “stigmatization,” keep in mind that psychiatrists admit there is no recovery from “mental illness.” They admit no cures. So once you are labeled—game over.

The new “study” also reports, ” more people now believe that illnesses like schizophrenia and depression are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.”  This is marketing at its best—say people believe in a chemical imbalance so you don’t have to bother pointing out the fact that there is no chemical imbalance .  How can the layperson be sure of this? It’s simple. Find one person who has a lab test showing their chemical imbalance.  Not one of the millions of people taking drugs to cure their “chemical imbalance” has a lab test showing they have an imbalance.  Now it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out… does it?

For more information  about pharmaceutical front groups see this:  http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/

For an in-depth look at this topic, read Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies


Abstract: The development of political agenda-setting through the use of sophisticated public relations techniques is threatening to undermine the delicate balance of representative democracy. This has important ramifications for policies aimed at providing mental health services and the implementation of mental health laws. The principal agenda setters in this area are pharmaceutical companies with commercial reasons to promote public policies that expand the sales of their products. They have manufactured highly effective advocacy coalitions that incorporate front groups in order to set the policy agenda for mental health. However, policies tailored to their commercial purpose are not necessarily beneficial either for patients or the society at large.



« Return to news items


Share

Meet the Queen of “Preschool Depression” — and Her Drug Company Backers

Monday, August 30th, 2010

by Jim Edwards

BNET August 30, 2010

The NYT Sunday magazine crowned Dr. Joan Luby as the queen of preschool depression this weekend, but failed to mention that Luby has taken cash from Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Shire (SHPGY) and AstraZeneca (AZN) to study using atypical antipsychotics in young children. The article is significant because of the outsize role that the Times magazine plays in creating and naming new social trends. (Remember when you suddenly figured out that carbs make you fat but fatty meat doesn’t? That was the NYT mag.)

In this case, the phenomenon is depression in children as young as three years old, and the trend is to treat it with drugs such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Adderall and Seroquel. The article, by Pamela Paul, provides a useful roadmap into how parenting will be medicalized by Big Pharma:

“The idea is very threatening,” says Joan Luby, a professor of child psychiatry  at Washington University School of Medicine, … “In my 20 years of research, it’s been slowly eroding,” Luby says of that resistance. “But some hard-core scientists still brush the idea off as mushy or psychobabble, and laypeople think the idea is ridiculous.”

The “ridiculous” layperson who first pointed out that Luby had written medical journal articles urging the use of antipsychotics on preschool children without declaring her drug company payments was me. Luby was a paid speaker for AstraZeneca in 2003-2004 (AZ makes Seroquel); she received $2019 in a for a consultancy from Shire in 2004 (Shire makes Adderall and Vyvanse); and prior to 2006 she received grant/research support from Janssen, the unit of J&J that markets Risperdal. Luby is also a member of a group of scientists who want greater study of potential new uses for psychiatric drugs in young children. That group has ties to 16 different drug companies. Some of these drugs have dangerous side effects.

The Archives of General Psychiatry (published by the American Medical Association) said it would investigate how Luby failed to disclose her past ties when it published “Preschool Depression,” a study she did on 3- to 6-year-olds. Joseph Coyle, the editor of the AGP, did not immediately respond to an email requesting an update on its Luby probe. (The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the American Journal of Psychiatry, has chosen to ignore the issue.)

Read the rest of this article here:  http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/meet-the-queen-of-8220preschool-depression-8221-8212-and-her-drug-company-backers/5595

To read about other pharma funded psychiatrists promoting a psycho/pharma agenda  read Shrinks For Sale – The Corrupt Alliance of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical Industry by CCHR   http://www.cchrint.org/cchr-issues/the-corrupt-alliance-of-the-psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industry/

Also read DSM Panel Members Still Getting Pharma Funds by CCHR http://www.cchrint.org/2010/05/21/dsm-panel-members-still-getting-pharma-funds/

« Return to news items


Share

Teen Screen, Cynical Deception, Dangerous Illusion

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

By Allen Jones, Former Investigator, Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General
August 26, 2009

As human beings we have a strong natural impulse to protect our kids from harm.  As a society we create norms, laws and institutions to protect, educate and nurture our young.  Consciously and instinctively we safeguard our children.

Teen Screen is a bitter and cynical betrayal of this noble human impulse. Promoted as an aid to preventing suicide and identifying so-called mental disorders, Teen Screen is in fact a nefarious effort to recruit our children into the quagmire of biological psychiatry.

I believe the majority of parents who support Teen Screen are well meaning and genuinely have the best interests of children at heart.  I believe they have been duped and beguiled by slick marketing that appealed to their better instincts while simultaneously defeating those instincts.

Teen Screen was developed and promoted by persons with deep financial ties to makers of psychiatric drugs.  These drug companies have a profit-driven incentive to maximize the use of their drugs.  Teen Screen furthers this corporate goal by following a psychiatric model intended to translate normal human experience into symptoms of mental illness.

Teen Screen’s centerpiece is a survey which claims to identify signs of mental illness and suicidality in children and adolescents.  How does it do this?  Teen Screen identifies feelings and emotions experienced by children and adolescents. It then translates these feelings and emotions into “symptoms” of mental illness. In this way, Teen Screen is in lock-step with modern psychiatry.

The field of psychiatry has attached clinical pathology to the presence or absence of literally every mood or feeling in the normal range of human emotions. The diagnostic criteria outlined in psychiatry’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) essentially identify the presence or absence of feelings and subjectively determine if these feelings are “normal” or “abnormal.”  If the feeling or emotion is considered inappropriate in intensity or context, that feeling becomes a “symptom” of “mental illness,” treatable by medication.  After all, psychiatric drugs are designed to treat “symptoms” not cure illness.

Any child who lives life fully and freely will experience a full range of human emotions.  They will experience sadness, gladness, apathy, energy, optimism, pessimism, fear, fearlessness, love, hate, suspicion, trust and myriad other feelings.  Experiencing these feelings and learning to be guided appropriately by them is a vital part of growth and maturation.  Teen Screen identifies these feelings, subtlety manipulates or ignores context and labels the feelings as possible “symptoms” of mental illness.

Imagine the emotional states experienced by a child before, during and after a major life event such as playing in the “Big Game” with an archrival school.  The child might be distracted by excited anticipation for days before the event.  He might have difficulty sleeping the night before the game.  He might be unable to think of anything else on game day, even during classes.  He will likely be very highly energized during the event.  Depending on the game outcome, the child might be elated or saddened for days afterwards.

Now imagine the child later being asked questions such as these:

Have you ever felt so full of energy that it was difficult to sit still?

Have you ever felt anxious when you had to say or do something in front of people?

Have you ever been so concerned about something that you could not sleep?

Have you ever felt so happy that you could not concentrate?

Have you ever felt so sad that you could not focus on your school work?

The participant in the big game and the spectators of the big game might answer “yes” to most or all of the above questions.  Following the creed of modern psychiatry, Teen Screen would determine the child to be at risk of mania, social anxiety disorder, depression and possibly bipolar disorder.  The child would be flagged for further psychiatric evaluation.

The above scenario is not far-fetched. Things like this are happening every day. Teen Screen has been proven to have “false positive” rates as high as 84%.

Teen Screen is a device to distill “symptoms” from normal life experience and generate unlimited referrals to mental health professionals whose primary method of treatment involves drugging.  Please do not be duped by this ferocious, Pharma-friendly wolf in sheep’s clothing.

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 and that Jones was escorted out of his workplace on April 28, 2004, after OIG officials accused him of talking to the press. Jones chose to disclose his findings to the press precisely because of corrupt behavior by OIG officials themselves, alleging the OIG’s policy was “unconstitutional.”

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


Share