National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI)

First formed as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) in 1979, it later changed its name to National Alliance on Mental Illness. The group has and continues to rely upon pharmaceutical funding—more than $45 million between 1996 and circa 2008. A U.S. Senate investigation in 2009 revealed that of this Pharma-funding, $23 million was between 2006 and 2008, representing about three-quarters of NAMI’s donations during that time. AstraZeneca granted it $1.44 million in 2008.[1] By the early 2000s, a new wave of antipsychotics was helping build multibillion-dollar businesses for AstraZeneca and another NAMI funder, Bristol-Myers Squibb.[2]

Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels, authors of Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies are Turning Us All into Patients found from extensive research that “partnering with patient groups has become a key element of marketing strategies for every major medical condition, with virtually every drug company.”[3]

Sally Zinman of the California Network of Mental Health Clients summarized the primary omission made by most mainstream media when crediting NAMI as a valid source of information on mental illness: “NAMI is seen by the media as the voice of the mental health community, but the integrity of its work is called into question by its sources of funding.”[4]

“Based upon reporting in the New York Times,” Senator Charles Grassley, who headed an investigation into industry conflicts of interest, said, “I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry shapes the practices of non-profit organizations which purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions. Specifically, it is alleged that pharmaceutical companies give money to non-profits in an attempt to garner favor in ways that increase sales of their products,” he explained.[5]

Groups like NAMI were established with representatives of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the American Psychiatric Association. Along with the pharmaceutical industry, this triage helped to secure greater funding for National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) and psychiatric researchers.

A Clinical Psychology Review report cited this incestuous relationship as a “powerful quartet of voices [that] came together during the 1980s 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 put the government’s stamp of approval on the story. NAMI provided moral authority. This was a coalition that could convince American society of almost anything….”[6]

Herbert Pardes, psychiatrist and director of NIMH (1978-1984) spoke at the forming meeting of NAMI.[7] Pardes was president of the APA (1989-1990).[8] Joining him was Samuel Keith (20 years in NIMH heading its Schizophrenia Research Program), along with other NIMH psychiatric researchers.[9] In 2018, he said that after NAMI had been running for a while, it posed the idea of launching a private organization that would be dedicated to the support of research to complement the work of the NIMH, which Pardes supported. The core group consisted of several leaders from NAMI and a group called the Schizophrenia Foundation. Together, they formed the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD) in 1986. Over a 30-year period, the group awarded thousands of grants worth more than $394 million.[10] Yet the rate of “mental illness” in the country has not reduced and there are no cures.

In fact, between about 1999 and 2001 psychiatrist Rex Cowdry was Medical Director of NAMI. He spent 21 years at NIMH and was its acting director (1994-1996) during which time he told Congress—after more than 40 years of federal funding and while demanding millions more—“We do not know the causes [of mental illness.] We don’t have methods of ‘curing’ these illnesses yet.”[11]

Pharmaceutical Corrupting Influence?

It’s one matter to accept funds to be a conduit for marketing psychotropic drugs. It’s quite another that those funds are accepted despite billions of dollars paid out by your benefactors to resolve criminal and civil investigations for fraudulent marketing or misconduct against them.

  • In 2006, NAMI president Michael Fitzpatrick told the Philadelphia Enquirer: “Nobody from the pharmaceutical industry tells us what to do.”[12]This was a blatant lie, as court documents revealed and The New York Times exposed in 2009.
  • Consider that during the time he was president of NAMI (2002-2004), James McNulty received thousands of dollars for regularly speaking on behalf of Pfizer and other drug makers at various company sponsored events.[13] He failed to disclose that he was paid this to promote the company’s products to NAMI members, and others, at the speaking engagements.[14] 
  • NAMI Texas and the Mental Health Association of Texas (part of Mental Health America) were part of the “collaborative effort,” along with pharmaceutical companies, that developed the now disgraced Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP).[15] TMAP was essentially a series of drug “flow charts” (algorithms) with a recommended drug plan to treat psychosis, etc. The drugs that were recommended included first Risperdal then other brand name antipsychotics. Some 51 representatives from chapters of NAMI were listed as “Policy Experts” in the “Expert Consensus Guideline Series for Schizophrenia.”
  • Eli Lilly and Co., Janssen, Novartis, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals exclusively and generously supported the development of these guidelines.[16] A lawsuit filed by Allen Jones, former Pennsylvania fraud investigator and the Texas State Attorney General’s office ended TMAP. Janssen was accused of using false advertising and trips and other perks to get its antipsychotic, Risperdal, listed as the first option on TMAP.[17] TMAP’s implementation caused Texas Medicaid spending on five antipsychotic drugs to skyrocket from $28 million in 2002 to $177 million in 2004—almost $700 million combined.[18]
  • Documents The New York Timesobtained showed that drug makers also gave NAMI direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits. For example, NAMI leaders met with AstraZeneca sales executives. Slides from a presentation delivered by the salesmen showed that the company urged the alliance to resist state efforts to limit mental health drugs. “Solutions: Play Hard Ball,” one slide was titled. “Hold policy makers accountable for their decisions in media and in election,” it continued.[19]
  • In a 2006 lawsuit filed by the “Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers,” a union health and welfare fund, against Eli Lilly, it alleged that the drug company’s funding of and partnership with NAMI in the late 90s/early 2000s was “designed to accomplish through a non-profit organization what it could not on its own: giving the appearance of independent analysis and a grassroots movement encouraging the use of atypical antipsychotics by state and private insurers.” According to the lawsuit: “The scheme worked and Lilly certainly benefited from its significant donations to NAMI. Zyprexa was the leading antipsychotic in the world in 2000, capturing nearly 40% of the global antipsychotic market. A year later, Zyprexa was sixth highest selling pharmaceutical product in the world, with $3.2 billion in sales.”[20]
  • The “Access to Effective Medications” brochure produced by NAMI National for legislators and paid for by Lilly—laid out a blueprint for nationwide NAMI lobbying of state governments to reduce or remove any limitations for atypical antipsychotics, again down playing the side effects of such drugs.” (Point 196)[21]

NAMI’s philanthropic partners in 2019 included the pharmaceutical companies Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lundbeck United States, Merck, Otsuka, Pfizer, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and Teva pharmaceuticals.[22] Numerous psychiatrists are speakers or researchers for such companies or their advisors.

  • Of these 15 companies, 14 had been exposed for some type of notorious conduct or criminal or civil misconduct, with those sued or coming under Department of Justice investigation often settling their cases, while admitting no liability. Fines and settlements were a combined total of more than $24.8 billion between 2002 and 2020, although $22 billion was in the last decade (2010-2020).
  • What’s more of a shocker is the conduct, which for some of the companies, involved withholding serious drug risks to the consumer, including death, cancer-causing agents or female breast growth (gynecomastia) in young boys, including one who grew size 46 DD breasts[23] and another forced to undergo a double mastectomy. [24] The humiliation, bullying and mental distress caused by this adverse drug reaction begs the question why a charity group is financially affiliated with a company that makes such a drug.
  • Several Pharma companies admitted to felony fraud charges over illicit marketing of potentially dangerous drugs or products for conditions not approved by the FDA, despite risks that included, for one drug, heart attacks that a reported 27,000 consumers suffered. Some companies paid kickbacks to doctors to prescribe their drugs, including one company’s incentives that included: a Los Angeles Lakers basketball camp for doctors and their children; prepaid golf outings at luxury courses; tickets for doctors and their families to see Broadway shows and concert tickets for doctors who were especially big prescribers.[25]
  • Two companies marketed off-label use of an antipsychotic for pediatric use and dementia-related psychosis, knowing the drug could also cause compulsive behavior, including gambling and suicide attempts.[26]
  • Three companies were fined or settled legal cases against them for over $847 million for their role in the U.S. opioid crisis.[27] Opioids were involved in 400,000 overdose deaths from 1999 to 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[28]
  • One company used a charity as a conduit to pay illegal kickbacks to Medicare patients[29] and another was under Department of Justice investigation over its support of charities that helped Medicare patients cover out-of-pocket drug costs,[30] arguably increasing drug sales.
  • According to, AstraZeneca developed the first SSRI antidepressant called zimelidine, and began selling it 1982. But the drug produced a rare side effect that could damage the nervous system, and the company recalled it a year later. By recalling zimelidine, it avoided potential catastrophic losses from possible lawsuits. It also received harsh criticism for its involvement in scandals for its blockbuster antipsychotics, Seroquel and Seroquel XR. In addition to paying $350 million to resolve more than 23,000 lawsuits that alleged Seroquel can cause diabetes, the company paid to settle illegal marketing charges. It also faced a number of scandals including corrupt data in studies for marketing the drug to children, a sex scandal and a poorly run clinical trial that could have compromised patient safety and data reliability. After years of investigations, AstraZeneca paid a $520 million fine brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for promoting Seroquel for unapproved uses. The company also paid $647 million to settle global lawsuits for failing to warn the public of Seroquel’s side effects.[31]
  • In March 2009, NAMI was named as a defendant, along with Pfizer, in a Medicaid fraud lawsuit filed by whistleblower, Mark Westlock, involving the illegal promotion of the antipsychotic Geodon. It was alleged Pfizer “conspired” with NAMI to act as a front organization in the off-label promotion of Geodon, according to the complaint.[32] Pfizer turned “NAMI into a Trojan Horse for the illegal marketing scheme to promote Geodon,” for use with children on the NAMI website. Westlock had been a rep for Pfizer from 1991 to 2007, when he claimed he was forced to resign. Following Pfizer’s funding, the NAMI website suggested that Geodon be used in children even though the FDA had approved it only for adults. The number of antipsychotic scripts written for children doubled to 4.4 million between 2003 and 2006, Westlock claimed. Westlock’s whistleblower suit against Pfizer was included in the $2.3 billion Bextra settlement.[33]
  • On February 12, 2001, NAMI issued a press release heralding the FDA approval of Geodon. When the drug had come up for approval in 1998 the FDA refused to approve it due to concerns about a heartbeat irregularity that it can cause, leading to sudden death. However, NAMI intervened directly, and soon the FDA was singing a different tune about the drug. By April 2001, Geodon had already been approved for use in 46 state Medicaid systems. Pfizer may have received assistance on this from NAMI in their “grass roots advocacy” lobbying of the federal Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA Medicaid and Medicare oversight agency) to force Medicaid to pay for atypical (new) antipsychotics.[34]
  • In April 2002, the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report entitled “VA Health Care: Implementation of Prescribing Guideline for Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs Generally Sound.” The VA’s policy on antipsychotic drugs was simply to ask psychiatrists to use less expensive ones, which the GAO found was a sound policy. The VA was trying to control costs, since the cost of antipsychotic drugs for the agency had shot up 29% from $123 million in 2000 to $158 million in 2001, and was eating up 7% of the VA’s total drug costs. NAMI, Mental Health America, American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of VA Physicians and Dentists were cited as the lone critics of the GAO policy.[35]
  • The March, 2000 newsletter of the Washington State Association of Counties credited Brad Boswell, former Eli Lilly executive turned NAMI Washington lobbyist, and NAMI’s Washington director, Tom Richardson, for getting the legislature to spend $1 million on atypical antipsychotics.[36] A lawsuit against Lilly in which NAMI was named pointed out that Lilly gave NAMI Washington State $91,000. “During the time, NAMI Washington State, in an effort led by NAMI lobbyist Brad Boswell lobbied the state legislature for $1 million specifically for atypical antipsychotic drugs….NAMI also joined a suit initiated by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America (PhRMA) against the state of Michigan in order to increase physician access to higher cost pharmaceuticals—including atypical antipsychotics—under the state’s Medicaid program.” (Point 197 of the lawsuit).[37]

Marketing Campaigns Masked as “Anti-Stigma”

No one should be discriminated against or stigmatized over their emotional state and problems. But the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry has used to market a campaign of inequity in funds and services.

  • In 1996, NAMI set up the “NAMI-Anti-Stigma Foundation” and said its campaign to end discrimination “accepts unrestricted contributions from pharmaceutical companies and others.”[38] While it claimed an altruistic motive of dispelling stigma against and stereotyping of mental illness, it has a near neo-Nazi approach in reporting anyone the group considered opposed to its agenda.[39] Not even Halloween escaped them as the group scare headed a campaign against ghoulish “insane asylums” being a theme of the night—although many patients in these asylums would argue it is like a “Halloween nightmare” being locked up and treated in one.[40] 
  • In 1998, NAMI released its “PACT Model of Community-Based Treatment for Persons with Severe and Persistent Mental Illnesses: A Manual for PACT Start-Up” as part of its Anti-Stigma Foundation. The PACT manual and standards outline what NAMI considered to be the most effective treatment—drugs—with the plan to get it implemented by every state by 2002.[41] Part of this was the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) that included patients being forced to take psychiatric drugs in the community and increased psychiatrists’ powers to force and coerce patients into taking drugs made by those companies funding NAMI.[42] The program endorsed greater involuntary commitment powers for psychiatrists to treat.
  • Patricia Spindel and Jo Anne Nugent of Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology who researched PACT voiced concerns about its stigmatizing effects by trampling on patients’ rights: “The PACT model would seem to be a throwback to a time when the rights of those being ‘treated’ were not of much concern to mental health practitioners.” Further, “The emphasis placed upon medication management and ‘managing difficult clients’ points to a process which stigmatizes and labels people for not following the wishes of society in general, and their doctors and workers in particular.”[43]
  • A February 8, 2001 article about the dangers of the PACT program published on the website of the Sutherland Institute—a Public Policy Research Institute based in Utah— noted that based on these PACT standards, admission criteria included “significant functional impairments” such as “inability to be consistently employed at a self-sustaining level or inability to consistently carry out the homemaker role (e.g. household meal preparation, washing clothes, budgeting, or child-care tasks and responsibilities.” Further, “Lack of good personal hygiene, not obtaining medical care, and not meeting one’s nutritional needs are other indicators that a person might need PACT’s services. If one in 15 people are in need of care, a lot of bad housekeepers could find themselves subject to involuntary psychiatric treatment, which can include the administration of psychotropic medication.”[44]
  • Showing NAMI’s further hypocrisy about stigma, “PACT standards do not require that a patient’s consent be obtained before he is admitted to the program,” with calls from NAMI to loosen existing involuntary commitment laws to enforce treatment.[45] Yet no medical patient could be stigmatized in the same way and be forced to undergo medical treatment. As the Sutherland Institute pointed out, “Loosening the standard for involuntary commitment would allow PACT to treat patients presenting a marginal danger to themselves or others and would open the door to involuntarily treat people, who like the bad housekeeper, merely differ from society’s accepted norm.…”[46]
  • A review of 27 clinical trials on PACT programs conducted by Tomi Gomory, Ph.D. in 1999 found, “The current promotion of PACT appears to be based more on professional enthusiasm for the medical model than upon any benefit to the clients.” A negative effect of the PACT model found in Dr. Gomory’s review was an increased incidence of suicide in PACT settings. One study found that during an 8-month period in one hospital doing the program 10% of the PACT client group attempted suicide while none of the other group of patients had done so (Hoult, et al. 1983). Another study noted that several PACT patients were judged improved by PACT experts immediately before they committed suicide.[47]
  • Sarah Thompson, M.D., a policy specialist, authored another article for the Sutherland Institute on PACT and stated, “Once a precedent is created for incarcerating and drugging people for minor deviations from ‘normal’ thoughts and behavior, how far are we from creating a system such as that used by the former Soviet Union, where people were incarcerated and drugged for politically incorrect beliefs?”[48]
  • In 1996, NAMI started a five-year campaign marketed as “Campaign to End Discrimination” that pushed for insurers to pay out unlimited funds for psychiatric treatments. The “Founding Sponsors” of this campaign were eight pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychiatric drugs—Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, SmithKline Beecham, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories.[49]
  • In 1999, NAMI’s top donor was Eli Lilly which gave $2.87 million, of which $1.1 million was to help fund NAMI’s “Campaign to End Discrimination” against the mentally ill.[50] This was a marketing scheme aimed at finding a way to force more insurance companies and government health care programs to quit “discriminating” against psychiatry’s and Big Pharma’s mentally ill customers.
  • NAMI failed to disclose that Eli Lilly’s marketing manager Gerald Radke ran its entire operation. In 1999, Radke was a Lilly paid “management consultant,” then left Lilly and served as NAMI’s “interim executive director” until mid-2001.[51]
  • In 2009, Wyeth reportedly gave $40,000 to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), $269,000 to the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA), $388,500 to Mental Health America (MHA) and $255,500 NAMI. DBSA, NAMI and MHA, along with the American Psychiatric Foundation, and several other organizations were all a part of the “Depression is Real” Coalition, and each individually received funds from Wyeth for that same project totaling $176,000.[52]
  • Other campaigns were NAMI C.A.R.E. (Consumers Advocating Recovery through Empowerment), NAMI Provider Education Program, NAMI Family-to-Family Education Program, (as of 2003 in 45 states and the District of Columbia), Peer to Peer, and Hearts and Minds.[53] NAMI C.A.R.E. announced it would significantly expand due to “an exclusive multi-year partnership with AstraZeneca, LP.” “We look forward to enhancing an already successful partnership with AstraZeneca through the expansion of NAMI-C.A.R.E,” said Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D., president of the NAMI national board.[54]
  • October 2002: The catch-sounding “Campaign for the Mind of America” pushed for an all-out mental health screening of all ages, stating: “The Campaign highlights the need to build a comprehensive, efficient system to screen, evaluate, diagnose and treat mental illnesses at every stage of life.”[55] [Emphasis added]
  • In 2007, NAMI presented a $50,000 “Mind of America Scientific Research Award” to Dr. A John Rush—who the U.S. Senate investigated in 2008 for his failure to disclose drug company dollars he’d taken as a researcher.[56] Former Vice-Chairman of the Dept. of Clinical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He reported only $3,000 of the nearly $18,000 that Eli Lilly paid him in 2001. Between 2000 and 2007, he failed to report another $12,000 from various drug companies.[57] Rush was one of the developers of the now disgraced TMAP (above), antipsychotic drug protocol.
  • In the third and fourth quarters of 2008, Pfizer gave NAMI a grant of $357,000 for “Campaign for the Mind of America.” Lilly is also funding the Campaign for the Mind, with grants of $450,000 in both 2007 and 2008. Lilly also provides extra funding to NAMI groups all over the country for the “Walk for the Mind of America.”[58]

NAMI Offshoots

  • The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Children and Adolescents Network (NAMI-CAN) was formed in May 1990. It produced newsletters that ran initial articles, such as “Serotonin and the Neurobiology of Depression” touting the benefits of SSRI antidepressants, newly on the market in 1988.[59] On its website, it said it was “extremely pleased” that the New Freedom Commission report (NFC) on mental health “calls for mental health screening” and particularly the use of TeenScreen, a non-scientific questionnaire that could label and stigmatize any child as “depressed” and requiring dangerous antidepressants. It calls on its members to report to NAMI national any “anti-screening attacks.”[60] TeenScreen was marketed by the former head of NAMI, Laurie Flynn.[61]  According to the former Pennsylvania government investigator, Allen Jones, “TeenScreen is a nefarious [wicked] effort to recruit our children into the quagmire of biological psychiatry.”  Jim Gottstein, an attorney who represented clients harmed by psychiatry, said TeenScreen “ends up being nothing more than a Drugging Dragnet.”[62] After years of criticism, in November 2012, TeenScreen announced its closure by the end of the year.[63]
  • In 1995, NAMI formed the NAMI Research Institute (NRI) with psychiatrist, E. Fuller Torrey (NIMH, APA) as president. Board members included Dr. Robert Post (NIMH, APA).[64] Dr. Post was Unit and Section Chief and then Chief of Biological Psychiatry at NIMH, a group  that “won” research awards from NARSAD and National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association (NDMDA, which is now the DBSA).[65] He organized the Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network (1995-2002), now continuing as the Bipolar Collaborative Network that is focused on developing “long-term treatment approaches” for bipolar—and with his biological psychiatry background, most likely drug “solutions.”[66] He has served on speakers’ bureaus for Bristol-Myers Squibb and GSK and as a consultant for Abbott Labs, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squib, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Shire and UCB Pharma.[67]
  • The NAMI Research Institute oversees at least one Stanley Foundation program, “The Stanley Scholars program,” and supplied money to 29 psychiatric research centers at universities in the U.S. and Canada.
  • In 2002, NAMI formed the NAMI Policy Research Institute (NPRI) with Michael Fitzpatrick as its director. Its mission was to “drive national, state, and local debates on reforms and investments in the nation’s mental illness delivery and financing system”—more taxpayers’ dollars going into the biomedical approach to treating people’s problems.[68]
  • The NPRI recommended psychiatric drugs under Medicaid “be available without restriction for persons with mental illness include:
  1. Antipsychotic medications;
  2. Anticonvulsant medications;
  3. Antidepressant medications;
  4. Antianxiety medications; and
  5. Any other medication that is cross-indicated as a central nervous system drug recognized to treat mental illness.”[69]
  • This further drives up healthcare costs, as psychiatric drugs are among Medicaid’s most costly and commonly prescribed drugs.[70]
  • 1997: NAMI formed the “Treatment Advocacy Center” with E. Fuller Torrey as founder.[71] Torrey was a NIMH researcher between 1986 and 1992 and had received more than $780,000 in grant awards from NIMH for research on “schizophrenia.” Torrey was the chairperson of the Stanley Foundation “Research Program on Serious Mental Illness.” According to Torrey, the Stanley Foundation has been supporting psychiatric research since 1988 and they “provide a NAMI staff person to evaluate and oversee NIMH research efforts.”[72]
  • On April 18, 1997, NAMI commended Janssen for its “Person-to-Person” initiative—a program Janssen and the APA launched “to link people who use Risperdal for schizophrenia to an array of community support systems.”[73] On July 1, 2016, a Philadelphia jury awarded $70 million to the family of a boy, Andrew Yount of Tennessee, who developed breasts (gynecomastia) at age 5 after taking Risperdal. The $70 million was about 30 times larger than a previous judgment awarding $2.5 million. Lawyers for the boy argued that “scientists” for the company were well aware of the risks and sought to downplay them.[74]  Risperdal was also tied to serious side effects including increased risks for diabetes.[75]
  • 2002: NAMI’s Living With Schizophrenia & Other Mental Illnesses educational program was renamed “In Our Voice: Living With Mental Illnesses.” Funded by a grant from Eli Lilly, the program was implemented into 10 states. The “program also serves as a gateway to other NAMI programs, including the organization’s 12-week Family-to-Family curriculum.”[76]


[1] “Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors,” New York Times, 22 Oct. 2009; “NAMI pharma front group gets millions,” 23 Oct 2009,

[2] “Big pharma backed away from brain drugs. Is a return in sight?” BioPharmaDive, 29 Jan. 2020,

[3] Ray Moynihan, Alan Cassels, Selling Sickness, (Nation Books, New York, 2005), p. 62

[4] Ken Silverton, “,” Mother Jones, Nov./Dec. 1999,

[5] “Senator Grassley: Letter to National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI),” Fierce Biotech, 6 May 2009,

[6] Brett J. Deacon, “The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research,” Clinical Psychology Review, 8 April 2013,






[12] Thomas Ginsberg, “Donations tie drug firms and nonprofits: Many patient groups reveal few, if any, details on relationships with pharmaceutical donors,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 28 May 2006,

[13] Jim Edwards, “Pfizer Turned NAMI Into “Trojan Horse” to Push Geodon Off-Label to Kids, Suit Claims,” CBS News, 16 Sept. 2009,;


[15] “Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP): A Collaborative Effort,”


[17] Emily Ramshaw, “Study backs generics Drugs funded by state found to have bad side effects, no added benefit,” The Dallas Morning News, 19 Sept. 2008

[18] Mark Horvit, “Lawsuit says drug companies conned state,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 20 Dec. 2006;

[19] “Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors,” New York Times, 22 Oct. 2009

[20], page 73, points 192-198, Local 28 Sheet Metals Union v. Lilly.

[21], page 74, point 196, Local 28 Sheet Metals Union v. Lilly.






[27] Companies were Allergan for $5 million, Janssen for $572 million and $20.4 million and Teva for $250 million;;;;;





[32] Jim Edwards, “Pfizer Turned NAMI Into ‘Trojan Horse’ to Push Geodon Off-Label to Kids, Suit Claims,” CBS News, 16 Sept. 2009,;

[33] Jim Edwards, “Pfizer Turned NAMI Into ‘Trojan Horse’ to Push Geodon Off-Label to Kids, Suit Claims,” CBS News, 16 Sept. 2009,;

[34] Chris Marshall, “FDA Approves Geodon (Ziprasidone) for the Treatment of Schizophrenia,” NAMI Press Release, 12 Feb. 2001; “Pfizer Announces Net Income Growth of 34 Percent to $2.130 Billion in First Quarter,” Pfizer Press Release, 18 Apr. 2001; “HCFA Provides State Medicaid Office with Guidance on Access to Atypical Antipsychotic Medication,” NAMI Press Release, 25 Feb. 1998

[35] “VA Health Care: Implementation of Prescribing Guideline for Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs Generally Sound,” U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, House of Reps., Apr. 2002, pp. 1 and 11,

[36] “Atypical Anti-psychotic Medication Bill Signed by Governor,” Legislative Bulletin, #12, Washington State of Counties, 31 Mar. 2000,;

[37], page 75, point 197, Local 28 Sheet Metals Union vs. Lilly






[43] Patricia Spindel and Jo Anne Nugent, “The Trouble with PACT: Questioning The Increasing Use of Assertive Community Treatment Teams In Community Mental Health,” Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology,

[44] Daniel B. Newby, “‘Hospital without walls’ could become a jail without bars,” The Sutherland Institute, Feb. 8, 2001,

[45] Daniel B. Newby, “‘Hospital without walls’ could become a jail without bars,” The Sutherland Institute, Feb. 8, 2001

[46] Daniel B. Newby, “‘Hospital without walls’ could become a jail without bars,” The Sutherland Institute, Feb. 8, 2001

[47] Tomi Gomory, Ph.D., “Programs of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT): A critical review,” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, Vol. 1, No. 2 1999 pp. 1-17,

[48] Sarah, Thompson, M.D., “Don’t Violate the Rights of the Mentally Ill,” The Sutherland Institute, Utah’s Public Policy Research Institute, July 23, 1999,

[49] “Campaign to End Discrimination,” National Alliance on Mental Illness website,

[50] Ken Silverton, “,” Mother Jones, Nov./Dec. 1999,

[51] “Donations tie drug firms and nonprofits; Many patient groups reveal few, if any, details on relationships with pharmaceutical donors,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 28 May 2006






[57] Emily Ramshaw, “Senator Questions Doctors’ Ties to Drug Companies,” The Dallas Morning News, 24 Sept. 2008,







[64] NAMI Research Institute guidestar pages, 2000



[67]; “Fourth International Conference on Bipolar Disorder,”




[72] “Dr. E. Fuller Torrey,” (accessed 29 October 1997); E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., “The Stanley Foundation Research Programs,” (accessed 21 Oct. 1997)


[74] Brendon Pierson, “J&J’s Janssen hit with $70 million verdict in Risperdal trial,” Reuters, 1 July 2016,;