Psychiatrists on Drug Makers Payroll

by **nomo** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:31 pm

Study Finds a Link of Drug Makers to Psychiatrists By BENEDICT CAREY Published: April 20, 2006 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/20/health/20psych.html">www.nytimes.com/2006/04/2...psych.html</a> More than half the psychiatrists who took part in developing a widely used diagnostic manual for mental disorders had financial ties to drug companies before or after the manual was published, public health researchers reported yesterday. The researchers found that 95 — or 56 percent — of 170 experts who worked on the 1994 edition of the manual, called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or D.S.M, had at least one monetary relationship with a drug maker in the years from 1989 to 2004. The most frequent tie involved money for research, according to the study, an analysis of financial records and conflict-of-interest statements. The percentage was higher — 100 percent in some cases — for experts who worked on sections of the manual devoted to severe mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, the study found. But the authors, from Tufts University and the University of Massachusetts, were not able to establish how many of the psychiatrists were receiving money from drug companies while the manual was being compiled. Lisa Cosgrove, the study's lead author, who is a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, said that although the study could not prove that the psychiatrists' ties influenced the manual's development, "what we're saying is it's outrageous that the manual doesn't have a disclosure policy." But other experts scoffed at the idea that commercial interests had influenced either the language or content of the manual. "I can categorically say, and I was there every step of the way, that drug-company influence never entered into any of the discussions, whatsoever," said Dr. Michael First, a psychiatry professor at Columbia, who coordinated development of the current D.S.M. Some 400,000 mental health workers, from psychiatrists to nurses, use the manual to diagnose disorders in patients, and health insurers use the manual to determine coverage. In recent years, critics have said that the manual has become too expansive, including diagnoses, like social phobia, that they say appear tailor-made to create a market for antidepressants or other drugs. The study investigated the financial ties by sifting through legal files, patent records, conflict-of-interest databases and journal articles, among other records. Twenty-two percent of the experts received consulting income in the years from 1989 to 2004, the study found, and 16 percent served as members of a drug maker's speakers bureau. Such services are typically more lucrative than research support.

by **mother** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:05 pm

I wonder who in the state social services programs rakes in the cash for the foster and adopted children? I have had such frightening experiences with shrinks and foster kids that I really, really could not bring myself to trust any of them, not ever. That's why even if I eventually go off the deep end, go stark, raving any treatment, "help", or medication will be involuntary. The cosequences for once being (vicariously) termed "resistant" were tragic in the extreme. Is anyone actually happy and at peace with meds? I hope somebody deserving gets some measure of calm from the taking psyche drugs.

by **havanagilla** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:26 pm

mother, coincidentally, there was a feature article here about foster care 2 days ago. One detail caught my eyes. Apparently, the state pays the foster family/facility 1900 NIS (less than 500 $) a month. This is MORE than what a mother receives for her child's support from welfare of even from the father (child suppot). For example, I am a slingle mom of one, I receive 2,200 NIS a month for both of us (which according to the state's figures leaves 300 NIS for me, thats 70 $ a month ??). And average child support that the courts apply to fathers, would be around 1200 NIS a month for one child. So, clearly, and by virtue of figures alone, the state prefers and encourages taking children out and financing others to take care of them, rather than apply the money to assist the biological parents. Why ? i don't know. generally, the "system" needs the displaces, the criminals, the lost, the dysfunctional, in order to maintain control. It is also a constant whip against women, and families in general, namely "if you don't behave we can take your children away" and indeed they do that on political grounds, as a punishment and deterrent. -- I have been exposed to this abuse of power, in relation to whistle blowing. And recently, those who resisted the disengagement were visited by social workers with orders to take away the children, because the protest puts them "at risk". This is a very powerful tool for the government, to bypass due process.

by **mother** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:33 pm

Havanagila, the "stipends" for foster care can be enormous, depending upon which state one lives. I don't know what the payments where I live now are, because we moved. But if you care for a child who qualifies as Special Needs where we once lived, it starts at 2,400 dollars per month. Additionally, there are rather generous clothing allowances and payments for services such as tutoring and whatnot. Not to mention what they pay out to the mandatory shrinks, and the medicare. We know that there is a strong push for foster care instead of natural parents, but still can't figure it out, because it's so expensive. And it is very true, the threat factor of removal of children. The social workers have more authority than police in these situations. And even more money for shrinks on the pharma payroll. After paying off med school, they still make nice salaries and are not so bogged down by lawsuits. And they have superior authority within the foster care system.

by **DireStrike** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:31 pm

Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt, Matt! You don't know the history of psychology like I do! (Sorry, couldn't resist! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil"> ) It would be very interesting to check what's been done with multiple personality disorder in the latest DSM. My mom is going to pick one up when her tax return comes in, and I'll compare it with an old version we have, from when it was still called MPD. Now it is Dissociative Identity Disorder. I'd like to see what else has changed. She works at a mental hospital one step below nurses. The hospital no longer admits patients with MPD, unless they are admitted solely for something else, like depression. Basically, something medicable. Another thing my mom commented on was the addition of the "conduct disorder", which seems to mean "kids whose parents don't want to deal with them because they're out of control." The hospitals love to take these kids in and milk the insurance money while giving them all sorts of unnecessary medication to keep them under control. Or at least, so it seems to my mom. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=direstrike>DireStrike</A> at: 4/21/06 10:34 am

by **thoughtographer** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The hospitals love to take these kids in and milk the insurance money while giving them all sorts of unnecessary medication to keep them under control. Or at least, so it seems to my mom.<hr></blockquote> I think your mom is right, but it's not just the kids. Unscrupulous employees of all kinds take steps to ensure the future security of their jobs. In a lot of poorly managed hospitals, the various sketchy agendas of disgruntled and poorly selected employees often becomes the predominant subculture, and it's a scary subculture. I'm not condemning everyone who works in a mental facility. Some people just don't see the abuse, while others choose not to see it. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/21/06 5:54 pm

by **Col Quisp** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:39 pm

States benefit monetarily from the federal govt if they are able to place foster kids in adoption. Therefore, you often find judges in cahoots with social workers and attorneys for the state social services agencies terminating parental rights summarily. Then these kids can be placed into adoptive homes. The state gets funds from the feds based on the number of kids adopted out of foster care. I did research on this a few years ago while defending a termination of parental rights case. I argued this point just to get it in the record to show bias. I cannot recall the amount of money involved, but it was substantial. We lost, but on appeal one judge out of five ruled in our favor. Not enough to overturn, but it was nice to know someone on the bench sees through this charade. These cases are carried out in secret to "protect" the children. More light needs to be shed on this process. I encourage everyone to contact their state attorneys general to begin an investigation into your state's system of terminating parental rights and adopting out kids. In my state, such an investigation is underway.

by **Col Quisp** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:00 pm

A few more points: You never see wealthy parents in court having their rights terminated. Look what happened to Britney Spears when her kid "fell" off its high chair and fractured its skull, went without medical care for 6 days until the Spears family finally noticed their kid was not behaving normally. Had this been a poor family, that child would be yanked out of the home before you could say "Booberry." Instead, the social worker investigated and nothing happened. This is class warfare, not child protection. The poor families cannot afford an attorney, so they are appointed one who is paid a paltry sum to defend them in this momentous trial. No money to hire expert witnesses to counter the state's experts (if they even bother to hire any). I was paid the equivalent of 5 hours of my time to prepare for and try these cases. I usually spent at least 10-15 hours just going through the voluminous records. There are many court appearances, motions to be filed, witnesses interviewed, etc. No wonder most court-appointed attorneys do a cursory job in these cases. Who's going to complain to the bar association that they did not fulfill their ethical duty of zealous representation? Even if they did, nothing would happen, I can assure you.

by **havanagilla** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:18 pm

Same here in Israel. There was a famous "scandal" here, unresolved yet, called the "Yemenite children" referring to the disappearance of dozens of infants born to new immigrants from Yemen (in the 1950's). It turned out that social services grabbed them and placed them with well to do and white families. Not only was it done without judicial proceedings, but the parents were told the kids died of illness, and that's that. Years later, the gov had to appoint an Inquiry committee which didn't reach many conclusions as they were not allowed to open graves (supposedly proving either there were no babies there or something else). The issue is still festering here. One of the old social workers was interviewed in the TV, and she just insisted that "this is the right thing to do for the kids" because those mothers had 12 kids and were living like animals...:-( -- I represented a mother against social services who were trying to get her kid away because she didn't want to go to school. This is standard procedure here. I had an expert psych write that the kid has "school refusal syndrom" (not making this up, this was the diagnosis) and not only did ss have to back down, they were ordered to send a tutor to their home to educate the kid at the expense of the state. (special needs programs). SCHOOL REFUSAL ? talk about bogus syndromes...and DSM. But normally this case would not be assigned a lawyer, and the judge always rules in favor of the social workers cause he sees the same ones every day in his court and they are buddies. If this were a rich family, they would just apply for "home schooling" and send social services to hell. But only rich people get this privilege.

by **mother** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:39 pm

Oh, I can't agree more. I didn't know that the states got the $$ for the kids. But class is the whole deal. The social services strongly discourage people who don't need the money to do foster care, and the reason is simple. Nobody else would put up with the corrupt, lying, criminal mentality of the public agencies, and what horrible stuff they do to the kids they yank. Somebody was mentioning conduct disorder, I know what it's like to live with it-but I might have conduct disorder, too if the baby police took me from my mom because dad got drunk and beat the crap out of mom, and they charged her with neglect, and she couldn't afford a good lawyer. We were persistant enough to get our documented instances of corruption into the hands of an ethical judge, who passed it along to the right parties. It is doubtful that the worst scumbags got fired, though. And I am certain that we would never be able to adopt from a public agency again, unless there was some way to know what kind of records they have...they even hacked into our e-mails to steal all the incriminating details. All the lawyers I spoke with basically said their hands were tied, to go up against this entity would be so seriously expensive and the outcome so certainly negative, forget about it. But the wrong children are removed from families over and over. It is so paranoid-making, because of the policies and people doing Child Protective Services. I swear the really evil parents know how to work with the DSS workers, and often, too often, the wrong kids get taken fr the wrong reasons.

by **Col Quisp** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:40 pm

The only way I can think of to fight it is if it comes to the point of termination of parental rights, at least get another family member to agree to take the child. By law, they have to give preference to blood relatives. A parent should include a clause in their will to appoint whoever they want to be the guardian of their children. Courts don't necessarily have to honor it, but the choice is supposed to be given strong consideration. Sorry to have derailed this thread...oh well!

by **mother** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:15 pm

Well, you didn't actually derail, Col. The shrinks who are paid by the state who prescribe the meds. You could almost do a version of "I know an old lady who swallowed a fly" the topic is so sprawling.