THE CIA AND BIG PHARMA'S USE OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AS LABORATORY ANIMALS WHEN IMPRISONED IN THE USA
by Justice Lover

That the shrinks have been experimenting with their victim-patients, using Big Pharma's huge arsenal of psychiatric poisons, has been well known for many years now. There is nothing else they can do, because psychiatry purports to "treat mental illnesses" which are the figments of the shrinks' imagination or of their delusions. They do that with Big Pharma poisons which only worsen any emotional crisis the victim-patient has, and cause very serious deterioration of his/her wellbeing.

However, there is another kind of experimentation done by Big Pharma, which is even worse than those done by shrinks. It is the direct and deliberate use of human beings as laboratory animals to test on them all kinds of experimental drugs. The following article/report by AHRP is dealing with such crimes against humanity.





ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability

http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/

FYI

"Sentenced to Science: One Black Man's Story of Imprisonment in America,"is Professor Allen Hornblum's second book about the unethical medical experiments conducted by University of Pennsylvania dermatologists led byDr. Albert M. Kligman, who is credited with developing the acne and wrinkle treatment Retin-A.

The experiments (some ghastly) were performed between the 1950s and 1970s on inmates at Holmesburg Prison, in Philadelphia. They were conducted on behalf of at least 33 major pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies, as well as mind-control experiments for the U.S. Army and Central Intelligence Agency.

In this follow-up book to Hornblum's earlier book, "Acres of Skin," he has set out to tell the story of "guinea pig" Edward "Butch" Anthony, now 64, is an upstanding citizen these days. He was just 20 when he was first arrested for selling marijuana to an undercover cop and wound up in Holmesburg Prison.

Why do prisoners "volunteer?"A few bucks in their commissary account, and, perhaps more importantly,Anthony says he wanted to participate in the University of Pennsylvania's"safe" experiments because being a test subject got him off his cellblock and away from the sexual horrors and power struggles that were an everyday occurrence at the 'Burg."To tell the truth," Anthony says, "I was more afraid of being sexually assaulted down there than the experiments."

He'd been brought up to look upon doctors as saviors, he explained. However,after the prison experiments and the accompanying pain, he came to regard them as "Frankensteins" who provided no follow-up care after the tests we redone.

The first experiment in which Anthony participated was a safety trial for a Johnson & Johnson for bubble bath, for which he was paid $37. It was administered with the assistance of a fellow inmate in a white lab coat who ripped off six patches of Anthony's skin with adhesive tape as the first step of a painful cosmetics test that still haunts him today.

Not only did his back feel on fire during the skin-patch removal, but he broke out in red, strawberry-like blisters that filled with pus. It was so bad, Anthony recalled, that his food tray was brought to his cell because guards feared that his appearance would cause a disturbance in the chow hall.His sister Edna's reaction was just as telling. "She took one look at me and started screaming," Anthony says in the book. "She jumped out of her chair in horror. She was jumping up and down, yelling, 'Oh my God, oh my God, what did they do to you?' She was holding her hand to her mouth like she was trying to keep from vomiting."

Dr. Kligman, now 91, has staunchly defended his experiments at Holmesburg and maintained that they should not have been halted.

Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics, at the same university, acknowledges that those who are guilty of unethical experiments are loath to admit it.

But the evidence from recent experiments on prisoners belies Dr. Caplan's claim that what took place in Holmesburg would not take place today.

One wishes that his statement to the Associated Press were true: "We've all come a long way from saying we should experiment on marginal people, with or without their consent."

Unfortunately, the evidence refutes that assessment:

See, OHRP letters of determination re: violations of prison research:University of Texas Medical Center, Galveston July, 2000; September 2000;University of Illinois, Chicago, September 2000; Yale University, July 2000;University of Florida, September 2000; Letter of determination re: foster care children AIDS Phase I & II: Columbia University, May 2005 .

See, Cheaper than Chimpanzees, 2005:http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/218/139/
See: Mike Ward and Bill Bishop Whiff of Oversight: Healing or harming,medical tests rarely held up to scrutiny, American-Statesman, Monday,December 17, 2001 [Attached]http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/specialreports/prisons/17prison oversight.html

See, debate,http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/05/prison-research-debate-sharav-v-gostin.html
Add to these the non-therapeutic, non-consensual medical experiments on children and it's clear more vigilance, not less is needed:See, e.g., Grimes / Higgins v Kennedy Krieger (Johns Hopkins) # 128 and#129, Maryland Court of Appeals, August 16, 2001, online at:http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/law/StateMaterials/Marylandcases/grimesvkennedykreiger.pdf .
See, Bloomberg Special Report, Big Pharma's Shameful Secret, Dec. 2005.This Report is a massive indictment of the pharmaceutical industry and itscorrupt practices which would not be possible without the complicity of the stakeholders in government and academia. This report is an indictment of those who profit from the exploitation of desperate, poor, and disenfranchised people--immigrants, children, homeless people, and others who are used and abused as guinea pigs. Not much different from the exploitation at Holmesburg. See: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/11/03.php

Another area of abuse and exploitation are outsourced experiments conducted in underdeveloped countries:http://www.thejabberwock.org/blog/2/20071004sharav.ppt
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharavveracare@ahrp.org212-595-8974

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/national/20071203_Former_Holmesburg_inmate_recalls_1960s_tests__I_thought_I_went_to_hell.htmlhttp://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/StoryAP/12_03_SENTENCED_TO_SCIENCE Associated PressFormer Holmesburg inmate recalls 1960s tests: 'I thought I went to hell'By JOANN LOVIGLIO
As an inmate test subject for medical experiments being conducted atHolmesburg State Prison, Edward "Butch" Anthony says he had mysterioussubstances dabbed on his skin and injected in his veins. Then camefaintness, painful rashes, hands ballooning to the size of boxing gloves,nails so thick and rough they required a wood file, pus-filled blisters thatleft him in agony.

But it wasn't until he was handed a little cup of clear liquid to drink that things got so strange, he says, the inmates gave him a new name: Outer Limits."I was paranoid, I thought everybody was plotting and whispering about me,"he said in an interview. "I laid in my cell and hallucinated, I don't knowif it was days or weeks. I thought I went to hell."

Anthony's recollections as a paid test subject during the mid-1960s - and ofstruggling with the physical and psychological troubles that followed - are the subjects of "Sentenced to Science," a book just released by Penn StatePress.

"For 25 years, Holmesburg was a department store of human experimentation for private- or public-sector entities who wanted something tested," said"Sentenced to Science" author Allen M. Hornblum, a Temple University professor who first wrote about the Holmesburg tests in his 1998 book "Acres of Skin."

Medical testing at Holmesburg took place from 1951 until 1974, when it was banned by the city of Philadelphia. Congressional hearings were under way into allegedly coerced medical experimentation, including Tuskegee University tests that infected black men with syphilis.In the late 1970s, a federal medical-research panel took an official stand against virtually all medical tests on inmates except those found to pose only "minimal" risk, concluding that prisoners are incontestably subordinates so they cannot give informed consent. By the early 1980s,prison testing largely was history.

Inmates doing experiments could make hundreds of dollars a month, lucrative compared with regular prison jobs paying 25 cents a day and essential money that provided protection from sexual predators on the cellblock. "I signed myself away as a guinea pig, a lab rat," said Anthony, who now uses the first name Yusef. "But they told us the tests were safe, we didn't have nothing to worry about. They paid good money, but we wouldn't have done them if we were told they were dangerous."

Anthony, now 64, was among dozens of former Holmesburg inmates who contacted Hornblum after his 1998 book was released.In 2002, Anthony testified under oath to a City Council committee about the experiments, and was one of nearly 300 former Holmesburg inmates who failedin a bid to sue the city, the University of Pennsylvania and a doctor involved in the experiments. Courts ruled that the statute of limitations had expired.

His account and others' are supported by multiple federal investigations in the 1970s and records from Penn and elsewhere acquired by Hornblum through the Freedom of Information Act. "Eddie was particularly good at the way hepresented the story of what happened to him," said Hornblum, who now bringsAnthony to speak to his urban-studies classes. "My students' jaws would just drop."

A 2006 report by the Institute of Medicine branch of the National Academy of Sciences said that allowing riskier biomedical experiments in prisons could benefit inmates and society, if done under stringent standards. The report calls for an independent oversight panel; says test subjects should get nopayment or special treatment; advises barring cosmetic toxicity tests; andspecifies that trials should be in the final U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval phase.
State and local entities could implement their own prison-testing bans ifthe report's recommendations ever got approved, but Hornblum is skeptical."The history of this practice is that local governments tend to be lesssophisticated and end up allowing such ventures because of outright paymentsor quid pro quo relationships," he said.

The report's recommendations are undergoing a complex multi-agency review and it's unclear when any regulatory changes might occur, said Ivor Pritchard of the Office for Human Research Protections, the Health and HumanServices Department committee that requested the study.
In "Sentenced to Science," Anthony's chilling story begins with when he first entered his Holmesburg cellblock:"I got there and all these guys were walking around with patches all overtheir heads, their bodies. I didn't know yet about the tests. I thought, 'MyGod, they must be killing each other.' "

Within a week, Anthony himself became a test subject. He said patches of skin on his back were abraded and what he was told was baby shampoo was dabbed on; the substance caused such painful blisters that he was quickly taken off the test. He was paid $37.It was the first of five tests Anthony said he underwent during his time at"the Burg" from 1964 to 1966 on drug charges.

For decades, the University of Pennsylvania and dermatologists led by Dr.Albert M. Kligman, who is credited with developing the acne and wrinkletreatment Retin-A, performed experiments on inmates for pharmaceutical andchemical companies, cosmetics firms and the military.
Tests ranged from relatively innocuous (perfume, eyewash, hair dye, babyshampoo) to nightmarish (dioxin, hallucinogens, chemical-warfare agents,radioactive isotopes).
Kligman, 91, emeritus professor of dermatology at Penn, "is retired and nolonger gives interviews," the university said. He has staunchly defended hisexperiments at Holmesburg and maintained that they should not have beenhalted.

Penn bioethics professor Art Caplan disagrees."What took place in Holmesburg would not take place today," he said. "We'veall come a long way from saying we should experiment on marginal people,with or without their consent."

But research entities are loath to acknowledge wrong doing for many reasons,including fear of lawsuits, a desire to not revisit a shameful past and a"circle-the-wagons culture," Caplan said.

New York dermatologist A. Bernard Ackerman, who conducted tests in 1966 and1967 under Kligman at Holmesburg as a second-year dermatology resident, saidincomplete documentation makes it impossible to ascertain today what wastested on whom."You ask, 'How could this happen?' " said Ackerman, an outspoken critic ofKligman and Penn. "The answer is money."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allen and Anthony's Holmesburg horror story
By Diane Prokop
Times Staff Writer

Allen Hornblum decided his groundbreaking 1998 work, Acres of Skin: HumanExperiments at Holmesburg Prison: A True Story of Abuse and Exploitation inthe name of Medical Science, called for a more personal account.The book, which brought national attention to the issue, documented theresearch conducted by University of Pennsylvania dermatologist Dr. Albert M.Kligman between the 1950s and 1970s for at least 33 major pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies, as well as mind-control experiments for the U.S. Army and Central Intelligence Agency.

In his new follow-up book, Sentenced to Science: One Black Man's Story ofImprisonment in America, Hornblum has set out to tell the story of "guineapig" Edward "Butch" Anthony to make the subject more accessible for thoseoutside of academic circles. Still, the book is far from a beach read.The author, a lecturer of geography and urban studies at Temple University,characterized the book as watching a train wreck - as the "real" A MillionLittle Pieces, the pseudo-memoir that got author James Frey in trouble forblending a lot of fiction with fact in his best-selling book about copingwith harrowing addictions."To my surprise in discussing bioethics," Hornblum said, "there has neverbeen a book by and about a human guinea pig . . . on what it was like beinga test subject."

The graphic account explores Anthony's life while growing up in a strictBaptist home in North Philadelphia, particularly the hell-on-earth roads hetook from there that led him to become so strung out on drugs that he'dcollapse next to an overdosed dead body and be unable to do anything aboutit. Those roads also led him to do time in Holmesburg Prison - and become ahuman guinea pig who accepted paltry pay to endure torturous product tests and also treatments for after-effects that still cause him trouble some 40 years later.

Though it took him 20 years in and out of prison to overcome the habits of drugs and bad choices, Anthony, 64, is an upstanding citizen these days whogoes by his Muslim name Yusef. He was just 20 when he was first arrested forselling marijuana to an undercover cop and wound up in Holmesburg Prison."They planned it well. If you were in Holmesburg and didn't have any money,you were in trouble," Anthony recalled while chatting at the Cafe Brazil inOxford Circle a couple weeks ago.

A few bucks in his commissary account wasn't the only reason Anthony wantedto participate in the "safe" experiments. Being part of the University ofPennsylvania testing got him off his cellblock and away from the sexualhorrors and power struggles that were an everyday occurrence at the 'Burg,he explained.Anthony said he has known many a man who entered prison to serve a two-yearsentence for a misdemeanor but wound up being there far longer for beingpart of the violence that highlighted sexual powerplays among inmates."To tell the truth," Anthony says in Hornblum's latest book, "I was moreafraid of being sexually assaulted down there than the experiments."

He'd been brought up to look upon doctors as saviors, he explained. However,after the prison experiments and the accompanying pain, he came to regardthem as "Frankensteins" who provided no follow-up care after the tests weredone.His first round, Anthony said, was a safety trial for a Johnson & Johnsonbubble bath, for which he was paid $37. It was administered with theassistance of a fellow inmate in a white lab coat who ripped off six patchesof Anthony's skin with adhesive tape as the first step of a painfulcosmetics test that still haunts him today.

Not only did his back feel on fire during the skin-patch removal, but hebroke out in red, strawberry-like blisters that filled with pus. It was sobad, Anthony recalled, that his food tray was brought to his cell becauseguards feared that his appearance would cause a disturbance in the chowhall.His sister Edna's reaction was just as telling."She took one look at me and started screaming," Anthony says in the book."She jumped out of her chair in horror. She was jumping up and down,yelling, 'Oh my God, oh my God, what did they do to you?' She was holdingher hand to her mouth like she was trying to keep from vomiting."

That doesn't even scratch the surface of the nauseating accounts inSentenced to Science. Anthony has experienced flare-ups over the years,especially when his sensitive skin comes into contact with certain acidicfoods and cleaning chemicals.His nails grew into thick claws that had to be trimmed with a wood file. Hishands swelled to the size of boxing gloves; his 10-1/2 size feet balloonedto a need for 14 EEE sandals. According to Anthony, the smell was just astough to take, that of rotting flesh.

In 1974, he was hospitalized with one particularly bad relapse and infectionthat caused medical personnel at the old Philadelphia General Hospital inWest Philadelphia to cut and peel off a "half-inch flap of petrified meatthat was Yusef's palm," Hornblum notes in his book. The procedure also hadto be done to his other hand and his feet.The bubble-bath test wasn't the only one that Anthony signed up for. Readersof the book will sense that he's going to sign up for another productexperiment, with bad results, just as they'll learn how he got out of jailand embarked on a search for heroin.

The torture of being a human guinea pig in prison is just part of Anthony's story. For anyone who knows someone who has gone through the roller-coasterhell of drug addiction, Sentenced to Science can be all too real.Most people would hope that bringing to light the practice of usingprisoners and other disenfranchised populations for experimentation wouldprevent it from ever happening again. Hope may not be enough. Hornblumbelieves it could happen again."There are some people both in government and bioethics who think prison isthe right place for medical research," he said.Just last year, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy ofSciences concluded in a 300-page report, Ethical Considerations for ResearchInvolving Prisoners, that "research affords the potential of great benefit."

If permitted to move forward with the practice, for those people who mighthave a drug problem and wind up in the system, their addiction may be justthe beginning of a lifetime nightmare, he added. His research indicated thata significant part of the inmate population is behind bars for situationslinked to alcohol or drugs."They're already used to abusing themselves," Hornblum said.

(Emphasis added by Justice Lover)

HOW BIG PHARMA REPS BRIBE THE DOCTORS AND PUSH THE PSYCHIATRIC POISONS

by Justice Lover

The sales and bribery Big Pharma machine works in many and varied ways. It depends largely on the individual shrink. If he/she is academically inclined then there are "generous" offers for "research" grants, international "conferences" lectures etc., all covered and paid for by Big Pharma. If the shrink is just an "ordinary" shrink then there are numerous "gifts" and "incentives" for him/her, depending on how much profits he/she generate for Big Pharma.
In all cases the question of ethics, and of professional duties to patients and to the public in general are never considered, of course.

The following article was emailed to me by Lynn Michaels. It is in her
[SSRI-Research] Digest Number 1722 . It reads :

"THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOU NOW...AN INSIDE LOOK AT PRESCRIPTION DRUG PUSHING

by Gwen Olsen

Posted by: "Lynn Michaels"

" lmichaels02@yahoo.com

tapersafely

Sat Dec 8, 2007 1:54 am (PST)

http://www.medicalaccountability.net/A_GwenOlsenEssay.html

"The doctor will see you now, Sara." The impeccably well-groomed blonde, wearing a stylish summer suit, high heels and pantyhose in 90+ degree Texas heat, was quite a contrast to me and the other shorts and T-shirt clad patients waiting to see the doctor. Sara quickly gathered her detail bag and jar of candy. Grinning and chatting with the receptionist at the window, she deposited her candy jar and a handful of scratch pads and ink pens bearing her company's logo and drug name at the nurse's station then swept past the exam rooms to the sample closet. I could hear the doctor's gleeful reception and greeting in the hallway before the door to the back office had completely closed. This rep was obviously one of his favorites. I had been waiting over 45 minutes to see Dr. Dogood. Some of the other patients waiting had been there when I arrived. Yet, Sara had gotten here only ten or so minutes ago, had left her business card at the receptionist's window, and she was already in the back talking to the doctor. Probably has a lunch appointment, I thought to myself. Just then, the deli delivery boy stumbled into the office with his arms full of boxed lunches.

As I looked up from the latest issue of Ladies Home Journal, I allowed myself to reflect back over what seemed like a lifetime ago when I had been young, naïve, and ambitious enough to be one of the best in the pharmaceutical business. Just a decade ago, Sara could have easily been me.

In 1985, I had joined the pharmaceutical industry at the age of 26. Although I considered myself intelligent and a fast learner, I was at first unequipped with the knowledge I needed to have even a basic understanding of the disease states and physiology or pharmacology involved in the drugs I was selling. My undergraduate degree was a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish and Portuguese. That meant I was completely reliant on the product managers and marketing department for the accuracy of the information I gave doctors.

Reps are trained and indoctrinated in a semi-military style. In fact, basic sales training classes are much like boot camp and are designed to weed out the faint of heart or easily intimidated, as working with the egos of doctors can wear on even the strongest self-esteem. Trainers push new recruits to the breaking point, often giving them long hours of homework assignments into the night and weekends.

Reps must videotape sales presentations and continually test their medical product knowledge. The environment is highly competitive and large numbers do not complete all tiers of their training before dropping out from the pressure. Those that do are glorified as the "best of the best" and are then unleashed on the medical field with a false sense of bravado that soon fades.

Reps are instructed to promote the company's products in a given manner and with a particular focus. This is called marketing direction. Each promotional period there is a "tagline" or special message that the rep is supposed to drive home to the doctor. Sales literature and visual aids are all geared toward the promotional message, and they are utilized in role-plays until the presentations flow naturally. Reps are taught to handle and minimize the objections physicians might have. They are given the specific wording that best represents the company's position. Often, these instructions come from the legal department who reviews the sales documents for legal accuracy. If a visual aid initiates too many negative questions from physicians, the bar graph, product comparison, and so forth is reworked for the next sales quarter in a way that presents the information in a more favorable light. Having already learned the manipulative advantage of semantics in my study of language, I soon learned the semantics of research were called statistics.

Most doctors would deny the influence that sales reps have on their prescribing behavior. However, the fact of human nature is that we tend to support people that we like and feel are supportive of us. The pharmaceutical industry knows this all too well, and it provides the means for busy doctors to be accommodated in their practices by helpful, attentive sales professionals. Some reps go to great lengths to access and influence physicians because pharmaceutical companies provide lucrative incentives for reps who reach sales quotas. A rep stands to make several thousand dollars in one lump sum as a bonus in addition to his or her quarterly salary. Merchandise from catalogs and trip incentives are common as well. Reps who don't meet quotas are looked down upon in group settings and eventually are informed they have no job security.

Not only do reps provide lunch, medical education, tools and devices, medical textbooks, calendars, scratch pads and pens, but they can also influence the doctors' personal lives. In spite of the voluntary guidelines instituted by the PDMA several years ago which require that gifts given to doctors remain of nominal (less than $25) value, reps make generous contributions to office parties, fund-raisers, and golf tournaments with the assistance of corporate funds. They provide tickets to local sporting events and entertainment venues with a little creative financing and expense hiding, and they coordinate social functions such as boating, fishing, and hunting expeditions disguised as continuing medical education opportunities.

Even the most ethical, prudent practitioner can be influenced by interacting with a pharmaceutical rep. Sometimes even against his/her better judgment. One of my most painful memories as a sales rep was an illustration of this very point. I was new to the pharmaceutical industry and had attended my first new drug launch. I remember the pride and exuberance I felt at the national meeting in which loud speakers pumped out motivating theme music and medical researchers and marketing managers gave exciting, emotional speeches. I soaked in every word with anticipation and awe. I believed this new drug was really going to help people!

During the breaks, scientists and corporate executives chatted amiably with reps while feasting on an elaborate array of snacks and beverages. Sumptuous gourmet meals and nightly entertainment further catered to the already inflated egos of the sales force. Open bars accompanied every event. T-shirts and ball caps emblazoned with the Suprol logo were distributed, along with sports bags that would transport all the rep's acquired goodies back home.

Pumped full of enthusiasm and focused on the key opinion leaders in my community, I returned to my territory. I bombarded them with studies and marketing materials in an effort to find support for my new drug. Marketing direction was very specific. Doctors in each territory had been profiled prior to the launch, and I was well-informed as to who the Early Adopters and High-Volume Prescribers (HVPs) of NSAIDs were. (Note: The majority of drug companies know just what the doctor ordered, primarily because they subscribe to prescription data service companies that provide their sales force with detailed information on what doctors are prescribing in their practices. Pharmacies sell the doctors' prescription information, allowing companies to pinpoint who is supporting their product line and who is not. Reps frequently know more about a doctor's prescribing habits than he does himself! This data often verifies what marketers already know, and that is, when detail activity or call averages are increased in a doctor's office, the result is generally an increase in prescriptions for the products being promoted. The more memorable the presentation or information the doctor receives, the larger the assumed impact.)

I was also aware of marketing's last-ditch effort directive to ask a reluctant prescriber to give me just one new start patient, even if it was his or her most difficult patient that had failed other therapies. The rationale was, if a doctor had success in one of his or her most difficult patients, he or she would be more inclined to write prescriptions for additional patients.

One of my doctors who practiced in a small, coastal town wrote large numbers of anti-inflammatory drugs for his predominantly geriatric population. He was an older doc himself, very nice, but set in his ways. He had been profiled as a Late Adopter/Skeptic. After a lengthy debate about the benefits of my new product, he shared his philosophy with me, which was not to prescribe a new drug until it had been on the market for a full year. This way, he could avoid the initial unknown complications that invariably surfaced with each new product. In other words, he preferred a "better safe than sorry" approach.

Still, I persisted in my enthusiasm and, as I had been instructed, asked for that most difficult patient. I didn't leave until the doctor had committed to try the drug on at least one patient. He did finally commit, or, to use sales jargon, I closed him. I left triumphant.or so I thought.

I continued drumming up support for Suprol® and had just gotten it added to my major teaching hospital's formulary when I got the bad news. An emergency teleconference was called, and the company announced a "Dear Doctor" letter would be sent to all physicians that day addressing "new complications" associated with Suprol®, primarily flank pain. Nearly twenty-five percent of the patients affected had required hospitalization. Flank pain is a very serious side effect because it indicates the possibility of kidney damage.

Little did I know at the time, one of the doctors who had reported an adverse event, which eventually resulted in death due to dialysis complications, was in my territory. I was later contacted and instructed by management to have my doctor complete an Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) report. Much to my surprise, the doctor referenced in my instructions was the Late Adopter/Skeptic, who had promised me his "most difficult patient" against his better judgment. Even more startling would be the discovery that the patient had been his very own mother. Of course, I didn't find that out until I visited him to do the ADR. (By the way, the ADR was a daunting ream of paperwork that appeared to be designed to discourage busy doctors from reporting. That reporting process has since been streamlined online with MedWatch.) I will never forget the betrayed look on his face or his terse remark to me that "the company's marketing strategy had obviously been more thoroughly tested than our drug!" I was devastated and riddled with guilt. I didn't call on his office again for nearly six months. I didn't have the nerve!

Suprol® was eventually recalled in 1987 after it had first been banned in Europe. I found myself back pedaling in offices, embarrassed as I picked up samples. Reps were instructed to take a proactive stance with providers by pointing out the swift, decisive action taken by the company to remove the product once the adverse events surfaced. What reps were not told was that Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's consumer activist organization, had actually sued the FDA in order to protect consumers and have Suprol® pulled from the market.

So, I was somewhat surprised later on to discover that not all of my pharmaceutical cohorts in the marketing and sales departments subscribed to the medical Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." Marketing strategies were designed to do one thing: maximize profits. If information could have a negative impact on the bottom line, reps were instructed to downplay it. The opposite was true of even the most ridiculous perceived benefit. Patent extensions were sought for minute enhancements, and tons of marketing hoopla would tout the "new and improved" products.

Over the years as my knowledge base grew from the specialized training I received, I started to better understand the drugs and the effect they had on the body systems. I also became more adept at interpreting clinical trial data and laboratory results. I realized that drugs which were nominally effective were touted as phenomenal progress. I observed drugs being over utilized, overdosed, and improperly promoted "off label" for indications that were yet untested and/or unapproved. I watched as year after year the FDA approved dangerous drugs that were later removed from the market. I observed the defensive cover-ups and posturing employed by the industry to save those ill-fated products. But most importantly, I witnessed the demise of fair-balanced education in medicine.

A series of haunting images ingrained themselves in my memory banks-disturbing experiences that would completely alter my perception of medicine and the institutions that guard its ethical practice. I of conscience-altering experiences before I really comprehended the scope of just started awakening to the truth about the greed, deception, and corruption that permeated my industry. But it would take many years and dozens how much my profession affected the medical industry and the contribution I had made to harming thousands of trusting, innocent people. That sad moment of truth had changed me forever.

"Mrs. Olsen, the doctor will see you now," the nurse's voice brought my attention back to the present as she gestured me toward the back. We passed Sara in the hallway on her way out, as we stopped at the scale to take my weight. Brimming with a huge smile and now hands-free of her trinkets and treasures, she waved to the office personnel, "See you next month! Hope Dustin's team wins tonight!" she chirped to the receptionist, then exited the office out the back door. "God, wouldn't you just love to have her job?" mused the nurse as she wistfully watched the departing fanfare. "Thanks, but no thanks," I said knowingly, "especially not in today's heat!"

(Emphasis added by Justice Lover)

MORE ON THE COLLUSION BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BIG PHARMA TO UNDERMINE THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSUMER JUSTICE AND PROTECT BIG PHARMA'S COLOSAL PROFITS
by Justice Lover

Would the USA Supreme Court side with Big Pharma, or would it defend the foundation of consumers' justice ?

Here is the AHRP article/report :

"ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/

FYI

The case argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., pits the very foundation of consumer justice vis a vis large corporations.

At stake is whether consumers--who are harmed by defective drugs and devices that got through the premarketing FDA approval process--have a right to seek redress through litigation.

The doctrine of preemption put forth by Daniel Troy, (then) chief counsel ofthe FDA, argues that manufacturers whose products gained FDA marketing approval are immune from product liability lawsuits. They are immune solely because the FDA had given the government license for marketing. Troy argued that FDA's license preempts any state statute requiring greater safety standards. The doctrine of preemption prevents consumers from seeking legal redress for serious injury from defective products licensed by the FDA--even if such products were subsequently discovered to cause serious harm--even death.

Troy's argument, set forth in 2004, reversed the government's long-held position against the preemption doctrine. Since then, the Bush Administration began to take the manufacturers' side, as it did before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

In the case before the Supreme Court, a deputy solicitor general, Edwin S.Kneedler, explained the change in government policy, stating that in 2004,the F.D.A. "recognized that there would be a serious undermining of F.D.A.'sapproval authority and its balancing of the risks and benefits if a statejury could reweigh those."

A question in this case, Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., No. 06-179, is whetherthe court will give the government's position the usual deference it accordsan agency's interpretation of its basic statute.
Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times reports that the arguments heardbefore the Supreme Court on Tuesday, leave the issue in doubt (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/washington/05bizcourt.html?ref=health ).

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org 212-595-8974 "

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

BIG PHARMA AND THE SHRINKS' CRIMES AGAINST ELDERLY PEOPLE UNDER "CARE"
by Justice Lover

The following report by AHRP highlights the horrendous crimes of Big Pharma and psychiatry against elderly people in nursing homes. Could it be that General Physicians have joined the ranks of the shrinks to prescribe psychiatric poisons to elderly people in nursing homes (in return for Big Pharma bribes) ?

Although it concerns the USA, there can be little doubt that similar crimes have been perpetrated on a similar scale in most other countries, wherever the shrinks and Big Pharma have access to nursing homes.

We have by now the full picture, and to the full extent and scale, of the heinous crimes against humanity perpetrated by Big Pharma and by psychiatry's practitioners, yet there is no light at the end of this horrendous tunnel. Both Big Pharma and the shrinks enjoy the protection of the law and of the state machineries, as if they and their crimes are a necessary part of life !

Thus, included in these "normal life" patterns are the forced screening and forced
poisoning (by psychiatric "medications" of course) of young kids and even infants, as well as that of pregnant women, and as we shall see below the very elderly who are under "care"in nursing homes.

OUTLAW PSYCHIATRY NOW !



ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION

Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountabilityhttp://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/

FYI

The $122 billion-a-year nursing-home industry's use of drugs raises complex issues in an aging society.

A front page report by Lucette Lagnado in today's Wall Street Journal about abusive prescribing of antipsychotic drugs that are currently in vogue in America's nursing homes should provide a topic for debate among the contenders for the US presidency--as it affects millions of Americans. The report should prompt Congress to take action before their own parents or they themselves will become victims of government-supported chemical abuse.

"You walk into facilities where you see residents slumped over in their wheelchairs, their heads are hanging, and they're out of it, and that is unacceptable,' says Christie Teigland, director of informatics research forthe New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, anot-for-profit industry group. Her research, which she believes reflects national trends, shows that about one-third of dementia patients in NewYork's nursing homes are on antipsychotics; some facilities have rates as high as 60% to 70%. 'These drugs are being given way too much to this frailelderly population,' Dr. Teigland says."

"a woman listed in New York state health department inspection records as Resident #18.
The 84-year-old Alzheimer's patient, who lives at the OrchardManor nursing home in Medina, N.Y., likes to wander and roll her wheelchairaround her unit, according to a report filed earlier this year, andsometimes she nervously taps her foot.To address her behavior, which was considered disruptive, Resident #18 was given a powerful antipsychotic drug called Seroquel, a drug approved for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Resident #18 is not psychotic and Seroquel -- like other atypical antipsychotics -- carries a "black box"warning that elderly dementia patients using it face a higher risk of death."

Justification? "She is a handful," says Thomas Morien, administrator of Orchard Manor.
In Massapequa, N.Y, Park view Care and Rehabilitation Center (a nursing home)was recently fined $2,000 by the state for injecting 90 doses of Haldol into a 96-year-old Alzheimer's patient.

"The woman, identified only as Resident #2, enjoyed listening to music and getting her nails polished, according to a state report. But when agitated,she banged her hand on the table and sometimes yelled. One aide found it was possible to calm her by offering ice cream and chatting with her, the report said. But other staff gave her the drug Haldol. Between August 2006 to February of this year, she received 90 doses of injectable Haldol, the report said.

Steve Seltzer, Parkview administrator is quoted stating that resident #2 was"an especially difficult case, who reverted to her native European language,making it hard to communicate."
One cringes at the UNCARING "care" industry and the callous disregard for human values by health care professionals--in particular those dealing with especially vulnerable populations cannot defend themselves--the elderely and children, both of who are easy prey.

Drug manufacturers are ruthlessly targeting children and the elderly as easy markets for dumping their most hazardous, incapacitating, life-shortening toxic drugs which should never have been approved for marketing.

Who is kidding who....how would a $2,000 fine serve as a deterrent to abusive practices for an industry that rakes in $122,000,000,000 billion ??

A punishment befitting the abusive misprescribing of anti psychotics would be to require the abusing "care" givers to be injected with the same drug at the same dose. This might, possibly, lead to their developing human empathy,or else, to seek other employment.

The problem with the medical profession today is that Big Pharma's influence has blinded physicians even to FDA mandated warnings: Antpsychotics carryBlack Box label warnings about drug-induced death in the elderly, yet doctors prescribe them as though they were jelly beans.

Unsupportable increased use of antipsychotics is documented in the US by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid:

2000-----expenditure = $2.14 billion
2003------------------------- $4.10 billion
2005------------------------- $5.40 billion

Clearly, the most effective remedy against widespread misprescribing of antipsychotic drugs for off-label uses is for Medicaid / Medicare to stop reimbursing the cost.

Last night, BBC Panorama focused on the same abusive prescribing of antipsychotics in UK nursing homes:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/7104212.stm
Just as in the US, healthcare industry--"care" givers-- ignore patients' need, relying on industry generated propaganda to justify unsupportable prescribing of toxic antipsychotics.

Panorama's report presented the case of Eric Hollingworth an 81-years-old man who died last week in a care home.He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's four years ago and was being treated with anti-psychotic drugs.His daughter, Cheryl Byrne, is convinced it was not just the disease that reduced him to this state, but the powerful anti-psychotic drugs he was prescribed over the past three and a half years.

She says: "I never thought he was the same again after he'd been prescribed those drugs... I thought something was lost."

Cheryl tried to get her father off the medication and said that there were alternative ways of caring for him that would remove the need for these drugs.Her battle with doctors and care homes over his treatment even led her to film her father undercover, to try to prove her case.Her footage portrayed his state and she claimed the drugs prescribed to him helped to make him zombie-like."

Her suspicion that the drugs cause her father to deteriorate is backed by evidence. The program presented evidence showing that in the long-term,anti-psychotic drugs have no benefit for the treatment of dementia patients--instead, the drugs shorten patients' lives.

One of the world's leading experts in dementia, Professor Clive Ballard of King's College London, has conducted a long-term study comparing the effects of the drugs on dementia patients. He studied the drugs' effects in a groupof 165 people with dementia who'd already been on the drugs for some time.Half the group were taken off the drugs, while the other half were left half on.

After a year he found that the group still on the drugs were significantly harmed.

His study shows that the drugs failed to produce any significant benefits and exacerbated difficulties with thinking and communication - the distressing symptoms of Alzheimer's itself. And, on top of all this, this class of drugs risks shortening the lives of people with dementia.

If the governments in the US and UK have adopted a public policy for dealing with the elderly by shortening their lives with antipsychotics, then let them disclose that policy--i.e., Euthanasia. If not, laws need to be enacted to stop the government supported abuse under the guise of "care."

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharavveracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974

(Emphasi9s added by Justice Lover)

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/control2.htm
POPULATION CONTROL AND THE U.N.
Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N!
by Anton Chaitkin
ROCKFELLER AND MASS MURDER

The Rockefeller Foundation is the prime sponsor of public relations for the United Nations' drastic depopulation program. Evidence in the possession of a growing number of researchers in America, England, and Germany demonstrates that the Foundation and its corporate, medical, and political associates organized the racial mass murder program of Nazi Germany.

These globalists, who function as a conduit for British Empire geopolitics, were not stopped after World War II. This United Nations alliance of the old Nazi right, with the new left, poses an even graver danger to the world today than it did in 1941. Oil monopolist John D. Rockefeller created the family-run Rockefeller Foundation in 1909. By 1929 he had placed $300 million worth of the family's controlling interest in the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (now called ``Exxon'') to the account of the Foundation.

The Foundation's money created the medical specialty known as Psychiatric Genetics. For the new experimental field, the Foundation reorganized medical teaching in Germany, creating and thenceforth continuously directing the "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry'' and the "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity.'' The Rockefellers' chief executive of these institutions was the fascist Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, assisted by his proteges Otmar Verschuer and Franz J. Kallmann.

In 1932, the British-led ``Eugenics'' movement designated the Rockefellers' Dr. Rudin as the president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The movement called for the killing or sterilization of people whose heredity made them a public burden. - The Racial Laws - A few months later, Hitler took over Germany and the Rockefeller-Rudin apparatus became a section of the Nazi state.

The regime appointed Rudin head of the Racial Hygiene Society. Rudin and his staff, as part of the Task Force of Heredity Experts chaired by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, drew up the sterilization law. Described as an American Model law, it was adopted in July 1933 and proudly printed in the September 1933 Eugenical News (USA) with Hitler's signature. The Rockefeller group drew up other race laws, also based on existing Virginia statutes.

Otmar Verschuer and his assistant Josef Mengele together wrote reports for special courts which enforced Rudin's racial purity law against cohabitation of Aryans and non-Aryans. The "T4'' unit of the Hitler Chancery, based on psychiatrists led by Rudin and his staff, cooperated in creating propaganda films to sell mercy killing (euthanasia) to German citizens. The public reacted antagonistically: Hitler had to withdraw a tear-jerker right-to-die film from the movie theaters.

The proper groundwork had not yet been laid. Under the Nazis, the German chemical company I.G. Farben and Rockefeller's Standard Oil of New Jersey were effectively a single firm, merged in hundreds of cartel arrangements. I.G. Farben was led, up until 1937, by the Warburg family, Rockefeller's partner in banking and in the design of Nazi German eugenics. Following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, Standard Oil pledged to keep the merger with I.G. Farben going even if the U.S. entered the war.

This was exposed in 1942 by Sen. Harry Truman's investigating committee, and President Roosevelt took hundreds of legal measures during the war to stop the Standard-I.G. Farben cartel from supplying the enemy war machine. In 1940-41, I.G. Farben built a gigantic factory at Auschwitz in Poland, to utilize the Standard Oil/I.G. Farben patents with concentration camp slave labor to make gasoline from coal.

The SS was assigned to guard the Jewish and other inmates and select for killing those who were unfit for I.G. Farben slave labor. Standard-Germany president Emil Helfferich testified after the war that Standard Oil funds helped pay for SS guards at Auschwitz.

In 1940, six months after the notorious Standard-I.G. meeting, European Rockefeller
Foundation official Daniel O'Brian wrote to the Foundation's chief medical officer Alan Gregg that "it would be unfortunate if it was chosen to stop research which has no relation to war issues''--so the Foundation continued financing Nazi "psychiatric research'' during the war.

In 1936, Rockefeller's Dr. Franz Kallmann interrupted his study of hereditary degeneracy and emigrated to America because he was half-Jewish. Kallmann went to New York and established the Medical Genetics Department of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry published Kallman's study of over 1,000 cases of schizophrenia, which tried to prove its hereditary basis. In the book, Kallmann thanked his long-time boss and mentor Rudin.
Kallmann's book, published in 1938 in the USA and Nazi Germany, was used by the T4 unit as a rationalization to begin in 1939 the murder of mental patients and various ``defective'' people, perhaps most of them children. Gas and lethal injections were used to kill 250,000 under this program, in which the staffs for a broader murder program were desensitized and trained.

- Dr. Mengele... - In 1943, Otmar Verschuer's assistant Josef Mengele was made medical commandant of Auschwitz. As wartime director of Rockefeller's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity in Berlin, Verschuer secured funds for Mengele's experiments at Auschwitz from the German Research Council.

Verschuer wrote a progress report to the Council: ``My co-researcher in this research is my assistant the anthropologist and physician Mengele. He is serving as Hauptstuermfuehrer and camp doctor in the concentration camp Auschwitz....

With the permission of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, anthropological research is being undertaken on the various racial groups in the concentration camps and blood samples will be sent to my laboratory for investigation.'' Mengele prowled the railroad lines leading into Auschwitz, looking for twins--a favorite subject of psychiatric geneticists. On arrival at Mengele's experimental station, twins filled out ``a detailed questionnaire from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

'' There were daily drawings of blood for Verschuer's ``specific protein'' research. Needles were injected into eyes for work on eye color. There were experimental blood transfusions and infections. Organs and limbs were removed, sometimes without anesthetics. Sex changes were attempted. Females were sterilized, males were castrated. Thousands were murdered and their organs, eyeballs, heads, and limbs were sent to Verschuer and the Rockefeller group at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

In 1946, Verschuer wrote to the Bureau of Human Heredity in London, asking for help in continuing his ``scientific research.'' - Facelift - In 1947, the Bureau of Human Heredity moved from London to Copenhagen.

The new Danish building for this was built with Rockefeller money. The first International Congress in Human Genetics following World War II was held at this Danish institute in 1956. By that time, Verschuer was a member of the American Eugenics Society, then indistingishable from Rockefeller's Population Council. Dr. Kallmann helped save Verschuer by testifying in his denazification proceedings.

Dr. Kallmann created the American Society of Human Genetics, which organized the ``Human Genome Project''--a current $3 billion physical multiculturalism effort. Kallmann was a director of the American Eugenics Society in 1952 and from 1954 to 1965.

In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name.

The Rockefeller Foundation had long financed the eugenics movement in England, apparently repaying Britain for the fact that British capital and an Englishman-partner had started old John D. Rockefeller out in his Oil Trust. In the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England adopted what they called Crypto-eugenics, stating in their official reports that they would do eugenics through means and instruments not labeled as eugenics.

With support from the Rockefellers, the Eugenics Society (England) set up a sub-committee called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which for 12 years had no other address than the Eugenics Society. This, then, is the private, international apparatus which has set the world up for a global holocaust, under the UN flag.

[For more information about the Planned Parenthood and Rockefeller connection to AIDS and disinformation campaigns, read the book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident or Intentional?" by Dr. Leonard Horowitz (Tetrahedron Press, 1996).]
ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/tetra/pub/UN_Rockefeller_Genocide.txt

ONE MORE CONFESSION OF A BRIBES TAKING SHRINK AND HIS LATEST REVELATIONS
by Justice Lover

There seem to be various degrees of honesty - from 0 to 90% perhaps - among psychiatry’s shrinks, but it is impossible to find one who is 100% honest. Even amongst the few shrinks who are opposed to psychiatry itself (“anti-psychiatry psychiatrists”), like Dr. Thomas Szasz or Dr. Peter Breggin, there has been persistent reluctance to fully condemn and abandon this despicable quackery "profession", and to just live of their MD qualified status as physicians.

Why ? If psychiatry is without any scientific foundation, and the “mental illness” dogma is a myth, as Dr. Thomas Szasz correctly wrote, then why had he not relinquished his tenure as professor of psychiatry ? What had he been teaching his psychiatry students ? Certainly not how to oppose psychiatry, or he would had lost his well paid job !

Similarly, if “psychiatry is big business more than it is a profession“ ,as Dr. Peter Breggin correctly wrote, why does he still work as a psychiatrist ?
And why do we find on his website the following statement :

“In 1972 Dr. Peter Breggin founded The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP) as a nonprofit research and educational network. The Center is concerned with the impact of mental health theory and practices upon individual well-being, personal freedom, and family and community values. He also founded the peer-review journal, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry. In 2002, Dr. Peter Breggin and his wife Ginger selected new and younger professionals to take over leadership of the journal and ICSPP “

The ICSPP is de facto confirmation of psychiatry being a “respectable”profession, and perhaps even of it being a “Medical Specialty” too ! Why does he (and his wife ?) need to “selected new and younger professionals to take over leadership of the journal and ICSPP “ ?

What for ? To perpetuate psychiatry ?

Those two examples, of Szasz and Breggin, belong to the 90% “honest” shrinks - they are the top “honest” shrinks - while all the rest of the shrinks can claim much more limited degrees of "honesty". In a word no shrink is completely reliable, not even those in the 90% honesty bracket !

When it comes to the vast majority of shrinks, and their leaders, they are all liars and dishonest impostors who function as “Doctor Big Pharma Reps “ in return for heavy bribes by Big Pharma. This has been the plain, truthful reality for many years now, and at the cost of numerous thousands of innocent lives who had happened to be the shrinks’ victim-patients !

On such a background it is no wonder that if any shrink dares to confess some psychiatric crimes, he/she consider themselves as great heroes ! The latest of such “heroes” is a shrink by the name Dr. Daniel Carlat whose article was published today by the NYT under the title “Dr. Drug Rep”. He is described there as follows : “Daniel Carlat is an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Tufts University School of Medicine and the publisher of The Carlat Psychiatry Report. “

Here are excerpts from his article :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/magazine/25memoir-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

“On a blustery fall New England day in 2001, a friendly representative from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals came into my office in Newburyport, Mass., and made me an offer I found hard to refuse. He asked me if I’d like to give talks to other doctors about using Effexor XR for treating depression. He told me that I would go around to doctors’ offices during lunchtime and talk about some of the features of Effexor. It would be pretty easy. Wyeth would provide a set of slides and even pay for me to attend a speaker’s training session, and he quickly floated some numbers. I would be paid $500 for one-hour “Lunch and Learn” talks at local doctors’ offices, or $750 if I had to drive an hour. I would be flown to New York for a “faculty-development program,” where I would be pampered in a Midtown hotel for two nights and would be paid an additional “honorarium…”

“A few weeks later, my wife and I walked through the luxurious lobby of the Millennium Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. At the reception desk, when I gave my name, the attendant keyed it into the computer and said, with a dazzling smile: “Hello, Dr. Carlat, I see that you are with the Wyeth conference. Here are your materials.”

She handed me a folder containing the schedule of talks, an invitation to various dinners and receptions and two tickets to a Broadway musical. “Enjoy your stay, doctor.” I had no doubt that I would, though I felt a gnawing at the edge of my conscience. This seemed like a lot of money to lavish on me just so that I could provide some education to primary-care doctors in a small town north of Boston.

The next morning, the conference began. There were a hundred or so other psychiatrists from different parts of the U.S. I recognized a couple of the attendees, including an acquaintance I hadn’t seen in a while. I’d heard that he moved to another state and was making a bundle of money, but nobody seemed to know exactly how.

I joined him at his table and asked him what he had been up to. He said he had a busy private practice and had given a lot of talks for Warner-Lambert, a company that had since been acquired by Pfizer. His talks were on Neurontin, a drug that was approved for epilepsy but that my friend had found helpful for bipolar disorder in his practice. (In 2004, Warner-Lambert pleaded guilty to illegally marketing Neurontin for unapproved uses. It is illegal for companies to pay doctors to promote so-called off-label uses.)…”

"When it came to side effects, Effexor’s greatest liability was that it could cause hypertension, a side effect not shared by S.S.R.I.’s. Sussman showed us some data from the clinical trials, indicating that at lower doses, about 3 percent of patients taking Effexor had hypertension as compared with about 2 percent of patients assigned to a placebo. There was only a 1 percent difference between Effexor and placebo, he commented, and pointed out that treating high blood pressure might be a small price to pay for relief from depression.

It was an accurate reading of the data, and I remember finding it a convincing defense of Effexor’s safety. As I look back at my notes now, however, I notice that another way of describing the same numbers would have been to say that Effexor leads to a 50 percent greater rate of hypertension than a placebo. Framed this way, Effexor looks more hazardous.
And so it went for the rest of the afternoon.

Was I swallowing the message whole? Certainly not. I knew that this was hardly impartial medical education, and that we were being fed a marketing line. But when you are treated like the anointed, wined and dined in Manhattan and placed among the leaders of the field, you inevitably put some of your critical faculties on hold. I was truly impressed with Effexor’s remission numbers, and like any physician, I was hopeful that something new and different had been introduced to my quiver of therapeutic options.

At the end of the last lecture, we were all handed envelopes as we left the conference room. Inside were checks for $750. It was time to enjoy ourselves in the city…“

“II. The Art and Science of Detailing

Pharmaceutical “detailing” is the term used to describe those sales visits in which drug reps go to doctors’ offices to describe the benefits of a specific drug. Once I returned to my Newburyport office from New York, a couple of voice-mail messages from local Wyeth reps were already waiting for me, inviting me to give some presentations at local doctors’ offices. I was about to begin my speaking — and detailing — career in earnest.

How many doctors speak for drug companies? We don’t know for sure, but one recent study indicates that at least 25 percent of all doctors in the United States receive drug money for lecturing to physicians or for helping to market drugs in other ways. This meant that I was about to join some 200,000 American physicians who are being paid by companies to promote their drugs. I felt quite flattered to have been recruited, and I assumed that the rep had picked me because of some special personal or professional quality…“

“The American Medical Association is also a key player in prescription data-mining. Pharmacies typically will not release doctors’ names to the data-mining companies, but they will release their Drug Enforcement Agency numbers. The A.M.A. licenses its file of U.S. physicians, allowing the data-mining companies to match up D.E.A. numbers to specific physicians. The A.M.A. makes millions in information-leasing money.

Once drug companies have identified the doctors, they must woo them. In the April 2007 issue of the journal PLoS Medicine, Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman of Georgetown teamed up with Ahari (the former drug rep) to describe the myriad techniques drug reps use to establish relationships with physicians, including inviting them to a speaker’s meeting. These can serve to cement a positive a relationship between the rep and the doctor. This relationship is crucial, they say, since “drug reps increase drug sales by influencing physicians, and they do so with finely titrated doses of friendship…”

“Several days later, I was visited by the same district manager who first offered me the speaking job. Pleasant as always, he said: “My reps told me that you weren’t as enthusiastic about our product at your last talk. I told them that even Dr. Carlat can’t hit a home run every time. Have you been sick?”

At that moment, I decided my career as an industry-sponsored speaker was over. The manager’s message couldn’t be clearer: I was being paid to enthusiastically endorse their drug. Once I stopped doing that, I was of little value to them, no matter how much “medical education” I provided.

IV. Life After Drug Money

A year after starting my educational talks for drug companies (I had also given two talks for Forest Pharmaceuticals, pushing the antidepressant Lexapro), I quit. I had made about $30,000 in supplemental income from these talks, a significant addition to the $140,000 or so I made from my private practice. Now I publish a medical-education newsletter for psychiatrists that is not financed by the pharmaceutical industry and that tries to critically assess drug research and marketing claims. I still see patients, and I still prescribe Effexor. I don’t prescribe it as frequently as I used to, but I have seen many patients turn their lives around because they responded to this drug and to nothing else.”

To conclude this post here is what Dr. Carlat says on his blog :

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/

“My opinion, formed as a result of participating in many CME activities, is that allowing pharmaceutical companies to sponsor accredited medical education leads to many bad things, including biased education, corrupt physicians, and, ultimately, harm to our patients.”

(emphasis added by Justice Lover)

MORE ON THE RACKET THAT PSYCHIATRY IS , AND MORE ON THE CRIMES OF ITS TOP SHRINKS
by Justice Lover

As we have seen so far, psychiatry is a very dangerous, and very harmful type of "medical"quackery which is protected by law and by the state apparatus. The shrinks, particularly those employed by the state, continue to abuse and misuse the enormous power given to them by state laws. Knowing that they are not accountable, and that they have got the full backing of Big Pharma which rewards their services by heavy bribes, they have grown very cynical towards the public in general, and to their patients in particular.



The following AHRP report reveals some crimes of a top USA shrink who has acted as a sexual predator towards at least one patient of his. The report compares his legal situation with that under the U.K. law, concluding that in the USA it much worse. Well, in Melbourne,Australia the legal situation is even worse than in the USA. Thus, when Benjamin Merhav's daughter was incarcerated a few years ago in a psychiatric "hospital", she complained to her father about attempts by a male nurse to rape her. When he passed on her complaint to her then "treating psychiatrist" he dismissed it as nonsense without even attempting to investigate the complaint.

However, that's not where Miss Merhav's trouble ended. She was prosecuted for committing a criminal offence by "stalking" that same male nurse !

Here is the report :



ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION


Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/


FYI


Sexual misconduct by a psychiatrist is akin to sexual abuse by a priest- it is a colossal betrayal of trust by a person privy to intimacies not shared with others- someone in a position of far greater power and authority than the victim.


In the UK sexualized behavior between a psychiatrist and "a person with mental disorder impeding choice" is a criminal offense since 2003. The penalty, if convicted, is up to 14 years in prison.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_3#pt1-pb8
The rationale being that the psychiatrist knew or could reasonably be expected to know that the patient's mental disorder may impede her / his ability to exercise free choice. In the U.S. the modus operandi for dealing with psychiatrists who sexually abuse patients is a wall of silence and institutional cover-up.


On Oct. 14, 2007, the Boston Globe reported that after a year and half of stonewalling Harvard Medical School and its teaching hospital, McLean "is publicly facing the fall-out from one of the more tawdry chapters in its nearly 200-year history." It involves the "spectacular downfall" of Dr. Jack M. Gorman, "just a few months [after] he came to take on one of the most influential jobs in mental health care."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/14/a_doctors_downfall_mcleans_fallout/
The Globe notes that "for more than 16 months, both sides kept the whole episode quiet," saying only that Gorman had left McLean in May 2006 for undisclosed "personal and medical reasons." http://tinyurl.com/2v7cyk


The current version (Oct 14) being promulgated by officials at Harvard Medical School, McLean Hospital, and Partners Health Care, the corporate parent that owns Harvard University's three affiliated teaching hospitals--Mass. General, Brigham & Women's and McLean-states:



"One Monday morning in April 2006, Dr. Jack M. Gorman, new president of McLean Hospital in Belmont, simply stopped showing up for work. For days, increasingly worried hospital officials didn't know what had become of their leader until, finally, a family member answering a call at his New York City home revealed that Gorman was in a hospital intensive care unit being treated for an ailment that the person wouldn't reveal."


"In reality," the Globe reported, "Gorman stopped coming to work because he overdosed on antidepressant pills after his patient, distraught over Gorman's move to Massachusetts, hired a lawyer and threatened to expose their relationship, according to people directly involved in the case.Though the pills hadn't killed him, Gorman needed weeks in the hospital to recuperate from serious gastrointestinal problems."


On Oct. 10, the Globe reported that Dr. Gorman's New York State license had been suspended indefinitely, for a minimum of six months, with a 5 -year probation period requiring the supervision of another doctor. A spokesperson for the NYS Department of Health, stated: "the board believed that the sexual contact occurred outside New York State but she would not say whether it took place in Massachusetts."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/10/ex_mclean_chief_admitssex_with_patient/


However, the Oct. 14 version acknowledges Dr. Gorman's sexual misconduct with a New York patient who threatened to file a complaint. Partners Health Care, the parent company of McLean, announced that it had conducted a review of Gorman's brief tenure "to reassure state regulators that he had not sexually abused patients there."


On Oct. 17 the Globe reported that Dr. Gorman had "permanently surrendered his right to practice medicine in Massachusetts today, ending a state investigation that began last year when officials at the renowned psychiatric hospital... reported allegations that he engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient in his New York practice."

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/10/former_mclean_p.html


Underscoring the gravity of his action, the spokesman for the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine stated, "When you resign your right to renew, you can never even attempt to get your license back." Furthermore,he said Gorman's resignation "would be entered into national databases that allow potential medical employers to check doctors' backgrounds."


Inconsistencies in these varying versions raise suspicions:


1. If there was no misconduct in Massachusetts, why did Dr. Gorman permanently surrender his license in Massachusetts but not in New York where he acknowledges sexual misconduct?
2. According to the latest version explaining his departure from Harvard-McLean, Dr. Gorman attempted suicide by overdosing on antidepressants. If so, he meets psychiatry's diagnostic criteria for serious mental instability, and demonstrates his abusive use of these drugs.How then, can he be a credible authority about how to properly use and prescribe these drugs?
3. Despite the fact that the state licensing boards in New York and Massachusetts have determined that Jack Gorman is unfit to practice medicine, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and psychiatry's powerful leadership continue to lend Dr. Gorman the appearance of professional "authority" by recommending his promotional books to mental health professionals and the lay public about how to use psychotropic drugs.[1]


There is reason for concern that a deeper malaise is undermining the integrity of the entire field of academic psychiatry.


Surely the rise and subsequent fall in disgrace of a prominent psychiatrist who held top positions at premier academic institutions, including, Harvard,Columbia and New York State Psychiatric Institute (the State's leadingmental health research center, from which he was forced to resign forfailure to disclose his corporate income, in 1999) -deserves careful scrutiny. But, as we noted in Feb. 2007, in a case involving sexual misconduct by another psychiatrist affiliated with a Boston hospital, "this is not an isolated case. A long-established culture at psychiatric institutions shields professional staff who prey on vulnerable patients."

http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/02/substantial-settlement-childrens.html


The Globe reported that "many people connected to McLean feel betrayed."Officials at Harvard-Partners-Mclean who, for 16 months covered up the scandal, must address their lingering questions, such as: "How could they have hired the doctor in the first place? And why didn't they speak up earlier about Gorman's misconduct?"


Financial conflicts of interest in academic psychiatry have corrupted professional integrity and moral standards:


What are the standards of "scholarship" in academic psychiatry?What are the required qualifications for promotion in academic psychiatry?What are the qualifications for departmental chairs and/ or endowed chairsin psychiatry?What, if any, qualifications does the President of a Harvard affiliated teaching hospital need to meet?What breeches of professional / moral conduct by psychiatrists are covered up by their professional peers and publicly supported institutions?


Case in point: Dr. Trey Sunderland, former Chief of Geriatric Psychiatry at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) who was convicted of criminal conflict of interest, serving as a highly-paid consultant for Pfizer for work that overlapped his duties as a highly paid, full-time public servant at NIMH. A Pfizer spokesman indicated that Sunderland "received honoraria for consulting and educational activities that were reasonable and customary for an expert of his stature and expertise."

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/37502/



Under his direction, Sunderland's staff provided Pfizer with 3200 vials of human tissue they had collected from spinal taps performed on NIMH patientswith Alzheimer's.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-nih9dec09,0,6582698.story



Sunderland was criminally convicted (Dec. 2006) and fined $300,000.
However, moral and criminal violations not withstanding, Dr. Sunderland,like Dr. Gorman (and others), continues to enjoy the mantle of "authority"bestowed by psychiatry's establishment, including the American Psychiatric Association. An APA book co-authored by Dr. Sunderland, (who is listed as"with the National Institute of Mental Health"; Dilip Jeste, endowed chair in Aging, distinguished Professor UC San Diego; and Darrel Regier, ExecutiveDirector of the APA), was published in April, 2007. [2]


Many published reports in psychiatry are examples of junk science in the

service of industry's market expansion goals:


Dr. Gorman, like many prominent psychiatrists, used his high ranking positions in academia and the American Psychiatric Association -as DeputyEditor of the American Journal of Psychiatry-to promote the interests of his pharmaceutical industry backers. He has served as a paid consultant to at least 13 pharmaceutical firms, including Forest Laboratories, SmithKlineBeecham, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. [3] He was instrumental in expanding the use of SSRI antidepressants for dubious "disorders made to order." [4]


Throughout his career, Dr. Gorman's publications-books and articles carrying his name-have been instrumental in promoting the marketing agenda of psychotropic drug manufacturers who provided him with substantial financial support. For example, the following unsupportable claim is made in"Prenatal Exposures in Schizophrenia," a book co-authored by Ezra S. Susser,Alan S. Brown and Jack M. Gorman, 1999:



"In recent years, evidence has emerged that early and sustainedintervention with antipsychotic medication can reduce the duration andseverity of schizophrenic symptoms. Now, by identifying events during pregnancy that place the fetus at risk for developing schizophrenia and taking steps to prevent them, the outlook for decreasing the morbidity and perhaps even the incidence of schizophrenia has never been more promising."

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0880484993/103-5952502-5064659?SubscriptionId=0XQXXC6YV2C85DX1BF02




That claim is refuted by a growing body of evidence confirming that these drugs fail to improve either the course of illness or recovery. What's worse, antipsychotics INCREASE morality by inducing the metabolic syndrome:"those with the syndrome have a two-to-three fold increase in cardiovascular mortality-and a two fold increase in all-cause mortality." These drugs pose life-threatening risks for adults and children. [5]


Dr. Gorman was instrumental in promoting anxiety disorders such as SAD(Social Anxiety Disorder) and GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder), as well as"Compulsive Shopping Disorder." He conducted Carbon Dioxide inhalation experiments in which panic attacks were deliberately induced in adults and children. See, for example, "Differential Carbon Dioxide Sensitivity inChildhood Anxiety Disorders," Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2000, 57:960-967.http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/57/10/960.pdf


Prior to obtaining approval for the expanded use of the antidepressantPaxil, for social phobia-social anxiety disorder (SAD), SmithKline Beechamhired the PR firm, Cohn & Wolfe to orchestrate a promotional campaign that would circumvent a federal law prohibiting the promotion of a drug forunapproved use. The company promoted a condition-"Imagine Being Allergic to People"-rather than the drug. Posters bearing the insignia of the Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition [6], a company financed group, were plastered at bus shelters nationwide, proclaiming, "You blush, sweat, shake--even find it hard to breathe.That's what social anxiety disorder feels like." [4]


Dr. Gorman was the campaign's prominent psychiatrist who made the rounds on behalf the Paxil for the SAD media campaign. He was featured in a widely circulated video produced by Cohn & Wolfe, appearing with a patient on numerous television shows, including ABC's Good Morning America. "It is our hope that patients will now know that they are not alone, that their disease has a name, and it is treatable." In 2001, he appeared on TV on behalf of Paxil for the GAD media campaign.


The same year, Dr. Gorman, who by then had moved from Columbia to the faculty of Mount Sinai School of Medicine, penned his name to a pivotal study for Forest Laboratories, for whom he served as consultant. The study was used to promote its new look-alike antidepressant. The study,co-authored by Forest employees, is the only published report claiming that Lexapro (Escitalopram), the company's new look-alike antidepressant, offers an advantage--"may have a faster onset"--than Celexa (citalopram), its bestselling drug whose patent was running out in 2004. [7]


Melody Peterson of The New York Times reported that Forest paid to have the study published in two venues: in CNS Spectrums, a medical journal that Dr.Gorman edited, and as a special supplement for which Forest paid Medworks Media. Forest promoted the "study" at the American Psychiatric Association conference and at numerous fancy dinners it sponsored for psychiatrists who were paid to attend. [8]


Other researchers disputed Gorman's conclusion. The Medical Letter, a non profit newsletter respected for its independence from the pharmaceutical industry, reviewed the same clinical trials as Dr. Gorman and concluded in September that Lexapro had not been shown to be better than any other antidepressant, including Celexa. Similarly, an analysis by Drs. Staffan Svensson and Peter Mansfield, Escitalopram: Superior to Citalopram or a Chiral Chimera? [9] identifies numerous methodological flaws. For example,Dr. Gorman and his Forest co-authors failed to disclose adjunctive treatments; the sampling method and whether or not the sample obtained represents the population; number of exclusions and refusals; compliance assessment; adverse effects; and withdrawal rates by group.


Academic Hucksterism:


Blatant conflicts of interest that undermine the credibility of this study are replayed repeatedly in what passes as "research" in psychiatry,primarily because most treatments in psychiatry lack scientific evidence of efficacy. [10] Brendan Koerner reported in Mother Jones [4] that JackGorman appeared on Good Morning America to discuss yet another "hidden epidemic"-- "Compulsive Shopping"-for which he predicted, SSRI antidepressants would "almost certainly" be prescribed. ABC host, CharlesGibson, told viewers that the "condition" could affect as many as 20 millionAmericans, 90% of them women.


Dr. Gorman who presents himself as an "expert" on psychiatric drugs, was clearly not deterred from promoting these drugs even for dubious"disorders"-despite evidence that SSRI antidepressants such as Paxil and Lexapro, were shown to have a two fold increased risk of suicidal behavior compared to placebo. [11] Patient safety has clearly not been much of a factor in Dr. Gorman's promotional activities.


In 2002, Dr. Gorman helped organize a conference aimed at fourth year medical students who would be prescribing drugs. Forest paid the tab to fly one student from each medical school in the country to New York for a two-day conference at Columbia. Students were treated to two nights at the Plaza Hotel, three meals a day and tickets to a Broadway show.



Intramedcoordinated the event, shuttling students and helping speakers with their presentations. Dr. Gorman gave a presentation on his Lexapro study during a speech about antidepressants. He said the conference's purpose was to get medical students interested in psychiatric research and in residency positions at Columbia, not to promote Forest's drugs.


In 2005, "Mood Disorders in the Medically Ill: Scientific Review andRecommendations" [12] co-authored by a group of prominent academicpsychiatrists who have been sharply criticized for serious ethical violations-including, Dr. Gorman, Dr. Thomas Laughren, FDA's director of psychiatric products, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, and Dr. Trey Sunderland. [13]The report, published in Biological Psychiatry, lists some of the authors' copious conflicts of interest. The recommendations were formulated following a conference underwritten by manufacturers of anti-depression treatments:Abbott Laboratories; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Cyberonics; Eli Lilly; ForestLaboratories; Glaxo-SmithKline; Janssen Pharmaceutica; Organon; PfizerInc.; Wyeth. The recommendations, such as "Screen for depression in all medically ill patients," were crafted to provide the appearance of legitimacy to the expanded, off-label use of antidepressants for patients NOT diagnosed as being depressed.


Incredibly, FDA's director of psychiatric products-endorsed recommendations encouraging the off-label use of antidepressants. His duty as a public official is to enforce a law prohibiting the marketing of drugs for off-label uses.


Sexual misconduct and suspension of medical license-undisclosed:


Even as his sexual misconduct led to permanently losing his medical license in Massachusetts, and losing his NYS license indefinitely, Dr. Gorman's powerful supporters in the psychiatric establishment in New York continue to provide the mantle of professional respectability. By failing to disclose his misbehavior they are not only protecting him but looking the other way about all manner of ethics and professional standards.



RELIEF, a mental health referral organization focusing on individuals in the orthodox Jewish community, lists Jack Gorman, MD, as a prominent member of its Medical Advisory Board. He is identified as President and Psychiatrist in Chief, McLean Hospital. [14]
The organization held what it termed, "a significant event" on June 18,2007, at which "sixty five of the country's leading psychiatrists and psychologists" assembled to learn about Jewish culture and the role it plays in the effective treatment of mental disorders in the Orthodox community."Dr. Jack Gorman, M.D., one of the most prominent psychiatrists in the U.S.today, officiated and addressed the crowd. He stressed the importance ofmental health professionals being culturally sensitive and aware of theirpatient's religious needs."


Dr. Gorman's sanctimonious statements about "the importance of mental health professionals being culturally sensitive and aware of their patient'sreligious needs," won't eradicate the stain of his sexual misconduct with patients.


Another website pronounces (August 2007): "few psychiatrists are more prominently respected" than Jack Gorman. http://www.socialfear.com/ The Mount Sinai Department of Psychiatry continues to list Dr. Gorman at:

http://www.mssm.edu/psychiatry/annual_update/gorman_bio.shtml
None of these websites, nor the reissued publications, disclose that Dr.Gorman's medical license has been revoked. Instead, they list his defunct academic positions-thereby misinforming the public.


BOSTON GLOBE reports (to be posted on the AHRP blog shortly):A doctor's downfall, McLean's fallout Sex secret kept quiet for a year ByScott Allen, October 14, 2007http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/10/14/a_doctors_downfall_mcleans_fallout/


Former McLean president permanently surrenders license By Scott Allen,October 17, 2007http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/10/former_mclean_p.html


References:



1. Dr. Gorman's reissued books, 2007: A revised edition of "A Guide to Treatments that Work," a text book co-edited by Gorman and Dr. Peter Nathan,was first published by Oxford Press, 1998, was reissued in April, 2007. The purpose of this book is to influence professional practice. The publisher's promotional ads state that the book is directed to psychiatrists,psychologists, clinical social workers, counselors, and mental health consultants. The promos claim that the book "brings together outcome data and clinical trials to show what works and what doesn't." Jack M. Gorman is described as, "Lieber Professor and Vice-Chair for Research, Dept. of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University."http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Jack+M%2E+Gorman&z=y


A revised edition of his book, "The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs,"first published by St. Martin's Press in 1990, is being reissued in Dec.2007. The book is touted as "an indispensable resource for the layperson and professional alike." It is publicized as: "completely updated to include the latest drugs and research. Information on six new antidepressants similar to Prozac including, Paxil, Effexor, Wellbutrin."


The book is endorsed by the APA and prominent psychiatrists. Herbert PardesMD: "This book...meets a critical need.for millions of people for whompsychiatric drugs are so important." Carl Salzman MD, Director of Psychopharmacology, Harvard Medical School: "An outstanding book about these drugs for the non-physician."


A third book, "Comprehensive Textbook of AIDS Psychiatry" (2007) Edited by Mary Ann Cohen and Jack M. Gorman, promotes the use of psychotropic drugs for AIDS patients by making unsubstantiated (patently absurd) claims: "Amongthe vast and rapidly growing field of AIDS research, there is an ample bodyof evidence supporting the fact that psychiatric treatment can decrease transmission."


2. Diagnostic Issues in Dementia: Advancing the Research Agenda for DSM-V,by Trey Sunderland, M.D., Dilip V. Jeste, M.D., Olesgegun Baiyewu, M.D.,Paul J. Sirovatka, M.S., Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., American Psychiatric Publishing.
3. Dr. Gorman has received research support from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, theNational Institute of Mental Health, and NARSAD. In addition, he has been aconsultant and received honoraria from numerous pharmaceutical companies,including Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst,SmithKlineBeecham,Astra Zeneca,Janssen, Organon,Forrest, Parke-Davis, Lundbeck,Solvay,Merck, Sanofi-Synthelabo,and Aventis.http://www.acnp.org/Docs/G5/CH66_967-980.pdf
4. Brendan I. Koerner, Disorders Made to Order, Mother Jones, July/August2002: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/07/disorders.html
5. The truth about the new antipsychotics:Saha S, Chant D, McGrath J. A Systematic Review of Mortality inSchizophrenia: Is the Differential Mortality Gap Worsening Over Time? ArchGen Psychiatry, 2007;64(10): 1123-1131.
Harrow M, and Jobe TH, Factors Involved in Outcome and Recovery inSchizophrenia Patients Not on Antipsychotic Medications: A 15-YearMultifollow-Up Study, Nerv Ment Dis 2007;195: 406-414).
Compton MT, Newcomer JW. Metabolic Disturbances Associated With the Use ofSecond-Generation Antipsychotics 2007.Remington G. Schizophrenia, Antipsychotics, and the Metabolic Syndrome: IsThere a Silver Lining? Editorial. Am J Psychiatry 163:1132-1134, July 2006.
Colton CW, Manderscheid RW. Congruencies in increased mortality rates, yearsof potential life lost, and causes of death among public mental healthclients in eight states. Prevalence Chronic Disability, April 2006.Newcomer JW: Second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics and metaboliceffects: a comprehensive literature review. CNS Drugs 2005; 19(suppl1):1-93;
McEvoy JP, Meyer JM, Goff DC, Nasrallah HA, Davis SM, Sullivan L, MeltzerHY, Hsiao J, Stroup TS, Lieberman JA: Prevalence of the metabolic syndromein patients with schizophrenia: baseline results from the ClinicalAntipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophreniatrial and comparison with national estimates from NHANES III. Schizophr Res2005; 80:19-32;
Cohn T, Prud'homme D, Streiner D, Kameh H, Remington G: Characterizingcoronary heart disease risk in chronic schizophrenia: high prevalence of themetabolic syndrome. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49:753-760;
Lakka HM, Laaksonen DE, Lakka TA, Niskanen LK, Kumpusalo E, Tuomilehto J,Salonen JT: The metabolic syndrome and total and cardiovascular diseasemortality in middle-aged men. JAMA 2002; 288:2709-2716;
See also list of References at:http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/05/15-year-follow-up-schizophrenia-study.html
6. Coalition members: the American Psychiatric Association, the AnxietyDisorders Association of America, and Freedom From Fear. See Koerner, Ref 3.
7. Gorman JM, Korotzer A, Su G. Efficacy comparison of escitalopram andcitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder: pooled analysis ofplacebo-controlled trials. CNS Spectr. 2002;7(suppl 1):40-44.
8. Melody Petersen. Madison Ave. Plays Growing Role in Drug Research, TheNew York Times, Nov. 22, 2002 p. 1. [A television report based on thisarticle was broadcast on the PBS program ''Now With Bill Moyers'']http://tinyurl.com/3az4v7
9. Svensson S and Mansfield PK. Escitalopram: Superior to Citalopram or aChiral Chimera? [8] Psychotherapy Psychosomatics, 2004;73:10-16
10. For example, a positive report about vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), acontroversial surgical implant treatment for depression, was published inthe journal of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The study'scredibility plummeted when it was learned that the editor ofNeuropsychopharmacology, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, the lead named author, and 8co-authors were paid consultants of Cyberonics, manufacturer of VNS.http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2006/11/psychiatry-news-high-cost-of.htmlhttp://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/295/27
11. See, FDA warnings, Paxil label:http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/paroxetine/default.htm
12. Evans DL, Charney DS, Lewis L, Golden RN, Gorman JM, Krishnan KR,Nemeroff CB, Bremner JD, Carney RM, Coyne JC, Delong MR, Frasure-Smith N,Glassman AH, Gold PW, Grant I, Gwyther L, Ironson G, Johnson RL, Kanner AM,Katon WJ, Kaufmann PG, Keefe FJ, Ketter T, Laughren TP, Leserman J, LyketsosCG, McDonald WM, McEwen BS, Miller AH, Musselman D, O'Connor C, Petitto JM,Pollock BG, Robinson RG, Roose SP, Rowland J, Sheline Y, Sheps DS, Simon G,Spiegel D, Stunkard A, Sunderland T, Tibbits P Jr, Valvo WJ.Mood disordersin the medically ill: scientific review and recommendations.Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Aug 1;58(3):175-89. Review.
13. Following a high profile expose in The Wall Street Journal, about grossimproprieties involving a ghostwritten promotional piece disguised as a"research report," whose authors concealed conflicts of interest. The lead"author" and Editor in Chief of the journal of the American College ofNeuropsychopharmacology, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, was forced to resign.http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/327/27/ andhttp://ahrp.blogspot.com/2006/11/psychiatry-news-high-cost-of.htmlAnother author, Dennis Charney, is editor of Biological Psychiatry.http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7456
Demonstrating its disregard for professional / moral standards, the AmericanPsychiatric Association honored Dr. Nemeroff with TWO "Distinguished" Awardsthat year- the APA / NIMH award and the American Association of Chairs ofDepartments of Psychiatry award.See: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/15/17
14. Other RELIEF Advisory Board members listed athttp://www.reliefhelp.org/board.htm are:Elliot S. Gershon, M.D Professor and Chair, Department of Psychiatry;Professor of Human GeneticsUniversity of Chicago; Michael Jenike, M.DProfessor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School Director PsychiatricNeuroscience Program Massachusetts General Hospital; Michael Liebowitz, M.DDirector, Anxiety Disorders Clinic New York State Psychiatric InstituteProfessor of Clinical Psychiatry Columbia University College of Physiciansand Surgeons; Glenn Hirsch, M.D. Medical Director New York University ChildStudy Center Assistant Professor of Psychiatry New York University School ofMedicine; Philip J. Wilner, M.D Vice President and Medical Director ofBehavioral Health New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell MedicalCenter Executive Vice-Chair, Department of Psychiatry Weill Medical Collegeof Cornell University; David Pelcovitz, Ph.D Director of Psychology NorthShore University Hospital; Clinical Professor of Psychiatry New YorkUniversity School of Medicine; Michelle Friedman, M.D. Assistant ClinicalProfessor of Psychiatry Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Catherine Birndorf,M.D Program Director, Payne Whitney Women's Program New York PresbyterianHospital Weill Cornell Medical Center Assistant Professor of PsychiatryWeill Medical College of Cornell University; Lewis A. Opler, M.D.,Ph.D.Clinical Professor of Psychiatry New York University School of MedicineAttending Psychiatrist New York Presbyterian Hospital



(Emphasis by Justice Lover)