Prominent Child "Meds" Researchers Concealed Financial Ties

[Isoverity]

I've been saying here a long time that a lot of researchers are paid off by drug companies - here are three more. Keep in mind meds for "preschoolers" has been the fastest growing market.

From

"Kiddie Prozac Docs Took Millions From Drug Makers"
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...-antidepr.html

"Three prominent advocates of antidepressant use by children received millions of dollars from antidepressant manufacturers, casting into question the integrity of their already-controversial research.

The New York Times reported Saturday that Harvard University psychiatrists Joseph Biederman and Timothy Wilens received $1.6 million each from drug companies between 2000 and 2007. Thomas Spencer, another Harvard psychiatrist, received $1 million.

The payments were uncovered by Congressional investigators searching for conflict-of-interest violations. Federal law requires researchers who receive National Institutes of Health funding to report annual outside earnings above $10,000 to their universities. Biederman, Wilens and Spencer all took NIH money, but never reported the full extent of their drug company income.

That the researchers' results were influenced by the payments isn't clear, but the situation is ugly. Biederman has a very high profile; as the Times describes, he



"is one of the most influential researchers in child psychiatry and is widely admired for focusing the field’s attention on its most troubled young patients. Although many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, his work helped to fuel a controversial 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder ... and a rapid rise in the use of antipsychotic medicines in children."



Childhood antidepressant use is hotly debated by scientists: it's not clear whether they work as well in kids as in adults, and the drugs may have profound effects on still-developing brains.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), leader of the Congressional investigation, has pushed for a national registry of commercial payments to researchers.

NY TIMES ARTICLE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us...&oref=s login

Hmm, this is slightly off topic but I'm curious Jack, why do you hate meds - anti'ds in particular so much? Have you had a personal experience with them, or is it the media?

Not meant as a criticism, sorry I seem to always come across that way lately, but I'm curious.

Meds have pretty much saved my life. It took a long time to find the right one, and I've been on meds of some sort since the age of 14, although they had no effect whatsover back then.

[The Midnight Crazies]

I don't deny that meds might help certain people. But they're way over prescribed and I feel the whole 'business' behind it is rather well, creepy. Especially when children/teenagers are involved.

Marte

[Isoverity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallen Rain

Hmm, this is slightly off topic but I'm curious Jack, why do you hate meds - anti'ds in particular so much? Have you had a personal experience with them, or is it the media?

Not meant as a criticism, sorry I seem to always come across that way lately, but I'm curious.

Meds have pretty much saved my life. It took a long time to find the right one, and I've been on meds of some sort since the age of 14, although they had no effect whatsover back then.

I don't hate meds and I am sure some people get some benefit from them. What I don't like is bad science used against kids. When I started looking into the "research" behind them I saw what a charade it actually was. When I saw drug makers and docs where getting ready to feed the things to preschoolers that's when I made a point of being vocal about all the corruption (I dont invent all these scandals btw and they are in major outlets).


A 7 yr old kids brain isn't even formed yet. Their perceptions and experience of themselves hasn't even been formed. To come along and administer a chemical lobotomy to such a person is a crime imo. Especially since no science ever proved a 'chemical imbalance" and no person given meds is tested for the imbalance. Its all an assumption we are supposed to act on. I think a lot of parents go along with such things because some defer to authority out of habit and some find it more convenient to drug their kid up and smooth out the wrinkles.

Meta analysis of the research has never found antidepressants more useful than a placebo.

"Researchers find placebos work just as well, except in severe cases"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23348068/



What has been found is a pattern of skewing studies and concealing known harms - most recently Zyprexa

"Report: Eli Lilly hid top drug's risks"

http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/16/news...rexa/index.htm


With children's drugging especially there has been more problems:

"Most Antidepressants Deemed Unsafe for Children"

Most antidepressants are ineffective and may actually be unsafe for children and adolescents, according to a study published in the April 24 edition of the British medical journal Lancet

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe...ssed_4-26.html


The "studies" are rarely investigated to be proven accurate

"Only Two Percent Of Child Drug Trials Have Independent Safety Checks"

ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2008) — Only two per cent of paediatric drug trials reported using independent safety monitoring committees that can help lead to the early detection of adverse drug reactions, according to a major review published in the journal Acta Paediatric


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0318094948.htm



Now if some people are hearing voices and hallucinating and not functioning well and antipsychotics help them get over the hump thats great and I have seen it happen.

However even simple sadness is being used as a reason to pronounce people as "disordered" and it need of medication. Some major "anti-suicide" programs in the US go around asking questions like "Ever been sad for more than two weeks?" and "Have you been unhappy at school" and enough "yes" replies get a person labelled "at risk" of suicide and steered toward meds. Now they are even making prozac for dogs.

I know some kids say they feel better on meds - but they also feel better on alcohol and weed - the providers of which are probably more honest than the racketeers who are exposed with regularity now. Dont let me leave out the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) chief a few years back

Former FDA Chief Illegally Held Stocks

Lester M. Crawford, who resigned mysteriously last fall just two months after being confirmed as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, will plead guilty today to charges that he hid his ownership of stock in food and drug companies that his agency regulated, his lawyer said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101600569.html

Aye, I see your point now.

[The Midnight Crazies]

Well the whole pharmaceutical business is corrupt and rotten to the core. Instead of finding meds against cancer they concentrate on the anti depressants. Why? Because you can't make as much money with cures for cancer (or AIDS). Also you can talk a disease like 'depression' into everybody's head because (and no this is not me saying that ppl who are depressed are just dramatic and need to get over it) it's very hard to have any physical proof of this illness.

Marte

[howlie,]

I have to admit im not too keen on the whole idea of medication ebing given to small cildren, its confusing enough trying to cope with teh effects when youre fully aware.


But i think i would also say that people should be ore honest. What hte doctors tell you and what the leaflets say are two completely different things.

[Isoverity]

I should ad that its not only the commercial/research side of things. I have found a lot of kids who are depressed have a lot of suppressed anger and rage to things in their lives. A parent who is willful and impatient or even too aloof and neglectful can be very upsetting to a kid - and often the more bright aaaaand aware a kid is the moire they can be upset over what they see. There are also the drunks, adulterers, abusers, manipulators etc.

I have seen kids thrown down stairs by a father or told by a mother "they should "never have been born" and the answer for these kids when they are upset and stressed is to focus on "their problem" and treat them like they are flawed somehow.

In truth, I do think kids can learn to modify a lot of the responses they have to stress, hostility, doubt etc so they don't always suppress and implode into depression and SI. However kids need a chance to be able to discover those principles and skills of moderating their own inner bonds and connections. Of course being upset or neglected early in life makes that harder. Embalming their brains while ignoring actual causes and the toxic people in their lives seems very primitive to me and makes resolution harder. Kids get more confused and doubtful and despair and futility kick in at some point. People are stronger than they know and have things inside they cant see right away and can never find them if they are always being steered in other directions by people pretending to know better while hardly knowing much at all but billing for it just the same.

Of all kids I have seen get better - if they had meds or not - counseling or not - they all got better after there own realisations and growth. I have seen many go to a teacher, then a nurse, then a counselor, then a psychologist, then a psychiatrist and only when left with themselves did they discover there roots and grow. I think that sort of focus needs to be at the front of helping people and not at the backend after the money is gone.