Wednesday, March 25, 2009


Picture of Dr. Biederman
Dr. Carlat an Apologist for Biederman

I write this Post as a critic of modern Psychiatry.

Sometimes you need to know who is really on your side, who is the enemy, and who is not. As it’s been said; there will be many false Prophets that will sound really authentic on the surface; but when you look a little deeper the truth shall been known and set you free.

So this post in outing Dr. Carlat as being part of the problem and not the solution.

The Carlat Psychiatry Blog

I encourage you to go read his blog, this article, the comment section, and then go over to Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer and read his fine blog and the comment section there. I will let you judge on your own who is on your side in psychiatry today!

As I've written on this blog before, Dr. Joseph Biederman is an outstanding scientist but is also the prototypical MGH/Harvard narcissist. I speak from experience, having attended the MGH psychiatry residency from 1992-1995. We all joked about our arrogance and hubris and narcissism. It was almost a badge of honor. When you are at the top-ranked psychiatry department in the nation (as MGH has been every single year from 1995 to 2008, according to U.S. News and World Report) you are entitled to an extra heaping of, umm, positive self-regard, shall we say.

Call him the King of Cringe. Disagree with his opinions about the prevalence of pediatric bipolar disorder. Call him greedy, even. But scientifically, I continue to respect him and I believe that he ultimately has the best interests of his patients at heart.”

My comments there:

Dear Daniel Carlat, M.D.:
Shall we derive from your opinion on Biederman's research and studies; you personally believe in the Child Bipolar Paradigm and the use of anti psychotics in children as young as pre-school age?
You say that you believe his science is sound; wouldn't it be juxtaposition to then say his results are incorrect?

Thank you,

My second comment:

Joseph Biederman deposition.
Q. And do you agree that you are one of the most forceful advocates of the aggressive treatment of preschoolers?
A.(Biederman)It is her statement about me.
Q.I didn't ask you if it was her statement about you.I'm asking you if you agree that you are one of the most forceful advocates of the aggressive treatment of preschoolers.
A.(Biederman) I am.
You can read on where he admits there are no long term studies on Risperdal in children or adults; but that doesn't matter! Biederman says even without the science he will continue to prescribe this drug in his practice to preschoolers. How about the six breaches of protocol in his study that were never reported?
I guess that is called sound science in psychiatry today?
I just love when those of us out in the real world beyond those holier than thou walls at Harvard question the ethics and science behind those like Biederman.
We are called and labeled the anti-psychiatry crowd or even placed in Scientology's slot.
Yeah, you call those people outrageous!
Yet, so many of those mighty Dr.'s are circling the wagons in defence of the indefensible.
Who's got the real problem here?
Doctors as supposed reasonable professionals would call this a change for the good and making progress?
This is the status as normal in medicine as it stands today; when the doctor is wrong, don't ever blame the doctor; instead blame the patient and critics.
By not answering some pretty simple questions here Dr Carlat; you have in view of many answered them quite clearly by not taking a stand.
I believe this kind of narcissism has got the anti-psychiatry grass roots patient movement in full swing and making great strides toward marginalizing and debunking the very profession and industry many here so ardently defend even in the worst examples of conduct as in the your renowned Biederman.
Maybe you have forgotten that real people just as valued as your selves and family members are harmed by this kind of reckless medicine every day; many times beyond repair by the likes of this greed mongering and self appointed god complex in absolute thinking behaviour.
You just keep on making light of the egregious acts of these industry opinion leaders and institutions.
To those non-club members at Harvard and the medical inside crowd: it appears that we have a profession here that is playing apologist, by their own rules, and doesn't see the train coming speeding down the tracks; headed right at your coveted profession.
I'm thankful that Senator Grassley doesn't read this situation like so many on the inside of the bubble do!

Comment from Stephany said...
Read Biederman's deposition in pfd format at Ed Silverman's IN VIVO blog.
It's all there for reading and the proper context within the questioning of Biederman.

Second comment from Stephany said...

Disclaimer: I am not a Scientologist, and feel an argument dismissing people with questions regarding ethics and integrity of science, and outcome for drug approval a result--- makes a person appear arrogant and not willing to change or see things except from own perspective, why not be open-minded and keep the conversation flowing for all parties to gain from?)
I would offer this discussion these questions:
1) Why did Harvard/MGH not inform the NIH about Dr. Biederman’s collaboration with J&J when it applied for the NIH bipolar disorder grant?
2) Several documents that Dr. Biederman supplied to the court make note of a “JB rent fund.” What is the “JB rent fund” and to whom did the money go?
3) Why did MGH not inform OHRP about the IRB protocol violations in Dr. Biederman’s study?
4) For that particular study, please explain each IRB protocol violation and how those violations were resolved.
5) Did representatives of MGH discuss collaborating on the Center with marketing people from J&J, as Attachment H states?
6) Were the slides detailed in the attachments to this letter created by Dr. Biederman? If not, who created them?
7) Please explain if these slides were ever presented to an audience. If so, who saw these presentations?
The questions are from Senator Grassley, re: the breach of Protocol in Joseph Biederman's trial of anti psychotics on preschool age children. Asking this from an interested stance here, as a mother of a child harmed by psych meds. I didn't choose to want to think about the questions I ask. I question a lot now, as a result of my daughter being disabled from the drugs. Most regular readers of this blog know her story, so I don't need to say any more. Has anyone else read the deposition from Feb 27, 2009 that I left the link for above?

Then finally the comment I left on Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look in comment section in regards to TF’s comment about psychiatry, and Dr. Carlat’s apologist stand toward Biederman.

My Comment:

Stan said...

TF wrote:
"Psychiatrists are lame until proven otherwise, and I can say that as I am one, but I hope not lame."
Though I can understand on some level the frustration and emotion involved in the scope of TF's views. I also must admit I am pleasantly surprised/impressed with the way TF has changed in his opinions and outlook as far as psychiatry goes.
TF you are on the inside looking out. I believe a little less bravado and just a little bit more staying on message will get you a lot more ears listening and agreeing with you from the professional end anywise.
You are in a good position to be a voice of professional reasoning and change. I would only ask you walk a little softer, as well as carrying that big stick with some prudence.
I sure wish you would have been this candid and honest with your awakening when you were at FS posting.
I entered Carlat’s comment section after reading his apologetic stance on Biederman to find out if he was really for substantial change in psychiatry or just walking the fence in the usual patronizing fashion psychiatry tends to do.
His answers and avoidance of them was quite alarming; since without coming out openly and bluntly saying he is agreeing with Biederman's use of preschool age children and the use of dangerous anti-psychotics in that population.
He ardently agrees with Biederman's methods and science as being sound in spite of the fact that Biederman had protocol lapses that were not reported six times in his renowned preschool age study; as well as stating what the results would be before even doing the study surely at J&J’s beckoning.
That leaves open a whole lot of wiggle room and openings for the old Harvard hanky panky and big unreported bucks in his pocket game. I don’t believe children are games or lab rats to be tempered with for greed or status at any level; but especially in what is supposed to be a respected and ethical medical profession.
Carlat also implies he is bought into the Child Bipolar paradigm with the assumed use of anti-psychotics in preschool age children.
That pretty much sealed the deal as far as knowing what side of the fence he is really walking on. I guess once your an indoctrinated MGH Harvard Doctor; your always part of the clan/family so to speak.
Personally, I would more often than not stay away from Nazi death camp doctor references in general in relating to the current events in Pharma and Psychiatry. Carlat has brought this one up himself, and left the door wide open for rebuke.
Quoting Carlat from the comment section of his Blog:
"Hi fans and ex-fans,The point of the post was to say that there are some things Biederman is guilty of, and some things he isn't. Narcissism, egotism, greed? Yep.
Fraud, perpetrator of evil, creator of pediatric bipolar disorder, impetus for all psychiatrists who have ever prescribed too many antipsychotics? Of course not.
This is not Dr. Mengele. And anyone who wants to go to pubmed and read his clinical trials will actually find that they are, for the most part very well done and written up fairly without exaggerating positive findings or downplaying side effects.
Bipolar disorder does, in fact, occur in children, whether you call in bipolar or conduct disorder or juvenile delinquency. And it is clear that antipsychotics moderate the behavior, though at the cost of significant side effects.
Welcome to medicine, a world where there are no perfect solutions to many challenging problems.
It's time to stop blaming Biederman for all of psychiatry's failings and for all of the evils of the pharmaceutical industry. Let's put our energies into something more productive--like coming up with solutions for how to appropriately work with industry without doing their marketing for them."
Dr. Carlat is right! This is not Dr. Mengele since he is dead, a remembered dark chapter in history, and long past thankfully.
Biederman is in fact very much alive, still practicing medicine, collecting a fat pay check, still feeling like he's on top of the world and second in line to God almighty.Biederman has set a professional standard in the industry, is the dark voice of child psychiatry, its most adamant spokesperson, and is still personally feeding preschool age kids powerful anti-psychotic drugs to this day. Not just for child bipolar mind you: but also for ADHD and other behavioral disorders. A whopping 4000% increase over the past decade in children including preschool age.The difference is quite clear; we stopped the Nazi's and declared we would never let atrocities like that happen again. Yet today we are allowing the same type of crimes to happen for greed and omnipotent professor status. Only this time around in the name of science and medicine; yet the vastness of the victimization has not changed really all that much if you see and imagine the decades of damage to come.I have been reading this site, am impressed with the quality of content, and integrity of information posted here.I am sad to say there seems to be no end to this corruption and madness anytime soon.
Thank You,

As always your comments are welcome


Anonymous said...

Well, kiss my grits, Stan! All this time I thought you were just another pretty bipolar face (like me!). Who'd thunk do your research before you write.
Have to love a man who does research.

Stan said...

Dear TPB:

I do some research, and get the CIA involved for further in-depth investigations on occasion.

I'm quite amazed the stuff they were able to dig up on you by the way {laughing} Great photos of you by the way {Smirk}. I was called in to help your auditor dig a little deeper into your affairs as a free lance contributor {Smirk}.

I guess Premiere Obubba should have your trillion dollar stimulus check in the mail soon; so be patient and keep that blog of yours fresh with inspired opinions, obvious suffering, and humor.

It's really nice and helpful when you have an inside track with the Penguins and such. I would say more on that subject; but have to keep that on the hush hush for National Security Reasons!

Yours Truly,

Stephany said...

new doctor blog defends biederman

this was nauseating to read:

"I just learned that Senator Grassley who told AIG executives to suicide, is the man who spent the last year or so attacking my teacher, Dr. Biederman. So I will digress ...

I was taught by many remarkable teachers at Harvard's Massachusetts General Hospital. There the chief of pediatric psychopharmacology professor Joseph Biederman was one of them.

The residents learned from his unrelentingly strong opinions. Dr. Biederman would scold us if we were not aggressive in our treatment of children. He would question our hesitance. Dr Biederman would ask why we would want to wait until the child grew sicker before treating him adequately? Why not treat now? He encouraged us to think about the risks of not treating a child, as well as the risks of treating. And, if we talked about the patient's psychotherapy for a diagnosis where there was not data -- he would refer to the therapy as "tushy massage." --Dr. Jennifer Bremer

Dr.Jennifer Bremer blog

what the hell does she mean by "tushy massage"?

I am disgusted with the aggressive use of antipsychotics on preschoolers, and Biederman has taught a whole new generation to drug kids, and this young doctor doesnt seem to get what conflict of interest means, ethical boundaries for outcome of drug trials and wtf she really doesnt get why Grassley wants to know why he didn't report a million or so bucks?

Anonymous said...

Hi Stan,

This is my first time commenting on your blog. You and Stephany are awesome.

Yup, regarding Dr. Carlat, actions speak louder than words, don't they?

But TF is rolling big time and as I told him on Carlat's blog, he is to be greatly commended. When I read his posts, I was saying, "Yes, yes, yes." I really like his post challenging people who are in favor of meds to state their biases. Of course, no one has taken him up on it.

Rock on guys and keep speaking the truth.


PS - Stephany and JC (if you read this blog), great comments on Dr. Bremer's blog. Keep doing what you're doing.

Stephany said...

AA, wasn't it shocking to read how the new upcoming psychiatrist (Jennifer Bremer)defended Biederman based solely on him being her teacher and not have a clue what the Grassley investigation is? They are so in the forest of Harvard they can't and won't see the truth, only themselves and the doctrine Biederman et al teach them.

Great to see you here and I agree all of our voices need to be heard.

Stephany said...

Harvard Child Psychiatrists(Biderman,Wilens and Spencer) Named In Federal Subpoena-Furious Seasons mental health news blog March 28, 2009

Anonymous said...

Hi Stephany,

Yes, Dr. Bremer's defense was shocking. I think it is a case of they don't want to know the truth.

And I just saw the blog entry on FS about Biederman being named in a subpoena. As I commented on there (it probably isn't up yet), when god goes to jail, he should get some of those antipsychotics that he foists on 4 year olds.


Stan said...

Host Name
IP Address

Posted Anonymous:

When you have something intelligent to say please try commenting again.

Now go do something productive with your life; like giving your hug interest and wet dream Dr. Biederbutt a Tushy Massage.

Could you try to get your head out of your arse before coming back here.

Have A Nice Day,

Stephany said...

San Mateo, California landed on
22:11:50 -- 11 hours 39 mins ago

That IP looks familiar, reminds me of one that's been banned at a couple of blogs, the commenter is pro-med and pro-drugging children and her name is gina pera. Pimps adhd all over the internet, and is always found in comment sections where people disagree with the drugging of children!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Terms and conditions on the use of the contents of the “Is Something Not Quite Right with Stan - A Mental Health Blog” site are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Stan does not represent or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of the information or content (collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from this website.

Stan encourages you to make your own health care and legal decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care and/ or legal professional. The information posted here should not be considered medical advice and is not intended to replace consultation with a qualified medical professional if they exist. I do not answer specific medical questions.

Third party information is gathered from sources that Stan believes to be reliable. However, in no event shall Stan, or any third parties mentioned on this site be liable for any damages resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the content whether or not Stan is advised of the possibility of such damages.

Stan reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the displayed materials.

You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any Materials shall be at your sole risk.

Disclaimer of Liability

The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this web site and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this web site, or shall the website writer or any commenter’s be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the web site and/or any other web sites which are linked to this site.

Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a visitor on any information obtained via the web site; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.


In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Disclaimer of Endorsement - Reference to any products, services, hypertext link to the third parties or other information by trade name, trademark, supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation by me. Nor is an endorsement by me is implied by such links. They are for convenience only, as an index in a public library.

Information Subject to Change - Any information on this web site may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, the information may change from time to time without any notice.

GENERAL INFORMATION - The information contained in this online site is presented and intended to provide a broad understanding and knowledge critical to psychiatric practices and humorous social interaction. The information should not be considered complete and should not be used in place of communication and consultation.


This site is not a monologue of truth. It is a catalyst for public debate about medical conduct and for entertainment purposes. The reader is urged to confront officials to clarify issues mentioned herein. This site is designed strictly to provide information for critical, literary, academic, entertainment, and public usage. A qualified and trustworthy medical professional must be consulted regarding medical issues, treatments, diagnoses, etc.; if they exist in all actuality or truth.