Tuesday, June 30, 2009

DSM-V The Twisted Perverse Myth that wants to Peek into your Bedroom

DSM5 - The Twisted Perverse Myth that wants to Peek into your Bedroom

When you think this comic book called the DSM-5 could not get any more ludicrous and strange; those egocentric APA psychiatrist take it to the OUTER LIMITS of complete audacity.

I have to give the Doug Bremner MD's Blog { Dr. Bremner works at EMORY UNIVERSITY} and
The Carlat Psychiatry Blog a hat tip and credit here {as a disclaimer I have to say I have disagreed with both these blogs before vehemently; but this information is just too good not to let bygones be bygones for now at least}.

I have re-posted their articles here; but you should visit their blogs to get involved in the comment section free for all that should be fairly entertaining on this topic no doubt.


Woman with Nice Ass

DSM Shadow Team: Female Sexual Dysfunction? (And Kupfer et al Strike Back)

I have been writing about the DSM process which isn’t always easy to do because the head of DSM-5, David Kupfer, MD, runs a pretty tight ship with his committee members, making them sign confidentiality agreements and not take any notes. Well since he said that there would be a “paradigm shift” and the sky is the limit for coming up with new diagnoses, there has been a lot of interest in the process.

I recently wrote about the editorial by Allen Frances MD, head of DSM-4, criticizing the current process of DSM-5, and now there is a nasty response from the DSM-5 group, authored by Alan Schatzberg MD, James Scully MD, David Kupfer MD, and David Regier MD, that psychiatry blogger Daniel Carlat MD offered to edit for them to make it more respectful. Lol. A blogger offering to help the leaders of academic psychiatry tone down their language. Lol again.

I mean the damn editorial hasn’t even been published yet.

In their response to Frances Kupfer et al make dubious claims that “attorneys” had advised them to have committee members sign confidentiality agreements to protect “intellectual property”. They also charge Frances (as well as Robert Spitzer MD, who founded DSM and has been making the email rounds with criticism of the current process) with greed in wanting to retain royalties from a book he wrote about DSM-4 which would become outdated after the release of DSM-5. I mean anyone in the business knows that book royalties pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of dollars to be had doing pharmaceutical industry consulting and speaking. In fact one could even argue that doing things like editing books (which have essentially no revenue, because hardly anyone buys them) is a feather in the cap that helps you get those more lucrative gigs.

One of the diagnoses on the table is Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD), a “disease” that if accepted would surely drive the drug companies to “identify and treat” these poor lassies with drugs like the testosterone patch (see “Wow A Drug To Have Sex Once More a Month? Sign Me Up!“) or Viagra or whatever psychotropic they could drug out of the medicine cabinet.

Turns out the medicalizing women’s sexuality may not be such a good idea. There is a long and jaded history of evil meddling by medical doctors in this area. The publication of the book Feminine Forever, whose thesis was that post-menopausal women become shriveled asexual crones due to an estrogen deficiency led doctors to put an entire generation of post-menopausal women on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which in turn was later found to have caused tens of thousands of deaths from heart attack and other problems.

Then there were Masters & Johnson, the famous sex research team who concluded that women had more frequent orgasms than men.

This “research” however was based on looking through peep holes at brothels, and later their “research sessions” they conducted with each other. Virginia Johnson was Dr. William Masters secretary, and they “partnered” to have sex on a nightly basis for “research” purposes for years. Their report on 67 patients with unwanted homosexuality showing a 70% conversion to heterosexuality using “conversion therapy” was later disclosed as a fraud when noone could find any evidence of the patients. This bizarre “research team” should hardly be taken seriously about women’s orgasms.

Turns out that the DSM-4 has ‘Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’ and ‘Female Hypo Orgasmic Disorder’ (I mean did the guy try going down on her?) as well as Dyspaerunia (painful sex). As a recent editorial pointed out, maybe the 43% of women with some type of so-called sexual dysfunction are acting “appropriately”.

I mean, maybe they’re with jerks and don’t feel like doing it?

The American Journal of Psychiatry has been soliciting editorials on the DSM-5 process. Too bad they rejected the editorial by Robert Spitzer MD who founded the DSM, and for FSD they have only this lame piece by a trio of MDs whose pharma disclosures read like a phone book. Lol. Sort of.

Ray Moynihan had a good piece in bmj on FSD (“FSD: The Making of a Disease”) in which he outlines how industry has moved in a serious way to pour cash in the “research and education” of this newly minted disorder, the rife conflicts of interest in the field, and the attempt by drug companies to medicalize female sexuality.



Psychiatry's DSM-V Process Now a Bar Room Brawl

Psychiatry’s diagnostic manual is due for a revision. But what began as a group of top scientists reviewing the research literature has degenerated into a dispute that puts the Hatfield-McCoy feud to shame.

The latest installment in this remarkable episode of American psychiatry involves an editorial by Dr. Allen Frances, the chairman of the committee that created the current version of the the DSM, the DSM-IV. The editorial has not even been officially published (it is in press at Psychiatric Times) but already it has made the rounds of the blogs and is being read and debated widely. Now, the APA has just released this rather stunning response.

Those who are not in psychiatric circles might find their eyes glazing over a bit as they read these articles. But we are witnessing here something dramatic and important. Psychiatry is wrestling with its identity, and in the process is creating the next set of ideas that will guide how real people are diagnosed and treated for years to come. The stakes for everybody are high.

In his editorial, Dr. Frances criticizes the evolving DSM-V on multiple levels, and makes the following claims:

--The process of writing the manual is less transparent and less inclusive than the process he oversaw when he chaired the DSM-IV committee

"The simple truth is that descriptive psychiatric diagnosis does not need and cannot support a paradigm shift. There can be no dramatic improvements in psychiatric diagnosis until we make a fundamental leap in our understanding of what causes mental disorders. The incredible recent advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and brain imaging that have taught us so much about normal brain functioning are still not relevant to the clinical practicalities of everyday psychiatric diagnosis. The clearest evidence supporting this disappointing fact is that not even one biological test is ready for inclusion in the criteria sets for DSM-5."

--The main change being proposed—the official inclusion of a series of rating scales into the diagnostic criteria—is poorly conceived because busy clinicians will reject this extra paper-work.

--Other proposed changes in DSM-V will make it too easy to over-diagnose a range of conditions:

“The result would be a wholesale imperial medicalization of normality that will trivialize mental disorder and lead to a deluge of unneeded medication treatment--a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry but at a huge cost to the new false positive "patients" caught in the excessively wide DSM-V net. They will pay a high price in side effects, dollars, and stigma, not to mentions the unpredictable impact on insurability, disability, and forensics.”

Frances’ article is compelling, not only because of the substance of his arguments but because of his clear and forceful writing style. With each sentence, you get a sense that this man has carefully thought through all of these issues and is passionately concerned about the future of his field.

The APA’s response, on the other hand, is a weird mixture of bureaucratese and mean-spiritedness. The bureaucratese I can understand—after all, this is a letter crafted by committee. But the nasty tone of the response is astonishing and undignified.

The APA gets off to cringing start by calling Frances and his colleagues liars:

“The commentary “A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-5: Beware of its Unintended Consequences” by Allen Frances, M.D., submitted to Psychiatric Times contains factual errors and assumptions about the development of DSM-V that cannot go unchallenged. Frances now joins a group of individuals, many involved in development of previous editions of DSM, who repeat the same accusations about DSM-V with disregard for the facts.”

Wow. Can’t grown men have disagreements with one another without resorting to this kind of language? I might have started with something more like, “The commentary “A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM-5: Beware of its Unintended Consequences” by Allen Frances, M.D., is a thought-provoking critique of the DSM-5 process. While we respect and appreciate Dr. Frances’ leadership in American psychiatry over the years, we disagree with several of his points.” (Note to APA--send me all future "defense letters" for editing, at no charge).

After this, there are six paragraphs addressing some of Frances’ specific points. We hear that the DSM-V process has actually been “the most open and inclusive ever” and that the much villified “confidentiality agreement” was created to protect intellectual property rather than to keep proceedings secret. There is a defense of the usefulness of symptom rating scales: “Recent studies underscore the readiness of clinicians in both primary care and specialty mental health settings to adopt dimensional instruments on a routine basis.”

And there is a reasonable reminder of why some changes in the criteria are needed: “Clinicians complain that the current DSM-IV system poorly reflects the clinical realities of their patients. Researchers are skeptical that the existing DSM categories represent a valid basis for scientific investigations, and accumulating evidence supports this skepticism.”

But after a brief, not terribly convincing rebuttal of the merits of Frances' argument, the writers decide to conclude by getting mean and personal again. This time, they accuse Dr. Frances of being deceptive in not disclosing his financial interests in DSM-IV (he is co-author of one book that teaches doctors how to use the manual). Then, they opine that Frances’ real motive in criticizing DSM-V is not a desire to improve diagnosis, but simply greed.

“Both Dr. Frances and Dr. Spitzer have more than a personal “pride of authorship” interest in preserving the DSM-IV and its related case book and study products. Both continue to receive royalties on DSM-IV associated products. The fact that Dr. Frances was informed at the APA Annual Meeting last month that subsequent editions of his DSM-IV associated products would cease when the new edition is finalized, should be considered when evaluating his critique and its timing.”

In other words, Dr. Frances wrote his editorial because he was just informed that once DSM-V is published, the APA will no longer publish new editions of books introducing psychiatrists to the outdated DSM-IV. Somehow, I doubt that this was exactly a news flash to Dr. Frances.

It is disturbing that the APA and DSM leadership would accuse Dr. Frances and his colleagues of being greedy, deceptive, and dumb. Who do they think they are--bloggers?

Thursday, June 25, 2009

OUR CORRUPT FDA - What they don't want you to know

What the horribly Corrupt FDA doesn't want you to know! and the information you must know, that could save your and your loved ones life!

This following article gives us a glimpse into how the FDA handles criticism: they just reflect, and say the public can't handle the truth. Well all the while they are manipulating the data/science, and working for Big Pharma.

Isn't it nice to know that government is not looking out for you or your health. But be assured they are definitely looking out for those that hand them piles of cash for election campaigns. The FDA is a horrible symptom of a deadly disease we have in our government. It's called "for sale to the highest bidder".

from Fierce Pharma - http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/fda-reform-advocates-want-more-clinical-data-transparency/2009-06-25
and the Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588492308150255.html

FDA Pressed for Transparency


WASHINGTON -- Consumers, doctors and scientists told the Food and Drug Administration Wednesday the public deserves to know more about how the agency makes complex scientific decisions about the medicine and food Americans consume.

Consumers said the FDA needs to more rigorously oversee clinical trials to ensure patients get treated fairly; doctors urged the FDA to flag safety concerns with drugs and devices as quickly as possible; and scientists recommended the agency air dissenting opinions by FDA scientists.

These thoughts were balanced, in part, by industry representatives who said that, while they agree the FDA should explain decisions more thoroughly, confidential commercial information shouldn't reach public eyes.

The meeting is part of an FDA effort to counter accusations that it makes decisions without explaining them. The FDA has long faced criticism, some of which was repeated at the meeting, that it sits on safety information that should be public and works too closely with industry.

For instance, the FDA faced criticism that it was too slow to remove the painkiller Vioxx from the market after the drug was linked to an increased risk of heart attacks. The drug was removed from the market in 2004. The agency has been under fire in the last several years for not quickly releasing information showing that the diabetes drug Avandia, made by GlaxoSmithKline, may increase a patients' risk for heart attacks.

It's too early to tell what recommendations, if any, the agency will implement. But FDA officials, including Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, and the heads of nearly every division within the agency, eagerly questioned consumers and scientists about their recommendations and said over and again they looked forward to reading more details in written testimony.

Steve Findlay, a senior health-policy analyst at the Consumers Union, said the FDA should tell the public, through its Web site, whenever agency officials have meetings with industry representatives. Such disclosure, Mr. Findlay said, would help restore the FDA's credibility. FDA officials appeared open to the idea, but questioned what meetings would warrant telling the public about.

Mr. Findlay said "important" meetings, but acknowledged the FDA will have to decide what that means.

This highlights a broader challenge the FDA will wrestle with as it decides to make decisions more transparent: What should it release? What can it release? And is there such a thing as "too much information'?

For instance, Francesca T. Grifo, of the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists, said the agency should allow FDA scientists to publicly air opinions about a drug or medical product when they disagree with a final agency decision.

Mr. Sharfstein questioned such a move, saying scientists often "disagree sharply," and airing those differences might erode the public's trust in FDA decisions. In the last several years, veteran FDA scientists have complained to Congress and the White House that they have been silenced when they disagree with agency managers. Some have also said they've been forced to manipulate scientific data.

"I don't think that the idea that we might confuse someone is powerful enough to actually silence an opinion that might in fact save a life," Ms. Grifo said.


How did we get to this dark place in our history you might ask? Because our government has been bought and over influenced by huge lobbying efforts that don't have your interest as an American Citizen in mind.

A great read and important information at -

soulful sepulcher - http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2009/06/12-million-day-pharma-lobbying-congress.html

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Non-advocates BPkids, NAMI, and a like Perpetrating the Lie and Myth

Creating a license to kill - Psychiatry - Big Pharma - Key Opinion Leaders - Dubious Supposed Advocate groups

For a long time Psychiatry and other drug pushers masking themselves as Advocates have been pushing the "Myth" that Mental Health disorders are Genetic and biochemical { The chemical imbalance theory}; without the science to back up those claims.

Now we are learning as you can read in this article by the "New York Times"; that their claims are quite dubious and hold little weight in fact. Why might you ask does this finding merit importance?

Because the Pharmaceutical drugging model and psychiatry are built upon this very foundation. Without the chemical imbalance and genetics theories to base their drugging modality upon; they in all intent and purpose drugging a huge population with ZERO evidence they are treating anything but behavior and a reaction to life events.

This is quite significant since drugging feelings and behavior is paramount to imprisonment by chemical means without treating any actual disease in all reality.

So once the theory is debunked, so is the treatment modality and false science.

This should come as a huge blow and wake up call to those drug them or they will die folks at NAMI, like organizations as in BPKids.org, and our FDA. But in all reality they will continue to propagate the lies and misinformation campaigns because their livelihoods and existence as influential bodies lay in the balance if "Truth" is thrust into the light of day for all to see.

Below I have posted the "New York Times" article, as well as the Lie and Myth one of these non-advocate group BPkids attempt to push on parents and children through their misinformation campaigns that are largely funded by Huge Pharmaceutical Corporations that are out to make MONEY, and are not looking out for you or your Child's Health interest.

This is a small representation of how the cycle usually plays out: This is ment as a brought outline that cannot even attempt to go into all the detail involved in creating a truth from pure myth.
So I can only try to give an outline in how this happens. There is much more that is involved, but can be overwhelming to internalize/understand completely when presented without all the supporting data and evidence along with it.

I will yield to better and more expertize individuals to do that for you, and hope you will personally delve into the subject matter on your own to draw your individual conclusions.

1. The Pharmaceutical industry funds psychiatry and organization to develop "NEW PSYCHIATRIC DISEASES" {like child bipolar}.

2. Then to give it validity they start a marketing campaign in which by developing industry sponsored support groups turn theory into practice.

3. Big Pharma and psychiatry have "Key Opinion Leaders" {paid for and sponsored by the drug industry} sign off on research papers and theoretical works of conjecture under the osmosis of science.

4. They even run very limited and short duration clinical trails with the whole intent of validating not only a "NEW CREATED DISEASE"; but also the sponsoring drug itself as a viable treatment.

5. They draw the up the criteria to meet their means, take and Cherry pick the data, hide adverse results, have ghost writers validate the results in factious papers dumped into medical journals for the general medical community to except and buy as scientific proof.

6. Then they start marketing the NEW CREATED DISEASE to Doctor's with off label Recommendation of Treatments.

7.The drug companies in turn fund more Ghost written papers and skewed studies {signed off on by Doctor's they have paid huge consulting fees too} to validate this new made up disease, and also the drug they have chosen to market for this made up NEW DISEASE.

8. Now it's time for those direct to doctor marketing schemes, fancy seminars, pay offs, exotic convention excursions, and all those well paid drug reps to go to town in every doctors office and medical community their can find.

9. Soon they have the circle almost completed and all the dots connected. One of the Last steps is to take all this Skewed data and the made up disease before the FDA for certified Drug approval.

10. This is intern is made much easier since they have everyone including those on the FDA approval committees on their payroll and in their pocket. As soon as the FDA has rubber stamped their drug, they have also rubber stamped and validated the NEW MADE UP DISEASE.

11. The last step comes in direct to consumer advertising and marketing. Once this is in full throttle both the drug and the Disease are etched in stone.

12. This is when the money train starts flowing with billions upon billions in profits. This has nothing to do with treating anything that is truly real. But since the Rubber Stamp has run its course; the LIE and MYTH has now been made real in the eyes of the society and medicine.

Everyone is making huge dollars along every step in the process, and the only ones that really pay the Price are all those labeled with a NEW MADE UP DISEASE and have their lives destroyed by incredibly powerful poisons.

This is why I say over and over again that Psychiatry, these non-advocate groups, the Key Opinion leaders that spew poison behind their names, and the Money and profit hungry Drug Industry; have no conscience, or show any inkling of moral, ethical, and social responsibility.

They in all truth have created a legal license to kill and injury hundreds of thousands with absolutely no consequences attached to those actions by the people, government, or courts.


Reported by the New York Times:


Report on Gene for Depression Is Now Faulted

Published: June 16, 2009

One of the most celebrated findings in modern psychiatry — that a single gene helps determine one’s risk of depression in response to a divorce, a lost job or another serious reversal — has not held up to scientific scrutiny, researchers reported Tuesday.
The original finding, published in 2003, created a sensation among scientists and the public because it offered the first specific, plausible explanation of why some people bounce back after a stressful life event while others plunge into lasting despair.
The new report, by several of the most prominent researchers in the field, does not imply that interactions between genes and life experience are trivial; they are almost certainly fundamental, experts agree.
But it does suggest that nailing down those factors in a precise way is far more difficult than scientists believed even a few years ago, and that the original finding could have been due to chance. The new report is likely to inflame a debate over the direction of the field itself, which has found that the genetics of illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder remain elusive.
“This gene/life experience paradigm has been very influential in psychiatry, both in the studies people have done and the way data has been interpreted,” said Dr. Kenneth S. Kendler, a professor of psychiatry and human genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, “and I think this paper really takes the wind out of its sails.”
Others said the new analysis was unjustifiably dismissive. “What is needed is not less research into gene-environment interaction,” Avshalom Caspi, a neuroscientist at Duke University and lead author of the original paper, wrote in an e-mail message, “but more research of better quality.”
The original study was so compelling because it explained how nature and nurture could collude to produce a complex mood problem. It followed 847 people from birth to age 26 and found that those most likely to sink into depression after a stressful event — job loss, sexual abuse, bankruptcy — had a particular variant of a gene involved in the regulation of serotonin, a brain messenger that affects mood. Those in the study with another variant of the gene were significantly more resilient.
“I think what happened is that people who’d been working in this field for so long were desperate to have any solid finding,” Kathleen R. Merikangas, chief of the genetic epidemiology research branch of the National Institute of Mental Health and senior author of the new analysis, said in a phone interview. “It was exciting, and some people thought it was the finding in psychiatry, a major advance.”
The excitement spread quickly. Newspapers and magazines reported the finding. Columnists, commentators and op-ed writers emphasized its importance. The study provided some despairing patients with comfort, and an excuse — “Well, it is in my genes.” It reassured some doctors that they were medicating an organic disorder, and stirred interest in genetic testing for depression risk.
Since then, researchers have tried to replicate the gene finding in more than a dozen studies. Some found similar results; others did not. In the new study, being published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Neil Risch of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Merikangas led a coalition of researchers who identified 14 studies that gathered the same kinds of data as the original study. The authors reanalyzed the data and found “no evidence of an association between the serotonin gene and the risk of depression,” no matter what people’s life experience was, Dr. Merikangas said.
By contrast, she said, a major stressful event, like divorce, in itself raised the risk of depression by 40 percent.
The authors conclude that the widespread acceptance of the original findings was premature, writing that “it is critical that health practitioners and scientists in other disciplines recognize the importance of replication of such findings before they can serve as valid indicators of disease risk” or otherwise change practice.
Dr. Caspi and other psychiatric researchers said it would be equally premature to abandon research into gene-environment interaction, when brain imaging and other kinds of evidence have linked the serotonin gene to stress sensitivity.
“This is an excellent review paper, no one is questioning that,” said Myrna Weissman, a professor of epidemiology and psychiatry at Columbia. “But it ignored extensive evidence from humans and animals linking excessive sensitivity to stress” to the serotonin gene.
Dr. Merikangas said she and her co-authors deliberately confined themselves to studies that could be directly compared to the original. “We were looking for replication,” she said.

Perpetrating the Lie and Myth

From the "Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation" Web Site.



Bipolar disorder is a complex genetic illness. The illness is highly inheritable. Researchers have uncovered a handful of genes that may elevate the risk of bipolar disorder and are searching for dozens more genes that may be involved. The following statistics support the search for the genetic origins of bipolar disorder:

* For the general population, a conservative estimate of an individual's risk of having Bipolar I disorder is 1% to 3%. Disorders in the bipolar spectrum are thought to affect at least 4% to 6 % of the general population.
* When one parent has bipolar disorder, the risk that his or her child will have bipolar disorder is 15% to 30%.
* When both parents have bipolar disorder, the risk increases to 50% to 75%.
* If a sibling (including a fraternal twin) has bipolar disorder, the child's risk is 15% to 25%.
* The risk in identical twins is approximately 85%.8

The family trees of many children who develop pediatric bipolar disorder include individuals who suffered from substance abuse or mood disorders (perhaps undiagnosed) or both. Because previous generations were less likely to diagnose bipolar disorder, affected family members may have been written off as “crazy Auntie” or simply as prone to troubling behaviors, such as alcoholism, frequent periods of unemployment, dysfunctional personal relationships, bankruptcies, or incarceration. Interestingly, the family tree might also have many members who are highly-accomplished, creative, charismatic and extremely successful in business, politics, and the arts.


Just, as juvenile diabetes is generally a more severe disorder than adult-onset diabetes, pediatric bipolar disorder appears to be more perilous than adult-onset bipolar disorder. The rationale for early intervention is compelling.

Common outcomes of pediatric bipolar disorder are school refusal, suspension, and dropping-out; impulsive acts of aggression; self-injury; substance abuse; and suicide attempts and completions. Teens with symptoms of untreated bipolar disorder are arrested and incarcerated. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens. Children as young as six have attempted to hang, shoot, stab or overdose themselves. Suicide Prevention Tips.

The longest study on pediatric bipolar disorder is ongoing under the direction of Barbara Geller, M.D., a child psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. In the mid-1990s, Dr. Geller began observing 93 children whose average age was 10.8 years. All of the children had mania (Bipolar I) which had begun to onset at an average age of 6.8 years. Assessing the children after four years, Geller and colleagues found that children with mania were sicker than adults, less likely than adults to recover, and relapsed sooner than adults with mania.4 Differences in symptom severity and frequency of cycling between manic and depressive episodes have presented questions as to whether bipolar disorder in youth is the same illness as in adults. A study published in 2006 by Dr. Geller and colleagues showed that early-onset Bipolar I disorder does appear to be the same illness as adult-onset Bipolar I disorder.5

Another study of three major subtypes of bipolar disorder that affect children and adolescents is ongoing under the direction of David Axelson, M.D., a child psychiatrist at Western Psychiatric Institutes and Clinics in Pittsburgh. A report on the 263 children and adolescents, ages 7-17 years, confirmed that bipolar disorder affects children and adolescents more severely than adults.6 “Study participants had comparatively longer symptomatic stages and more frequent cycling (changing from one mood to another) or mixed episodes. Children and adolescents also converted from a less severe form of bipolar disorder to a more severe form at a much higher rate than seen in adults.”

Note: child bipolar is not in the DSM, is hotly debated/contested even among the psychiatric community, is not recognized by the rest of the civilized world, or is there any real criteria for this myth.

So they ran studies on something that has no criteria other than what they made up { see how this myth making process works}. Now they have got dangerous and deadly drugs approved for a myth??? If it smells like poop, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be psychiatry feeding us some more quackery!

How about those Genes? How about that chemical imbalance? How about some proof and real science? show us all the pathology please?

Monday, June 15, 2009

child and adolescent bipolar foundation lie about their financing

Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation lie about their financing

Now you have to wonder what else their lying about?

They are one of those non-advocate organizations that want to drug kids with known harmful drugs that signed that notorious letter to the FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting on June 9-10: Joint Statement on Atypical Antipsychotic Use in Children.

Here to read post - http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnarritive.blogspot.com/2009/06/non-advocates-nami-etc-pimp-typical.html



CABF Testimony at the June 9, 2009 Meeting of the
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee
of the Food and Drug Administration

Concerning new drug approvals for Seroquel for schizophrenia (children ages 13-17) and bipolar disorder (children ages 10-17); Geodon capsules for bipolar disorder (children ages 10-17); and Zyprexa for schizophrenia and bipolar in adolescents.

"My name is Susan Resko and I am the executive director of the Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation. I represent over 25,000 constituents; 95% are parents of children living with bipolar disorder and related conditions. CABF neither seeks, nor accepts financial support from pharmaceutical or medical device companies."

From their 2006 financial disclosure PDF - www.bpkids.org/site/DocServer/CABF_2005-06_Audited_Financials.pdf?docID=1041

“The Foundation revenue is comprised primarily of donations from individuals and grants received from Pharmaceutical companies.”

“For the year ended June 30, 2006, grants received from one pharmaceutical company comprised more than 10% of total support and revenue”.

“During fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the foundation, which had historically received 50-70% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry”

1. Can you please explain this obvious conflict of statements for us?

2. What drug company accounted for more than 10% of your total donations?

3. more than 10%, does that mean 99% or 11%?

4. Are you in fact a front for the pharmaceutical industry and eugenicists?

I am calling out your BULLSHIT!


We would like some answers? but I will pass this information along to Senator Grassley regardless.

Let's begin with the Child Bipolar Myth - it's not recognized by most nations in the civilized world because it's a lie and just a eugenics front for psychiatry and marketing tool for the major drug industry.

Dr. J. Biederman of Harvard, MGH, "lets aggressively drug those kids with A Typical Anti Psychotics before they get ill" and " I'm second to God" fame; while being under Grassley's Senate investigation for unethical and possible criminal activity sits on their advisory panel.


Susan Resko, executive director of the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Association, told the Health Blog that FDA approval of additional drugs for bipolar disorder would “validate” the existence of bipolar disorders in children but she also urged caution about their use. “These medications can be and are lifesaving for countless numbers of children,” she said, “But they need to be use with care and with experts.”

More drug approvals to validate a mythological diagnosis!! This is how the high stakes game of your child's health is played!! Psychiatry has no conscience, just fat bank accounts by way of Big Pharma.


If you want to trust your Kids to these kinds of people and organizations? Please be aware you have now been informed/warned of the dangers and consequences {which include permanent disability and death}.

for more information on this topic go to soulful sepulcher and read http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2009/06/cabf-child-and-adolescent-bipolar.html


Yes, it gets even worse! look in the comment section of this post for more disheartening information about this non-advocate organization and Big Pharma pimp.

Dr. Melissa DelBello who is also on the child and adolescent bipolar foundation advisory board is obviously in bed with AZ pharmaceuticals collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars, and creating her own front company while at her desk at her university job and funded by AZ. Yes she maybe even more egocentric and whacked out than J. Biederman the bipolar child doctor of death himself.

Kay Jamison of that unquiet fraud fame; why haven't you spoken up for the children? J. Biederman got your tongue or has Big Pharma got your wallet?

Kay is also on this dubious Advisory Board.

Why anyone would entrust KIDS to these Big Pharma spokespersons, and obviously deeply conflict of interest rooted and associated organizations is beyond comprehension.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Government mental health plan is Eugenics All Over Again

US Gov. Mental Screens / Preemptive Interventions =
Eugenics All Over Again in 2009

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/608/107/ - from Alliance for Human Research Protection
is another scary and great article. Please go read the entire article and be as dumbfounded and concerned as I am.

Alliance for Human Research Protection

The NAS report is one of several U.S. government initiatives aimed at lending legitimacy to, and vastly expanding, the use of the most toxic drugs in pharmacopeia in children.

This is a follow-up to yesterday's Infomail about a report under the auspices of the National Academies of Science (NAS) which calls for pre-emptive interventions to “prevent” “mental, emotional and behavioral disorders among young people.” The NAS report recommends “rigorous” mental screening, followed by pharmacologic "treatment" intervention with highly toxic psychoactive drugs—antidepressants and antipsychotics—even as the authors acknowledge that: "Early-detection programs will identify as candidates for mental illness some people who are merely persnickety or shy or eccentric."

The NAS report is one of several U.S. government initiatives aimed at lending legitimacy to, and vastly expanding, the use of the most toxic drugs in pharmacopoeia in children. Most of these children would never be considered candidates for psychiatric diagnosis or treatment in other countries. The implementation of these initiatives will ensnare millions of American children into becoming involuntary consumers of drugs that induce metabolic, hormonal, neurological, cardiovascular damage.

Of note, before the NAS report had even been edited for publication, the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) has already established an "Early Detection & Intervention for the Prevention of Psychosis Program" (EDIPPP) to implement the report’s recommendations. The problem: there exists not a shred of scientific evidence to support "preventive" cures for psychosis.

The NAS report is replete with expressions such as “bio-markers” for mental disorders, when not a single genetic, chemical, physiological, radiological or any other biological marker has been identified to aid in diagnosis or predicting treatment response of any psychiatric condition in the DSM, psychiatry’s diagnostic manual. As acknowledged in the DSM :
"The DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data...the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV…remain subjective...” p. 1163

Yet, in the NAS report DSM diagnoses themselves are absurdly treated as rock-solid descriptions of natural disease phenomena. Not a single of these mental disorder diagnoses’ many contradictions are discussed, let alone assessed critically. The NAS report is not a critical assessment of the evidence by a well-funded panel of prestigious scientists: it resembles a cursory literature review as if written by a na├»ve undergraduate student.

According to the DHHS “Talking Points” document, "EDIPPP was launched and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which has invested $16.9 million in this promising program." EDIPPP program sites are in Albuquerque, NM; Davis, CA; Glen Oaks, NY; Portland, ME; Salem, OR; and Ypsilanti, MI.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is an arm of Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Janssen, makers of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal (risperidone). Janssen is being sued by the Texas Attorney General for bilking the state Medicaid / Medicare budget, and for having "improperly influenced the development" of the Texas Medication Algorithm prescribing protocols (TMAP).

The TMAP marketing scheme was initiated by Johnson & Johnson in 1995 with an investment of $224,000. Psychotropic drug prescribing guidelines were formulated by industry-paid “consensus panels” whose opinions were used to override the scientific evidence about these drugs’ insignificant clinical advantage but severe additional risks. TMAP guidelines were uncritically adopted by state mental health agencies, ensuring that taxpayers would pay exorbitantly for the latest patented drugs.

TMAP precipitated huge overprescribing of psychoactive drugs, especially among the most vulnerable populations. By 2004, Johnson and Johnson reaped $ 272 million in Risperdal sales in Texas alone.

Even more sinister than the bilking of U.S. taxpayers, however, are the signs that EDIPPP resuscitates America's shameful eugenic policies of the first half of the 20th century.

Eugenicists of yesteryear screened families and school children to root out "mental defectives" by means of dubious questionnaires screens to "catch them before they fall." Former eugenicists forced surgical sterilizations on those deemed "mentally defective" based on bogus questionnaires. Emergent American eugenicists promote pharmacological fixes that have the potential for chemically castrating those deemed "mentally ill."

Even as the EDIPPP tacitly acknowledges the absence of "effective diagnostic tools and interventions" which it "seeks to develop," it promotes controversial pharmacologic interventions on the basis of still-dubious screens and “tests,” stating that its “purpose is to avoid making a mental illness diagnosis.” Mental health discourse is defined by circular reasoning.


another article of importance:


Seroquel, Zyprexa and Geodon for Kids? You Bet Says FDA Panel

by Martha Rosenberg / June 13th, 2009

ADELPHI, MD — Even as a US District Court prepares 6,000 Seroquel lawsuits for trial, Eli Lilly pays $1.42 billion for illegal Zyrexa marketing and 30 states sue over heisted Medicaid funds for atypical antipsychotics, an FDA advisory panel has recommended approval of Seroquel, Zyrexa and Geodon for children.

After two days of hearings, the FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee voted to recommend approval of AstraZeneca’s Seroquel (quetiapine) for the acute treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents 13-17, acute treatment of bipolar mania in children 10-12 and adolescents 13-17; Pfizer’s Geodon (ziprasidone) for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder, with or without psychotic features in children and adolescents ages 10-17; and Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa (olanzapine) for the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder and acute treatment of schizophrenia in adolescents.

Most people know pharma’s blockbuster atypical antipsychotics Seroquel, Zyprexa and Geodon, off label marketed to kids, the elderly, the uncategorizable and the suggestible –are you sure you don’t have racing thoughts ask ads?–correlate with weight gain, diabetes and metabolic derangement.

But who knew until the hearings that Seroquel also causes an extra seven or eight heart beats a minute in children? Possibly for as long as they take it? With no studies to show the long term effect? Or the safety of drugs to treat the effect? And no theory as to why?

Who knew Seroquel could cause cataracts?

Who knew Geodon could cause a prolonged QT interval also known as “sudden death.”

Who knew the atypicals, along with tremor and muscle rigidity, could cause the permanent and stigmatizing tardive dyskinesia they were developed to prevent? Hello?

Of course AstraZeneca doctor Liza O’Dowd did her best during her presentation to sail through the negatives–assuring the panel that Seroquel’s blood pressure, weight, glucose and prolactin issues could be “controlled and monitored” and that they “didn’t lead to discontinuation of the study” (let’s hope not when the trial was three weeks.)

But she was less forthcoming when discussing the five child suicides seen during trials, a slide she only produced in response to panel questions.

AstraZeneca’s Ihor Rak, MD did his best to dismiss cataract problems as “poor hygiene, nutrition and accidents” seen with schizophrenics but had no ready answer when panelist member Benedetto Vitiello, MD asked why not, then, remove instructions to examine patient lenses from the prescribing information.

AstraZeneca presenter Lili Kopala, MD was certain the study suicides stemmed from patients who were “still on the recovery curve,” but when panelist Christopher Granger, MD challenged her, she changed her mind and said, “they may be random.”

And panelists had other questions.

Not being trained psychiatrists, how did you make the differential diagnosis of bipolar for your studies asked panelist Kenneth Towbin, MD? How do you know irritability, anxiety or aggression don’t denote other disorders? How could a Seroquel study in which children with mania are kept on stimulants be scientifically valid–or ethical?

Children are often on “cocktails of seven or eight medications,” agreed Rochelle Caplan, MD, and “once we get them off,” they might just have a learning disability.

Worse than problems diagnosing pediatric bipolar or schizophrenia–3,000 suspected childhood schizophrenia cases yielded only 110 actual cases in one study said panelist Nitin Gogtay, MD–and worse than the lack of “real world” and mixed medicine “cocktail” studies was the brevity of the studies themselves said panelists.

How can three and six week studies suggest safety for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorders which lasts decades? “We know they won’t stop [using the medications] at the acute phase,” said Towbin.

Panelist Granger confessed to “real discomfort” approving drugs which “generat[e] metabolic syndrome in adolescents in a very short period of time” for “indefinite use” on the basis of three or six week trials. “Hopefully we’re not exposing someone for decades,” agreed fellow cardiologist Edward Pritchett, MD.

But Thomas Laughren, MD, FDA’s director of psychiatric drugs was more upbeat. Not only was he sure pediatric safety could be extrapolated from adult studies–promising to include the clinical leap on labels–he didn’t want to be derailed over the two children who perversely died from stroke and cardiopulmonary failure in Geodon studies either.

There’s “hazard in drawing too much from subsetting the data,” said Laughren. Phillip Chappell, MD of Pfizer thanked him.

Frank Greenway, MD, an endocrine specialist on the panel, was also upbeat, observing prolactin elevation from the atypicals was less than a “prolactin secreting tumor.” Whew.

Still the elephant in the room at the proceedings was why drugs that are already available off-label need FDA approval at all–and why it’s urgent that kids showing symptoms be Treated Now.

(One pharma doctor claimed gray matter shrinks ever time someone is “psychotic” but others admitted early treatment has no effect on the course of the diseases.)

The answer of course was in the other elephant in the room–the wall of 40 pharma funded doctors sitting at attention, outnumbering FDA representatives two to one and unabashed referred as “sponsors.” (Though their Medicaid streams imply that’s backwards.)

It’s the sponsors who exhort doctors–and parents–to subject kids to increased heart beat, sudden death, metabolic syndrome, tardive dyskinesia, cataracts, stroke and suicidal side effects for diseases they may not even have.

Certainly that’s how two mothers who testified during the open public hearings felt.

Liza Ortiz of Austin, TX lost her 13-year-old son to Seroquel toxicity earlier this year. “His hands twisted in ways I never thought possible in the I.C.U., ” she said.

Mary Kitchens of Bandera, TX said her son suffers from crossed eyes, nightmares, trembling, neutropenia, hypothyroidism, tachycardia, dyskinesia and cogwheeling since Seroquel treatment.

“AstraZeneca marketed this to my child in 2003,” she said holding the original Seroquel package for the panel to see. “And now they want your seal of approval.”

Martha Rosenberg is a columnist/cartoonist who writes about public health. She can be reached at: martharosenberg@sbcglobal.net. Read other articles by Martha.

Non-advocates NAMI etc. - PIMP A Typical Anti Psychotics to FDA and for BIG PHARMA

Non-advocates NAMI etc. - PIMP A Typical Anti Psychotics to FDA and for BIG PHARMA



Joint Statement on Atypical Antipsychotic Use in Children
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry - www.aacap.org
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention - www.afsp.org
American Psychiatric Association - www.psych.org
Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation - www.bpkids.org
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder - www.chadd.org
Families for Depression Awareness - www.familyaware.org
Mental Health America - www.mentalhealthamerica.net
National Alliance on Mental Illness - www.nami.org
National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare - http://www.thenationalcouncil.org/

Above is the Ugly Liar Beast doing the Devil's bidding: all of these non-advocate organizations get the majority of their money/funding from the very people that make these poison drugs! That's called "A MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST" and not advocating for anyone except their own pockets.

Lets break down what these non-advocates are saying while collecting those huge checks from Big Pharma. They equate behavioral disorders and schizophrenia to cancer. They call these behavioral disorders genetic, a disease, chemical imbalance, and organically based. Yet, there is no proof or science that can confrim their hypothesis; because its just a guess.

How do their treatments work? Well, they use heavy and powerful tranquilizers that quash the complete person and all their functioning facilities.
This is not treatment, this is just chemical restraint for all intent and purposes. If you followed their illogical conclusions; you would use chemo to treat a common wart.

They ignore the damage and possible crippling side effects because they don't care. They have their stake and vested interest in this psychiatric nightmare and myth; which is all or nothing type thinking.

This is not advocacy in even the broadest or outlandish interpretation. Did you notice they say access to safe treatments! A Typical Anti Psychotics are not safe or considered reasonable in children. They have proven side effects that are disabling, permanent, and can cause death.

They are deadly and damaging alternatives of the very last resort and should be only considered as an extreme last option for behavioral control and not as a treatment.
Sedation is not or should it ever be thought of as a treatment; it is just chemical restraint of the most intrusive kind.

Child Bipolar is a false diagnosis and is not recognized by the rest of the civilized world. Let's take their myth and scare tactic statement for instance "Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are very real, life-threatening diseases".

This is a complete and utter lie, since behaviors cannot be classified as a disease {look at their cancer comparison as the ludicrous statement it is}, Show us the disease that is bipolar or schizophrenia? They can not show us the pathology, because it does not exist. So their hypothesis and theory is at best a guess, and in the way they are using it "A COMPLETE LIE".

Their next lie "These alarming statistics highlight the need for early recognition and treatment, which offers children and adolescents their best chance to achieve and maintain wellness." They are on a witch hunt for something they themselves created {How convenient is that}.

I can only guess they call a reduction in brain mass and function at the rate of 1% per year from these drugs ACHIEVING and WELLNESS? How about all those kids that will be Obese, develop TD, diabetes, heart disease, and a whole host of other permanent conditions including death; Do they consider that ACHIEVING and WELLNESS also?

Next Falsehood "scientific discourse about all pharmacologic treatments". We know there is little science behind their claims. We know about the junk reports and studies that were created and cherry picked by Pharmaceutical Corporations and Ghost Written to mislead the effectiveness of their products and down play and hide any side effects. We know they have marketed these drugs to doctors off label in violation of the law. We know there are no long term studies on the effects these drugs will have upon child populations. We do know they have killed and disabled kids! IS THIS THE SCIENCE THEY ARE REFERRING TOO?


WASHINGTON, June 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The below listed groups issued the following statement regarding the upcoming FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting on June 9-10: Joint Statement on Atypical Antipsychotic Use in Children by those organizations listed at top of this post.

As advocates for people living with mental illnesses, we strongly urge the FDA to carefully consider the importance of viable treatment options for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia in pediatric and adolescent populations. Access to safe and effective treatments, including more information about all treatment options, is crucial to treating these serious and complex conditions in children and adolescents.

Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are very real, life-threatening diseases which can appear in childhood and adolescence. For example, federally funded research (STEP-BD) found that, of 3,658 adult patients studied, 68% reported bipolar disease onset in childhood or adolescence. Patients with child onset had, on average, fewer days of euthymia (or neutral mood), greater impairment in functioning and poorer quality of life. Those with adolescent onset have better outcomes than those with child onset, but were still worse off than those who did not suffer from bipolar disorder until adulthood. These alarming statistics highlight the need for early recognition and treatment, which offers children and adolescents their best chance to achieve and maintain wellness.

We encourage an open and transparent scientific discourse about all pharmacologic treatments that come before the Advisory Committee and urge the Committee to carefully weigh the available evidence regarding safety and efficacy. No one treatment option works for all children. In order for physicians and families to make informed treatment decisions they need access to a full range of medications and treatment options and to the research regarding the risks and benefits of these treatments. More long-term clinical research in children and adolescents is also needed to better understand the risks and benefits of these medications when used over an extended period.

As we know, these medications can also have serious side effects, which is why it is crucial that parents and physicians have as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions and weigh the risk of side effects and adverse reactions against the risk of not treating these very serious diseases. Other treatments for grave childhood illnesses such as cancer can cause hair loss, nausea, compromised immune systems and even death. However, few people question the necessity of these aggressive forms of treatment. Like cancer, aggressive treatment may be needed for some patients with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, diseases with a higher risk of death than some forms of cancer.

The best way to protect the health of our nation's children and adolescents is to increase access to treatment options and communicate accurate, scientific information that helps parents and physicians cope with and properly treat these devastating illnesses.

Our non-profit national mental health advocacy and medical professional organizations represent consumers, physicians, researchers and the top experts in the field of mental health and neuroscience. For more information about mental illness and treatment, we recommend that you talk to your health care provider or visit our organization websites.


What do you think? Your comments are always welcome and will be edited to my liking.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Our Government, Big Pharma, FDA, Psychiatry, NAMI throwing out the baby with the bath water

Our Government, Big Pharma, Psychiatry, FDA, AMA, and NAMI throwing out the Baby with the Bath Water

I read this great article over at "Alliance for Human Research Protection" this morning


I will re-post/copy it here for your convenience. They have been writing some great articles and keeping everyone informed about the injustice we all are under in these horrible times in our history for medicine, our own lives, and our children's lives, health, and protection.

There is also a link in this article to Evelyn Pringle's report,

"FDA Throws Lifeline to Antipsychotic Pushers" - Article here -->http://counterpunch.org/pringle06122009.html

which is a must read for anyone concerned about the abuses that Big Pharma and Psychiatry perpetrate upon our society today. We are in a WAR, and we are losing against the forces of pure greed, corruption, evil, and lies.

Yet, we must continue to battle on; because each of our children's lives and quality of life hang in the balance.
Our very future as a nation and a people are at stake now. Please make your voice heard all the way to the steps of the White House and beyond.


Alliance for Human Research Protection

Pharma & US Gov Promoting Chemical Assault on America's Children.

The Obama administration seems to be pushing the radical pharmacological envelope even further than the Bush administration-- --at the very least, nothing has changed for the better in the government-assisted determined push to control / engineer America's children.

This has been a grim week for anyone who cares about the precautionary principle guiding civilized medicine and the welfare of children.

If anything, the Obama administration seems to be pushing the radical pharmacological envelope even further than the Bush administration-- --at the very least, nothing has changed for the better in the government-assisted determined push to control / engineer America's children.

On Wednesday, an FDA advisory committee gave the FDA a green light to expand the marketing license of three toxic antipsychotic drugs--Seroquel, Geodon, and Zyprexa--for use in children.

Such approval gives manufacturers a shield from liability--for illegally promoting the drugs for off-label use. And such approval ensures increased use of these drugs. Manufacturers and mental health providers will profit while children's physical and mental health will be sacrificed. These drugs pose severely disabling, potentially lethal hazards--including diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease.

The body of evidence showing these drugs to be harmful is irrefutable: it is documented in FDA's postmarketing database, and in secret internal company documents uncovered during litigation.

Did the FDA provide the advisory panel members with the evidence ? And if not, why not?

See, Evelyn Pringle's report, "FDA Throws Lifeline to Antipsychotic Pushers"

article here--> http://counterpunch.org/pringle06122009.html

An article in TIME magazine gives credence to a not yet released report commissioned under the Bush Administration by a panel convened by the National Academies of Science.

The report, "Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities" (2009) re-iterates the earlier national mental health policy directive under President Bush:
The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2002
)--which promoted universal mental screening and the expanded use of patented psychoactive drugs (those listed in industry-initiated, TMAP algorithm prescription guides).

See the NAS report brief to policymakers issued, March 2009:

The NAS report also recommends aggressive screening and pharmacologic intervention with toxic psychoactive drugs for children. The provocative, unsubstantiated premise is that mental illness can be detected through genetic screening--a la eugenics rationale--and that they can be prevented.

"Hundreds of studies that have appeared in just the past decade collectively suggest that the brain isn't so different from, say, the arm: it doesn't simply break on its own. In fact, many mental illnesses - even those like schizophrenia that have demonstrable genetic origins - can be stopped or at least contained before they start."

"This isn't wishful thinking but hard science."

If the consequences of psychiatry's delusions weren't so serious, that statement is laughable. As every real medical scientist knows, psychiatry lacks even the rudimentary objective, scientifically verifiable tools of science, much less, "hard science."

The TIME reporter is impressed with NAS report weight in pagination: "a 500-page report, nearly two years in the making, on how to prevent mental, emotional and behavioral disorders."

"The [NAS] report concludes that pre-empting such disorders requires two kinds of interventions:
first, because genes play so important a role in mental illness, we need to ensure that close relatives (particularly children) of those with mental disorders have access to rigorous screening programs.
Second, we must offer treatment to people who have already shown symptoms of illness (say, a tendency to brood and see the world without optimism) but don't meet the diagnostic criteria for a full-scale mental illness (in this case, depression)....."

According to TIME, the authors of the NAS report recognize but rationalize the reality that mental screens will mislabel healthy individuals as mentally ill:

"Early-detection programs will identify as candidates for mental illness some people who are merely persnickety or shy or eccentric."

Indeed, a responsible reason NOT to screen is the high false-positive rate of mental screens. For example, the false-positive rate of TeenScreen, the mental health dragnet of school children, is as high as 84%.

TIME reports that that the invalid screening tools did not deter the NAS authors from recommending mental screening--even acknowledging that those mislabeled may be prescribed toxic antidepressants and/ or antipsychotics:

"Some prevention programs even prescribe psychiatric medications, including antipsychotics and antidepressants, to people who aren't technically psychotic or depressed....But those who contributed to the National Academies report say preventing the suffering of people with mental illness is worth the risk of some false positives, partly because of the enormous cost of treating mental illness after it's struck."

The NAS report is available online in its unedited version--it has not yet been released.

Vera Hassner Sharav

Authors of the NAS Report:


Kenneth E. Warner (Chair), School of Public Health, University of Michigan

Thomas Boat (Vice Chair), Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

William R. Beardslee, Department of Psychiatry, Children's Hospital Boston

Carl C. Bell, University of Illinois at Chicago, Community Mental Health Council

Anthony Biglan, Center on Early Adolescence, Oregon Research Institute

C. Hendricks Brown, College of Public Health, University of South Florida

E. Jane Costello, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center

Teresa D. Lafromboise, School of Education, Stanford University

Ricardo F. Munoz, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco

Peter J. Pecora, Casey Family Programs and School of Social Work, University of Washington

Bradley S. Peterson, Pediatric Neuropsychiatry, Columbia University

Linda A. Randolph, Developing Families Center, Washington, DC Irwin Sandler, Prevention Research Center, Arizona State University


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.