Wednesday, December 29, 2010

CABF Pepsi Refresh Project fundraiser - scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest - Part 2

CABF Pepsi Refresh Project fundraiser - scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest - Part 2

In my last post ( CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser - scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest ) I reached out to Pepsi corporation in good faith expressing my concerns about an ongoing marketing campaign "Pepsi Refresh Project" where they promote "Fresh Ideas" from some honest & good charitable organizations; as well as some fairly unscrupulous groups like CABF.

I also mentioned that Pepsi has very poor vetting process regarding those they allow to participate & will award money too. As of this morning CABF (bpkids) & their marketing efforts have them sitting @ #1 position for the 250k award. (by reaching out to other pharma front groups, running their own contest, and providing misleading or false information to drum up votes)

PEPSI has been warned that this public support for CABF would come back to bite them - they have not listened!! Now they are walking into a position of being forever tied to CABF & the negative repercussions the award money will provide for small children, youth, and America.

Pepsi Welcomes us to Corporate American where it's all about results, the bottom line, name recognition & profits; those things we common folk value/cherish like integrity, ethical behavior, moral conscience, and doing the right thing are obviously something Pepsi has very little concern over.

Pepsi's lack of vetting concerning Pharmaceutical Industry front organizations like CABF has shown Pepsi's lack of community & social responsibility. Again below I will post links to even more information shining a spot light on CABF bpkids.

At some juncture the American people are going to get sick & tired of being duped by International Corporations selling them a tainted bill of goods & lash out back @ them. We can only hope this comeuppance comes before more of our children become the strewn carnage of Corporate greed & power focused mentalities.

Though I am admittedly not much of a soft drink consumer, next time I choose to indulge in a soda....I'll go with the 'REAL THING" thank you very much.....

LINKS with more information about CABF "Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation" -

CABF Pepsi Project Fundraiser: Advisor Janet Wozniak trialed Seroquel on 4 year olds

Atypical America :1.3 million children 9 & under on antispychotics!

CABF Pepsi Project Fundraiser: 2 board members part of FDA approval for antipsychotics for 10 year olds: Seroquel, Zyprexa & Geodon

CABF Pepsi Project Fundraiser: Scientific Advisor Vivian Kafantaris received drug company money & medication for adolescent drug trial

CABF Pepsi Project Fundraiser: Scientific Advisory Kiki Chang received money from drug companies

CABF Pepsi Project Fundraiser : Scientific Advisory board Biederman "one of the most forceful advocates of the aggressive treatment of preschoolers"

CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser: 2002 plea to FDA supported pediatric exclusivity incentives

CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser: Director Susan Resko earned $85,000 in 2007-defended Biederman

CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser: Scientific Council riddled with scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest

soulful sepulcher: CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser: Scientific Council riddled with scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest

And an extensive list of additional links in my last post CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser - scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest

Monday, December 27, 2010

CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser - scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest

CABF Pepsi Project fundraiser - scandal & pharmaceutical conflict of interest

Pepsi soft drinks a subsidiary Of Pepsi-co corporation has come up with this great marketing campaign which takes their yearly tax deductible corporate charitable money fund & turns it into a huge "Pepsi" name recognition & image advertising venture.

This killing two birds with one stone approach appears to be wildly successful for Pepsi.

So is there a down side to this campaign that may come back to bite Pepsi in the behind somewhere down the road? It appears Pepsi is not doing much of a vetting process for these "fresh idea" charities vying against one another for the million plus dollars pepsi is handing out each mouth.

In fact, If Pepsi had done any homework at all, they would have found some interesting problems with one of their leading contestants for a 250K grant award.

The Child & Adolescent Foundation has been mired in controversy over being what many consider/believe to be just another dangerous Pharmaceutical Industry marketing front group.

Why should Pepsi care? If a group like CABF (aka bpkids) wins this Pepsi grant award; Then Pepsi; with it's name & image will be forever tied to CABF.

Now, Considering the Government & DOJ focus on the pharmaceutical industry, their many front groups, & mountain of criminal activities; Big Pharma Has pretty much become the #1 villain among government leaders, watch dog groups, the public, and consumers for their ongoing illegal, immoral, unethical & reprehensible activities.

I have left a long list of great links below that cover The Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, thier very dirty laundry, & what's behind this dangerous organization. I would suggest Pepsi Corporation take the time to read each link in their entirety....

Just Possibly next time someone thinks about Pepsi & who they support through thier "refresh project" ad campaign - They'll reach up for the "real thing" & choose....

Saturday, December 11, 2010

POGO's Silent Night Fever - Starring the Ghost Writer Dancers

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Silent Night Fever - Starring the Ghost Writer Dancers

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Human Life for Sale - Death of Dan Markingson @ University Of Minnesota - AstraZeneca - Seroquel Clinical Trial - Academic CoverUps for Corp. Dollars

Human Life for Sale - The Death of Dan Markingson @ University Of Minnesota - AstraZeneca - Seroquel Clinical Trial - Academic Cover Ups for Corporate Dollars

You would have to be living in abandoned cave completely off the grid to not be aware of AstraZeneca's under world criminal dealings and reputation over the animal tranquilizer, turned anti-psychotic, turned anti-depressant SEROQUEL; but it appears the University of Minnesota is willing to turn away blindly from their ethical, moral, and public duty/obligation as an institution of higher learning for nothing more than piles of money being funneled to them through huge Pharmaceutical Corporations including AstraZeneca.

Below you can follow many links portraying how the once honored science of research & medicine has been bastardized almost beyond repair at the cost of human life by one university after another throughout America and the world.
It appear to matter not @ Universities and Institutions of learning whether AstraZeneca is under investigation for bribery, insider trading, violating anti-trust laws, off label marketing violations, misrepresentations of their product, hiding adverse side effects, skewing clinical data, ghost writing schemes, illegal marketing, & outright criminal fraud to just to scratch the surface. The University of Minnesota has decided they want their slice of this monstrosity money pie no matter what the implications are for our society or the patients under their care and trust.

8 University of Minnesota Bioethics Professors are stepping up & demanding an investigation into the how's and why's of this University Medical System. They are demanding answers to the corruption, conflicts of interest, corporate dealings/control, personal gain, and to glean substantive answers about the preventable and tragic death of Dan Markingson's a participant in an AstraZeneca funded Seroquel Clinical trial @ the University Of Minnesota.

I encourage you to become informed & make your voice heard..I have left many links below which will both enlighten & disturb most readers.

8 University of Minnesota Bioethicists ask for investigation of Seroquel trial suicide of Dan Markingson

VIA Minnesota Post Bioethicists ask for investigation- 2004 Seroquel trial suicide:

University of Minnesota Bioethicists ask for investigation of Seroquel AstraZeneca Questionable Trial which lead to Death of Dan Markingson

The back story:

Dr. Carl Elliott - AstraZeneca, Seroquel, University Of Minnesota - Placing Profit ahead of Human Life

Dr. Carl Elliott - AstraZeneca, Seroquel, University Of Minnesota - Placing Profits ahead of Human Life

Via Gary Schwitzer - On

Disturbing suicide tale: U of M professor reexamines ethics questions of drug trial

By Susan Perry | Published Fri, Aug 20 2010 8:38 am

In the September issue of Mother Jones magazine, Dr. Carl Elliott, a professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, writes about the suicide in 2004 of 26-year-old Dan Markingson, who was enrolled at the time in a U of M industry-funded clinical trial of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine).

It’s a disturbing tale (the unsuccessful efforts of Markingson's mother to get her son released from the trial and into other treatment are particularly heartbreaking) and one that, as Elliott acknowledges, was first told in the Pioneer Press by Jeremy Olson and Paul Tosto.

But Elliott’s purpose in writing the article wasn’t only to revisit the tragic details of Markingson's story. “[T]he more I examined the medical and court records, the more I became convinced that the problem was worse than the Pioneer Press had reported,” he writes. “The danger lies not just in the particular circumstances that led to Dan’s death, but in a system of clinical research that has been thoroughly co-opted by market forces, so that many studies have become little more than covert instruments for promoting drugs. The study in which Dan died starkly illustrates the hazards of market-driven research and the inadequacy of our current oversight system to detect them.”

Those hazards include questionable informed consent (is a young man who’s experiencing psychotic episodes competent to give his consent?) and financial conflicts of interest. According to Elliott, the U of M psychiatry department earned $15,648 for each person it enrolled in the Seroquel study. In addition, the study’s two U of M investigators, Drs.Charles S. Schulz and Stephen C. Olson, personally earned a combined $811,045 between 2002 and 2008 from Big Pharma, including $261,364 from AstraZeneca, the maker of Seroquel.

At the time Markingson entered the Seroquel study, reports Elliott, the investigators were having serious problems recruiting subjects. Did that factor lead them to enroll someone into the study who shouldn’t have been?

“Even by the standards of a fairly ugly history [of clinical drug trials with ethical breaches] in medical history — even by those standards, this [case] jumps up,” Elliott told me in an interview last week. “There were so many things that went wrong — the consent process, the commitment order under which [Markingson] was recruited into the trial, the financial incentives of the university, the financial incentives of the investigators, and the sheer worthlessness of the trial. Anyone who looked into this and knew anything about clinical research would say this is terrible.”

Elliott sees the trial's worthlessness as a particularly abhorrent part of the story. The Seroquel study was designed as a marketing tool, he suggests, not as a true scientific inquiry. Such studies, he writes, present a huge ethical problem that isn't being properly addressed by the oversight systems currently in place:

What is simply assumed [when bioethicists and regulators debate the risks of a clinical trial], without much consideration at all, is that the research is being conducted to produce scientific knowledge. This assumption is codified in a number of foundational ethics documents, such as the Nuremberg Code, which was instituted following Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. … But what if a research study is not really aimed at producing genuine scientific knowledge at all? The documents emerging in litigation [involving various prescription drugs] suggest that pharmaceutical companies are designing, analyzing, and publishing trials primarily as a way of positioning their drugs in the marketplace. This raises a question unconsidered in any current code of research ethics. How much risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose principal aim is to “generative commercially attractive messages”?

Or, as Elliott told me: “I don’t think anybody who enrolls in a clinical trial thinks, “I know this study is risky, but I think it’s worth it to help Pfizer or AstraZeneca market their drug.”

Elliott said he’s been astonished by how few people at the U of M have bothered to examine too closely the university’s role in the Markingson case. “What’s amazing is that everybody who has looked at it has just concluded that we did everything right here,” he said. “It’s true that the university has had one conflict of interest scandal after another," he added, "but with all of those, you’re just talking about money. You’re not talking about a death in a clinical trial. Usually, when someone dies, people pay attention.”

Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss, sued the U of M, AstraZeneca, Olson and Schulz, but, as Elliott points out, her case never went to trial. It was dismissed in 2008 with a partial summary judgment. The judge ruled that Weiss' lawyer had not shown any evidence linking Seroquel to Dan’s suicide. Furthermore, he said, her lawyers (and the judge’s own independent research efforts) had failed to point to any case or statute that would support the contention that AstraZeneca — or any pharmaceutical company — had a duty to put the interests of its research subjects above those of the company. The malpractice suit against Schulz was also dismissed, and that against Olson was eventually settled for $75,000, which was insufficient to even cover Weiss' legal costs, says Elliott.

But the legal matters didn’t end there. The U of M has sued Weiss to recover its own costs. “After it’s all done," said Elliott, "after this poor woman has had her son die in a research study, to turn around and sue her....” He paused. "I would like to know who made that decision — and why,” he said.

The Mother Jones article reaches subscribers’ mailboxes today. Everybody else will have to wait until it hits the newsstands on Aug. 31.

Related further reading:

direct link to pdf of article -

Making a Killing--Marketing Exercises that Put Lives At Risk by Dr. Carl Elliott - The Periodic Table Blog
Via pharmagossip The complete article A great read!


And Finally the AstraZeneca Back Story: a trip down memory lane:

AstraZeneca - Seroquel - Walk Down Memory Lane - Carl Elliott - "Making A Killing"

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.