Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Fraudulent Argument On Health Reform

Carolina Journal Online has;

Sep. 28th, 2011

RALEIGH – President Barack Obama and like-minded liberals here in North Carolina weren’t wrong in 2010 when they said that it was impossible to solve government’s budgetary problems without tackling the issue of health care. The road to fiscal solvency does, indeed, run through Medicare and Medicaid.
Unfortunately, the creators of ObamaCare chose not to take that road. In their view, our health care problems don’t lie primarily with government programs – which they would expand – but with private markets. After initially flirting with single-payer government insurance, Obama and his congressional allies opted instead for a pay-or-play model that essentially nationalizes the health insurance industry, transforms it into a set of heavily regulated public utilities, and then compels everyone to participate in it.
The assumption is that Medicare and Medicaid are more “efficient” than private health plans because of low administrative costs. The assumption is false on two levels.
First, the administrative-cost comparisons are rarely valid. While private insurers report virtually all expenditures other than claims payments as administrative, Medicare and Medicaid’s administrative costs are underreported. Not typically included are the cost of external governance, the administrative costs imposed on health providers by Byzantine federal rules, the cost of acquiring capital (interest payments and the cost of tax collection), and fraud-detection and enforcement programs.
The second problem is that both Washington and the states actually do far too little fraud detection and enforcement, leading to massive Medicare and Medicaid fraud. While improper payments and unnecessary procedures occur in the private sector, as well, insurers have far more extensive programs for policing them – and a strong financial incentive to succeed. The public sector lacks both. Policing Medicaid fraud, for example, is primarily a state function, but most recovered money goes to Washington.
While a good rule of thumb is that around 3 percent of all U.S. health care expenditures are fraudulent, the proportion is thought to be much higher in the public sector10 percent or more for Medicare and Medicaid, according to many analysts.
The Pacific Research Institute’s Jeffrey Anderson puts it another way: the amount of fraudulent payment in Medicare alone is more than four times the combined profits of the nation’s 10 largest health insurers. And if you do the math on insurance administration – comparing the costs and benefits of fraud detection and enforcement in the private and public sectors – you will discover that Medicare and Medicaid’s apparently lower “administrative costs” are more than offset by their higher “fraud costs.”
That is, private health insurance more efficient than government insurance when measured properly.
The best response to the problem of soaring costs in Medicare and Medicaid would be to transform them from government monopolies into premium-support programs that assist retirees, the poor, and the disabled access competitive networks of insurers and providers. Those who have paid payroll taxes into Medicare for decades would still receive medical coverage upon retirement. Those who live in desperate poverty or develop debilitating and expensive conditions beyond the capacity of their families to address would still receive medical assistance.
But no longer would we pretend that shepherding tens of millions of people into government-run health care is a policy consistent with fiscal solvency or our constitutional traditions of individual liberty and free enterprise.
Although such a fundamental change in the structure of entitlements will be politically difficult, I do believe reform will come. In the meantime, however, states such as North Carolina can still improve on the efficiency of programs such as Medicaid by adopting best practices from other jurisdictions.
The latest Governing magazine, for example, describes successful Medicaid-fraud initiatives in Florida, New York, Ohio, and Texas. These programs have saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. North Carolina should copy them. And in the Medicaid chapter of a new book from the Center for Health Transformation, Stop Paying the Crooks, several former Clinton and Bush administration officials propose changing state law to toughen penalties for Medicaid fraud. Let’s do that, too.
Creating government programs riddled with fraud and abuse was never wise. Now, given our fiscal and economic problems, their perpetuation is impossible.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Creating Health 'Exchange' Entrenches Obamacare

Michigan Capitol Confidential has;

"By JACK MCHUGH | Sept. 24, 2011

Last week, Cato Institute health care policy expert Michael Cannon testified before the Missouri Senate’s Interim Committee on Health Insurance Exchanges on why that state should not create an Obamacare exchange. His arguments apply just as much to Michigan, including this excerpt describing how creating an exchange will help entrench Obamacare.

From testimony delivered on Sept. 15, 2011

Some opponents of the law nevertheless argue for creating an exchange so that states can be prepared in case the law is not overturned or repealed. Yet creating an exchange would entrench the law and make it less likely to be repealed or overturned.

• First, creating an exchange lends a veneer of legitimacy to the law. The Obama administration heralds the creation of each new exchange as proof that the law is gaining acceptance, and heralds states accepting the federal grants available under the law in the same manner.

• Second, declaring the law unconstitutional but then accepting the funding it offers and creating an exchange undermines the credibility of state officials seeking to overturn the law and also undermines the lawsuits themselves. One federal judge who overturned the law wrote that the fact that some of the plaintiff states are themselves implementing the law undercuts their own argument that he should order the federal government to halt implementation.

• Third, to create an exchange is to create a taxpayer-funded lobbying group dedicated to fighting repeal. An exchange's employees would owe their power and their paychecks to this law. Naturally, they would aid the fight to preserve the law.

• Fourth, both Congress and the courts are less likely to eliminate actual government bureaucracies that have assembled dedicated constituencies than they are to eliminate theoretical ones. The more disruptive repeal would be, the less likely it becomes.

• Fifth, many knowledgeable observers believe few exchanges, state or federal, will be operational by 2014. If states like Missouri create their own exchanges, they will begin handing out billions of taxpayer dollars sooner than if the federal government creates them. Creating a state-run exchange will hasten the day when the private insurance companies that receive those subsidies plow much of the money back into fighting repeal.

• Sixth, and perhaps most important, due to a recently discovered glitch in the statute, the new health care law only authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges — not federal exchanges. States thus have the collective power to deny the Obama administration the legal authority to dispense more than a half-trillion dollars in new entitlement spending, to expose the full cost of the law's mandates and government price controls, as well as to enforce the law's employer mandate — simply by not creating exchanges. If Missouri joins other states in refusing to create an exchange, it can essentially force Congress to reconsider the law. If Missouri instead creates an exchange, it will increase the federal deficit and debt, hide the full cost of the health care law, expose Missouri employers to penalties and reduce the likelihood of repeal.

The Obama administration is offering financial inducements to states to create exchanges because the administration knows that every new exchange helps them shield the law from Congress, the courts, and the American people. Creating an exchange is not a hedging-your-bets strategy but a sabotaging-your bets strategy.

Full text of eye-opening testimony here."

New HHS Media Policy Called A "Soviet Style Power Grab"

The Daily Caller has;

"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released new guidelines for employees dealing with reporters, and some journalists are none too pleased about it.

The new media policy requires all HHS employees to notify the agency’s office of public affairs about contact with the media and coordinate any interview requests with the office. It also discourages off-the-record conversations without prior approval.

Jim Dickinson, editor of FDA Webview and FDA Review, issued a scathing critique of the new guidelines. In an email to Richard Sorian, assistant secretary of public affairs at DHS, Dickinson said the guidelines would make reporting anything but the agency’s spin next to impossible.

“The new formal HHS Guidelines on the Provision of Information to the News Media represent, to this 36-year veteran of reporting FDA news, a Soviet-style power-grab,” Dickinson wrote. “By requiring all HHS employees to arrange their information-sharing with news media through their agency press office, HHS has formalized a creeping information-control mechanism that informally began during the Clinton administration and was accelerated by the Bush and Obama administrations.”

“By taking control of who says what to whom and when, these new guidelines strike a heavy blow against the full, unfettered First Amendment rights of both HHS employees and the news media,” Dickinson continued. “They expand the comfort zones of the powerful.”

A spokesperson at the HHS was not aware of the issue. When asked if Sorian was available for comment, the spokesperson directed TheDC to send an email to the public affairs office. Thus far, there has been no response to the e-mail.

When called later on, Sorian’s office said he was not available. An email to Sorian was also not returned.

Upon entering office, President Obama pledged to run the most transparent and open administration in history.

Follow CJ on Twitter

Monday, September 26, 2011

Doctors Risk "Professional Suicide" With Drug Alerts

The Irish Examiner has;

Doctors Risk "Professional Suicide" With Drug Alerts

Doctors risk ‘professional suicide’ with drug alerts

Saturday, September 24, 2011

DOCTORS and academics risk "professional suicide" if they reveal the adverse side-effects of anti-depressants and other psychiatric medicines, a leading academic psychiatrist has claimed.

Irish-born professor of psychiatry at Cardiff University in Wales, Prof David Healy, also hit out at any of his colleagues who, he said, put the benefits of major pharmaceutical companies ahead of patients.

"Invitations to apply for better jobs, to attend conferences, or simply to go with colleagues to local eateries funded by drug companies are ever less likely to happen for doctors linked to adverse events," argued the professor, who has repeatedly raised concerns over the issue in Britain.

"Offers to describe problems at professional meetings are turned down and journals are ever less likely to accept publications outlining a new problem," he said.

Prof Healy was speaking before an address to the one-day seminar: Mad Medicine: Do Conflicts of Interest Drive You Crazy? organised by the European Public Health Alliance, which will be held at University College Cork today.

According to Prof Healy, pharmaceutical companies are legally obliged to agree that their drugs may cause people to die by suicide while senior medical academics are not.

"And here is where they offer one of the greatest services they can to companies — they can and regularly do offer apologies for industry. They have become industry’s way around the law and any moral code that may apply in this domain," Prof Healy said.

In his view, doctors reluctant to prescribe certain drugs because of anticipated adverse side-effects were likely to be accused of being a persecutor who victimises the patient by withholding effective treatment.

"Speaking up about a problem — once the material of medical advance — is now a recipe for professional suicide. When a doctor does report an adverse event to regulators, the report is invariably parked as uncertain and unreliable information," he alleged.

The close relationship between some pharmaceutical companies and a percentage of the medical profession has previously been highlighted in highly critical independent reports by the Oireachtas Health Committee and its Westminster equivalent.

The April 2007 Oireachtas report by the cross-party group raised specific concerns over how some pharmaceutical firms regularly influence doctors through "hospitality" services.

The Adverse Side-Effects of Pharmaceuticals report, based on a similar document drawn up by MPs in Britain in 2004, said pressing issues needed to be addressed immediately.

However, despite the serious concerns, one of the authors of the report, then Fine Gael TD Dr Liam Twomey, told the Irish Examiner in September 2008 that the findings had effectively been "shelved".

Other speakers at the seminar include Labour MEP Nessa Childers, Prof Agnes Higgins of Trinity College Dublin and John McCarthy of Mad Pride.

Thank You Prof Healy and a Hat Tip to If You're Going Through Hell Keep Going for finding this article.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Lies, Fraud, & Your Vote: Fox News Changes Presidential Debate Results

We keep making the point that Psychiatric 'Illnesses' aren't real medical diseases. They're political 'Illnesses', and as such: the absolute bottom of tyranny's sludge pile. has:

Fox News Pulls Poll Showing Ron Paul Debate Victory, Claims Mitt Romney Won

Poll showed Paul trouncing Romney by 11,000 votes

Paul Joseph Watson Friday, September 23, 2011

The establishment media’s relentless campaign to denigrate Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has manifested itself once again, after a poll showing Paul had won last night’s Orlando debate was pulled by Fox News who later published an article claiming Mitt Romney had instead claimed the victory.

When we took a screenshot of the poll at around 5am CST this morning, the result showed Paul easily beating his nearest rival Romney by 11,000 clear votes, with Paul at almost 40% and Romney trailing at just under 23%.

After our screenshot of the poll was posted on the ever-popular Drudge Report website, Fox News pulled the page that had previously housed the poll entirely. But the network went further,subsequently publishing an article by National Review editor and Fox News contributor Rich Lowry opining that Mitt Romney had in fact won the debate, thereby completely ignoring their own website poll, which restricts users to one vote per IP address.

Indeed, Lowry didn’t even mention Ron Paul once in his 13 paragraph piece, despite giving praise to Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain – all of whom performed miserably in Fox News’ own post-debate poll. Ron Paul got nearly double the amount of votes in the poll than all three of them put together, but Lowry completely omitted Paul’s name from his report.

As we have previously documented, Fox News, even more so than the likes of MSNBC and CNN, have constantly undermined Paul’s campaign with dirty tricks, including playing the wrong audio of a crowd booing Paul at this year’s CPAC event.

See the results of the original poll before Fox News pulled it below.

Thank You Mr Jones, Mr Watson and Infowars, for as Stalin observed:

It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who Counts the votes.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Depression And Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA): Another PHARMA STORE FRONT


And DBSA's Annual Reports 2006-2009 tell us their Major Donors were:

Leadership Circle $150,000 - 499,999


Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

Founders Club $10,000 - 149,999


Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Eli Lilly and Company

Forest Laboratories


Neuronetics, Inc.

Pfizer Inc

Schering-Plough Corporation

The Fine Foundation

The Henry Foundation, Inc.


Leadership Circle



Pfizer Inc.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

Founders Club


Abbott Laboratories

American College of


Bank of America Foundation

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company


Group Health Cooperative

Health Central Network

The Henry Foundation, Inc.

Mr. Daniel Hynes

Kinschner Family Foundation

Mr. Gene L. Maynard

MJ Consulting Group

National Association

of State Mental Health

Program Directors

Schering-Plough Corporation

Soldiers of Love Inc.

Wisconsin Department of

Health & Family Services





Pfizer Inc

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals




Abbott Laboratories

Aetna Inc.

Chicago Area Project

Cyberonics, Inc.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Elli Lilly and Company

Forest Laboratories


Group Health Cooperative

The HealthCentral Network, Inc.

The Henry Foundation, Inc.


Mr. John Maguirre

The Curtis and Edith Munson


National Association of State

Mental Health Program Directors

Organon, Inc.

Otsuka American Pharmaceutical


Mr. Louis Shwartz

Solders of Love Inc

Unifund CCR Partners

United States Trust Company



($500,000 AND ABOVE)




Abbott Laboratories

Bristol-Myers Squibb


Wyeth Pharmaceuticals




C.G. Charitable Fund

Cyberonics, Inc.

Forest Laboratories


Group Health Cooperative

The Henry Foundation, Inc.


Terence A. Ketter, MD

The LaSalle Network

Neuronetics, Inc.

Organon, Inc.

Pfizer Inc

Mr. and Mrs. John Richardson

Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc.

State of Illinois

United States Trust Company

And now, on to CCHR's report:

Depression And Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA)

(Formerly National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association – NDMDA)

The NDMDA was one of the major front groups established in 1986 that could lobby Congress for further research funds and mental health budgets. They were formed shortly after psychiatristHerbert Pardes left the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) as director and was an advisor to NDMDA (since 2002 called the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, DBSA). By 1999, at least 7 NIMH psychiatrists were on its advisory board, including Charles Nemeroff who was Chairman of the Board of Directors Executive Committee (whose conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry recently came under Senate Finance Committee investigation). During the decade following the establishment of NDMDA (and similar groups), federal funds to the NIMH budget increased 233%—from a total of $1.7 billion between 1978 and 1986 to more than $5.6 billion in the decade following. Since 1987 the NIMH budget has increased nearly 1,000%—in 2008 reported at almost $19 billion.[1]

The pharmaceutical industry now admits that investing in “advocacy groups” is an efficient tool for driving long-term support of drug brands—perhaps even more effective than direct-to-consumer marketing.[2] The advisory board of DBSA shows why.

Psychiatrist Jan A. Fawcett, M.D. helped found NDMDA and has been on its Scientific Advisory Council since then, while also conducting a 19-year study on depression for NIMH. Like many of the DBSA advisory board members, Fawcett is connected to other pharmaceutical company funded front groups, including the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD)[3] and he has been president of the American Suicide Foundation (nowAmerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention).[4] He is with the Department of Psychiatry of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, and is Chair of the Mood Disorders Work Group ofthe DSM-V (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) Task Force—a task force whose members have come under scrutiny for their financial ties to drug companies.[5]

His financial disclosure includes: Abbott Laboratories, Alphapharm, Eli Lilly, Wyeth, Merck (Merck Manual, and has a commercial relationship with the company) and has been an expert witness in cases involving pharmaceutical companies.[6]

  • The group received $37,510 from Lilly in 2007 and $20,000 in 2008.[7]
  • DBSA’s 2007 Annual Report shows it received between $150,000 and $499,000 from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Wyeth. Abbott, Cyberonics, Lilly, Forest, Glaxo, Organon, and Otsuka American Pharmaceuticals gave between $10,000 and $149,999.[8]
  • The report also notes that a “First-ever DBSA Hope Award” for lifetime achievement was presented to Frederick Goodwin, former NIMH Director (1981-88) and also under Senate investigation for undisclosed pharmaceutical company funding.[9]
  • Its websites provides a list of medications and drug companies to contact for medication information, while its 2009 conference was supported by Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca’s disease-mongering exhibit, “The Bipolar Journey.”[10]

The DBSA describes itself as “the leading patient-directed national organization” but its 67-member scientific “advisory” board defies this.[11]

A cursory review of the board finds only a handful of members without conflicts of interest. In a brief overview, the following shows the DSBA’s incestuous relationship between government agencies like NIMH and the FDA, the APA, and the pharmaceutical companies making psychotropic drugs or devices such as the electrode brain implantation to supposedly treat “depression.”

  • At least four members were on the DSM-IV Review Panels—exposed in 2006 for its members’ undisclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 100% of the members of the task forces deciding upon which “bipolar” disorders, depression, and psychosis disorders should be included in the DSM-IV had received drug company funding. Another DBSA member co-wrote an entire chapter (43) of DSM-IV. At least four of the DBSA advisory board members sit on the DSM-V Review, including David Kupfer, its chair.
  • At least a dozen of the board members are former NIMH officials or sat on NIMH Committees. Other board members have been affiliated with other government agencies, often in research, including: Veteran Affairs, US Army, Dept. of Defense, US Public Health Service and the FDA psychopharmaceutical advisory committees. Dr. Edward Scolnick served as a member of the FDA Science Board from 2000 to 2002, while Dr. Robert Post is currently chief of the Biological Psychiatry Branch of NIMH.
  • In addition to pharmaceutical company funding, at least 26 of the Board members have received research funds from NIMH, making theirs and the former NIMH staffs’ affiliation with DBSA a very cozy relationship. Lauren B. Marangell, M.D. is co-director of the NIMH Bipolar Trials Network.
  • At least three of the board members are former or current employees of pharmaceutical companies: Dr. Lauren B. Marangell is a “Distinguished Lilly Scholar” at Eli Lilly. Keh-Ming Lin, M.D., MPH, has prior employment with Zeneca Pharmaceuticals.[14] From 1982 to 2003, Edward Scolnick served in a number of key leadership roles at Merck Research Laboratories, is its president emeritus and was chief scientist during the Vioxx scandal (anti-inflammatory drug withdrawn from the market because it caused heart attacks—which Merck was aware of but did not publicly disclose).[15]
  • Four of the DBSA advisors were authors of the controversial GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) study 329 that covered up adverse effects of the drug on children: Neal Ryan,Barbara Geller, Martin Keller and Karen Wagner (the latter two investigated by the Senate Finance Committee for undisclosed pharmaceutical company funding). Children suffered serious adverse reactions, including self-harm—mostly cutting; aggression—violent to others; and suicidal thoughts and actions and suicide attempts. Almost 8% of the children had to be hospitalized as a result.[16] Not one of the authors who lent their names to this study have come forth to explain their deception.[17] Study 329 was cited in a New York case where GSK was charged with “repeated and persistent fraud” in suppressing research on paroxetine (Paxil) that had shown increased risk of suicidal thoughts and actions in children taking it. On June 3, 2004 GSK paid $2.5 million to settle the lawsuit.[18]
  • Another member, David Dunner, of the University of Washington’s Department of Psychiatry admitted he “ghostwrote” an article about Paxil that appeared in the March 1995 issue of the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology on behalf of GSK and concluded that the antidepressant was less likely to lead to suicidal thoughts than the older antidepressant imipramine or a placebo (sugar pill). However, Dunner had never looked at any of the data yet was still listed as an “author” of the article.
  • At least 9 DBSA advisory board members have stock or equity in or helped found pharmaceutical drug or device/development companies, including Alan Schatzberg(founded and has stocks/equity in Corcept Therapeutics,“ an emerging pharmaceutical company.”) Corcept’s scientific advisors include DBSA advisors: Doctors Alan Schatzberg, Ned H. Kalin (stockholder), and Ranga R. Krishnan. Other DBSAadvisory board members that list Corcept in their financial disclosures include: doctorsPedro L. Delgado, Charles Nemeroff (stockholder), David Rubinow (stockholder), and David J. Kupfer, Chair of the DSM-V Task Force.
  • More than 10 of the DBSA advisory members are affiliated with Cyberonics, a medical device company that patented VNS (Vegas Nerve Stimulation), a “Clock Work Orange” procedure (costing $15,000- $25,000) and involving implanting electrodes in the brain that send electrical pulses through the brain to “treat” depression. Of these members, at least 3 psychiatrists are steeped in controversy over a study of VNS and its publication in Neuropsychopharmacology when they failed to disclose their financial ties to Cyberonics: A. John Rush, Dennis Charney and Charles Nemeroff. Nemeroff resigned as editor of the journal after he published the paper without disclosing that eight of nine authors–including himself–had financial ties to Cyberonics. Cyberonics also published data in Biological Psychiatry, the editor of which is Charney.[19] In 2006, NAMI—which also has Charney as an advisor—became a corporate partner with Cyberonics, which gave it $75,000 for its “Campaign for the Mind of America.”[20]
  • Charney holds a patent in the drug ketamine.[21] On its website DBSA makes a point of claiming that neither it or its advisors and consultants “endorse or recommend the use of any specific treatment or medication,” but then advertises for readers to participate in a clinical drug trial of ketamine.[22]
  • At least 6 of the DBSA advisors were researchers and co-authors of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP)-funded study published in January 2004 that found that SSRI antidepressants did not increase the risk of suicide in children and adolescents. ANCP is an organization of psychiatrists with significant financial support from the manufacturers of psychotropic drugs. The authors included: doctorsJan Fawcett (founder of DBSA), Frederick Goodwin, Karen Wagner (Paxil study 329 above), Neal Ryan (Paxil study 329), David Shaffer (invented “TeenScreen” to identify and label teens as depressed) and J. John Mann. Their findings were in stark contrast to the 2003 UK drug regulatory agency warning that there was a serious risk that antidepressants could cause suicide in those younger than 18 (as the FDA confirmed in October 2004 with a black box warning).[23] Mann, Co-Chair of an ACNP Task Force, painted an alarmingly inaccurate picture, stating: “The evidence linking SSRIs to suicide is weak.” Added Mann, “…SSRIs do not cause suicide in youth with depression.” [24] Mann has been a consultant for two of the biggest antidepressant makers: GSK and Pfizer and is also an advisor to Eli Lilly and Lundbeck.[25] Mann has also been a defense expert witness for Pfizer and GSK in litigation related to SSRIs. He is consistently relied upon by the companies as a spokesperson to counter the claims that SSRIs cause suicide.[26]
  • Two of the advisors helped developed the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) psychiatric drug program invented by drug companies for Texas to force doctors to prescribe the most expensive psychotropic drugs: A. John Rush and Karen Wagner. Another member, Trisha Suppes, M.D., Ph.D, was Director of the Bipolar Disorder Module for the Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms (TIMA)—considered “Phase 4” of TMAP. “The roll-out of TIMA has begun with the training of physicians and support personnel in algorithm implementation,” the TIMA manual for physicians states.[27]
  • About 6 of the DBSA advisory members helped develop the so-called “Mood Disorder Questionnaire” in 2000 to screen people for “bipolar” or “mood disorders.” These include: Robert M.A. Hirschfeld, Joseph R. Calabrese, Paul E. Keck, Robert M. Post, Gary S. Sachs (a principle investigator in NIMH bipolar research), and John M. Zajecka, along with Lydia Lewis, former president of DBSA, and Laurie Flynn, head of NAMI (now over Columbia University’s TeenScreen). The subjective questionnaire could land anyone with a bipolar label with such questions as: Has there ever been a period of time when you were not your usual self and you were so irritable that you shouted at people or started fights or arguments? You felt much more self-confident than usual? You got much less sleep than usual and found you didn’t really miss it?[28]
  • Columbia University’s Dr. David Shaffer, who invented the TeenScreen questionnaire now being foisted off on teenagers to label them as depressed (to get them on antidepressants) is also on the advisory board of DBSA.
  • Add to this the fact that the advisory board members cross over to other pharmaceutical company funded groups, including at least 6 affiliated with or having been awarded by NAMI; more than a dozen are recipients of NARSAD awards, research funds or are on its scientific advisory board, and at least 11 are on the advisory board of or have been awarded by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention—all groups that rely substantially on drug company funding.

Government agencies such as NIMH, FDA and NIH should not have its officers or employee researchers sitting on the Boards or as advisors to groups such as DBSA.

Thank You CCHR.