Re: Leave no child behind: the assault on children

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Special interests rig things to suit themselves rather than the public?

Thank goodness public education is free from all that and it's all for 
the kids.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: QCao009@aol.com
To: arn-l@interversity.org; fcarforum@yahoogroups.com; 
wilburhawke@earthlink.net
Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 5:57 am
Subject: [arn-l] Leave no child behind: the assault on children


Moody Is the New Bipolar
By Bruce E. Levine, Z Magazine
Posted on  November 14, 2007, Printed on November 14,  2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/67705/
In Eugene Jarecki's documentary film Why We Fight, about the U.S.
military-industrial complex, U.S. foreign policy critic Chalmers 
Johnson states:
"I
guarantee you when war becomes that profitable, you are going to see 
more of
it." Similarly, as mental illness has become extremely profitable, we 
are seeing

more of it.
On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported, "The number of  
American
children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold 
from
1994 to 2003 ... Drug makers and company-sponsored psychiatrists have 
been
encouraging doctors to look for the disorder."
Not too long ago, a child who was irritable, moody, and distractible 
and who
at times sounded grandiose or acted without regard for consequences was 

considered a "handful." In the U.S. by the 1980s, that child was 
labeled with a

"behavioral disorder" and today that child is being diagnosed as 
"bipolar" and
"psychotic" -- and prescribed expensive antipsychotic drugs. Bloomberg  
News,
also on September 4, 2007, reported, "The expanded use of bipolar as a
pediatric diagnosis has made children the fastest-growing part of the 
$11.5
billion U.S. market for antipsychotic drugs."
Psychopathologizing young people is not the only reason for the 
dramatic rise
in sales of such antipsychotics as Eli Lilly's Zyprexa and Johnson &
Johnson's Risperdal (each, in recent years, grossing annually from $3 
to $4
billion). Much of Big Pharma's antipsychotic boon is attributable to 
generous
U.S.
government agencies, especially Medicaid. The Medicaid gravy train has 
been
fueled by Big Pharma corruption so over-the-top that it has been the 
subject of

recent media exposures.
The Associated Press, on August 21, 2007, reported, "A groundbreaking
Minnesota law is shining a rare light into the big money that drug 
companies
spend
on members of state advisory panels who help select which drugs are 
used  in
Medicaid programs for the poor and disabled." Those advisory panels --
dominated by physicians -- have great influence over the $28 billion 
spent by
Medicaid on drugs, but only Minnesota, Vermont, and Maine require drug 
companies
to
report monies paid to physicians. The AP article focused on John E. 
Simon, a
psychiatrist on the Minnesota advisory panel since 2004, who received
$489,000  from Eli Lilly between 1998 and 2006. The top drugs paid for 
by
Minnesota
Medicaid, according to the AP article, have been antipsychotic drugs,
especially  Eli Lilly's Zyprexa.
Serotonin Deficiency and WMDs
With the advent of Eli Lilly's serotonin-enhancer Prozac at the end of 
1987,
the general public and doctors began receiving a multi-billion dollar
marketing  blitz proclaiming that depression is caused by a deficiency 
of
serotonin,
and  that this deficiency could be corrected by Prozac (and, later, 
other
serotonin-enhancer antidepressants such as Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, 
Lexapro, and
Luvox). Between 1987 and 1997, the percentage of Americans in 
outpatient
treatment for depression more than tripled. Of those in treatment, the
percentage
prescribed medication almost doubled. In 1985 the total annual sales  
for all
antidepressants in the U.S. was approximately $240 million, while today 
it is
approximately $12 billion. In 2006, the American Journal of  Psychiatry
reported that the percentage of American adults with major  depression 
in 1991
was
3.33 percent, but by 2001, the percentage had more than  doubled to 
7.06
percent.
The serotonin-deficiency theory of depression was so successfully 
marketed
that it was news to many Americans when Newsweek's February 26, 2007  
cover
story, "Men and Depression," mentioned that scientists now reject the  
theory
that depression is caused by low levels of neurotransmitters such as  
serotonin.

Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health,  
told
Newsweek that "a depressed brain is not necessarily underproducing  
something."
The demise of the serotonin-deficiency theory of depression should not 
be
considered news in 2007 because in 1998 The American Medical 
Association
Essential Guide to Depression was already stating: "The link between 
low  levels
of
serotonin and depressive illness is unclear, as some depressed people  
have
too much serotonin." That same year Elliot Valenstein, professor 
emeritus  of
psychology and neuroscience at the University of Michigan, in his book  
Blaming
the Brain pointed out, "Furthermore, there is no convincing  evidence 
that
depressed people have a serotonin or norepinephrine deficiency."
(Antidepressants that increase the neurotransmitter norepinephrine as 
well as
serotonin
include Effexor and Cymbalta). In 2002 the New York Times  reported:
"Researchers
knew that antidepressants seemed to raise the brain's  levels of 
messenger
chemicals called neurotransmitters, so they theorized that  depression 
must
result from a deficiency of these chemicals. Yet a multitude of  
studies failed
to
prove this precept." Unfortunately, that fact was buried under  more 
than
fifty preceding paragraphs.
Similar to the Bush administration, which knew it is was far easier to 
sell a
war when Americans believed they were threatened by weapons of mass
destruction,  antidepressant manufacturers know it is much easier to 
sell
serotonin-enhancer  drugs when people believe depression is caused by a
deficiency of
serotonin. The  Bush Administration and the mental health establishment
(including
the National  Institute of Mental Health) have retreated from their
respective theories, but  neither has spent a great deal of time or 
energy
getting the
word out. Since  each officialdom's earlier claims were so loudly 
trumpeted
and their later  retractions so quietly whispered, many Americans 
continue to
believe in mistaken  rationales for policies and treatments that 
continue to
affect millions of  lives.
The reality is that when patients report Prozac, Paxil, or Zoloft as
"working," it is not because these drugs are correcting any kind of 
chemical
imbalance. These drugs can temporarily "take the edge off" -- as is the 
case
with
many psychotropic drugs, legal or illegal. But for a significant number 
of
people, these drugs produce extremely unpleasant side effects, while 
for many
others, these drugs have little or no effect. So, overall, the 
difference in
effectiveness between antidepressants and a sugar-pill placebo is 
"clinically
negligible." This was the conclusion of University of Connecticut 
professor of
psychology Irving Kirsch, who used the Freedom of Information Act to 
gain
access  to 47 antidepressant studies sponsored by drug companies on 
Prozac,
Paxil,
 Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, and Serzone that had been submitted to the 
U.S.
Food  and Drug Administration (but many of which had not been 
published). Kirsch

discovered that in the majority of the trials, the antidepressant 
failed to
outperform a sugar-pill placebo.
Why now are we hearing more from the corporate media about the demise 
of the
serotonin-deficiency theory of depression? Perhaps it is because the
blockbuster  serontin-enhancer drugs have either lost their patent 
protection or
are
soon to  lose it and drug companies are preparing us for the next wave 
of
patent-protected drugs and biochemical justifications for them. The  
Newsweek
article on "Men and Depression" went on to state, "Instead of  focusing 
on
boosting neurotransmitters (the function of the antidepressants in  the 
popular
SSRI
category such as Prozac and Zoloft), scientists are developing  
medications
that block the production of excess stress chemicals."
Big Pharma, FDA, NIMH, and Congress
There are other parallels between the military-industrial complex and 
the
psychopharmaceutical-industrial complex. Vital to the profits of both 
are
supportive U.S. government regulatory, research, and purchasing 
agencies.
There is nothing more important for a drug manufacturer than FDA 
approval and
 so it is common sense that a pharmaceutical company will spend 
whatever it
takes  to ensure FDA approval.
In 2000 an article in USA Today, "FDA Advisors Tied to Industry,"  
reported
that in 55 percent of the FDA advisory meetings on drug approvals, half 
or
more of the FDA advisers had financial connections to the interested 
drug
company; and in 92 percent of these advisory meetings, at least one FDA 
adviser
had
a financial conflict of interest. Joseph Glenmullen, in Prozac  
Backlash,
notes that Paul Leber, director of the FDA's division of  
neuropharmacological
drug products, left the FDA in the late 1990s to direct a  consulting 
firm that
specializes in advising pharmaceutical companies attempting  to gain 
FDA
approval for new psychiatric drugs.
The revolving door of employment is also used by Big Pharma to maintain 

influence over the National Institute of Mental Health. In Talking Back 
to
Prozac, Peter and Ginger Breggin report that in 1993 Steven Paul, 
scientific
director of NIMH, resigned to become vice president of Eli Lilly (maker 
of
Prozac
and Zyprexa). In 2001 Roche Pharmaceutical (manufacturer of Valium,  
Klonopin,
and other psychiatric drugs) proudly announced that Lewis Judd, a  
former NIMH
director, had joined its scientific advisory board.
To the delight of Big Pharma, NIMH uses taxpayer monies to fund 
researchers
who are financially connected to pharmaceutical companies. One 
important
example  is the "Sequential Treatment Alternatives to Relieve 
Depression
(STAR*D),"
a $35  million U.S. taxpayer-funded study that proclaimed the 
effectiveness
of  antidepressant treatment. The results of STAR*D were widely 
reported by the
 corporate media. Unfortunately, the NIMH press release about STAR*D 
excluded
the  fact that STAR*D researchers received consulting and speaker fees 
from
the  pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the antidepressants 
studied in
STAR*D  -- and this fact went unreported by the corporate media. Also 
not in
the press  release and unreported is the fact that STAR*D researchers 
failed to
include a  placebo control and failed to incorporate relapse rates in 
the
overall results.  So in reality, STAR*D antidepressant results were no 
better
than
the customary  placebo results or the results of no treatment at all -- 
this
also unreported by  the corporate media.
The corruption by Big Pharma of the FDA and NIMH is not difficult when 
these
agencies' overseer, the U.S. Congress, has also been corrupted by Big 
Pharma.
 Billy Tauzin, a former Republican congressperson from Louisiana, is 
one
example.  Tauzin, as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee, helped

shepherd  passage of the Medicare prescription drug law -- a bonanza 
for Big
Pharma. Soon  after this favor to Big Pharma, Tauzin became head of
Pharmaceutical Research  and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Big 
Pharma's
trade
organization. Tauzin's  annual salary as head of PhRMA is $2 million.
Psychiatry's Officialdom
Robert Whitaker, in his book Mad in America, summarized the beginnings  
of
Big Pharma's corruption of America's psychiatrists and their 
professional
organization, the American Psychiatric Association (APA): By the early 
1970s,
all
of psychiatry was in the process of being transformed by the influence 
of
drug money. Pill-oriented shrinks could earn much more than those who 
relied
primarily on psychotherapy (prescribing a pill takes a lot less time 
than talk
therapy); drug-company sales representatives who came to their offices 
often
plied them with little gifts (dinners, tickets to entertainment, and 
the like);
and their trade organization, the APA, had become ever more fiscally
dependent  on drug companies. 30 percent of the APA's annual budget 
came from
drug
advertisements to its journals."
Whitaker also reported that the APA relied on drug company grants to 
fund its
 "educational" programs. Such grants have continued and in the first 
quarter
of  2007, Eli Lilly reported providing grants of over $412,000 for two 
APA
programs:  "Improving Depression Treatments" and "Understanding the 
Complexity
of
Bipolar  Mixed Episodes."
Drug companies have also been successful hijacking university 
psychiatry
departments. In 2005 the Boston Globe reported that Harvard Medical  
School's
psychiatry department at Massachusetts General Hospital received $6.5  
million
from four drug companies. Marcia Angell, physician and former  
editor-in-chief
of the New England Journal of Medicine and author of  The Truth About 
the Drug
Companies, reported that the head of the  psychiatry department at 
Brown
University Medical School made over $500,000 in  one year consulting 
for drug
companies that make antidepressants. Angell  remarked, "When the New 
England
Journal of Medicine, under my editorship,  published a study by him and 
his
colleagues of an antidepressant agent, there  wasn't enough room to 
print all
the
authors' conflict-of-interest disclosures.  The full list had to be put 
on the
website."
Drug companies also provide major funding for so-called "mental health
consumer organizations," the most well-known of which is the National 
Alliance
for
the Mentally Ill (NAMI). NAMI received $11.72 million from drug 
companies
between 1996 and mid-1999, according to Mother Jones in 1999, which 
also
reported that Eli Lilly was NAMI's leading drug company funder and that 
"in the

case of Lilly, at least, 'funding' takes more than one form. Jerry 
Radke, a
Lilly executive, is 'on loan' to NAMI, working out of the 
organization's
headquarters."
Exposés of Big Pharma methods of influencing NAMI have not stopped the
practice. In the first quarter of 2007, Eli Lilly's "Grant Office 2007" 
posted
that Lilly provided NAMI with a grant of $450,000 for NAMI's "Campaign 
for the
Mind of America 2007." For those troubled by the success of the
psycho-pharmaceutical-industrial complex at manufacturing consent in 
the United
States, the
title "Campaign for the Mind of America 2007" is a chilling one.
Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and author of 
_Surviving
America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and 
Community in a
World Gone Crazy_
(http://www.chelseagreen.com/2007/items/survivingdepression)  (Chelsea 
Green,
2007).

Quan





************************************** See what's new at 
http://www.aol.com






________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com