Posted by

From The Guardian of the UK:

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
This is all
about where psychiatric "diseases" and "epidemics" come from.]

Mental health First, you market the disease... then you push the pills 
to treat it. Brendan I Koerner on the ugly truth about doctors, PR firms 
and drug companies

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Koerner has it
wrong. First you meet with the rest of the DSM Committee of the APA and,
over cigars and drinks you invent a "disease"...not out of thin air but
out of the troubled emotions and behaviors of entirely normal human
beings, and call it a disease. Next you have bio-psychiatry
"researchers" not really biologists, not really researchers or
scientists, apply the tools of biology and medicine to these entirely
normal persons (some infants and toddlers) and, in this way you create a
"scientific" literature, that becomes the stuff of their "scientific"
meetings. Next, their "break-throughs" regarding these diseases, not
diseases at all become the stuff of press releases, and from their
literature, of their text-books, and, of course, as a "disease" it must
have a course or "prognosis" and an epidemiology...all of the things
real diseases have, even "treatments"...of course treatments...always
chemical balancers of the chemical imbalances of the brain, which, like
the disease themselves, are also non-existent. Pediatrics professor,
William Carey, testified at the 1998 Consensus Conference on ADHD, the
most common of illusory diseases, and said that the behaviors said to
comprise ADHD, were, in fact, normal behaviors in normal children. He
took note of the fact that despite the absence of proof, medical
textbooks and journals, i.e., physician-authors, editors and editorial
board, called it a disease, a brain disease. He plead with the experts,
all present at Consensus Conference to stop telling the parents of the
country it was a disease, when there was no such evidence.]

Tuesday July 30, 2002 The Guardian Word of the hidden epidemic began
spreading in spring last year. Local news reports around the United 
States reported that as many as 10 million Americans suffered from an 
unrecognised disease. Viewers were urged to watch for the symptoms: 
restlessness, fatigue, irritability, muscle tension, nausea, diarrhoea, 
and sweating, among others. Many of the segments featured soundbites 
from Sonja Burkett, a patient who had finally received treatment after 
two years trapped at home by the illness, and from Dr Jack Gorman, an 
esteemed psychiatrist at Columbia University.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
A year or two
ago, Gormans financial statement made the e-rounds and I can't remember
who launched it, but the take, as I recall, from big pharmas, left and
right was truly hefty. But then, invent and launch "diseases" and whole
"epidemics" that is creative stuff, not medicine, mind you, but then,
none of this is the practice of medicine]

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Eureka!!! Found
the money trail on Gorman, here it is:

VERA SHARAV wrote: Columbia
University professor of psychiatry Jack M. Gorman, MD wrote in his book,
The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, "We really do not know what
causes any psychiatric illness (St. Martins Press, 1990, p 316)." This
is a common duplicitous stroke from those of biopsychiatry which would
have the reader believe that the only hole in their science is not
knowing the etiology or cause, when, more fundamentally, there is no
known physical chemical abnormality making of any psychiatric disorder,
illness, an actual disease or something other than the emotional
response of the normal individual to his environment. It is the same
Gorman, I feel sure who testifies before Congress I think it is re the
fenfluramine and other New York psychiatric research. We very much need
the same sort of disclosure on Larry Silver, re Ciba-Geigy, Ritalin and
all the biopsychiatry slanted booklets he has authored over the years
for CG (now Novartis). "Researchers" who have been on the pharm dole
thusly will invent diseases out of thin air, say drugs that are
dangerous, addictive and deadly are wonder drugs and, in fact will
fabricate an entire "scientific" literature out of air for that, it is
understood from the start is their commission--what they are being paid
to do. And now this guy is to move on to the esteemed faculty of
Coumbia-Presbyterian. So much for the subservience today of all academia
to the pharm industry, a world power seeking world domination. Fred
Baughman 3/16/99 ps Vera, do you have anything on Larry Silver? From:
End Ave, Suite 28P New York, NY 10023 Tel. 212-595-8974 FAX:
212-595-9086 E-mail: FYI Clinical researchers in
psychiatry are having a rude awakening! They are not exempt from
compliance with ethical standards. Financial Conflicts of Interest raise
serious questions about: 1. the integrity of the research 2. the
argument that the research is for "good of society" 3. the reason
researchers oppose better safeguards for the vulnerable, disabled human
subjects [outlawing, abrogation of informed consent. . --------- NY
BIRNBAUM and DOUGLAS MONTERO The state Psychiatric Institute's No. 2
official- a lightning rod for critics because of his lucrative ties to
major drug companies - is resigning, The Post learned yesterday. The
disclosure that Dr. Jack Gorman, the facility's deputy director and a
prominent researcher, is leaving his longtime job at the state-run
Psychiatric Institute in Manhattan comes in the wake of a Post expose on
human experiments. The probe revealed that Gorman fattened his wallet
more than any other state-paid researcher, picking up $140,000 in
speaking fees and additional pay from worldwide drug manufacturers like
Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen
Pharmaceutical and others. Gorman reported taking money from
pharmaceutical firms for more than three dozen lectures, travel around
the country and abroad, board memberships and consulting deals from
April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998. The outside income more than doubled
Gorman's annual state salary of __________ Gorman also received payments
of nearly $12,000 from drug manufacturer Pfizer while he headed up a
Pfizer-funded study on panic disorders. Critics have blasted the drug
companies' influence over Psychiatric Institute experiments - though it
is not against the law for researchers to take money from the firms. The
critics say the payments call into question the integrity of some
studies and make researchers more likely to compromise the rights of
schizophrenics, manic-depressives, Alzheimer's patients and others put
in experiments. The Post found a dozen key state researchers who
profited from drug firms, including the then-chairman of the Psychiatric
Institute's pattient-protection panel. The panel must OK all proposed
experiments and ensure they comply with federal and state law to
safeguard patients. Roger Klingman, a spokesman for the state Office of
Mental Health, which runs the Psychiatric Institute, said Gorman
submitted a resignation letter early last month. He will remain there
until July, when he takes a major post at Columbia University, which is
affiliated with the institute. Gorman's new salary could not be learned.
Gorman, a 20-year employee at the Psychiatric Institute, could not be
reached for comment. Columbia University had no immediate comment. In
its ongoing series, The Post has disclosed that: *The Psychiatric
Institute has conducted tests on young kids using Prozac without fully
informing their families of the risks. *The institute did
non-therapeutic research on children with fenfluramine, which was
subsequently yanked off the market. *The state Health Department is
considering allowing experiments with an element of risk on incapable
adults who can't consent. ]

The disease was generalised
anxiety disorder (GAD), a condition that, according to the reports, left 
sufferers paralysed with irrational fears. Mental-health advocates 
called it "the forgotten illness". Print periodicals were awash with 
stories of young women plagued by worries over money and men. 
"Everything took 10 times more effort for me than it did for anyone 
else," one woman told the Chicago Tribune. "The thing about Gad is that 
worry can be a full-time job. So if you add that up with what I was 
doing, which was being a full-time achiever, I was exhausted, constantly 
exhausted." The timing of the media frenzy was no accident. On April 16 
2001, the US food and drug administration (FDA) had approved the 
antidepressant Paxil, made by British pharmaceutical giant 
GlaxoSmithKline, for the treatment of Gad. But it was a little-known 
ailment; according to a 1989 study, as few as 1.2% of the US population 
merited the diagnosis in any given year. If GlaxoSmithKline hoped to 
capitalise on Paxil's newapproval, it would have to raise Gad's profile. 
That meant revving up the company's public-relations machinery. The 
widely featured quotes from Burkett were part of a "video news release" 
the drug maker had distributed to TV stations around the country; the 
footage also included the comments of Gorman, who has frequently served 
as a paid consultant to GlaxoSmithKline. On April 16 - the date of 
Paxil's approval - a patient group called freedom from fear released a 
telephone survey which revealed that "people with Gad spend nearly 40 
hours per week, or a 'full-time job,' worrying". The survey mentioned 
neither GlaxoSmithKline nor Paxil, but the press contact listed was an 
account executive at Cohn & Wolfe, the drugmaker's PR firm. The modus 
operandi of GlaxoSmithKline - marketing a disease rather than selling a 
drug - is typical of the post-Prozac era. "The strategy [companies] use 
- it's almost mechanised by now," says Dr Loren Mosher, a San Diego 
psychiatrist and former official at the national institute of mental 
health. Typically, a corporate-sponsored "disease awareness" campaign 
focuses on a mild psychiatric condition with a large pool of potential 
sufferers. Companies fund studies that prove the drug's efficacy in 
treating the afiction, a necessary step in obtaining FDA approval for a 
new use, or "indication". Prominent doctors are enlisted to publicly 
affirm the malady's ubiquity, then public-relations firms launch 
campaigns to promote the new disease, using dramatic statistics from 
corporate-sponsored studies. Finally, patient groups are recruited to 
serve as the "public face" for the condition, supplying quotes and 
compelling stories for the media; many of the groups are heavily 
subsidised by drugmakers, and some operate directly out of the offices 
of drug companies' PR firms. The strategy has enabled the pharmaceutical 
industry to squeeze millions in additional revenue from the blockbuster 
drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a family 
of pharmaceuticals that includes Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, and 
Luvox. Originally approved solely as antidepressants, the SSRIs are now 
prescribed for a wide array of previously obscure afflictions - Gad, 
social anxiety disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and so on. The 
proliferation of diagnoses has contributed to a dramatic rise in 
anti-depressant sales, which increased eightfold between 1990 and 2000. 
For pharmaceutical companies, marketing existing drugs for new uses 
makes perfect sense: a new indication can be obtained in less than 18 
months, compared to the eight years it takes to bring a drug from the 
lab to the pharmacy. Managed-care companies have also been encouraging 
the use of medication, rather than more costly psychotherapy, to treat 
problems such as anxiety and depression. But while most health experts 
agree that SSRIs have revolutionised the treatment of mental illness, a 
growing number of critics are disturbed by the degree to which 
corporate-sponsored campaigns have come to define what qualifies as a 
mental disorder and who needs to be medicated. When Paxil hit the market 
in 1993, the drug's manufacturer, then known as Smith-Kline Beecham, 
lagged far behind its competitors. Eli Lilly's Prozac, the first 
FDA-approved SSRI, had already been around for five years, and Pfizer 
had beaten Smith-Kline to the punch with Zoloft's debut in 1992. With 
only a finite number of depression patients to target, Paxil's sales 
prospects seemed limited. But SmithKline found a way to set its drug 
apart from the other SSRIs: it positioned Paxil as an anti-anxiety drug 
- a latter-day Valium - rather than as a depression treatment. 
SmithKline was especially interested in a series of minor entries in the 
diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM), the 
psychiatric bible. Published by the American psychiatric association 
since the 1950s, the DSM is designed to give doctors and scientists a 
common set of criteria to describe mental conditions. Entries are often 
inuenced by cultural norms (until 1973, homosexuality was listed as a 
mental disorder) and political compromise: it is written by committees 
of mental-health professionals who debate, sometimes heatedly, whether 
to include specific disorders. The entry for GAD, says David Healy, a 
scholar at the college of medicine at the University of Wales and author 
of the 1998 book The Antidepressant Era, was created almost by default: 
"Floundering somewhat, members of the anxiety disorders subcommittee 
stumbled on the notion of generalised anxiety disorder," he writes, "and 
consigned the greater part of the rest of the anxiety disorders to this 
category." Critics note that the DSM process has no formal safeguards to 
prevent researchers with drug-company ties from participating in 
decisions of interest to their sponsors. The committee that recommended 
the Gad entry in 1980, for example, was headed by Robert L Spitzer of 
the New York state psychiatric institute, which has been a leading 
recipient of industry grants to research drug treatments for anxiety 
disorders. SmithKline's first forays into the anxiety market involved 
two fairly well-known illnesses - panic disorder and 
obsessive-compulsive disorder. Then, in 1998, the company applied for 
FDA approval to market Paxil for something called social phobia or 
"social anxiety disorder" (SAD), a debilitating form of shyness the DSM 
characterised as "extremely rare". Obtaining such a new approval is a 
relatively simple affair. The FDA considers a DSM notation sufficient 
proof that a disease actually exists and, unlike new drugs, existing 
pharmaceuticals don't require an exhaustive round of clinical studies. 
To show that a drug works in treating a new disease, the FDA often 
accepts in-house corporate studies. With FDA approval for Paxil's new 
use virtually guaranteed, SmithKline turned to the task of promoting the 
disease itself. To "position social anxiety disorder as a severe 
condition", as the trade journal PR News put it, the company retained 
the New York-based public-relations firm Cohn & Wolfe. (Representatives 
of GlaxoSmithKline and Cohn & Wolfe did not return my phone calls.) By 
early 1999 the firm had created a slogan, "Imagine Being Allergic to 
People", and wallpapered bus shelters nationwide with pictures of a 
dejected-looking man vacantly playing with a teacup. "You blush, sweat, 
shake-even find it hard to breathe," read the copy. "That's what social 
anxiety disorder feels like." The posters made no reference to Paxil or 
SmithKline; instead, they bore the insignia of a group called the social 
anxiety disorder coalition and its three non-profit members, the 
American psychiatric association, the anxiety disorders association of 
America, and freedom from fear. But the coalition was not a grassroots 
alliance of patients in search of a cure. It had been cobbled together 
by SmithKline Beecham and Cohn & Wolfe handled all media inquiries on 
behalf of the group. The FDA's advertising regulations also helped the 
Cohn & Wolfe strategy. "If you are carrying out a disease-awareness 
campaign, legally the company doesn't have to list the product risks, 
notes Barbara Mintzes, an epidemologist at the University of British 
Columbia's centre for health services and policy research. Because the 
"Imagine Being Allergic to People" posters did not name a product, they 
did not have to mention Paxil's side effects, which can include nausea, 
decreased appetite, decreased libido, and tremors. Cohn & Wolfe's 
strategy did not end with posters. The firm also created a video news 
release, a radio news release, and gave journalists a press statement 
stating that SAD "affects up to 13.3% of the population," - one in eight 
Americans -and is "the third most common psychiatric disorder in the 
United States, after depression and alcoholism." By contrast, the 
diagnostic and statistical manual cites studies showing that between 
3-13% of people may suffer the disease at some point in their lives, but 
that only 2% "experience enough impairment or distress to warrant a 
diagnosis of social phobia". Cohn & Wolfe also supplied journalists with 
eloquent patients, helping to "put a face on the disorder", as account 
executive Holly White told PR News. Among the patients most frequently 
quoted in stories about social anxiety disorder was a woman named Grace 
Dailey, who had also appeared in a promotional video produced by Cohn & 
Wolfe. Also on that video was Jack Gorman, the Columbia University 
professor who would later make the rounds on Paxil's behalf during the 
GAD media campaign, appearing on numerous television shows, including 
ABC's Good Morning America. Gorman was not a disinterested party in 
Paxil's promotion. He has served as a paid consultant to at least 13 
pharmaceutical firms, including SmithKline Beecham, Eli Lilly, and 
Pfizer. Another frequent talking head in the SAD campaign, Dr Murray 
Stein of the University of California at San Diego, has also served as a 
Smith-Kline consultant, and the company funded many of his clinical 
trials on SAD. Cohn & Wolfe's campaign on SAD paid immediate dividends. 
In the two years preceding Paxil's approval, fewer than 50 stories on 
social anxiety disorder had appeared in the popular press. In May 1999, 
the month when the FDA handed down its decision, hundreds of stories 
about the illness appeared in US publications and television news 
programmes, including the New York Times, Vogue, and Good Morning 
America. A few months later, Smith-Kline launched a series of ads 
touting Paxil's efficacy in helping SAD sufferers brave dinner parties 
and public speaking. By the end of last year, Paxil had supplanted 
Zoloft as the nation's number-two SSRI, and its sales were virtually on 
par with those of Eli Lilly's Prozac. (Neither Prozac nor Zoloft has 
anapproval for SAD.) The success of the Cohn & Wolfe campaign didn't 
escape notice in the industry: trade journals applauded GlaxoSmithKline 
for creating "a strong anti-anxiety position" and assuring a bright 
future for Paxil. Increasing public awareness of SAD and other 
disorders, the consulting firm Decision Resources predicted last year, 
would expand the "anxiety market" to at least $3bn by 2009. · This is an 
edited excerpt from an article in Mother Jones 

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Thus it is that psychiatry is an illusion of
medical practice, an illusion of biology--it's every disease, a fiction,
a fraud, meant only to make patients of normals regardless of age
regardless of the fact that their first and only abnormality, in every
single solitary case, is the drugs, the exogenous chemical, the poison
that they push. And this is what the Congress (both houses) wants to see
paid for on a par with medical and surgical disease. With more pharma
lobbyists in the halls of Congress than Congresspersons, is it any

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
P.S. This, in fact is the origin,
"pathogenesis" of their every "disease" and "epidemic". They apply the
latest in "neuro-biological technology to patients with every invented
disease, and--Eureka!!!--always find something subtly abnormal about the
brain, and know the will, for the simple reason that all such patients
have been on psychiatric drugs, all of them, as the "researchers" well
know: brain damaging. Witness the 1986 to the present brain scanning
research in ADHD showing 10% brain atrophy in those with ADHD, rarely if
ever pointing out that all subjects, without exception have been on
Ritalin/amphetamine therapy. Knowing the drugs would cause brain damage
and brain atrophy they have, all the while, avoided doing scans on an
untreated ADHD control group, continuing to represent the atrophy as
"confirmation" that ADHD is a brain disease. Such is the nature of all
true abnormalities found in life or at autopsy in those having had
psychiatric "diseases." ]

Special reports Medicine and health Useful links
British Medical AssociationDepartment of HealthGeneral Medical 
CouncilHealth on the Net FoundationInstitute of Cancer ResearchMedical 
Research CouncilNHS DirectWorld Health Organisation Printable version | 
Send it to a friend | Read it later | See saved stories © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)