Big Pharma Psychs Out the Shrinks

Just about everyone by now knows how the drug industry works to poison the minds of American doctors—not that many of them have resisted drinking the Kool-Aid, which comes in the form of ego-tripping awards, junkets, dinners, research funding, and cash in exchange for endorsing or prescribing the latest and most lucrative drugs. But even against this backdrop of sleaze, the latest news on the ties between Big Pharma and Big Psych could take your breath away.

freud-pill-boxIt turns out that not just some, but most of the shrinks who wrote the American Psychiatric Association’s most recent clinical guidelines for treating depression, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia—which together account for $25 billion in prescription drug sales annually—had financial ties to drug companies, according a study to be published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, as reported in the Boston Globe.

Summarizing the findings, which were compiled by researchers largely from public records, the Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report states:

According to the study, 18 of the 20 authors of the guidelines had at least one financial tie to drug companies. Twelve authors had ties in at least three categories, such as consulting, research grants, speaking fees or stock ownership, the study found. In addition, the study found that all of the authors of schizophrenia and bipolar guidelines had relationships with the drug industry, while 60% of the authors of the depression guidelines had such connections. According to the study, more than 75% of the authors received funding for research from drug companies. In addition, one-third of the authors served on the speakers’ bureaus of drug companies, the study shows.

As anyone who’s suffered from any kind of mental health problem knows, treatment for these kinds of problems is a highly inexact science. A shrink can’t give you a blood test or an MRI to figure out precisely what’s wrong with you. So it’s often a case of diagnosis by prescription: If you feel better after you take an anti-depressant, it’s assumed that you were depressed; if you don’t feel better, well, then maybe they’ll try you on an anti-anxiety pill, or a low dose of a bipolar drug, and see how that works.

As one of the researchers for the study put it, “the lack of biological tests for mental disorders renders psychiatry especially vulnerable to industry influence.” For this reason, she argues, it’s particularly important that the guidelines issued by psychiatry’s leading professional organization be compiled “on the basis of an objective review of the scientific evidence”—and not on whether the doctors writing them got a big grant from Merck or own stock in AstraZeneca.

Perhaps there’s another reason why these conflicts of interest are so extreme in the field of mental health. You would expect that after news like this, confidence in the psychiatric profession would drop through the floor, and patients would begin to take their shrinks’ diagnoses with a boulder of salt. But many psychiatric patients are desperately ill, highly vulnerable, and not in any position to be skeptical medical consumers.

A growing body of evidence suggests that the drug companies purposefully push doctors to push drugs on exactly these types of patients—the ones who are  least equipped to push back. Look at the recent case of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, which agreed to pay a record $1.4 billion dollars to settle charges that it illegally marketed the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa as a treatment for Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia in elderly patients. This despite the fact that the drug was not only unapproved for this “off-label” use, but had also been shown to cause obesity and diabetes—as this former Eli Lilly rep explains.

Now, $1.4 billion might sound like a tough punishment, until you find out that Lilly’s total sales of Zyprexa have topped $37 billion. And at least some of those sales were thanks to doctors who, with guidance from Lilly drug reps, wrote thousands of prescriptions for patients with virtually no ability to defend themselves. Can you imagine an easier group for the drug companies—and their shills in the medical profession—to victimize than old people with dementia?

After spending some time reporting on the drug industry, I can easily picture Big Pharma’s executives sitting around in their board rooms, planning which wretched, unprotected group of patients they’re going to target next. 

Then again, maybe I’m just paranoid. I’m sure there’s a pill for that.

12 responses to “Big Pharma Psychs Out the Shrinks

  1. Great post!

    I have linked it to PharmaGossip.

    Keep up the pressure.

  2. Great post, and very informative.

    I’m an ex-big pharma drug rep myself, although I never worked for Eli Lilly. However, I do know Sharam, the guy in the video above. He is accurate in what he says about big pharma.

    Psychiatrists, of all doctor specialties, receive the most money from big pharma, historically. Psychotropic drugs are way over-prescribed, and I feel the need to vomit whenever I think of all the children taking these drugs. The apathy of others who cause this to happen is overt, and they are in a pathological state by causing this to happen.

  3. If Big Pharma has this much control over Doctors and Shrinks, who else are they in bed with?

    Does Big Pharma have holdings in Pesticide companies and Companies which produce Air Fresheners and perfumes? Someone should look that up.

  4. Pingback: The FDA and Big Pharma: Watchdog or Lapdog? « Unsilent Generation

  5. iggydonnelly

    I believe the conflict of interest between big pharma and academic psychiatrists is actually worse than you can imagine. At least initially, the people who are conducting the studies to determine the effectiveness of these drugs are paid to do the research by the makers of the drugs.

    A meta-analysis of studies in British psychiatric journals (whom are sticklers for identifying potential conflicts of interest), found that those studies sponsored by the companies who made the drug under investigation, showed a consistent trend of finding a greater effect size than those studies not sponsored by the companies making the drug under investigation. This consistent trend occurred despite double blind research methodologies which are supposed to reduce this type of bias. One of those findings that make you go “Hmmmm….?”

    I am betting, too, that the investigators in the studies showing a greater effectiveness were not consciously thinking, “how can we make the drug who is paying for this study look better?”

    Taking the profit motive out of health care is the only answer, but also an answer that very powerful and wealthy companies have an huge interest in squelching.

    Thank you for your work on this subject.

  6. Pingback: Big Pharma Profits from Grandmother’s Little Helpers « Unsilent Generation

  7. Pingback: Calming America with drugs — why worry, be happy « Dregs of the Future

  8. Pingback: How Big Pharma Got Americans Hooked on Anti-Psychotic Drugs | Natural Society

  9. Pingback: Mass psychosis in the US

  10. Pingback: I.W.Y.D

  11. So true!! Wake up AMERICA!

  12. Pingback: Mass psychosis in the US | Set You Free News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s