by Justice Lover
The press cutting below shows that the shamless top shrinks continue to ignore public opinion and legal investigations, thus enforcing furthermore the dangerous rule of psychiatry-Big Pharma combine. As this is taking place in the USA the rackets are sure to spread around the world.
Another news item concerns The Mothers Act which is due to become law in the USA in a few days time. This dangerous law expands treatment of mothers for postpartum conditions. It also calls for the development of "improved screening and diagnostic techniques" meaning more dangerous psychitric drugs for the victimised mothers ( like Andrea Yates, the American mother who after taking a combination of antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, drowned her kids).
Still another piece of bad USA legislation is the "Mental Health Parity" bill which makes health insurance pay for psychiatric disorders on a par with physical illnesses. Under this bill, the insurance would cover all 374 disorders in psychiatry's billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It could cover everything from hyper-religiosity to arithmetic disorder, and where there are "disorders" there are Big Pharma poisons to "cure" them.
Still another bill includes funding for School Based Health Clinics that will include subjective psychiatric mental health screening (called mental health assessments) of children, and "referral to a continuum of services including emergency psychiatric care, community support programs, inpatient care, and outpatient programs" as part of their "comprehensive primary health services." This is a direct feeder line from schools to the psycho/pharmaceutical industry.
Only when Big Pharma bosses would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and when psychiatry would be outlawed, will this very dangerous world scandal stop, and it had better stop sooner rather than later !
Controversial psychiatrist to head UM medical school department
Last year Nemeroff, as chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Emory University, was the intense focus of an investigation by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who said he was concerned about the money the psychiatrist received from drug companies while conducting supposedly unbiased research for the National Institutes of Health on drugs made by the companies he was receiving money from.
On Thursday, Pascal Goldschmidt, dean of UM medical school, called Nemeroff ``an extraordinary psychiatrist and scientist. . . . He got into serious trouble on disclosure on conflict of interest.''
Goldschmidt said he had read investigative reports from Emory about Nemeroff's activities and found nothing to indicate that payments the psychiatrist received had in any way influenced his research results.
In a telephone interview at mid-day Thursday, Nemeroff, 60, told The Miami Herald he was excited to be coming to Miami. ``I think it's going to be a top-10 school.''
A front-page report by The New York Times in October 2008 said that congressional investigators found Nemeroff -- ``one of the nation's most influential psychiatrists'' -- had received $2.8 million in consulting deals with drug makers over seven years and failed to report at least $1.2 million of that to Emery University.
Based on Grassley's complaints, Emory suspended Nemeroff's work on an NIH grant and asked him to step down as chair of psychiatry while it studied his conduct. Earlier this year, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services had launched an investigation into Nemeroff's activities.
The OIG said it never confirms nor denies any inquiries about investigations. Nemeroff said he knew nothing about an OIB investigation. NIH did not immediately respond on Thursday morning to Herald requests for comment. Nemeroff said he had been told by NIH that he could apply for grants as soon as he arrives in Miami.
About $800,000 to $1.2 million, according to published reports, came from GlaxoSmithKline, while Nemeroff was leading a major study into mood disorder drugs, including ones made by GSK.
Nemeroff said Thursday that the news reports had not made clear that the talks were on GSK drugs now on the market, while his research funded by NIH involved animal and lab studies of GSK chemical compounds that were years away from market.
The psychiatrist said in retrospect he should have declared the drug maker payments but that, at the time, he viewed the university standards as not requiring such revelations since the talks were of an educational nature. Emory has since changed its rules to make them more clear.
In a letter to Grassley last December, Emory officials wrote: ``We do not believe that Dr. Nemeroff's participation in the compensated speaking arrangements with GSK in any way biased the research conducted under the grant, although we will continue to ensure that no such bias existed.''
The Emory letter said Nemeroff's talks on behalf of GSK were ``focused on medical education and were not product specific or promotional. . . . As you alleged, Dr. Nemeroff did not disclose substantial speaking fees from pharmaceutical companies to Emory. Under federal regulations and Emory's policies, we believe he should have done so, although both the regulations and our policies could have been clearer.
``In Dr. Nemeroff's view, substantive, nonproduct specific talks focused on general medical education did not present a significant financial interest and were therefore not subject to disclosure under the United States Public Health Service.''
Grassley responded in a letter that his staff's research found that Nemeroff's talks were not educational and should have been reported.