Post By Becca Trabin: Beware the Mental Health Adicle
The New York Times reports this week on the potential increase of what I like to call adicles. Adicles are what happens when journalists accept gifts or slanted information from pharmaceutical companies and then produce biased, pro-Pharma news articles. According to the NY Times:
Journalism awards consisting of cash prizes and all-expense-paid trips given out by drug companies are among the more “astonishing” financial ties between journalists and drug companies, the authors [of British Medical Journal] said.
Among the prizes cited are the Embrace Award for reporting on urinary incontinence — consisting of trips to Washington, D.C., and Paris — offered by pharmaceutical firms Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as another Eli Lilly award for cancer treatment stories that includes a weeklong international trip for two.
The authors also point a finger at journalism training and education programs sponsored by the health care industry and to professorships funded by drug company grants. The writers go on to criticize reporters’ reliance on drug company press officers for referrals to experts or to patients, whose views may have been carefully screened.
In the mental health realm, you can spot potential adicles by the ease with which the author points to the use of pharmaceutical drugs as the solution to mental health problems, especially for children. Here’s an example of a Pharma/science/news hybrid entitled “Therapy plus Zoloft helps kids with anxiety”:
A popular antidepressant plus three months of psychotherapy dramatically helped children with anxiety disorders, the most common psychiatric illnesses in kids, the biggest study of its kind found.
The research also offers comfort to parents worried about putting their child on powerful drugs — therapy alone did a lot of good, too.
Combining the drug sertraline, available as a generic and under the brand name Zoloft, with therapy worked best. But each method alone also had big benefits, said Dr. John Walkup [pictured], lead author of the government-funded research. It’s estimated that anxiety disorders affect as many as 20 percent of U.S. children and teens.
Although the opening paragraphs state that the study was funded by the government (NIMH), it also says at the very bottom,
Several study authors reported receiving consulting fees or other compensation from drug companies, including antidepressant makers.
Furthermore, the seeming fairness of pointing out that therapy alone (actually, CBT) “did a lot of good, too” is countered by the fact that a mysterious estimate is included that one-fifth of all children have anxiety disorders. 20% of kids would benefit from some form of Zoloft!
If, on the one hand, doctors and researchers are in a diagnostic frenzy, the press in this instance is tacitly approving. On the other hand, if 20% of kids in the US really are impaired by serious anxiety, then it’s probably disadvantageous to society as whole for them to be taught from an early age that their anxieties are so internally created that they require chemical adjustments.
If corporations and medical professionals have a financial stake in selling soma (a la Huxley) to kids, it’s the responsibility of journalists to fully present the situation as such. Beware the adicles that tell you otherwise.
liz | 10:24 AM | Uncategorized
The National Mental Health Association has received a number of unconfirmed reports that Scientologists with the letters NMHA on their shirts have been seen in New York claiming to be mental health professionals.
Bipolar Support Group
Yes, beware adicles and beware of health reporters who look at science as just another urban myth.
I was so pissed off at the New York Times recently that I wrote a letter to the editor.
They haven’t published. Will you? All the people I want to reach read you.
Dear Editor,
‘Radio Host Has Drug Company Ties’ by Gardiner Harris published last Friday is a textbook example of appalling research and a gross oversimplification of all things considered.
Pharmaceutical company connections to Dr. Fred Goodwin and Mr. Bill Lichtenstein are not news.
1. The Internet – Dr. Goodwin’s research papers: During the decade that The Infinite Mind has been on the air, the Internet has been readily available in America. Dr. Goodwin is a public figure. His entire professional life is searchable on the Internet, and each research article discloses his professional ties with pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Harris did not do basic Internet research to write his article.
2. The New York Times and Bill Lichtenstein: I searched the keywords “The Infinite Mind” on the New York Times website and found Bill Lichtenstein describing the origins of The Infinite Mind radio show. Here’s an excerpt from that article published on August 12, 2001 and titled, ‘TELEVISION/RADIO; On an Expedition Through the Mind:’
“…Working out of his apartment, he started raising money for a series of public radio documentaries on subjects he felt had received grossly inadequate coverage: manic depression, schizophrenia and depression. They were well received and won numerous awards; he met Dr. Goodwin while producing the program on manic depression. By 1998, with money from various private and corporate foundations — including several unrestricted grants from pharmaceutical companies — he was able to launch ‘The Infinite Mind.’”
Please read the full article to see that he in that last sentence above refers to Bill Lichtenstein. The article is found in your archives right here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9402EEDD1F3CF931A2575BC0A9679C8B63
Mr. Harris did not search his own employer’s database to write this story.
3. Another source of truth that Mr. Harris neglected is Manic-Depressive Illness: Bipolar Disord ers and Recurrent Depression, 2nd Edition, Dr. Fred Goodwin and Dr. Kay Jamison, 2007. In that heavy book, Dr. Goodwin himself discloses his involvement with pharmaceutical companies:
“During the time that this book was in preparation, Dr. Goodwin received research support from George Washington University Medical Center, the Foundation for Education and Research on Mental Illness, the Dalio Family Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Solvay and Eli Lilly and unrestricted educational grants to support the production of the book from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squi bb, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, and Solvay. He is not a shareholder in any pharmaceutical or biotechnology company. He is a partner in Best Practice Project Management, Inc.”(Pg. x)
The work of Dr. Goodwin’s life is a living testament.
1. The Infinite Mind: Regular listeners know the shows are not pill popping infomercials. Topics include grief, the food-mood connection, circadian rhythms, left-handedness and humor. Please take a look through the archives and see why the creator, Bill Lichtenstein, is fighting so hard for his creation’s second life: http://www.lcmedia.com/mindprgm.htm
2. Lectures: Dr. Goodwin’s thoughts, ideas and opinions are out in the open. Feel free to take notes, ask questions or make recordings.
3. Personal treatment: Dr. Fred Goodwin is my physician. Dr. Goodwin has been helping me endure and prevail over my manic depressive illness for the last 27 of my 46 years. Dr. Goodwin recommends that I take lithium, Tegretal, Trileptal, Synthroid, and Seroquel as prescribed. He encourages my wellness by advising that I:
-Put family first
-Sleep 8 hours at night
-Exercise
-Practice yoga
-Use a light box in fall and winter for SAD
-Take multi vitamins
-Take omega 3 fish oil (Costco brand)
-Eat a low carb diet (South Beach)
-Stay in psychotherapy, but live forward
-Attend peer support group
-Update advance directive
-Life Chart
-Journal
The American health care system works very well for me. I am one of the lucky few.
Issues raised in and around The Infinite Mind program on antidepressants last spring matter to us all. Why is NPR pulling the plug on a talk radio program that sparked a national conversation? I’d really like to know. You are the watchdogs. Please do your homework.
Sincerely,
Moira Wait
It is a continuing disappointment that journalists so often forgo professional skepticism when covering things medical. Not only do they rely on one party for the “facts” but they assume that the outcomes achieved in ivory towers portend the same in the community. This is dangerous assumption when it comes to mental health care given that fidelity has never been the system’s strong suit.
I suppose I’m tired of reading articles which trade on words such as newer, better, safer and the like. How many times have we read articles claiming that second generation anti-psychotics were safer and more effective then first generation medications? Similarly, reporters told us that the newer anti-depressants were so much better then then those which preceded them. We have since learned that these claims were generally unfounded. The price of such reporting was ultimately paid for by those of us who invested ourselves both emotionally and financially in medications which failed to achieve what was reported.
Everyone loses when journalists trade credibility for expediency by placing unquestioned reliance on claims which need to be questioned. And this is a price that society can not afford now or ever.
Sorry this is off topic, but it’s about Biederman.
“Expert or Shill?” NYT editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30sun2.html which follows an earlier NYT story (this one http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/2…ta=y&pagewanted=all ) about the close ties between a famous Harvard psychiatrist, Dr Joseph Biederman, and drug companies.
The editorial states that:
“internal drug company e-mail and documents that surfaced in a lawsuit have sketched out what looks like an unsavory collaboration between Dr. Biederman and Johnson & Johnson to generate and disseminate data that would support use of an antipsychotic drug, Risperdal, in children, a controversial target group.”
And:
“The company also drafted a scientific abstract on Risperdal for Dr. Biederman to sign — as if he were the author — before it was presented at a professional meeting. And it sought his advice on how to handle the uncomfortable fact, not mentioned in the abstract, that children given placebos, not just those given Risperdal, also improved significantly.”
Becca, great post. I’d say that these “adicles” are really a part of a larger problem which should be dealt with, namely, conflict of interest. It’s one thing to shop for a car at a used car outfit. You know the guy is probably going to screw you. So caveat emptor. You need to do your own due dilligence. But with something as complicated as the development of new drugs, the public has to rely on the agencies and individuals responsible for making sure they are safe. Unfortunately, as you noted, many of these relationships have become so incestuous, much of the reporting or testing on these drugs is tainted at best and worthless at worst. You cant get objective information if the journalist has a financial interest in the success or failure of a drug. During the early stages of the Iraq war, we started to see all these retired Pentagon generals on cable shows talking up this or that. Then we find out that most of them were on payroll for the Pentagon as spokesmen. How much was their information worth? Not much. Ted Stevens is a felon because he didnt’ report gifts from an Oil co. exec. They are all on the take. And as much as I might admire Pres. Clinton for some of the things he did, I was shocked to hear he had made over $100 million since he left office making speeches. Maybe its legal but it smells. Many of our elected officials are on a wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more, deferred compensation plan. THey do what big business wants them to do while they are in office and receive the big payoff after they leave. Ex-senators and reps as well as agency heads go into the lobbying business after they leave office. As Al Franken stated when asked how long a congressman should have to wait before becoming a lobbyist, he said, “how about never”. I really hope the new administration deals with this issue. It is taking our country to a very bad place, Dave
Reply: