Re: OT: Harvard's Biederman and ties to J&J

[Guest guest]

This is sickening but not surprising - I haven't even read the whole thing yet.. Is this stuff ever going to hit the mainstream media, or will this entire "revolution not be televised"? How widespread is the belief that bipolar disorder "essentially is autism" - same biochemical quirks, just with a genetic disposition for more screwups in catecholamine (sp) metabolism in the brain?JimJoe "pedi bipolar genes" Biederman caught with cleft foot in the cookie jar again and Harvard/Mass General still won't terminate him. http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/harvards-biederman-and-his-ties-to-

[Guest guest]

Hi Ana,

Only one thing needs to be done put this to rest. The field of

psychiaitry needs to produce scientific evidence to prove that their

Dx's exist. This is the standard they need to be held to.

Peggy

>

> Joe " pedi bipolar genes " Biederman caught with cleft foot in the

> cookie jar again and Harvard/Mass General still won't terminate

him.

>

> http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/harvards-biederman-and-his-ties-to-

> jj/

>

> Harvard's Biederman And His Ties To J & J

> 9 Comments

> By Ed Silverman // November 24th, 2008 // 3:19 pm

>

> Last June, when a Congressional investigation revealed Harvard

> University's ph Biederman had earned far more money from

> drugmakers than he had reported to the school, the world-renowned

> child psychiatrist insisted his " interests are solely in the

> advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective

> study. " (Back story).

>

> Now, e-mails and internal & documents made public

in

> a court filing reveal Biederman pushed the drugmaker to fund a

> research center at Massachusetts General Hospital, and the point

> was " to move forward the commercial goals of J & J, " according to the

> documents, The New York Times reports. The documents also show J & J

> wrote a draft summary of a study that Biederman was said to author

> (here are the documents; this is a Word document, folks).

>

> Biederman's work helped to fuel a 40-fold increase from 1994 to

2003

> in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder and a rapid rise in

> the use of powerful, risky and expensive antipsychotics in

children,

> the Times writes. Many of his studies are small and often financed

by

> drugmakers, but Biederman has had outsized influence because of his

> position at one of the world's most prestigious medical

institutions.

> J & J makes Risperdal and more than a quarter of its use is in

children

> and adolescents.

>

> Last week, a panel of federal drug experts noted that meds such as

> Risperdal are prescribed improperly and the FDA must do more to

warn

> doctors of the risks (back story). Other popular antipsychotics

> include Lilly's Zyprexa, Pfizer's Geodon, AstraZeneca's Seroquel,

and

> Bristol-Myers Squibb's Abilify. Numerous lawsuits filed against J & J

> and other drugmakers over these issues.

>

> Plaintiffs' attorneys have demanded untold numbers of documents,

and

> nearly all are under judicial seals, but a select few mentioning

> Biederman became public after a judge's order was sought to require

> Biederman to be deposed. Biederman argued he shouldn't be deposed

> because he is actively cooperating with the US Senate Finance

> Committee investigation (here is the deposition order).

>

> In a motion filed two weeks ago, attorneys for the families argued

> they should be allowed to interview Biederman under oath because

his

> work has been crucial to the widespread acceptance of pediatric

usage

> of antipsychotics, the Times writes. To support this contention,

the

> lawyers included more than two dozen documents, including e-mails

> from J & J that mentioned Biederman.

>

> The documents, the Times correctly notes, offer an unusual glimpse

> into the delicate relationship between drugmakers and influential

> doctors. In one November 1999 e-mail, Bruins, a J & J marketing

> exec, begs his supervisors to approve a $3,000 check to Biederman

in

> payment for a lecture he gave at the University of

Connecticut. " Dr.

> Biederman is not someone to jerk around, " Bruins wrote. " He is a

very

> proud national figure in child psych and has a very short fuse. "

> (click e-mail to enlarge)

>

>

> Bruins also wrote that Biederman was furious after J & J rejected a

> request Biederman had made to receive a $280,000 research grant. " I

> have never seen someone so angry, " Bruins wrote. " Since that time,

> our business became non-existant (sic) within his area of control. "

> He concluded that, unless Biederman received a check soon, " I am

> truly afraid of the consequences. "

>

> A series of documents described the goals behind establishing the

J & J

> Center for the Study of Pediatric Psychopathology, where Biederman

is

> still chief. A 2002 annual report for the center stated that its

> research must satisfy three criteria: improve psychiatric care for

> children, have high standards and " move forward the commercial

goals

> of J & J, " according to court documents.

>

> " We strongly believe that the center's systematic scientific

inquiry

> will enhance the clinical and research foundation of child

psychiatry

> and lead to the safer, more appropriate and more widespread use of

> medications in children, " the report stated. " Without such data,

many

> clinicians question the wisdom of aggressively treating children

with

> medications, especially those like neuroleptics, which expose

> children to potentially serious adverse events. "

>

> In a February 2002 e-mail, s Gharabawi, a J & J exec, wrote

that

> Biederman approached the company " multiple times to propose the

> creation " of the center. " The rationale of this center is to

generate

> and disseminate data supporting the use of risperidone in " children

> and adolescents, the e-mail stated. & gave the

center

> $700,000 in 2002 alone, documents show.

>

> A June 2002 e-mail from Gahan Pandina, another J & J exec, to

Biederman

> included a brief abstract of a study of Risperdal in children

> suffering disruptive behavior disorder. The study was intended to

be

> presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Academy of

Child

> & Adolescent Psychiatry, the e-mail stated.

>

> " We have generated a review abstract, but I must review this longer

> abstract before passing this along, " Pandina wrote. One problem

with

> the study, Pandina wrote, is that the children given placebos and

> those given Risperdal both improved significantly, " so, if you

could,

> please give some thought to how to handle this issue if it occurs. "

>

> The draft abstract that Pandina included in the e-mail, however,

> stated that only the children given Risperdal improved, while those

> given placebos did not. Pandina asked Biederman to sign a form

> listing himself as author so the company could present the study to

> the conference, according to the e-mail.

>

> " I will review this morning, " Dr. Biederman responded, according to

> the documents. " I will be happy to sign the forms if you could

kindly

> send them to me. " The documents, the Times writes, do not make

clear

> whether Biederman approved the final summary of the brief abstract

in

> similar form or asked to read the longer report on the study. This

> would be an example of ghostwriting, by the way.

>

> In June, a Congressional investigation revealed that Biederman

failed

> to report to Harvard at least $1.4 million in outside income from

J & J

> and other makers of antipsychotics. For instance, Biederman

reported

> no income from J & J for 2001 in a disclosure report filed with the

> university. When asked by Senator Chuck Grassley of the finance

> committee to check again, Biederman said he received $3,500. But

J & J

> told Grassley it paid Biederman $58,169 in 2001 (back story).

>

> On Monday, Cameron, a Harvard spokesman, told the Times the

> university is still reviewing the allegations against Biederman,

and

> they had not seen the documents in question and that the university

> is not directly involved in the child psychiatry center at

> Massachusetts General Hospital. Calls to Biederman were not

returned,

> the Times writes, and J & J did not immediately comment or make

> executives available for comment.

>

[Guest guest]

The Biederman story has been getting a lot of coverage in the New York

Times actually.

I have twins-- after regression from massive numbers of shots, my son

was dxed with PDD and my daughter, as her language delay resolves, is

in danger of being dx'ed with " pediatric bipolar disorder " . We will

never let it happen and we'll never allow the corresponding drugs to be

given to our daughter because it's a bullshit diagnosis and scientific

revisionism at its worse. My kids are poisoned and it's nonsensical to

give them " psychiatric " dx's. Also, unlike autism which is

unmistakeable, the behavior qualifying for " bipolar disorder " tends to

be a grab-bag, all of which can have multiple causes. Both my kids

improve enormously with alternative medical treatments aimed at vaccine

injuries, so cause isn't a mystery around our house.

Psychiatric diagnoses aren't scientific. Prior to the days when pharma

began controlling the field, at best psychiatry was a philosophical

practice. In that sense (for those who still practice that way), it can

be useful (like the researchers who study socio-emotional remedies for

things like PTSD, etc.). But as for the drug-driven aspects of the

profession, someone put it well, that if psychiatry actually dealt

with " brain disease " , they would have been absorbed into the field

neurology ages ago. They haven't because it's not a science.

The " brain chemicals " that we keep hearing about are just drivel,

really, since the field has very little understanding of which brain

chemicals are even in play in different states of mind and this can

differ from individual to individual. There's no

quantifiable " serotonin imbalance " , etc., and no known way to " correct

it " . Everything most of us ever heard about these theories has been

disproven, though most of the public is still under the impression that

these drugs " correct imbalances " . Two very sharp researchers (voted by

Slate mag as being on a short list of " pharm-free " experts with no ties

to drug companies) did a great study on it: http://tinyurl.com/8vywy

With what little is known about brain chemicals, one thing is certain:

vaccines and psych drugs are the best known causes of " brain chemical

imbalance " . Lead and pesticides are known to cause " imbalances " as

well. But genes? After gadzillions of dollars spent in research and the

genome project, there's still exactly ZERO proof that " mental illness "

runs in families outside of relatively rare genetic disorders like Down

or Angelman's. Every study saying otherwise has been debunked, though

the overturning of these theories never received the same publicity

which the gene theories themselves received, so most people don't have

a clue that " gene hypotheses " are running on empty. Susceptibility is

an entirely different matter and the details of that haven't been

worked out (whether someone is born with, say, fragile mitochondria or

whether repeat chemical assaults " created " this susceptibility, etc.).

Whitaker did some great research on the rise in rates of mental

illness and the history of the BP diagnosis as well:

http://psychrights.org/articles/EHPPPsychDrugEpidemic(Whitaker).pdf

The rise in cognitive disorders in the US began before the autism

epidemic, leading to the same conclusion that safer-vax activists have

made: there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. The same goes for

bipolar disorder-- the vast majority of cases can't be " genetic " if the

rates rose by thousands of percentage points.

Prior to 1960 or so, there was no such thing as " pediatric bipolar

disorder " for instance. " Manic depression " as it was called, used to be

extremely rare and was only ever documented as having onset in

adulthood and occasionally adolescence. The youngest case ever

documented prior to the 50's was a fourteen year old in an asylum in

Wales. Doctors 100 years ago could just as easily differentiate

between " bipolar " and " unipolar " disorders. The fact was, there were

less cases of all forms of " mental illness " thirty, sixty and one

hundred and sixty years ago.

The rates of " Manic depression/bipolar disorder " -- once rare-- went

through the roof after 1959 upon the release of the first

antidepressants. This led to pretty well-founded speculations that

lion's share of cases we hear about among adults are caused by the very

drugs used to treat depression and " ADHD " . Stimulants and

antidepressants cause mania in a high percentage of patients, which is

then interpreted by the prescribing shrink (who will not blame the

drugs they prescribed) as the " emergence of further underlying

disorder " . It would be the same if pediatricians began to " thank "

vaccines for " helpfully causing the emergence " of " underlying autism " .

From seeing what happened to my daughter-- who was never exposed to any

psychiatric drugs-- I believe that the youngest kids showing this

new " rapid cycling " so-called bipolar disorder are frequently

environmentally-injured and vaccine-injured children who didn't quite

develop autism. What muddies the water terribly is that many kids who

are on an even lesser tier of damage-- the ones whose reactions to

vaccines manifest as hyperactivity more than mood swings-- are then put

on Ritalin and THEN they quickly plummet into " bipolar-like " behavior

and receive even scarier drugs on top of the stimulants.

This is the controversy with Biederman, the reason he's under

investigation by Congress at the behest of Sen. Grassley. The typical

psychiatrist these days prescribes drugs to treat conditions caused by

drugs and " researchers " like Biederman have led the charge in this

practice of " polypharmacy " . They're doing it based on deliberately

skewed research simply to sell more drugs and kids are literally dying

from it.

As we all know, corrupt figures like Biederman are profiting from the

epidemic of vaccine injuries as well which is precisely why Biederman

and others are so violently against alternative medical practices like

restricted diet and chelation-- these things pose a threat to profits.

When you're engaging in distaster capitalism, it's not desirable to

uproot the cause of the disaster. Biederman, like many of the most

prominent " bio-shrinks " , sit on the same medical " think tanks " with

vaccine hawkers like Offit. It could look like they were in " cahoots " ,

right?

What's particularly disadvantageous for the safer-vaccine movement is

that it's now very hard to distinguish which children were even

initially vaccine-injured or which developed worsening conditions from

the drugs alone. It all has to stop.

Bla bla bla, anyway, that's my two cents on it.

> > Joe " pedi bipolar genes " Biederman caught with cleft foot in the

> > cookie jar again and Harvard/Mass General still won't terminate him.

> >

> > http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/harvards-biederman-and-his-ties-to-

>

[Guest guest]

Ana,

Do you remember that little girl that died last year and the parents

were charged with her murder. I forget her name but the MD that Dx

this little two year old with bi-polar and put her on three drugs

studied under Biederman. Last I heard her license was suspended. I

don't know what happened to the parents. They were both prescribed

drugs as well.

Peggy

> > > Joe " pedi bipolar genes " Biederman caught with cleft foot in the

> > > cookie jar again and Harvard/Mass General still won't terminate

him.

> > >

> > > http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/harvards-biederman-and-his-

ties-to-

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Peggy,

A lot of people were haunted by the Riley story. I've read and

attended quite a few professional presentations on that case and in the

end, the facts are blunt but not a lot is known about why anyone

drugged the girl in the first place. One thing is sure, though-- if

they're drugging normal kids to death, our children are on the top of

the hit list.

The shrink was using Biederman's approach to " treating " the child since

age 2.5, whom teachers said never fit the profile for " pediatric BP "

(that would be because it doesn't exist-- I'm pretty sure it's all just

various types of poisoning and in some cases PTSD). So Biederman's hand

was on Riley's death and the deaths of many other children.

The parents were drugged too. The history there is pretty sick: the

father was a batterer and child molester, the mother basically a brain-

dead lump and a classic Stockholm syndrome case, who was following

daddy's instructions to drug and silence the girl so daddy

didn't " blow " . A brother and sister were drugged as well by the same

psychiatrist. The modern approach to dealing with evil is to say the

person is " mentally ill " (and then to split " responsibility " with

victims by saying the victims were " ill " too to have " allowed "

themselves to be victimized) and give them drugs rather than doing the

one thing shown to be effective in protecting victims: put the

criminals in jail. This also has to do with problems with the justice

system, so it's another issue, but I always find it interesting that

the professions with the highest rates of domestic violence are:

Judges

Police

Psychiatrists and other " helping " professions

Gives one pause about the motives for " decriminalizing " certain

behaviors.

I have no idea whether Riley ever showed signs of any disorder

or whether she was just a normal child in an abusive situation.

Psychiatry will never " prove " the validity of these dx's because if a

diagnosis can be shown to be both preventable and treatable by means

other than psychopharmaceuticals or psychosurgery, there goes the whole

profit motive. They're very invested in specifically not finding the

truth about the " etiologies " of certain disorders like schizophrenia

for that reason.

>

> Hi Ana,

> Only one thing needs to be done put this to rest. The field of

> psychiaitry needs to produce scientific evidence to prove that their

> Dx's exist. This is the standard they need to be held to.

>

>