against psychiatry: My position
2. "Big pharma often commits
and this must be stopped"
I am not very fit because I did not sleep enough, so I am pleased I can
fill this Nederlog mostly by quoting, from myself and from others.
As my title says, this is once again "More on the corruption of psychiatry", and in fact I had wanted to change that
subject today to another, but then not only is it convenient to quote: The quotes I give are also quite good, and make some
very important points, that I formulate as follows:
(1) at present both the leading
pharmacological companies and psychiatry have been getting away for
decades with what are in fact serious crimes, simply in terms of
the laws under which they operate, and
(2) these crimes will not be stopped - precisely as in the case of
bankmanagers - until and unless those responsible for committing in
them are made personally responsible for the crimes they, their
companies or their professional organizations have committed.
I am phrasing it as I see it, but then this seems to get considerable
support from an article in the British Medical Journal I quote a part
of in section 2, after a repeat of a section I
wrote and uploaded on January 10.
Arguments against psychiatry: My position
There is a long
series I wrote about the DSM-5, and the present text may be regarded as a continuation of it, but I gave up writing about the DSM after dr. Allen Frances - chief editor of the DSM-IV,
emeritus professor of psychiatry, nominal opponent of the the DSM-5
- told the world that
The motives of the
people working on DSM 5 have often been questioned. They have been
accused of having a financial conflict of interest because some have
(minimal) drug company ties and also because so many of the DSM 5
changes will enhance Pharma profits by adding to our already existing
societal overdose of carelessly prescribed psychiatric medicine. But I
know the people working on DSM 5 and know this charge to be both unfair
the truth is that "the
people working on DSM 5"
made some very bad - very
immoral, very self serving - decisions with very corrupt
hearts, and that they did so because they want to help both themselves and the drug
companies, who also help them, to much
higher incomes than they would have if only they were honest and moral
Indeed, they have made some very bad decisions, but they
did so with pure hearts and not because they wanted to help the drug
also think that the moral
people working on DSM-5 will vert probably cost
health and very much money, because they are going to be falsely diagnosed
in the terms of a bogus "bible of psychiatry" and will be prescribed drugs that may seriously harm them and are not
likely to help them much if at all  -
these same prescriptions
will enrich the psychiatrists who
prescribe them and the drug companies
that sell them: being a corrupt
psychiatric pusher of
dangerous drugs makes the pushers and their shills billions of
dollars every year.
Also, I think dr. Frances knows this very
well indeed, since this has been argued very well by the following (among many others - and it is not as if the profit
motive, dishonesty, greed, egoism are motives that are hard to understand for
a psychiatrist or are rare events
in the US):
Anyway, after having been told that
people I respect for having individual moral courage and good
minds have been "unfair and untrue"
to the "pure hearts" that composed the utterly rotten and
completely pseudoscientific DSM-5 that evidently
is meant to serve the financial
interests of the drug
companies and psychiatrists willing to push their pills into naive laymen in the name of
medical science, I have given up on dr.
Frances and any movement he
figure head of.
so, the DSM-5 and
corrupt psychiatrists constitute a great danger to - literally - tens of millions
of persons who are naive about medicine, uninformed about psychiatry, and willing to trust their doctors.
I am afraid that the APA and
psychiatrists who are pill pushers can
only be stopped by law and
by huge claims of damages, for fraudulent evidently behavior.
To spell this out:
My position is that psychiatry is a pseudoscience that the
last decades has been
designed to push dangerous and medically worthless or unproven drugs
into and onto naive and defenseless people in the name of medical
science, and that this is to my way of thinking, that agrees with
non nocere = the prime duty of medical doctors is not to do harm, a
crime that deserves criminal proceedings.
What I also say is that if this does not happen, the reason is that
psychiatrists and their professional associations have succeeded in
convincing the public that their pseudoscience is a real science, and
that they succeeded to do so not by any rational scientific
argument but by the propaganda
relations: Loads of cleverly designed manipulative lies,
deceptions, frauds, and misinformation.
And I quote from the article "fraud" in Wkipedia,
minus the links to two notes:
United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud:
representation of an existing fact;
speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
damages suffered by the plaintiff.
a matter of logical principle it is very easy to prove that the
majority of psychiatric teachings, and many psychiatric
of drugs, precisely because these claim to be based on medical
science, and are meant to sell people drugs or services for money, also
of the many different psychiatric schools, and the fundamental nearly
total absence of any good
really scientific evidence, cannot be other than a "fraud"
in the above described sense.
pharma often commits corporate crimes, and this must be stopped
My source for the
following quote is yesterday's entry by 1 boring old man, called "system
psychiatry", and his source is the British Medical Journal, which I
cannot access for lack of money - and besides I also do think
scientific publications ought to be freely accessible.
In any case, what follows are just two bits from an article, but then
that article makes points that seem to me long overdue:
This is courageous - I mean: writing by
implication that all major pharmacological corporations have
committed major medical fraud, the US legal
definition you find in section 1, and namely because this made them
enormous amounts of profits.
drug company commits a serious crime, the standard response from the
industry is that there are bad apples in any enterprise. Sure, but the
interesting question is whether drug companies routinely break the law.
I googled the names of the 10 largest drug companies in combination
with the term “fraud” and looked for offences on the first page for
each company. The most common recent crimes were illegal marketing by
recommending drugs for non-approved [off label] uses, misrepresentation
of research results, hiding data on harms, and Medicaid and Medicare
fraud. All cases were related to the United States and involved huge
settlements or fines, exceeding $1bn [ú620.6m; €769m] each for four
It was easy to find
additional crimes committed by these same companies and committed
outside the US. As the crimes were widespread and repetitive, they are
probably committed deliberately—because crime pays. Pfizer, for
example, agreed in 2009 to pay $430m to resolve charges related to
illegal marketing of gabapentin [Neurontin], but as sales were $2.7bn
in 2003 alone, and as about 90% was for off label use, such fines are
far too small to have any deterrent effect. When Pfizer was fined
$2.3bn for off label use of four other drugs, also in 2009, the company
entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the US Department of
Health and Human Services to detect and avoid such problems in future.
Pfizer had previously entered into three such agreements in the past
decade. Of the top 10 drug companies, in July 2012 only Roche was not
bound by such an agreement. However, over 10 years in the 1990s, high
level executives in Roche had previously led a vitamin cartel that,
according to the US Justice Department, was the most pervasive and
harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy ever uncovered. Roche agreed to
pay $500m to settle charges, equivalent to about one year’s revenue
from its US vitamin business.
As 1 boring old man commented, immediately after the above quote:
It’s refreshing to
hear him use the word crime.
Indeed it is, and not only for
moral or philosophical or semantical reasons, but for practical and
You do not stop a crime by making the criminals hand over a
relatively small part of their criminal gains and then declare that
because of having done so they will not be charged with the
crimes they committed and that allowed them to rake in so much money
that they can easily give up part of it to buy immunity from the law.
That is not so much maintaining the law as protecting criminals,
provided they are rich or powerful.
But there is more by professor G°tzsche:
Quite so! And for
logical and legal reasons: Not only should there be new laws to
regulate long standing crooked, immoral and dangerous practices, but the
existing laws, such as the laws dealing with fraud,
and the laws dealing with medical malpractice and malfeisance,
should be properly applied and maintained, instead of allowing
rich individuals to escape the legal consequences of their crimes by
handing a portion of the profits they made by these very crimes to the
state prosecuters. That is like fighting against piracy and theft by
levying a state tax on pirates and thieves, provided they are rich or
get or got enormously rich by their crimes, and leaving them free to
continue piracy and theft.
disconnect between the drug industry’s proclamations—of the “highest
ethical standards,” of “following … all legal requirements,” and
providing “most accurate information available regarding prescription
medicines”—and the reality of the conduct of big pharma is vast. These
proclamations are not shared by the companies’ employees or experienced
by the public. An internal survey of Pfizer employees in 2001 showed
that about 30% didn’t agree with the statement, “Senior management
demonstrates honest, ethical behavior.” When 5000 Danes ranked 51
industries in terms of the confidence they had in them, the drug
industry came second to bottom, beaten only by automobile repair
companies. A US poll also ranked the drug industry at the bottom,
together with oil and tobacco companies.
consequences of these crimes are huge, including the unnecessary deaths
of thousands of people and many billions in losses for our national
economies every year. As doctors have access only to selected and
manipulated information, they believe drugs are far more effective and
safe than they really are. Thus, both legal and illegal marketing leads
to massive overtreatment of the population. In the US, the most sold
class of drugs in 2009 [in US dollars] was antipsychotics.
Antidepressants came fourth, after lipid lowering drugs and proton pump
inhibitors. It is hard to imagine that so many Americans can be so
mentally disturbed that these sales reflect genuine needs.
is time to introduce tougher sanctions, as the number of crimes, not
the detection rate, seems to be increasing. Fines need to be so large
that companies risk going bankrupt. Top executives should be held
personally accountable so that they would need to think of the risk of
imprisonment when they consider performing or acquiescing in crimes. To
bring the crimes to light also outside the US, we need laws that
protect whistleblowers and ensure they get a fair proportion of the
fines. We also need to avoid the situation that, by settling
accusations of crimes, drug companies can pretend they are innocent,
which they often do. We also need laws requiring firms to disclose all
knowledge about their drugs and research data, and laws that not only
allow but require drug agencies to publish what they know, without
hiding under some absurd “proprietary nature of companies’ trial
results” clause, as happened with rosiglitazone—with the consequence
that the public was not informed that the drug causes myocardial
infarction. Last but not least, doctors and
their organisations should recognise that it is unethical to receive
money that has been earned in part through crimes that have harmed
those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many
crimes would be impossible to carry out if doctors weren’t willing to
participate in them.
Finally, a word of praise for the British Medical Journal:
In November last year, I
reported that its editor has decided that its reviewers want to see the
raw data for scientific publications, which is a very wise and sensible
decision, because that is the only way in which one can try to prevent
being flummoxed, as for example happened with
the experiments with Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft.
Now the editors have the courage to publish the truth about the
crimes of the big pharmaceutical corporations - which have been written
about before, but not to much effect. And indeed such crimes can be
prevented only if medical persons take their individual moral and
scientific responsibilies, namely not to harm patients and to speak
honestly in matters of science, and also demand that their colleagues
and the commercial firms they must rely upon for medical drugs abide by
the same norms.
And this is not demanding much either: It is quite possible to make a
good living as a medical professional or a fair profit as a
pharmaceutical company without committing frauds or lying about
efficacy or dangers of medical drugs.
All that is necessary for this is that medical persons follow their
medical moral and scientific codes, and that public prosecutors find
the guts to maintain the law, also in case of big companies and rich
individuals, or get forced to do so.
2, 2013: Corrected some typos
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: