Just written a piece for the New Scientist about the May 5th protests in Philadelphia against the American Psychiatric Association. Here is the link:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428653.700-label-jars-not-people-lobbying-against-the-shrinks.html

Humorous Psychiatry - You Tube Clips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZPAt5ynZdE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyuRj6TsyvQ

The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry

In 2005 the British government's Health Committee undertook a official report into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. It stated that "The consequences of lax oversight is  that the industry’s influence has expanded and a number of practices have developed which act against the public interest". The practices they list are:


"that clinical trials were not adequately designed – that they could be
designed to show the new drug in the best light – and sometimes fail to indicate the true
effects of a medicine on health outcomes relevant to the patient. We were informed of
several high-profile cases of suppression of trial results. We also heard of selective
publication strategies and ghost-writing. The suppression of negative clinical trial findings
leads to a body of evidence that does not reflect the true risk: benefit profile of the medicine  
in question".

The report is interesting see:
 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf

The Importance of Suffering

My new book has just been published on this topic by Routledge. It is called 'The Importance of Suffering' - you can view it here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Importance-Suffering-Meaning-Emotional-Discontent/dp/0415667801/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322334067&sr=1-1

BBC's Breakfast Doctor gets paid by Pharmaceutical Companies

I recently discovered that the BBC’s Breakfast Doctor, Dr Rosemary Leonard, who has advocated antidepressants in the media, gets paid by a number of pharmaceutical companies for PR activities on their behalf. Once again, current editorial policy does not protect the millions of people who follow her advice everyday from the potential conflict of interest she may have and the biasing effects of this interest. Here is the evidence for her pharmaceutical ties: Firstly, there is a statement on her website this says, and I quote: "In view of her extensive experience, she is often asked to present medical corporate videos and take part in PR activities for drug companies"  http://www.drrosemaryleonard.co.uk/about   

The financial nature of Dr Leonard’s ties are declared to the “Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”. The following PDFs from the MHRA website show that Dr Leonard has undertaken paid PR work for pharmaceutical companies like Lilly, Crookes Healthcare and GlaxoSmithKline. You can find confirmation of this here:   http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/committeedocument/con003471.pdf

and here:

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/es-cb/documents/committeedocument/con2015695.pdf

BBC - More Evidence of Non-Disclosure

I have found more evidence of the BBC not disclosing the financial links of the 'mental health experts' it quotes. The following people extolled the virtues of antidepressants on BBC News Online in 2009. The BBC did not declare their conflicts of interest. So let me make them available here: 

BBC article: ‘antidepressants work instantly’ (Oct 2009)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8304782.stm

In this article, Dr Catherine Harmer was extensively quoted favouring antidepressants, what we weren't told is that she has acted as a consultant for Lundbeck, Merck, Sharpe, Dohme, and P1Vital

(Proof: http://www.mentalhealthacademy.com.au/journal_archive/acn0839.pdf

The article also extensively quotes, Dr. Michael Thase. What we weren't told is that he has acted as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cephalon, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MedAvante, Neuronetics, Novartis, Organon, Sepracor, Shire US, Supernus, and Wyeth; is on the speaker’s bureaus of AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Organon, sanofi-aventis, and Wyeth; has equity in MedAvant; and receives book royalties from American Psychiatric Publishing, Guilford Publications, and Herald House. 

(Proof:  http://www.primarypsychiatry.com/aspx/articledetail.aspx?articleid=1379

BBC Article: ‘Antidepressants Not Overused' (Sep 2009) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8256501.stm

In this article, Professor Ian C Reid was extensively quoted extolling the virtues of these pills. What we weren't told is that he has been paid consultancy and speaker fees by Sanofi Aventis, Wyeth UK, Eli Lilly, and AstraZenec 

(Proof:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2734353/pdf/bjgp59-644.pdf)

BBC article: 'Drugs can help mild depression' (May 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8027440.stm

In this article, Professor Tony Kendrick was extensively quoted supporting this position, what we weren't told was that he has received fees for presenting at educational meetings and/ or research funding from Lilly, Lundbeck, Servier and Wyeth pharmaceuticals, and has also received HTA funding for research into psychological treatments. (Proof:  http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1322.pdf)

Please Sign My Petition: Stop Antidepressants being Advertised on the BBC (and other media outlets)

Please click on the red tag in box below to sign the petition: 

Online Petition by iPetitions.com

The Petition runs as follows:

We the undersigned call upon the BBC to instigate an urgent change to its editorial policy for BBC News Online. We want this change to ensure that all BBC Health Editors cite clearly whenever a writer on mental health issues has received money from pharmaceutical companies. We ask that making these disclosures explicit at the foot of the article be a matter of common policy for the BBC, as it is for all respectable academic journals. At present we think it regrettable that someone receiving money from pharmaceutical companies can extol the virtues of antidepressants on the BBC, without the reader being fully informed as to the writer’s potential conflict of interest. When such financial links are not declared such reporting can constitute, at worst, a form of surreptitious pharmaceutical advertising that belies the BBC’s mission statement to offer impartial reporting free of commercial bias.

What Highlighted Us to this Problem? 

Some months ago an article appeared on the BBC News website extolling the virtues of antidepressants: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12716742 This article was heavily biased in favor of antidepressants, advocating their wider consumption. At the end of the article the citation stated that the author has “given lectures on behalf of a number of pharmaceutical companies”. Upon further researching these company ties we found that the BBC citation had omitted that the author had actually received consultancy fees and honoraria from many pharmaceutical companies including Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, BristolMyers Squibb/Otsuka and Wyeth. The thousands of people who read this article were not told this.

After many months of pressing the BBC, the Health Editor finally conceded to change the citation to reflect this potential conflict of interest. The new citation now reads: “[the author has]… received fees and honoraria for providing consultancy and giving lectures on behalf of Jannsen Cilag, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, BMS and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals”.

By changing the author’s citation we welcome the BBC’s implied admission that full disclosure is the proper course of action. We, the undersigned, therefore urge the BBC to enshrine the obligation for full disclosures in editorial policy to ensure no such mistakes occur again. We believe that if the BBC takes the lead on this matter, then other media outlets are more likely to follow.

Sign Petition here:    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/antidepressants/

Read Current Editorial Policy here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-personal-view/