Fake Pharmaceutical Publications

Care of Philip at Furious Seasons:

Earlier this month I noted that news had come out that Merck had--with the help of major academic medical journal publisher Elsevier--had created a fake medical journal earlier this decade, which then presented studies that were basically gigantic advertorials for Merck's products. Now there's news that the same academic publisher has admitted to creating five other fake journals earlier this decade.

The journals in question are: the Australasian Journal of General Practice, the Australasian Journal of Neurology, the Australasian Journal of Cardiology, the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine.

Elsevier has a lot to answer for. So far, the company has blamed all of this an its Australian office.

And people think I am off-base when I point out how corrupt the research world has gotten.

You can't make this stuff up...bit more info here.

More stuff you couldn't write if you tried:

The Invasion

The retread of The Body Snatchers out last year with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig was not a great movie, but an interesting concept. A prescription happy psychiatrist is dosing her patients and her own son with muscle relaxers, anti-depressants and anti-psychotic medications. After a crash landing by a space shuttle, which carries an alien virus effecting the brain, we begin to see people walking around like emotionless automatons with their memories preserved. As the infection perpetuates itself across the globe, wars end, and people live in relative peace.

The movie itself is a typical thriller with relatively predictable chase scenes and startle moments. Like I Am Legend, it's basically a zombie movie with some different physical/psychological features of the infected. These zombies don't have much goo/blood on them (just a little that disappears after a while), and the only thing that sets them apart from regular people is that they are as composed as hindu cows - even while watching people throw themselves off buildings.

I have to say, the comparison of zombies to people on psychotropic pharmaceuticals is extreme, but seems pretty apt. It was creepy to see an infected kid staring down at his Halloween candy completely uninterested - seems reminiscent of what an over-medicated child on ritalin looks like. It's a creepy reminder that a lot of anti-depressants like paxil cause a major loss in libido, so much so that they actually prescribe it to sex offenders. It's like Welcome to the Monkey House predicted all of this...

Sometimes it feels like the goal of humanity (or at least the drug industry) is to wipe out emotion, or to have emotions cordoned off and unavailable as if they're a vestigial feature of humanity. As the number of people on prescription psychotropic drugs continues to rise, there is something inherently relevant and haunting about the concept of The Invasion. As technology increases and attention spans decrease, and as the varying streams of emotional information enter our consciousness on a second-by-second basis, our collective ability to frame shift continues to improve. While that can be seen as a good thing, it also makes me wonder if we're not on a trend towards a society of sociopaths...or maybe at best, vulcans.

An understanding of what causes specific emotions will empower an individual to cope with them, as opposed to drugs like SSRI's which have next to no underlying hypothesis as to how they work. The old body snatchers concept is an interesting reminder that we're still in the dark ages when it comes to our understanding of emotion.

By the way, here's a trailer where you basically get to see the whole movie:

Big Pharma Worse Than I Thought

And I already thought it was pretty bad. More from Furious Seasons about a great Slate article exposing another group of doctors and scientists that are on the take from Big Pharma companies like Glaxo Smith Kline, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis.

What's most disturbing is that these guys structure the DSM, which determine diagnoses and recommended treatments for mental illnesses. And their influence is huge - WNYC's "Infinite Mind" recently aired a show called "Prozac Nation Revisited" with its host, Fred Goodwin. The goal of this show was for Dr. Goodwin and his guests to quell the "overblown" fear that there is a link between antidepressants and suicide. Here's the disturbing part:

"All four of the experts on the show, including Goodwin, have financial ties to the makers of antidepressants. Also unmentioned were the "unrestricted grants" that The Infinite Mind has received from drug makers, including Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Prozac."

"The second guest on "Prozac Nation," Andrew F. Leuchter, is a professor of psychiatry at UCLA who has received research money from drug companies including Eli Lilly Inc., Pfizer, and Novartis. The third guest, Nada Stotland, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, has served on the speakers' bureaus of GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. None of Leuchter and Stotland's ties to industry was revealed to listeners—instead, each was introduced as a prominent academic."

How can it be this bad? It's just getting harder and harder to trust scientific experts anymore. I know I must sound like a creationist here, but the science community has really been showing its holes lately. It is as susceptible to bias and corruption as politics. The danger of that is that science is supposed to be this impenetrable fortress of truth. And while it's the closest thing we have to that, it gets consumed by the public as unquestioned gospel. We seem to exist in an age of scientific zealotry - just quote a peer-reviewed study, and theory becomes fact.

It's a tricky gray area because it leaves established and monumentally important truths like evolution vulnerable to attack by indoctrinated religious thinkers. But when it comes to amorphous ideas like depression and consciousness, the "facts" are very malleable and susceptible to manipulation - especially when it's part of the mutli-billion dollar antidepressant industry.

It just doesn't seem like the standard, reductionist approach towards a true understanding of human consciousness and mental illness is going to suffice. For now, mental illness is just a ripe marketplace for corporate interest. Not to say there haven't been advances - there are some great therapists and psychiatrists out there (though few and far between it seems). Otherwise, we've just been grasping at straws (or ice picks). The solution to this problem is in dire need of a paradigm shift.

Major kudos to the writers of the Slate article, Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer.

(Interesting tidbit, I can't find Infinite Mind on WNYC)

The Emporer's Clothes Don't Keep Him Warm

Aside from my father who is working on a ground breaking book on psychotherapy and consciousness, this Psychology PhD from Austin, TX, John Breeding is the clearest I've seen about the danger of prescribing pscyhotropic drugs for "bogus, made-up" conditions like ADHD and depression. Pretty ballsy given the current climate of psychiatric treatments. Amen, brother.

CLARIFICATION: After a brief comment dicussion (thanks Adam), I wanted to say that I don't think the symptoms of depression or ADHD aren't real, and that certain drugs can't be helpful in certain, specific instances. What I will say is that the idea behind the mechanism of action for anti-depressants is heavily flawed, and basically unproven. Contrary to popular belief, there is no established baseline for the "normal" levels of the neurotransmitter most anti-depressants are supposedly regulating (serotonin and dopamine).

Most studies say it's barely more effective than placebo. Other reports mention how studies showing their ineffectiveness are often shelved, and even worse, the side effects of many of these drugs can be pretty awful - decreased libido, movement disorders, psychotic behavior, and most bizarrely, the zaps. The over-diagnosis of these conditions and the pursuant over-prescription of frankly experimental psychotropic drugs is a sloppy and irresponsible practice.

Actually, this is all stated better in this clip of Dr. Breeding.