A mother-turned advocate’s journey that links a non-profit children’s advocacy group, with assets over $15 million [2009] with nationally-renowned mass tort and class action defense law firms, to the Connecticut DCF – an $865 million bureaucracy, as described by the Connecticut Mirror.
In the wake of the Jared Loughner shooting in Arizona, we pointed out that the press seemed more interested in featuring Pharma-funded mouthpieces speculating on why Loughner wasn’t “treated” (drugged) and using this tragedy to start banging the drum for more government funding for more mental health treatment, (drugs) before even bothering to find out whether or not Loughner was, or had been, on psychiatric drugs. The logical question for anyone concerned with mental health would be; Was Loughner yet another in the long list of mass shooters already under the influence of psychiatric drugs documented to cause mania, psychosis, violence, homicidal and suicidal ideation that have resulted in 54 dead and 105 wounded in 10 such similar massacres? Isn’t that something we should know before spending billions more dollars on a pharmaceutically based mental health agenda? Shouldn’t we be investigating that instead of using this tragedy to get more funding for mental health “treatment”? So let’s just cut to the chase. The most prominent “mental health” groups using this shooting to cry out “give us billions more funding,” are themselves, funded by Pharma. Perhaps that answers the question of why despite the overwhelming evidence psychiatric drugs cause violence and even homicide, groups such as the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI), which claims to be a “patient’s rights” organization for the “mentally ill”, are not calling for an investigation of what, if any role, psychiatric drugs played in this or any other mass shooting in the last 10 years, we are.
Note from CCHR: Let’s see if we’ve got this straight…..last year, Pfizer paid $1.2 billion for illegal off-label promotion -the largest criminal fine in U.S.history. The company also paid $2.3 billion to settle claims that it had marketed numerous drugs for unapproved purposes Other corporate violators included GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, TAP Pharmaceutical, Merck, Serono, Purdue, Allergan, Novartis, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, Forest Laboratories, Sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Mylan, Teva and King Pharmaceuticals. Criminal or civil illegalities included (1) overcharging government health programs, (2) unlawful promotion, (3) monopoly practices, (4) kickbacks, (5) concealing study findings, (6) poor manufacturing practices, (7) environmental violations, (8) financial violations and (9) illegal distribution. And after all that, the FDA is going to allow Big Pharma to launch into social media? Seriously?
by Ralph Nadar
One of the worst violations involves companies promoting unproven, often dangerous uses for their medicines. Last year, Pfizer paid $1.2 billion for illegal off-label promotion -the largest criminal fine in U.S.history. Other major corporate violators were GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, TAP Pharmaceutical, Merck, Serono, Purdue, Allergan, Novartis, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, Forest Laboratories, Sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Mylan, Teva and King Pharmaceuticals.
The violations by these and other drug companies point to the wide range of impacts, including taking many lives of patients, which stems from these recurrent activities. These criminal or civil illegalities cover (1) overcharging government health programs, (2) unlawful promotion, (3) monopoly practices, (4) kickbacks, (5) concealing study findings, (6) poor manufacturing practices, (7) environmental violations, (8) financial violations and (9) illegal distribution.
Three San Diego doctors [all psychiatrists] who prescribe medications at the same time they are paid by drug companies as experts on the products figure into a broader national debate about whether playing both roles poses a conflict. California Watch, a project of the independent, nonprofit Center for Investigative Reporting, compared two sets of data at the center of the debate — one a database of payments by drug companies to doctors nationwide and the other a list of the top antipsychotic prescribers in California’s Medi-Cal program for the poor and disabled.