Drug Money

Recent years have seen an increase in psychiatric diagnoses among children as young as elementary school. Going beyond the popular ADD/ADHD diagnosis for any child who is a "behavior problem", it now seems that there is an "epidemic" of bipolar children in our society.

Max Blake is 10 and is described as bipolar.

Symptoms abound. Max can't sleep. Max is sad. Max wants to kill himself. All serious symptoms to be sure, but entirely subjective -- not objective "signs," abnormalities, diseases.

Where is the physical evidence of such a disease?

It does not exist.

But diagnosis is not a matter of belief. If no abnormality is demonstrated the diagnosis is "no evidence of disease" -- NED, or "no organic disease" -- NOD.

This will drive claims payer's crazy.

"800,000 children in the United States have been diagnosed." "The disease is hard to pin down." Nor does repeating the word "disease" make it so.

Now add this to the mix.

A world renowned Harvard researcher, who has published studies regarding children with bipolar disease, seems to be in a bit of hot water. Dr. Joseph Biederman "whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given Congressional investigators."

Seems to me, forgetting to report $1,600,000 in income is a bit more than a simple memory lapse.

But Dr. Biederman is not alone.

Dr. Wilens belatedly reported earning at least $1.6 million from 2000 to 2007, and another Harvard colleague, Dr. Thomas Spencer, reported earning at least $1 million after being pressed by Mr. Grassley’s investigators.

That is a lot of forgetfulness.

Perhaps the doctors should have been taking their Aricept.

In one example, Dr. Biederman reported no income from Johnson & Johnson for 2001 in a disclosure report filed with the university. When asked to check again, he said he received $3,500. But Johnson & Johnson told Mr. Grassley that it paid him $58,169 in 2001, Mr. Grassley found.

First $0, then $3500, and finally $58,169.

If this guy can't balance a checkbook then how can we trust his research?

Although many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, his work helped to fuel a controversial 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder, which is characterized by severe mood swings, and a rapid rise in the use of antipsychotic medicines in children.

Probably just a coincidence.

You know. The rapid increase in psych meds for a disease that lacks corroborating scientific evidence it exists.

Yep. Just a coincidence.

In the last 25 years, drug and device makers have displaced the federal government as the primary source of research financing, and industry support is vital to many university research programs

Good thing our tax dollars are not involved. Much better to use the money supplied by pharmaceutical manufacturers and makers of medical devices.

Some 500,000 children and teenagers were given at least one prescription for an antipsychotic in 2007, including 20,500 under 6 years of age, according to Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager.

This is a truly disturbing trend and it begs the question.

Did these illnesses exist before the studies but were missed? Or did the research, funded at least in part by the drug manufacturers private payola to researchers, simply create the illusion of mental illness that (coincidentally) can be controlled by the use of a drug?