i used to hear goodwin's really creepy show, and even complained about it to NPR a few times (since he had on neutral experts who it turned out he had corporate affiliations with) even though i fugured it was a lost cause and also basically dont want to be involved. 'dont snitch'. goodwin would sort of 'play it straight' at times (are women more depressed because of genes, or maybe there's something in society too? are poor (POC) often really flipped out cuz of some traits, or maybe there is some gene-environment interaction?). he always had on these people from the projects talking about how great they felt on their meds, when before all they had was a habit. and bad musicians whose meds had saved their elevator muzak and careers. (course, they destroyed others by pushing their audio toxins. )
he is famous for saying inner city violence was similar to that of orangutans or monkees in the jungle (peter breggin went after him for that, and he lost a position for that). he still teaches at GWU i think, which is somewhat of a jobs program for people like this. i guess it keeps them out of trouble, since they dont have to steal.
it is good that Harvard employed that guy. It increases my respect for them. (Its interesting that the media had to find this stuff out; i guess some people at HU are still too stupid or lazy to know wharts going on where they are; or maybe theyre scared to snitch too.)
--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Phil Gasper <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Expert or Shill?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 2:02 AM
> November 30, 2008
> Expert or Shill?
> More evidence has emerged of appalling conflicts of
> interest that throw into doubt the advice rendered and the
> research performed by two prominent psychiatrists who have
> received substantial funding from the pharmaceutical
> industry. The revelations prove, once again, the need for
> universities and professional societies to crack down on
> conflicts of interest, and for Congress to pass legislation
> that will bring hidden conflicts into the open.
> Earlier this year, Congressional investigators discovered
> that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned child
> psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts
> General Hospital, had failed to report to Harvard at least
> $1.4 million in income from drug companies, in violation of
> the university's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
> Now, internal drug company e-mail and documents that
> surfaced in a lawsuit have sketched out what looks like an
> unsavory collaboration between Dr. Biederman and Johnson
> & Johnson to generate and disseminate data that would
> support use of an antipsychotic drug, Risperdal, in
> children, a controversial target group.
> The various documents indicate that Dr. Biederman
> repeatedly asked a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary to fund
> a research center at Massachusetts General to focus on
> children and adolescents with bipolar disorders and that the
> company provided almost $1 million. Disturbingly, one of the
> center's publicly stated missions, along with improving
> the psychiatric care of children, was to "move forward
> the commercial goals of J.& J."
> The company also drafted a scientific abstract on Risperdal
> for Dr. Biederman to sign - as if he were the author -
> before it was presented at a professional meeting. And it
> sought his advice on how to handle the uncomfortable fact,
> not mentioned in the abstract, that children given placebos,
> not just those given Risperdal, also improved significantly.
> Dr. Biederman's work and reputation have helped fuel a
> huge increase in the use of powerful, risky and expensive
> antipsychotic medicines in young people, an upsurge that
> brought a warning recently from a federally appointed panel
> of experts. Now it is hard to know whether he has been
> speaking as an independent expert or a paid shill for the
> drug industry.
> Congressional investigators also recently reported that
> Frederick Goodwin, an influential psychiatrist who has been
> hosting a popular weekly program on public radio, earned at
> least $1.3 million by giving marketing lectures for drug
> makers who potentially stood to benefit from the
> recommendations he made on the program. He has rightly been
> removed from the air.