07-06-2007 Media Madness

I haven't been able to do one of these roundup posts in a while, primarily because of all the outside work I've been doing. Not that there aren't tons of things to link to.

For example, CL Psych goes ripshit on Drug Wonks' attack on Danny Carlat--all over whom Carlat chooses to link to on his blog. My policy here is that I link to most everyone pro or con on mental health issues with the possible exception of CCHR. Why doesn't Drug Wonks, if they truly believe in their free market arguments?

I've been impressed recently with Psych Watch, whereon an anonymous poster named Sickmind Fraud reposts or summarizes items of interest from the media. Here he has a great item on just how much antipsychotics are being used in the Vermont prison system. Answer: a helluva lot.

Stephany at Soulful Sepulcher has been documenting the Harvard bipolar child mafia's expansion of bipolar disorder in children over the last decade.

Liz Spikol beat me to this: Fox News propagating the cat shit causes schizophrenia theory anew.

My favorite Big Pharma sycophant, Drug Wonks, has a bizarre post on the recent Group Health study on depression treatment. He concludes that those who criticize pharma companies and corporate control of the mental health system are scaring people to death. My bit: I am fine with corporations as long as they don't cook research or lie about injuries caused by their drugs. When they become good actors, then I'll shut up. Because a free market of ideas is as important as a free market for commerce. Right, Drug Wonks?

AHRP on a recent FDA letter (unearthed by Bloomberg News) in which the FDA notes:

"We are concerned that the proposed labeling [for Symbyax] is deficient with regard to information about weight gain" and high levels of sugar and fat in the blood of patients who took the drug, the FDA said in the letter. "We do not feel that current labeling for either Symbyax or Zyprexa provides sufficient information on these risks."

Take that Drug Wonks.

Pharmalot has this classic item on pharma companies crying that payments by the British government, which encourage docs to prescribe generics, shouldn't be allowed because they influence prescribing. As Ed dryly notes:

"This is truly a switch: a pharma trade group saying docs should prescribe meds free from the influence of money and other incentives. Hmm…. That’s a remarkable statement. Do you think that should apply to brand-name meds, too? Or is this new insight merely a convenient legal strategy?"

Hehe.

A blogger who's generally OK with pharma-connected marketing of disorders sort of finds it troubling after all.