Hopefully TAC is next.

It's about time.

As a Brit, I find Grassley's doggedness and attention to detail a bit embarassing... A couple of years ago, a Parliamentary committee carried out an investigation, and published a report, into the influence of the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries... To my knowledge, not one of the recommendations was ever acted on, and the thing was quietly shelved - any questions pertaining to said report are quietly ignored (in my experience), by the absurdly-named Department of Health, and its executive arm, the MHRA.

Until it dismissed me as "vexatious," I grilled (as have others, it should be said), the MHRA quite mercilessly over allegations that its assessment and licensing process amounted to little more than a rubber-stamping of companies' opinions of their own drugs, for example. However, it seems that the public (or somebody else's), interest is best served by ignoring these trifles.

Matt

Quote From Matt:

"As a Brit, I find Grassley's doggedness and attention to detail a bit embarrassing"

I must disagree with you here most adamantly.

I happen to find Senator Grassley, and as you say his "Doggedness and attention to detail" quite refreshing and a small hopeful sign from a government that has sat on their hands and watched Big Pharma and psychiatry virtually rape the American Public for decades.

This is the very Senator working diligently to expose the likes of Biederman and others within psychiatry, he has challenged a trillion dollar a year industry head on without fear, and now has the integrity to ask NAMI to come clean with their dirty laundry.

I would call him one of the best acting representations and watch dogs in the American Government for some time.

He's actually working for the people he represents; THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. I would really like to know the problem you have with that?

If you consider Senator Grassley embarrassing, then I can only hope some day to be in that kind of embarrassing company.

This is not England or the Parliament thankfully, at least I hope not quite yet anywise. So the examples you used really don't apply here in truth.

Second your statements, Guess Who. I don't see anyone else on the near or far horizon performing Grassley's heroic acts - so very overdue may they be,from any quarter of our federal government.

As to what NAMI does with all its $$$$ from pharma, I am pretty sure they maintain a physical office(s) in every single state.

Let me get this straight. You, Mr. Dawdey, have been an active member of NAMI. In 2008, you accepted an award from Eli Lilly for your advocacy work as part of NAMI in the area of mental health (see http://www.heroesinthefight.org/Pages/past_heroes.aspx ) It came with a $500 check from Eli Lilly. There is a reference to it buried somewhere on your site, but now you come forward to attack NAMI for accepting funds from pharmaceutical companies, but you fail to mention your own conflicts of interest. I know you will say that you are pure of heart, and the award and honor from NAMI and Eli Lilly can not shake your objectivity in this matter, but that makes you no different than all the people you spend your days attacking, who in most cases are denied the chance to respond.

You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Philip Dawdy responds: you are wrong kyle. as i've explained here before, i've never been a member of nami. i sure as hell didn't get any money along with that award so your source is wrong or their imagination is awesome. the award was given to me by a local nami as recognition of my efforts in making the zyprexa scandal public. end of story.

NAMI: it's like letting the guards at Auschwitz run the local chapter of B'nai B'rith.

I have been an active member of NAMI, like I have said. Where do I line up for my pharma money?

I believe NAMI has a serious legitimacy issue growing right now. It is possible that they may eventually decide to get back to their roots, and that they may have to develop a no-pharma-money policy to 1. steer clear of the gradual, seductive influence, and 2. maintain the reputation they have garnered - because their reputation translates into influence.

NAMI is not a made-up group like "Women In Government," that happpened to pop up right when Merck wanted to market Gardasil to each state by exective mandate, and NAMI is not a made-up fake group like the "North American Menopause Society," developed to seem like some community advocates fighting hot flashes, but fully dreamed up and implemented by Wyeth to promote Prempro.

NAMI is the real deal. Peer-to-peer and Family-To-Family, and Journey of Hope are invaluable experiences that optimally would be readily availalbe to any comsumer or family member of consumer, and are optimal ways for learning how to manage the challenge of a mental illness (yes, I believe there is such a thing please criticize the ideas and don't throw more personal attacks and name-calling at me -- there are plenty of issues to debate without running out and having nothing left to argue but about whether I have any scrap of compassion or not, etc).

In short, NAMI does a lot of unselfish good. In recent years, Big Pharma may be trying to take them over as Big Pharma has done with the conferences, CEU, FDA, medical education, thought leaders, etc. NAMI best beware.

Guess Who wrote:
"I must disagree with you here most adamantly..."

You misunderstand me, I think: I'm embarassed, because there has been no follow up by the British establishment to the Committee's report; no official "WTF's going on, here?" Nothing. It's business as usual.

An American might think that Grassley's intervention is evidence of the efficiency of the democratic process, or something. And one might be right to think that. But don't take it for granted, because it seems we have no high-ranking politician in the UK who's unnerved by Pharma's influence, and is prepared to take the time to understand the process, and make a nuisance of themselves in a way that has any impact. It may be that Grassley's interest is limited to tax dollars - I wouldn't know... But don't take him and his team for granted, anyway, because what he's doing is highly unusual.

Matt

Philip - does your critic has you mixed up with NAMI's own McMan - but surely he did not sell out for a mere $5K and a trinket?....

Matthew - I thought your post was a fine example of ironic British
humour.

....When NAMI's rank and file how they have been duped, there is sure to be be a mighty reckoning.

TYPO correction
Philip - does your critic has you mixed up with NAMI's own McMan - but surely he did not sell out for a mere $5K and a trinket?....

Matthew - I thought your post was a fine example of ironic British
humour.

....When NAMI's rank and file realize how they have been duped, there is sure to be be a mighty reckoning.

MvT I usually find your views informed and unobjectionable, but NAMI is and always has been sworn enemies of people living with SPMI, aka their children. The 1990s "decade of the brain" thrust NAMI into the mainstream and opened the door to their current partnership with Big Pharma, which validates their original, unswerving and absolutely odious agenda which amounts to exoneration. Of themselves, as parents. NAMI is an advocacy group that advocates for parents, period.

Does anyone not get this? Start here:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/22/2

I get it about NAMI. But there wouldn't be a NAMI w/o the pharma money and when Pharm comes a'callin' NAMI is there to do their bidding.

Lotsa NAMI propoganda lying around at the FDA SEROQUEL Hearing today. But no NAMI public speakers and no NAMIs on the Advisory BD. as they had been OUTED for conflict of interest.

YAY

ANON.--what about Barbara Geller? she won an award from NAMI

Lilly wrote:
"Matthew - I thought your post was a fine example of ironic British humour."

Ironic? In what way? I don't tend to do "ironic," btw - the absurdity and contradictions in life tend to satirize themselves, I find.

Matt