Part 1 on Free Yourself from the Medical Industry: Big Pharma Controls the Medical Industry
At the time I decided to go to college to be a psychologist I still believed in the “system”; however, I have since learned that the medical industry is owned by big pharma who only cares about money. A huge clue for me was the research material or scholarly viewed articles that are available in the school library because the material usually supported big pharma; however, gems of knowledge can be gleaned out with careful searching. Another clue was that my classmates did not like my controversial posts that point out alternatives to pushing pills. Although I finished all of my classes for a bachelors in psychology, I still had not really learned anything about helping people, but I did find out that a bachelors in psychology does not give me any specific job qualification. It seems like passing on knowledge to others, freely, is a goode way to help society so that is what I do now in my blog. Reading studies, lobbying, more big pharma control methods, as well as the history of ADHD and DSM insurance codes will be presented in this article.
Reading Studies
Studies are coded and may be difficult to read; however, the results can usually be easily found. Google Scholar lists studies and will show the abstract of the study on the first page, we can read the abstract that usually has the conclusion at the bottom. It is not that hard to do our own research to be sure that we keep our doctors in line by investing knowledge into our own health. Of course, a dictionary can be used for words we don’t know. Bear in mind that not all studies are accurate so we must use common sense and life experience in discerning them. For instance, a scholarly viewed study that debunks what is normally taught is like knowledge gold. Next, more on studies will be presented.
Studies May be Biased
A source from Capella University admits the dilemma associated with biased studies. Fiore (2014) states that “the evidence is persuasive that investigators with financial ties to companies whose products they are studying are much more likely to publish studies favorable to those products (Bodenheimer 2000). Ideally, investigators should be paid on the basis of time and effort, not the outcome of trials. There is a fairly broad consensus in favor of prohibiting academic researchers and their families from having financial interests in companies sponsoring their research, in companies that manufacture a product or device being tested, and in companies that manufacture competing products. The difficulty is that the current regulatory approach that relies on individual research institutions to assure that conflicts of interest are managed cannot ensure a level playing field, that is, that policies are consistent across institutions. Without binding regulations or voluntary agreements, institutions fear that they risk losing investigators to institutions with more lenient policies” (para.60). Weird that they know this and people are still treated with radiation and chemo therapy when cancer has many cures that are not properly tested, as well as many other things that are just wrong in the medical field. Lobbying will be discussed next.
Lobbying
Lobbying is the process in which big pharma uses the money they make from sick people to influence politicians to make policies that benefit big pharma. Isn’t bribery supposed to be illegal? Some sources from inside the college will exposed now. Steinbrook (2008) reports that although there are regulations about private campaign donations, “the health care industry spends substantially more money for purposes for which federal law does not restrict its spending, such as to finance the host committees at the Democratic and Republican national conventions and to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Although the conventions receive public funds, their host committees receive tens of millions of dollars in soft-money donations, primarily from large corporations and lobbying firms. In 2008, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) as well as individual drug and medical-device companies were among the sponsors of the host committees at both national conventions and organized numerous convention-related events” (para.9). “Since 2006, the health sector has spent more money on lobbying than any other sector of the economy (see Figure above). Updated statistics for 2006 show that the health sector spent $379.8 million to lobby the federal government” (Steinbrook, 2008, para.10). Reardon (2014) admits that the NIH (National Institute of Health)’s budget is more dependent on lobbying than is realized. No big surprise on this, but does it get even worse?
Lobbying Against Alternative Medicine
Stone (1997) reports that “some big guns… are taking aim at the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), home of far-out ideas on medical therapy at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)” (para.1). The opponents to alternative medicine claim that “nothing coming from OAM indicates that it is conducting or planning any studies that would put any alternative treatments to la] scientific test" (para.4) and that "nothing coming from OAM indicates that it is conducting or planning any studies that would put any alternative treatments to la] scientific test” (para.2)" (Stone, 1997). Marijuana is just one alternative treatment that is helping many people without scientific studies so I theorize that the opponents of alternative medicine are afraid of losing patients and money. In other words, big pharma loses a lot of money if people revert back to curing themselves with natural medicines. Next, other methods that big pharma uses to control the medical industry will be discussed.
More big pharma Control Methods
Lobbying keeps politicians active in policy making for big pharma, and it has infiltrated the medical system in other manners. Politicians have successfully corrupted the FDA for big pharma, and medical schools are controlled with endowments and plush jobs for administrations and such that teach doctors what big pharma wants them to know (Dowdell, 2004). Dowdell (2004) provides some easy to copy examples: “maintaining a medical license requires continuing education, so Big Pharma provides it–in exotic, luxurious locations. Taught by prestigious names in the medical field–bought and paid for by Big Pharma, of course–who repeat the pro-Big Pharma lessons of med school. All at no cost to the cosseted, fawned-upon doctors who lap it up…Big Pharma has armies of sales reps–called by many high-sounding titles. Heaven forfend they carry the crass sounding “sales” as part of their moniker. They provide a constant presence in doctors’ offices–to cement the med school mantra: ‘Big Pharma is your friend.’
They deliver lunch for the doctor, at no cost, of course. Leave behind pens, pencils, prescription pads, laptop computers, office software systems, sample drugs and on and on. Anything to keep the gravy train going. A doctor committed to Big Pharma can’t also be committed to you” (paras. 11-13). Very well written by Bette Dowdell. More of her excellent words will be presented next.
“One push for Big Pharma nowadays is stacking State Medical Boards with their bought-and-paid-for hacks so doctors have no choice but to do Big Pharma’s bidding. At least, not if they want to keep their medical license. Another goal is working with the World Health Organization to make it illegal around the world to buy natural remedies–vitamins, minerals, etc. With alternative medicine growing by leaps and bounds as people fed up with the nostrums of standard medicine join its ranks, Big Pharma plans to destroy the whole shebang. We are in a war. Not of our choosing, to be sure, but a war none-the-less. Don’t lose by default. Make some noise. Give money. Whatever it takes. The life you save may be your own” (Dowdell, 2011, paras. 17 - 21). You may save the life of your loved one as well by educating yourself concerning your health. The final section will use the history of ADHD as an example to explain the manner in which insurance codes affect whether or not a “disease” is diagnosed.
The History of ADHD and DSM Insurance Codes
My blog, “The Consequences of Ritalin”, has already debunked the dilemma of the ADHD diagnosis and millions of kids who are unnecessarily medicated; this section will be reused to explain how the DSMV numbers are important to medicine. According to Holland and Higuera (2015) Sir George Still, a British pediatrician, first mentioned ADHD in 1902 when he noted “an abnormal defect of moral control in children” who were intelligent yet unable to control their behavior (para.2). In 1936 Benzedrine was approved as a medicine by the FDA and the next year Dr. Charles Bradley noticed that school performance and behavior improved among his young patients when given the psychostimulant (Holland and Higuera, 2015). Bradley’s findings were ignored until many years later when researchers and doctors recognized the “benefits” of giving children pharmaceutical speed (Holland and Higuera, 2015). It seems that this diagnosis or its treatment was not embraced by the scientific community at its onset. The next paragraph will present this author’s interpretation of historical trends related to the DSM and the skyrocketing cases of ADHD.
DSM
It appears that the DSM’s acceptance of early work in ADHD led to this diagnosis flourishing in America. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was first issued in 1952 to list mental disorders that were recognized along with causes and treatments for conditions, and it did not include any disorders related to ADHD which may be why the disease was basically unknown at this time (Holland and Higuera, 2015). The year 1955 saw Ritalin® approved as a medicine by the FDA, and in 1968 the second DSM was published with hyperkinetic impulse disorder, an early name for ADHD, included in it (Holland and Higuera, 2015). In 1980 the release of the DSM-III saw the original name changed to attention deficit disorder (ADD) to include those do not possess all of the symptoms of the original diagnosis and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) to create two subtypes of the disorder (Holland and Higuera, 2015). The revised DSM-III that was released in 1987 removed the subtypes of ADHD, and in 2000 the DSM-IV was published with three subtypes of ADHD that are used today (Holland and Higuera, 2015). Holland and Higuera (2015) report that a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis began in the 1990’s; this author feels that this climb is related to DSM’s classification of ADHD. Please recall that ADHD cases increased around 41% from 2003 to 2011 to reflect a large increase in cases (Story, et.al., 2016). The documentary Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging (2012) explains that the DSM has codes in it that are used by doctors to collect money from insurance companies so that any disorder that is not listed in the DSM is not covered by insurance. Observations seem to reflect that it is possible that the societal problem of ADHD and MPH may be related to the DSM classifying ADHD with an insurance code. Other trends in psychology are related because psychopharmacology appears to be taking over the field of psychology since the development of psychotropic medication and the establishment of the DSM. In other words, they can label a wide array of “symptoms” or traits as a “disease” with the number so that they can collect money. What child isn’t hyperactive?
Reading studies, lobbying, more big pharma control methods, as well as the history of ADHD and DSM insurance codes have been presented in this article. My hopes are to help people understand that the medical industry is so corrupt that we need to take our health and the health of our loved ones into our own hands.
References
Dowdell, Bette. (11 October, 2011). How Big Pharma Controls Medicine. Healthier Talk.
Retrieved from https://healthiertalk.com/how-big-pharma-controls-medicine-4824/
Fiore, Robin N.. Ph.D. (15 Dec,2014). Conflicts of Interest in Research Involving Human
Subjects. CITI Program. Retrieved from
https://www.citiprogram.org/members/index.cfm?pageID=125
Holland, KImberly and Higuera, Valencia. (26 February, 2015). The History of ADHD: A
Timeline. Health Line. Retrieved from
http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/history#Overview1
Of Interest. (23 Dec, 2012). Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging – Full
Movie (Documentary). Of Interest. Retrieved from
Reardon, S. (2014). Lobbying sways NIH grants. Nature, 515(7525), 19. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/.../162775...
Steinbrook, R., M.D. (2008). Campaign contributions, lobbying, and the U.S. health sector – an
update. The New England Journal of Medicine, 359(13), 1313-5.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.1056/NEJMp0807073 Retrieved from
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0807073?query=TOC&
Stone, R. (1997). Lobbying blitz attacks alternative medicine. Science, 277(5323), 169.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/.../213579...
Story, Colleen M.; Gotter, Ana; and Goldman, Rena. (31 August, 2016). 6 Natural Remedies for
ADHD. Health Line. Retrieved from
http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/natural-remedies…