Grief to be labeled as mental disorder

iamica wrote:

Screw these people. They won't be satisfied until everyone is medicated all the time. :x

SweetChildofMine wrote:

iamica wrote:

Screw these people. They won't be satisfied until everyone is medicated all the time. :x

I agree. Some people are truly mentally ill but most likely from their environment/experience of violence. Child abuse, rape, war... etc. These are the problems people should be worried about. These will screw up your mind for a lifetime. We live in "f'd" world. Nobody wants to help those who go unheard or if are heard dont have a way of fixing it. Our minds are constantly bombarded by this pollution. From my point of view of interconnectedness of people, well then, guess the rest.

But no instead give them a pill make it go away.

I would suggest people read Indigo Children. Makes some valid points. Anyway.

pandora wrote:

True sign of the pharmaceutical companies running our medical profession

Docs take control and do what is right for the human body ... you took an oath!

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

grief is a physiological process that impairs proper brain function and gets things like serotonin and dopamine levels all out of whack. why would it not be considered a disorder if tthere is an imbalance or if things are not functioning properly? there are medications that correct these levels of serotonin and dopamine and they can be very effective. changing those levels is a time consuming process and does not happen after a week of taking medication. that is why people are on antidepressants for up to a year sometimes.

pandora wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

pandora wrote:

True sign of the pharmaceutical companies running our medical profession

Docs take control and do what is right for the human body ... you took an oath!

What sign says that? Again, maybe I'm out of the loop, but does someone have evidence that drug companies and the DSM writers are in cahoots, and revising the DSM to increase drug sales?

Evidence that Doctors get kick backs to supplement their income from drug companies?

Is your doctor receiving pharmaceutical kickbacks?

Clark has been through a recent cycle with a sinus infection that started with as his usual seasonal allergies. The cost is always an unknown when his allergist writes any kind of prescription for him. In this case, she prescribed both an antibiotic and a nasal spray.

Well, it turned out that 10 days of antibiotics was $2.05. It was the cheapest script the consumer champ has ever had from any doctor at any time. On the other hand, the nasal spray was $90! He simply had to swallow hard and open his wallet.

Now, there are doctors who will write scripts in good faith without knowing the end cost to the patient. And then there are doctors who are on the payroll of giant pharmaceutical companies and push drugs irrespective of cost because it pads their pockets.

In fact, nearly 400 doctors across the country have received at least $100,000 from drug companies in 2009 and early 2010, according to an independent news organization called ProPublica.

If a doctor is getting a hundred grand or more each year from certain drug makers, what do you think they're going to write when you come in? A $4 generic script from Wal-Mart or Target? No, they're going write the brand name that gives them kickbacks.

Want to know if your doctor is on the take? Run their name and state through the Dollars for Docs page.

One Nevada doctor received more than $300,000 from drug companies. California has the most doctors (3,000) who are on the take. Perhaps there might be some legitimate reason why doctors would receive Big Pharma money, but Clark's not aware of one.

Jeanwah wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

My question is about the writers of the DSM being swayed by drug companies.

Are they? Because that's what the public generally thinks of when they read articles like the one in the OP or the video I posted.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am not saying that drug reps had an impact of the decisions the docs i work with made, but they have stuck with things that they know works for their paitients and are very reluctant to try new meds or products until they read more studies on them.

pandora wrote:

I guess laws are meant to be broken ...

Kickbacks to Providers from Pharmaceutical Companies Still Going Strong
by NOLAN AND AUERBACH on NOVEMBER 18, 2011
Kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies cloud the medical judgment of health care providers and run afoul of federal and state anti-kickback laws. Most prominently, the federal Anti-kickback Act (AKS) was specifically designed to ensure that physicians prescribe drugs based on patient need, not personal greed.

In recent years, however, pharma companies have become increasingly clever in disguising illegal kickbacks. Most prominent are massive speaker bureaus, speaker programs, and advisory boards, all in an attempt to disguise excessive payments as fees for “speaking engagements,” “consulting services” or “training sessions.” Typically, instead of recruiting speakers and consultants based on their experience or credentials, dishonest companies will target physicians based on their potential prescription-writing volume. Furthermore, once physicians are accepted into their programs, the companies will unofficially require speakers to meet minimum prescription levels. Payment for “Research” and the collection of data are other techniques still used by wayward pharmaceutical companies.

The AKA is violated when a person or entity makes or accepts payment for referring, recommending or arranging for federally-funded medical items or services, including items or services provided under the Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE programs. Violations of the AKA are per se violations of the federal False Claims Act, the government’s primary pharmaceutical fraud-fighting weapon.

Pharmaceutical companies conduct extensive return-on-investment analysis in devising and implementing sophisticated marketing schemes and programs. Dishonest pharmaceutical companies will skirt the AKA, knowing their bribes will influence prescribing habits and, in turn, result in the provision of goods and services that are more expensive and/or medically unnecessary or even harmful to a vulnerable patient population. Over the last fifteen years, dozens of pharmaceutical companies have shelled out multimillion dollar settlement checks to quiet allegations that they showered doctors with illegal kickbacks. Up to several years ago many kickbacks were blatant bribes, including outright “grants,” tickets to sporting events, and other gifts and benefits.

Most illegal kickbacks to doctors are thinly-veiled incentives for off-label prescriptions, for uses that do not work. These business practices cause federal and state government health care programs to pay millions of dollars for prescriptions which are ineligible for payment. Notably, while a physician may prescribe a drug off-label, the law prohibits the provider from inking a kickback-tainted prescription for a Government Health Care Program beneficiary.

The government simply doesn’t have the resources to unravel these schemes, unless pharmaceutical employees and health care providers courageously provide the necessary inside information. For those who do take this stand, the rewards are potentially worth millions.

For more information about qui tam law and pharmaceutical fraud, contact Nolan and Auerbach, P.A.