Comments on: Interview with Professor David Jentsch about Not Taking Drug Company Money http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/ Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:18:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: » Email to Ringach: I know you torture monkeys… maybe for $1.3 million? NEGOTIATION IS OVER! http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-384088 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:04:55 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-384088 [...] 2) According to the database maintained by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, from over 1,100 NIH grants  to UCLA in 2009, you received two awards totaling an astounding $1,353,270. Although their  site is updated weekly, “it does not yet include contracts.”  So please feel free to revise this number.  By the way, would you care to share exactly how much pharma paid you last year and exactly for what?  (Jentsch has already admitted that this is part of the arrangement.) [...] […] 2) According to the database maintained by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, from over 1,100 NIH grants  to UCLA in 2009, you received two awards totaling an astounding $1,353,270. Although their  site is updated weekly, “it does not yet include contracts.”  So please feel free to revise this number.  By the way, would you care to share exactly how much pharma paid you last year and exactly for what?  (Jentsch has already admitted that this is part of the arrangement.) […]

]]> by: » J. David Jentsch: Received MINIMALLY $673,438 in 2008 to Mutilate His Victims NEGOTIATION IS OVER! http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-361525 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:16:09 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-361525 [...] [iv] Interview with Professor David Jentsch about not taking drug company money (http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/) [...] […] [iv] Interview with Professor David Jentsch about not taking drug company money (http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/) […]

]]> by: MT http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-354604 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:30:13 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-354604 From a WHO study entitled "Schizophrenia and public health," published in 1998 and available here: http://www.who.int/entity/mental_health/media/en/55.pdf "A substantial body of evidence shows a more benign course and better outcome in developing countries." "The factors that underlie higher improvement rates in developing countries, however, remain ill-defined..." I just found this as an example citation -- I originally read of the phenomenon in the book "Unsafe at any dose" by Bob Johnson, a UK psychiatrist who worked with imprisoned violent offenders and managed (according to his self-reported data) to dramatically reduce violent incidents and also lower psychopharmaceutical drug use in the most violent prison population in the UK. He claims to be able to get these results using talk therapy, and further that the various psychopharmaceuticals judiciously prescribed do more harm than good. Johnson attributes the difference in outcomes for schizophrenics between the two regions to be due to the prescribing of drugs studied for acute treatment of psychosis on a chronic basis. As we have such a strong pro-pill culture, and belief in the superiority of Western medicine, I doubt his theory will be tested any time soon. It would threaten too many shibboleths in the psychiatric community. I wish Gary Taubes would do his next book on psychopharmaceuticals! From a WHO study entitled “Schizophrenia and public health,” published in 1998 and available here: http://www.who.int/entity/mental_health/media/en/55.pdf

“A substantial body of evidence shows a more benign course and better outcome in developing countries.” “The factors that underlie higher improvement rates in developing countries, however, remain ill-defined…”

I just found this as an example citation — I originally read of the phenomenon in the book “Unsafe at any dose” by Bob Johnson, a UK psychiatrist who worked with imprisoned violent offenders and managed (according to his self-reported data) to dramatically reduce violent incidents and also lower psychopharmaceutical drug use in the most violent prison population in the UK. He claims to be able to get these results using talk therapy, and further that the various psychopharmaceuticals judiciously prescribed do more harm than good.

Johnson attributes the difference in outcomes for schizophrenics between the two regions to be due to the prescribing of drugs studied for acute treatment of psychosis on a chronic basis. As we have such a strong pro-pill culture, and belief in the superiority of Western medicine, I doubt his theory will be tested any time soon. It would threaten too many shibboleths in the psychiatric community.

I wish Gary Taubes would do his next book on psychopharmaceuticals!

]]> by: seth http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-354096 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:34:27 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-354096 MT, that's really interesting about better outcomes for schizophrenics in poorer countries. Can you provide a link or something? MT, that’s really interesting about better outcomes for schizophrenics in poorer countries. Can you provide a link or something?

]]> by: MT http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-353974 Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:35:10 +0000 http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2009/10/21/interview-with-professor-david-jentsch-about-not-taking-drug-company-money/#comment-353974 While Dr. Jentsch sounds like he is approaching the issue with integrity, I think his concerns that he will not be able to pursue a novel treatment strategy due to his stand are dwarfed by the general misallocation of funds toward psychopharmacological interventions generally. The only reason research has been driven in this direction is because of the combination of a patent system and a corporate-driven research sector. If it weren't for these factors we would be looking for solutions to mental health problems in environmental considerations -- but there is no money in these areas, because they can't be patented. The current system is not supporting public health unfortunately. The meta-analysis of SSRIs by Irvine Kirsch at Hull showing them largely indistinguishable from placebo is one example of the collossal waste of psychopharmacology, the worse outcomes for schizophrenics in developed countries (drug-intensive) versus developing countries (often drug-free) is another. If society were run on cost-benefit analysis we would have pulled the plug on most psychopharmacological research a couple decades ago. Unfortunately, there are multiple agency and moral hazard problems in public and private institutions that perpetuate this wasteful research. It isn't 100% bad -- maybe 97%. Consistent with themes from this blog, for instance, consider the Barker Hypothesis regarding the role of in-utero nutrition in health problems. If you could patent healthy fetal development, we would be far closer to solving problems related to health and mental health. While Dr. Jentsch sounds like he is approaching the issue with integrity, I think his concerns that he will not be able to pursue a novel treatment strategy due to his stand are dwarfed by the general misallocation of funds toward psychopharmacological interventions generally. The only reason research has been driven in this direction is because of the combination of a patent system and a corporate-driven research sector. If it weren’t for these factors we would be looking for solutions to mental health problems in environmental considerations — but there is no money in these areas, because they can’t be patented. The current system is not supporting public health unfortunately.

The meta-analysis of SSRIs by Irvine Kirsch at Hull showing them largely indistinguishable from placebo is one example of the collossal waste of psychopharmacology, the worse outcomes for schizophrenics in developed countries (drug-intensive) versus developing countries (often drug-free) is another. If society were run on cost-benefit analysis we would have pulled the plug on most psychopharmacological research a couple decades ago. Unfortunately, there are multiple agency and moral hazard problems in public and private institutions that perpetuate this wasteful research. It isn’t 100% bad — maybe 97%.

Consistent with themes from this blog, for instance, consider the Barker Hypothesis regarding the role of in-utero nutrition in health problems. If you could patent healthy fetal development, we would be far closer to solving problems related to health and mental health.

]]>