Getting Deeper Into the Problem

Of the 170 contributors to the [then-]current version of the DSM (the DSM-IV-TR), almost all of whom would be described as KOLs, ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia."

This is a quote from a woman named Marcia Angell, who cites "Financial ties between DSM-IV panel members and the pharmaceutical industry" as her source. Upon examining the article, I must admit that I don't quite understand how they obtained their data and came to their conclusions. However, if the information is accurate, then there is cause for concern. This type of intimate, codependent link, which benefits both drug companies and the psychiatrists who prescribe those drugs, would also have the effects which I described in my last post; that is, the distortion of diagnostic criteria and thus the misdiagnosis (including over- and under-diagnosis) of certain disorders, based on what the book says. I can't make it clear enough that the book which decides all of these diagnoses is (allegedly) very closely tied in, financially, with the companies that stand to benefit the most from the application of these treatments.






This claim is supported by evidence that, as of 1994, the DSM-IV promoted criteria for ADHD which were expanded to include many more behavioral types than were formerly classified as pathological. This coincided with a notable increase in the estimated percentage of children with ADHD, as presented by the CDC in this infographic and article. The vertical axis of the infographic shows the estimated percentage of children with ADHD
(including any of the subtypes). In addition, the graphic shows a timeline of the release of medications to treat this disorder--approximately 61% of which were released in the 1990s and 2000s, with the other 39% having been released between the '30s and the '80s.






From my point of view, having been through the mill of ADHD diagnosis and treatment myself, this appears to be convincing, non-anecdotal evidence that the ties between the DSM and the pharmaceutical companies are becoming geared towards selling medication, rather than towards the best interests of the patients.



Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda

Financial Ties Between Pharmaceutical Companies and DSM Panelists

The DSM, or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is basically the Holy Bible of psychiatry. It contains all the diagnoses which are considered scientifically valid at this time, and the criteria for making such diagnoses. But there's a problem. The panelists for the DSM-IV, the fourth edition of this manual, were the ones who decided which diagnoses were made (during the "reign" of the DSM-IV, before the DSM-V came out), and by which criteria. This would be fine, except that it has been demonstrated that many of these panelists are financially tied to pharmaceutical companies and, as such, have a vested interest in the sales of pharmaceuticals. This conflict of interest is of concern, as it could lead to distorted criteria for diagnosis, leaving mentally healthy people to be treated with drugs they don't need, and mentally ill people to be treated with the incorrect medication or combination of medications.

http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/DSM%20COI.PDF