© Zurijeta/Shutterstock.com
Young children were once expected to outgrow their issues; now they're diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems.Where do parents and teachers get the idea there's something wrong with kids that only an expensive drug can fix? From Big Pharma's seamless web of ads, subsidized doctors, journals, medical courses and conferences, paid "patient" groups, phony public services messages and reporters willing to serve as stenographers.
Free stenography for Pharma from sympathetic media includes articles like "One in 40 Infants Experience Baby Blues, Doctors Say," on
ABC News and "Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children," on
Science Daily.
For many, the face of the drugs-not-hugs message is Harold Koplewicz, author of the pop bestseller
It's Nobody's Fault, and former head of NYU's prestigious Child Study Center. In a 1999
Salon article, Koplewicz reiterated his "no-fault" statement, assuring parents that psychiatric illness is not caused by bad parenting. "It is not that your mother got divorced, or that your father didn't wipe you the right way," he said. "It really is DNA roulette: You got blue eyes, blond hair, sometimes a musical ear, but sometimes you get the predisposition for depression."
Many regard the NYU Child Study Center, which Koplewicz founded and led before leaving in 2009 to start his own facility, as helping to usher in the world of brave new pediatric medicine in which children, toddlers and infants, once expected to outgrow their problems, are now diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems. The Child Study Center is "a threat to the health and welfare of children," and its doctors are "hustlers working to increase their 'client' population and their commercial value to psychotropic drug manufacturers," charged
Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog group, Alliance for Human Research Protection.
A look at the center's
stated mission provides no reassurance. Its goal of "eliminating the stigma of being or having a child with a psychiatric disorder," and "influencing child-related public policy," sounds a lot like a Pharma sales plan. And its boast about having "a structure that allows recruitment of patients for research studies and then provides 'real-world' testing for successful controlled-environment findings," could send chills down the backs of parents afraid their kids will be guinea pigs or money-making subjects.
In 2007, the fears of the Child Study Center's skeptics were confirmed when it launched an aggressive, scare tactic marketing campaign called Ransom Notes in 2007. "We have your son," said
one ad, created with bits of disparate type like a ransom note from a kidnapper. "We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning...Autism."
"We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It's only going to get worse," said another ad signed "Bulimia."
"We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay," said another add from "ADHD." Other ransom ads came from kidnappers named Depression, Asperger's Syndrome and OCD.
Created pro bono by advertising giant BBDO, the ads were planned to run in
New York magazine,
Newsweek,
Parents,
Education Update,
Mental Health News and other publications and on 11 billboards and 200 kiosks, according to the
press release.
Immediate OutrageThe hostage campaign drew immediate public outrage and more than a dozen advocacy groups joined together in an online petition calling for an end to it. "This is a demonstration of the assaultive tactics used by psychiatry today - in particular, academic psychiatrists and university-based medical centers that are under the influence of their pharmaceutical partners," Vera Sharav wrote in alerts to AHRP's mailing list. "If Dr. Koplewicz et al. are not stopped, the campaign will be hitting the rest of the country," she warned, and informed readers that the campaign was formulated by BBDO, "a major direct to consumer prescription drug advertising firm," asking the New York State Attorney General's office to investigate.
Days after the backlash, the center revoked the advertising campaign "after the effort drew a strongly negative reaction,"
reported the
New York Times. Koplewicz told the
Times the decision was made by the center with no pressure from New York University and they planned to introduce a new campaign in the next three months. However, he left the Child Study Center at NYU in 2009 to start his own facility, initially called the Child Study Center Foundation, but changed to the Child Mind Institute, in 2010.
There was more controversy when Koplewicz left the center. When he announced his resignation, New York University "forbade him from entering his office and it pushed out professors who had said they wanted to join him at Child Mind Institute," reported the
New York Times. Twelve NYU professors nevertheless followed Koplewicz to the Child Mind Institute as well as most of the Child Study Center's influential board of directors, which included Garber Neidich, a chairwoman at the Whitney Museum, the founders of the Tribeca Film Festival founders and some well known financiers. The toxic send-off was followed by the New York State Office of Mental Health firing
Koplewicz from his job of nearly four years as director of the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, an affiliate of NYU School of Medicine.
Though Koplewicz' Child Mind Institute is supposedly a non-profit, it is ensconced on Park Avenue in Manhattan and Koplewicz' hourly rate "can be as high as $1,000 (three to four times that of the average Manhattan therapist)," says the
Times. In a chilling interview on
Education Update Online, Koplewicz says the reason his institute works closely with schools "is simply that's where the kids are" (bringing to mind Willy Sutton, who robbed banks because "that's where the money is").
Last month in the
Wall Street Journal, Koplewicz wrote that "no studies have examined the effect of long-term use" of ADHD meds, but they "have been in use for 70 years, and there is no evidence that suggests any adverse effects." But there has been a large federal study of the long-term effects of the drugs and it shows they are "ineffective over longer periods," and "that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children's growth," reported the
Washington Post. Oops.
Other Pediatric Drug ProponentsOnly one child in 10,000 has pediatric schizophrenia--some say one in 30,000--but for Pharma it is an untapped market. Symptoms of childhood schizophrenia include "social deficits" and "delusions...related to childhood themes," writes Gabriele Masi, in an article titled "Children with Schizophrenia: Clinical Picture and Pharmacological Treatment," in the journal
CNS Drugs. What child doesn't have "social deficits" and "delusions" like imaginary playmates?
Masi has received research funding from Eli Lilly, served as an adviser to the drug company Shire, and been on speakers bureaus for Sanofi Aventis, AstraZeneca, GSK and Janssen, according to the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Joining Masi in pursuing pediatric pathology is Joan L. Luby, director of the Early Emotional Development Program at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. In an article in the
Archives of General Psychiatry, she alerts the world to the problem of "
preschool depression." Researchers used to believe that "young children were too cognitively and emotionally immature to experience depressive effects," says the paper, which was widely picked up the mainstream press, but they now believe preschoolers can and do suffer from major depressive disorder (MDD). "The potential public health importance of identification of preschool MDD is underscored by the established unique efficacy of early intervention during the preschool period,"
says the article. Translation:
Big Pharma can clean up if kids are diagnosed young.
Luby "has received grant/research support from Janssen, has given occasional talks sponsored by AstraZeneca, and has served as a consultant for Shire Pharmaceutical,"
according to a journal article she co-wrote.
Then there is Mani Pavuluri, a doctor who finds deficiencies of mania and bipolar drugs in tots. "Pediatric bipolar disorder (PBD) is complex illness with a chronic course, requiring multiple medications over the longitudinal course of illness, with limited recovery and high relapse rate," she wrote in the journal
Minerva Pediatrica last year.
Pavuluri receives research dollars from GlaxoSmithKline as well as from the National Institutes of Health, aka our tax dollars, according to the
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Two features that characterize the pediatric medicine practiced by the NYU Child Study Center, Koplewicz, Mani, Luby and Pavuluri are they term the "diseases" they identify under treated and under diagnosed and they urge early treatment when symptoms first appear. (Before the symptoms go away on their own?)
Yet the very fact that such diseases are lifelong conditions is reason to wait to medicate, said Mark Zimmerman, director of outpatient psychiatry at Rhode Island Hospital at the 2010 American Psychiatric Association
annual meeting in New Orleans.
Nor can parents with medicated children know if their kids even needed the drugs, since symptoms from the drugs are often called the "disease," says Peter Breggin in a
recent interview.
One thing doctors on both sides of the pediatric drug controversy agree on is that the decision to put a child on drugs will likely sentence him or her to a lifetime of medications. What they disagree about is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
About the authorsEvelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist and a columnist for Independent Media TV.
Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (
Prometheus Books).
A lot of what Koplewicz says publicly about helping children plays well in the media, but is what this guy says really objective or merely masking his own personal agenda in promoting himself and psychotropic drugs for children??
Check out the Wikipedia article on (Harold S. Koplewicz) which provides the citation references for the information below). Here are just a few examples about the Koplewicz that pose questions of integrity / conflicts of interest:
- As noted by others, Koplewicz co-authored the widely discredited trial study report (Study 329) of the psychotropic antidepressant drug Paxil in 2001 that was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and used to market the drug to children as safe and effective. The U.S. Department of Justice (and other state governments) sued GSK for fraud and for using unsound scientific trial results (Koplewicz's report). To this and other charges, Koplewicz responded by dismissing critics and investigators as "ridiculous" "conspiracy theorists" who impugn the integrity of doctors and a respected industry. (See his Huffington Post blog about Dr. Marcia Angell).
However, after years of investigation and court evidence by the U.S. Government, and even as Koplewicz attempts to silence his detractors with derision and ridicule, in 2012 his report's sponsor GSK settled with the US DOJ for a record $3 billion (plus millions more for other cases).
- He has a equity interest in and is a paid chairman of a pharmaceutical/medical device company (Delcath Sys) and has a similar arrangement as a director of another medical tech company (Biosigns Tech).
- For the past 12 years he has managed (for compensation, assumingly) a "peer-reviewed" psychopharmocology journal owned and published by Mary Ann Liebert, a for-profit entity that invests in bio-chem technologies/research publishing. A quick look shows that Koplewicz's journal tends to feature articles written by himself and his friends who have the same real or potential conflicts of interests. New definition of "peer-reviewed"?
- In 2009 he started and is president of a for-profit clinic (Child Mind Medical Practice PLLC) that specializes in and advocates the controversial practice of widely using psychotropic/psychoactive drugs as the primary means of treating children. He has ownership interest and a salary as president, and charges up to $1000/hour for talking with children and/or parents (NYT 2011). The Child Mind Institute/Foundation (from which he collects yet another salary) and its programs to "help children" serve also as PR covers for fundraising and for Koplewicz and for feeding clients to his medical practice.
The non-profit foundation raises money from well-intended donors to "help the children" with "financial aid" and then uses much of that money to pay the portions of the large fees (much higher than industry standard) that Koplewicz and his for-profit clinic charge that can't be afforded by some children's parents. In other words, for 20% or so of clients, Koplewicz charges as much as the clients can afford, and then has donors (who probably think they are donating to some noble cause of research for children) pay him the rest. To the public this questionable financial conflict of interest is obfuscated in vague financials and accounting sleights-of-hand. CMI ambiguously combines the financials of the for-profit and non-profit in a combined annual report, and refuses to publicly provide any credible accounting of how they actually spend the money they raise from gullible donors, nor do they provide any surveys or analysis of how their programs have actually performed or whom they have actually helped. If you strip away all the marketing hype (“Dr. K saved my children...” [paraphased quote of Marc Bell, the owner of Penthouse Magazine and one of Kople investors]) on what basis can one discern what real and quantifiable impact his programs have actually had?
Interestingly, literally millions of dollars that they raise in donations each year ("to help the children", of course) are used just to pay the rent of their 24,000 sqft space on Manhattan's Park Avenue (this little fact seems to be left out of the promo/fundraising material and replaced with photos of smiling children and of Koplewicz appearing with famous celebrities and socialites). Note: avg office space on Park Ave is est. at $79/sq foot per month (according to Morningstar Credit Agency) and is among the most expensive in the world. Hmm….
- A background check showed that he had his own PR Assistant Brittney Green at NYU's Child Mind Center and his CMI "Public Education Manager" Caroline Axelrod write flattering articles (e.g., his "vision", brilliant leadership, transforming lives…) about him in Wikipedia (and of course there was no disclosure of this conflict of interest). Look for yourself where the original articles on "Harold S. Koplewicz", "NYU Child Study Center", etc, were written by his PR staff.
- He unfailing has himself introduced or referred to as a "leading doctor" (check on how he nearly always refers to himself on Twitter, Facebook, his articles, interviews, etc...) and that he's been written up in the New York magazine (NYM) as one of New York's "Best Doctors". Somehow he fails to mention that the list actually includes nearly 1,200 NY doctors or of his connection with Caroline Miller, editor-in-chief of NYM for eight years, who actually works for Koplewicz and is the creator/manager of his CMI website -- no conflict of interest there! Also, along with the NYM mention, Koplewicz and his followers/acolytes rarely fail to tout that he has been recognized by the "Best Doctors" in America website, but somehow fail to mention that this list is actually comprised of the top 47,000 doctors in the U.S., which is hardly the pinnacle of success Koplewicz insinuates.
- When you investigate press coverage of Koplewicz and CMI, you begin to wonder just how many "journalists" like Ingrid Wickelgren of the "Scientific American" Koplewicz has recruited and cultivated to shill for him and his ventures. Google-search ("child mind institute", "ingrid wickelgren") and see for yourself how many articles and blog pieces in different media outlets she churns out, extolling the endless virtues of Koplewicz and his CMI venture… Maybe I didn't dig deep enough, but it wasn't obvious to me that any serious journalism or critical thinking was present. Furthermore, do a Google search on "Harold Koplewicz" and you will literally see thousands of references to him that repeat virtually verbatim the same flattering puff pieces that originally came from Koplewicz himself and his PR people. Can we believe anything we read?
Try finding independent and primary source verification of other roles he purports to have played (other than the endless copy-pasting of the personal profile that started making the Internet rounds when he was at NYU) and you will probably face the same difficulty I did. If we sneak a peek behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain, what else will we find that is illusory, inflated or falsely attributed credit that belongs to others?
Conclusion - I personally have never met the guy, so, after seeing him in the media, reading his articles and those about him and getting second and third hand accounts from people who knew him from the past, I end up wondering who the real Harold Koplewicz is and what part of what he says I should believe...