Shrink's drug research questioned

Every few months, a new story emerges about how some psychiatrist who praises a drug turns out to have been paid by the drug maker. And oops, they did it again!

Every time a new psychiatric drug comes out, apologists for it always talk about how much better it is than those bad drugs of old. Twenty years ago, for instance, Trilafon (perphenazine) was hailed as a great advancement over earlier poisons (despite its permanent side effects).

Later, newer drugs were praised as improvements over Trilafon: "Trilafon? Oh, we don't use that anymore. The new drugs aren't like that."

This is an important issue because of the rise of coerced druggings of Americans - especially children.

Now Dr. S. Charles Schulz of the University of Minnesota is under scrutiny because of his research on Seroquel. An internal study by Seroquel maker AstraZeneca found that this drug is no better than dangerous older drugs. But this report wasn't made public.

However, Schulz reported publicly that Seroquel is actually much better.

Why did Schulz's public report contradict private findings?

Gee, I don't know. But it turns out that over a span of about 5 years, Schulz received $112,000 in consulting fees and university grants from AstraZeneca.

AAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!

Schulz also received almost $450,000 from Eli Lilly & Co. So if Schulz has given high marks to Lilly drugs too, that should also be questioned. Since then, however, Schulz has decided to stop accepting lecture fees from drug companies, because of the perception of bias.

The drug industry has long been hiding negative research, and researchers have long been accepting drug racket money while putting out positive but false data about drugs.

While Schulz was praising Seroquel, another study showed that Seroquel and 3 other newer drugs were no better than the awful Trilafon.

Seroquel sales have since tapered off after it was found to cause diabetes.

This story follows last year's report in the New England Journal of Medicine that exposed the fact that drug research that yields positive results is almost always published, while negative studies are almost always distorted or not published.

(Source: http://www.twincities.com/ci_11945154?nclick_check=1)