Comments by Ms. Gina Pera defending Dr. Biederman and attacking Sen. Grassley & Mr. Gardiner Harris
In an article in Chicago Tribune
This week, I've been ashamed to call myself a journalist--and have been wishing that every reporter covering this story would go back to j-school. And take a few science classes, too.
It's a dark day in the mental-health world, to see the progress that has been made in helping children live happier, healthier lives--precisely due to the work of physicians such as Biederman.
And to see all the ignorant "gotcha" with none of the solid reporting, just lazy jumping to conclusions and shilling for grandstanding politicians. It's disgusting.
How about sharing with your readers this little nugget: Grassley's second biggest campaign donor is BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD.
And if you think insurance companies--our biggest lobbyists--want to actually pay for these children to receive medical coverage of any kind, much less medication, well, you don't have a sick child.
(Another Grassley top-five donor--the K-street pr firm that created a phony "grassroots" movement to protest laws restricting tobacco.)
This science-phobic country, with its science-phobic (and highly disordered) president. It is fitting, isn't it.
We will accept that babies can be born with heart defects, lungs that won't work properly, deformed limbs, and all the rest. But the idea that a baby can be born with a damaged brain? We don't want to hear about it. It's too scary.
Yes, we'll accept the "major" brain damage, the kind that leaves a child motionless and drooling. But the less "obvious" damage--the kind that makes a perfectly healthy-looking child come at his mother with a steak knife or try to jump out of a moving car? Americans don't want to believe it--until they have the misfortune of living with it.
These are the kinds of children who have been inspiring Biederman's research. We should all thank him for taking risks in serving them. If it was left to the rest of psychiatry--not to mention therapists who never took a science/biology class in their lives--these children would be relegated to the 20th century, where they were simply affixed with psychological labels and deemed "treatment resistant."
We have taken a huge step backward this week. It simply makes me weep at the ignorance. Especially from papers who should know better.
Posted by: Gina Pera | Jun 12, 2008 1:10:12 PM
P.S. I should have clarified that I was not criticizing Ms. Graham's take on this issue, which seems temperate and does raise important points.
It's more that I am feeling overwhelmed with the headlines today--and I saw them coming when I read the New York Times story on Sunday. These are not simple issues, and they cannot be summarized in simple headlines.
It's been a rough week for a volunteer on the front lines, trying to help the mentally ill find competent help. And the as-yet-unsubstantiated attacks by Grassley and the NYTs have been blown into such sensational headlines, it boggles the mind.
These headlines and political grandstanders do not serve the mentally ill. They only cloud the legitimacy of their suffering--and delay their getting help.
Posted by: Gina Pera | Jun 12, 2008 3:08:23 PM
In an article in The Wall Street Journal
It’s too bad that not one mainstream media source (not to mention the internet whacko sites) has sought to balance the story by investigating what Grassley has to gain in this hit job.
His second-biggest donor is BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD. And ask the parents of children with mental disorders how easy it is to get medical coverage for their children. Of course insurance companies–our biggest lobbies!–don’t want to pay for these drugs. And they use grandstanding politicians as their hit men.
Shame on all the media for missing the big picture here. Just because reporters and editors can’t understand that babies can be born with damaged brains doesn’t mean you have to share your ignorance with your readers.
You will accept birth defects as hearts holes, deformed limbs, lungs that don’t work properly, and all the rest. But the brain–the most vulnerable organ of all–you think it always comes out wholly perfect?
I am ashamed of my fellow journalists this week, especially the New York times, which gladly took up Grassley’s mission, no questions asked.
Beyond ashamed. Enraged at the biases, the ignorance, and the damned lazy reporting.
Comment by Gina Pera - June 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm
If Americans weren’t so science-phobic, maybe researchers would be made to feel less “embarrassed” about taking pharma funding.
And what is the alternative source of funding? We’re going to depend on our government? God forbid! There are enough undiagnosed disorders in Congress to keep compassionate physicians such as Biederman busy for years.
George Bush himself….if only he’d gotten competent psychiatric/medical care early on, perhaps his own ADHD symptoms wouldn’t have brought this country to its knees.
The anti-science president of an anti-science culture. It’s fitting.
Comment by Gina Pera - June 12, 2008 at 1:53 pm
In Pharmalot
Has anyone here mentioned Grassley’s #2 campaign donor, Blue Shield, and any possible link to his fervor to de-legitimize psychiatric medications? Why else is he picking on this field, or have I missed some history?
After all, these are expensive medications, and from what I’ve seen, insurance companies are doing their darnedest to limit access to the newer formulations.
Gina Pera October 11th, 2008 1:13 am
In Psychology Today Blog
Thank you for this column, Nassir, and your comments, John M.
I've about had it with the anti-science whackdoodles leading this debate. It may make for sensational headlines and self-medicating online "discourse."
But meanwhile, experts like Goodwin and, yes, Biederman et al, are doing the real work of helping people who have been neglected, misunderstood, or maltreated by too many other physicians who haven't bothered to keep up with neuroscience.
Enough with Grassley's witch-hunt and the NYTimes being his mouthpiece. Somebody needs to start investigating his (and his staffers') bias. Now that would be true reporting; haven't seen that one yet. And, so far, I seem to be the only person checking Grassley's campaign donors to see that Blue Cross/Blue Shield ranks #2. What's good for the goose is good for the grandstanding gander.
When I shared that factoid with Gardiner Harris, he didn't understand what that had to do with anything.
Gina Pera, journalist-advocate
Is It You, Me, or Adult A.D.D.? Stopping the Roller Coaster When Someone You Love Has Attention Deficit Disorder
Interestingly enough, Grassley's second-biggest donor is Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I can't imagine it appreciates paying for the costly medications that these physicians promote.
Grassley's top donor: the "public affairs" firm DCI group, hired by Burma's military junta to do PR.
Its CEO, Doug Goodyear, also played a role in RJ Reynold's efforts to manufacture a grassroots campaign against tougher tobacco laws. (Hmm, grassroots campaign against medication for children.)
A third top donor is FPL, which seems poised to benefit greatly from ethanol.
I don't think links come through, but here it is: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00001758
ANONYMOUS SAID...
@gina pera
I wonder what your agenda is here.You seem to have trotted out every argument and excuse that you can trump up.First it's the Scientologists, then the absent-minded Researcher theory followed within minutes by lawyer-gotcha and Grassley's political affiliations. Now it's peer review - to spread the blame and absolve the perpetrators!!Got any more in your bag-of-tricks there?I am both a physician and a mother. Let's keep the focus where it belongs - not on the evil-doer scientologists/lawyers/peer reviewers but on the well-being of children who are entrusted to our care.As for you supremacyclause : your choice of pen-name displays a certain freudian slippage there. I hope to god you are a lawyer and not a physician: and assuming I am right about that we don't give a tinker's what you personally think of Biederman.
IntegrityInScience said...
"Anonymous said...
@gina pera
I wonder what your agenda is here.
You seem to have trotted out every argument and excuse that you can trump up."
Gina Pera 'leads California's first CHADD support group for partners' of people who have been diagnosed as having ADHD http://www.chaddnorcal.org/ADHD_Partner/partners.htm
CHADD works hard on behalf of the industry to promote ADHD and associated drugs. Dr William Pelham, who was himself a leading ADHD researcher, exposed in 2004 how CHADD failed to disclose major conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies that deal with ADHD products.
Gina Pera said...
Gardiner Harris is horribly biased against psychiatry and medication and should be moved to another beat....maybe "Psychodynamic Couch."
Anonymous said...
My God Ms. Pera:
How can you link Mr. Harris of the NY Times to psychodynamic psychiatry? There is not one word about psychoanalysis or psychodynamics in his entire article!
You come across as not just a shill for biological psychiatry and its ethically-challeneged, swarthy surrogates, but also as someone who may have had a bad analysis/therapy!
In the interest of full disclosure, FESS UP!
Gina Pera said...
LOL! "Fess up" to what, you who remains anonymous?
That's pretty funny, though...."swarthy surrogates." I'll have to remember that one!
I haven't had bad psychotherapy, but the hundreds of people I know who have -- spending years in futile talk therapy when medication finally turned the key -- could fill a book! Well, actually, I only had room for one chapter.
Anonymous said...
You are right, therapyfirst. I apologize to Ms. Pera. I stand by my comments regarding the content of Mr. Harris' article. But my shot about a bad therapy experience was out of line and deserved rebuke.
In Furious Seasons
Furious wrote:
They are responsible for doping up tons of American kiddos and should be held accountable, especially if they've violated NIH rules.
---------
And that is at the core of this irrational witch-hunt: neuroscientific luddism and projecting your own fears/ideas about medication onto Biederman, these children, and the horse they rode in on.
People like you apparently can't seem to understand that some babies are born with damaged brains. A heart defect, you understand. Deformed limbs, sure., But the brain? The most delicate and vulnerable organ? You just don't get it.
These children are lucky that someone like Biederman gives a damn about them, because his research and these medications have given them a chance in life.
Do you know any of these children? Do you have any empathy for a five-year-old so miserable he wants to kill himself? Who tries to throw himself out of a moving car? Despite loving parents.
I'm so sick of oppositional psych patients who won't take their own meds ranting about the poor children being forced to.
If those children had a voice, they'd tell you to keep your misfiring neurons off their meds and mind your own damn business.
Posted by: Gina Pera at June 13, 2008 09:35 AM
In PsychCentral
Sorry John, but black/white abstractions just don’t cut it in real life. Perhaps you might consider stepping away from that computer and into a clinic that treats severely mentally ill children.
If you’re lucky, maybe Joe Biederman would let you shadow him. Then you can develop some empathy for flesh-and-blood people and hard professional decisions.
Posted by Gina Pera at 2:28 pm on April 4th, 2009