{"id":159539,"date":"2023-03-11T10:22:21","date_gmt":"2023-03-11T14:22:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=159539"},"modified":"2023-03-11T10:22:21","modified_gmt":"2023-03-11T14:22:21","slug":"nami-front-group-for-the-psychopharmaceutical-industry-and-pharmas-latest-way-to-promote-their-toxic-products","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=159539","title":{"rendered":"NAMI: Front Group for the psychopharmaceutical industry (and Pharma&#8217;s latest way to promote their toxic products)"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Duty to Warn<\/strong><\/h3>\n<h2><strong>The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): Just One of the Many Cunning Front Groups for Marketing Psych Drugs for Big Pharma<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>By Gary G. Kohls, MD<\/p>\n<p>Excerpts from: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cchrint.org\/issues\/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups\/nami\/\" data-saferedirecturl=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?q=https:\/\/www.cchrint.org\/issues\/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups\/nami\/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1678619864551000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0XO7XyIN68IcKgAgSKXVCt\">https:\/\/www.cchrint.org\/issues\/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups\/nami\/<\/a><\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<hr \/>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: left;\"><em>\u201cHe who pays the piper, calls the tune.\u201d<\/em><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In the late 1970s and 1980s, prominent <strong>American Psychiatric Association (APA)<\/strong> psychiatrists, who were also directors and researchers with the <strong>National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), <\/strong>were in need of more government funding, so they devised a plan to create <strong>patient advocacy organizations (PAOs)<\/strong> with the intention of getting these groups to help lobby Congress for increased funding for psychiatric research. The groups that emerged first on the scene were: The <strong>National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the Anxiety Disorders Association of America (ADAA), the\u00a0National Depression &amp; Manic Depressive Association (NDMDA, and the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD). \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn an incestuous relationship, many of these groups were formed by the directors or researchers from NIMH\u2014the very organization that needed mental health advocacy groups to make demands on Congress for increased funding. All of them had board or advisory board members with financial ties to Pharma and the majority of them were heavily funded by Pharma.<\/p>\n<p>This cunning marketing\/lobbying strategy is still going on to this day and few physicians \u2013 and fewer politicians and patients &#8211; have seen through the subterfuge.<\/p>\n<p>This is the strategy in a nutshell: \u201cSet up and fully fund PAOs to lobby for the governmental funding needed for Big Psychiatry and Big Pharma while pretending to be \u201cadvocates\u201d for the mentally ill.<\/p>\n<p>NAMI was founded in 1979 with tens of millions of dollars of start-up funding coming from Big Pharma companies that marketed psychotropic drugs. The group continues to rely upon pharmaceutical funding and has used up more than $41 million since 1996. A U.S. Senate investigation revealed that <strong><em>in just two years alone (2006-2008) Big Pharma funded NAMI to the tune of $23 million <\/em><\/strong>&#8211; about three-quarters of its donations.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Groups like NAMI were established by representatives of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the American Psychiatric Association, all of whom had conflicts of interest that were not disclosed<\/em><\/strong>. They have successfully secured billions of tax dollars for NIMH and psychiatric researchers.<\/p>\n<p>Here are some facts that reveal some aspects of what could be described as the unholy alliance between Big Pharma and Big Psychiatry:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><em>Between 1996 and mid-1999, 18 drug firms gave NAMI $11.72 million, including: <\/em>Janssen<em> ($2.08 million), <\/em>Novartis<em> ($1.87 million), <\/em>Pfizer<em> ($1.3 million), Abbot Laboratories ($1.24 million), Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ($658,000), and Bristol-Myers Squibb ($613,505).<sup>[5]<\/sup><\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong><em>NAMI\u2019s top donor was <\/em>Eli Lilly<\/strong>. The company gave $2.87 million, $1.1 million of which was given in 1999 to help fund <strong><em>NAMI\u2019s \u201cCampaign to End Discrimination\u201d<\/em><\/strong> against the mentally ill. This was a marketing scheme aimed at finding ways to force more insurance companies and government health care programs to quit \u201cdiscriminating\u201d against the psychiatry and Big Pharma\u2019s mentally ill customers.<\/li>\n<li>In 2002 \u2013 2003, pharmaceutical companies gave NAMI a further $4 million per year, according to a 2009 lawsuit naming <strong>NAMI<\/strong>.<sup>[6]<\/sup><strong>Eli Lilly<em> donated at least another $3 million to NAMI between 2003 and 2005<\/em><\/strong>.<sup>[7]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In 2009, the US Senate Finance Committee investigated this conflict of interest and found that between 2006 and 2008, another $23 million had been given NAMI, representing about three-quarters of its donations. It included an <strong>AstraZeneca<em> grant of $1.44 million<\/em><\/strong> in 2008.<sup>[8]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Documents\u00a0<em>The New York Times<\/em>obtained showed that\u00a0<strong><em>drug makers had also given NAMI direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits.<\/em><\/strong><em>\u00a0<\/em>For example, on December 16, 2003, <strong>NAMI<\/strong> leaders met with AstraZeneca sales executives. Slides from a presentation delivered by the salesmen showed that the company urged the alliance to resist state efforts to limit mental health drugs. \u201cSolutions: Play Hard Ball,\u201d one slide was titled. \u201cHold policy makers accountable for their decisions in media and in election,\u201d another stated.<sup>[9]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>NAMI also failed to disclose that <strong>Eli Lilly\u2019s<\/strong> marketing manager Gerald Radke ran its entire operation. In 1999, <strong><em>Radke was a Lilly paid \u201cmanagement consultant,\u201d then left Lilly and served as NAMI\u2019s \u201cinterim executive director\u201d until mid-2001<\/em><\/strong>.<sup>[10]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In September 2009, media exposed how <strong>Pfizer <\/strong>had funded NAMI \u201cin order to turn the nonprofit into a \u2018Trojan Horse\u2019 that would promote the antipsychotic drug <strong>Geodon<\/strong> for non-approved use in children. The number of antipsychotic scripts written for children doubled to 4.4 million between 2003 and 2006.<sup>[11]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>During the time he was president of NAMI, James McNulty received thousands of dollars for regularly speaking on behalf of <strong>Pfizer<\/strong> and other drug makers at various company sponsored events.<sup>[12]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>The March, 2000 newsletter of the Washington State Association of Counties credited former <strong>Eli Lilly<\/strong> executive turned <strong>NAMI Washington<\/strong> lobbyist Brad Boswell, and NAMI\u2019s director Tom Richardson, for getting the legislature to spend $1 million on atypical \u201cantipsychotics\u201d.\u00a0<sup>[13]<\/sup>A lawsuit against <strong>Lilly<\/strong> in which NAMI is named points out that in 2000, <strong> <em>Lilly gave NAMI Washington State $91,000<\/em><\/strong>. \u201cDuring the time, NAMI Washington State, in an effort led by NAMI lobbyist Brad Boswell lobbied the state legislature for $1 million specifically for atypical antipsychotic drugs\u2026.<strong>NAMI <em>also joined a suit initiated by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America (PhRMA)<\/em><\/strong> against the state of Michigan in order to increase physician access to higher cost pharmaceuticals\u2014including atypical \u201cantipsychotics\u201d\u2014under the state\u2019s Medicaid program.\u201d (Point 197 of the lawsuit).<sup>[14]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Between about 2001 and 2003 psychiatrist Rex Cowdry was Medical Director of <strong>NAMI.<\/strong> He spent 23 years at\u00a0<strong>NIMH<\/strong>and was its acting director (1994-1996) during which time he told Congress\u2014are for than 40 years of federal funding and while demanding millions more\u2014\u201cWe do not know the causes [of mental illness.] We don\u2019t have methods of \u2018curing\u2019 these illnesses yet.\u201d<sup>[15]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>On February 12, 2001, <strong> NAMI<\/strong> sent out a press release heralding the approval by the FDA of <strong>Geodon<\/strong>. When the drug had come up for approval in 1998 the FDA refused to approve it due to concerns about a heartbeat irregularity that can be caused by it, leading to sudden death. However, <strong>NAMI<\/strong> intervened directly, and soon the FDA was singing a different tune about <strong>Geodon<\/strong>. By April 2001, <strong>Geodon<\/strong> had already been approved for use in 46 state Medicaid systems. Pfizer may have received an assist on this from <strong>NAMI <\/strong>in their \u201cgrass roots advocacy\u201d lobbying of the federal Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA Medicaid and Medicare oversight agency) to force Medicaid to pay for atypical (new) antipsychotics.<sup>[16]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In a 2006 lawsuit filed by the \u201cLocal 28 Sheet Metal Workers,\u201d a union health and welfare fund, against Eli Lilly it is alleged that the drug company\u2019s funding of and partnership with NAMI in the late 90s\/early 2000s was \u201cdesigned to accomplish through a non-profit organization what it could not on its own: giving the appearance of independent analysis and a grassroots movement encouraging the use of atypical antipsychotics by state and private insurers.\u201d According to the lawsuit: \u201cThe scheme worked and <strong>Lilly<\/strong> certainly benefited from its significant donations to NAMI. <strong>Zyprexa<\/strong> was the leading \u201cantipsychotic\u201d in the world in 2000, capturing nearly 40% of the global antipsychotic market. A year later, <strong>Zyprexa<\/strong> was sixth highest selling pharmaceutical product in the world, with $3.2 billion in sales.\u201d <sup>[17]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>It also reports that in 2001 the <strong><em>\u201cAccess to Effective Medications\u201d <\/em><\/strong>brochure produced by NAMI National for legislators and paid for by <strong>Eli Lilly<\/strong>\u2014lays out a blueprint for nationwide NAMI lobbying of state governments to reduce or remove any limitations for atypical antipsychotics, again down playing the side effects of such drugs.\u201d (Point 176)<sup>[18]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In April 2002, the Government Accounting Office issued a report entitled \u201cVA Health Care: Implementation of prescribing guideline for atypical antipsychotic drugs generally sound.\u201d The VA\u2019s policy on antipsychotic drugs was simply to ask psychiatrists to use less expensive one, which the GAO found was a sound policy. The VA was trying to control costs, since the cost of antipsychotic drugs for the agency had shot up 29% from $123 million in 2000 to $158 million in 2001, and was eating up 7% of the VA\u2019s total drug budget. NAMI and the National Mental Health Association (Mental Health America) were cited as the lone critics of the GAO policy. This was cited in a similar lawsuit to the Sheet Metals union, but filed in 2006 by the Sergeants Benevolent Association and Health and Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and others (Point 198 of lawsuit).<sup>[19]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Such a policy would have no effect whatsoever but to continue to drive up VA usage of the most expensive antipsychotics, sending greater and greater revenues to the drug makers who donate so generously to NAMI.<\/li>\n<li>No doubt unknown to the GAO was that both groups had helped Big Pharma devise a psychiatric drug plan (see TMAP below) that pushed the most atypical antipsychotics for states\u2019 use.<\/li>\n<li>On December 18, 2003,\u00a0<em>The New York Times\u00a0<\/em>also reported how <strong>NAMI<\/strong> had bused scores of protestors to a hearing in Frankfort, Kentucky, took out full page ads in newspapers, and sent angry faxes to state officials, all protesting a state panel proposal to exclude the antipsychotic drug <strong>Zyprexa<\/strong> from Medicaid\u2019s list of preferred medications. According to the article, \u201cWhat the advocacy groups did not say at the time was that the buses, ads and faxes were all paid for\u201d by the manufacturer of <strong>Zyprexa, Eli Lilly<\/strong>.<sup>[20]<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>NAMI\u2019s Many Faces<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Children and Adolescents Network (NAMI-CAN)<\/strong>was formed in May 1990. It produced newsletters that ran initial articles touting the benefits of SSRI antidepressants, newly on the market in 1988, such as \u201cSerotonin and the Neurobiology of Depression\u201d<sup>[21]<\/sup>\u00a0Under its website, it is \u201cextremely pleased\u201d that the <strong>New Freedom Commission report (NFC)<\/strong> on mental health \u201ccalls for mental health screening\u201d and particularly the use of <strong>TeenScreen<\/strong>, a non-scientific questionnaire that could label and stigmatize any child as \u201cdepressed\u201d and requiring dangerous antidepressants. It calls on its members to report to <strong>NAMI<\/strong> national any \u201canti-screening attacks.\u201d<sup>[22]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In 1995, NAMI formed the\u00a0<strong>NAMI Research Institute (NRI<\/strong>) with E. Fuller Torrey (<strong>NIMH, APA<\/strong>) as president. Board members included Laurie Flynn and <strong>Dr. Robert Post<\/strong> (<strong>NIMH, APA<\/strong>).<sup>[23]<\/sup>Its mission is to \u201cdrive national, state, and local debates on reforms and investments in the nation\u2019s mental illness delivery and financing system\u201d\u2014more taxpayers\u2019 dollars going into the biomedical approach to treating people\u2019s problems.<sup>[24]<\/sup>\u00a0Dr. Post was Unit and Section Chief and then Chief of Biological Psychiatry at NIMH, a group that \u201cwon\u201d research awards from\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/cchrint.org\/issues\/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups\/narsad\" data-saferedirecturl=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?q=https:\/\/cchrint.org\/issues\/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups\/narsad&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1678619864551000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3ZkjPjtnzzxZGK6sG6YIgt\">NARSAD<\/a>\u00a0and NDMDA.<sup>[25]<\/sup>\u00a0He organized the <strong>Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network<\/strong> (1995-2002), now continuing as the<strong> Bipolar Collaborative Network <\/strong>that aims to increase studies in bipolar\u2014and with his biological psychiatry background, most likely drug \u201csolutions.\u201d<sup>[26]<\/sup>\u00a0He has served on speakers\u2019 bureaus for <strong><u>Bristol-Myers Squibb and GSK<\/u> and as a consultant for <u>Abbott Labs, AstraZeneca, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma and Shire<\/u>.<sup>[<\/sup><\/strong><sup>27]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>The NRI recommends psychiatric drugs under Medicaid \u201cbe available without restriction for persons with mental illness include:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li>\u201cAntipsychotic\u201d medications;<\/li>\n<li>Anticonvulsant medications;<\/li>\n<li>\u201cAntidepressant\u201d medications;<\/li>\n<li>\u201cAntianxiety\u201d (tranquilizer\/sleeping pill) medications; and<\/li>\n<li>Any other medication that is cross-indicated as a central nervous system drug recognized to treat mental illness.\u201d<sup>[28]<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li><strong><em>This is further Driving Up Healthcare Costs, as psychiatric drugs are among Medicaid\u2019s most costly and commonly prescribed drugs.<sup>[<\/sup><\/em><\/strong><sup>29]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In 1996, <strong>NAMI<\/strong> set up the \u201c<strong>NAMI-Anti-Stigma Foundation<\/strong>\u201d with Laurie Flynn as a Board Member and said its campaign to end discrimination \u201caccepts unrestricted contributions from pharmaceutical companies and others.\u201d<sup>[30]<\/sup>While it claims an altruistic motive of dispelling stigma against and stereotyping of mental illness, it has a near neo-Nazi approach in reporting anyone the group considers opposed to its agenda.<sup>[31]<\/sup>\u00a0Not even Halloween escapes them as the group scare heads a campaign against ghoulish \u201cinsane asylums\u201d being a theme of the night\u2014although many patients in these asylums would argue it is like a \u201cHalloween nightmare\u201d being locked up and treated in one.<sup>[32]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In 1996, <strong>NAMI<\/strong> started a five-year campaign marketed as \u201c<strong>Campaign to End Discrimination<\/strong>\u201d that pushed for insurers to pay out unlimited funds for psychiatric treatments. \u201cThe \u201cFounding Sponsors\u201d of this campaign were eight pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychiatric drugs\u2014<strong><u>Pfizer,<\/u><\/strong><u> <strong>Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs<\/strong><\/u>.<sup>[33]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>1997:<\/strong><strong>NAMI <\/strong>formed the \u201c<strong>Treatment Advocacy Center\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0with <strong>Dr. E. Fuller Torrey<\/strong> and Laurie Flynn as Board Members. Torrey was a NIMH researcher and between 1987 and 1991 had received more than $780,000 in grant awards from NIMH for research on \u201cschizophrenia.\u201d He is the chairperson of the <strong>Stanley Foundation \u201cResearch Program on Serious Mental Illness.\u201d<\/strong> The <strong>NAMI Research Institute<\/strong> oversees at least one Stanley Foundation program, <strong>\u201cThe Stanley Scholars program\u201d<\/strong> and supplies money to 29 psychiatric research centers at Universities in the U.S. and Canada. According to Torrey, the <strong>Stanley Foundation<\/strong> has been supporting psychiatric research since 1988 and \u201cprovides a NAMI staff person to evaluate and oversee NIMH research efforts.\u201d<sup>[34]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>On April 18, 1997<\/strong>, <strong>NAMI<\/strong> commended <strong>Janssen<\/strong> for its <strong>\u201cPerson-to-Person\u201d<\/strong> initiative\u2014a program <strong><u>Janssen<\/u><\/strong> and the APA launched \u201cto link people who use <strong>Risperdal<\/strong> for schizophrenia to an array of community support systems.\u201d<sup>[35]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>December 1997:<\/strong><strong>NAMI<\/strong> touted the benefits of the \u201cnew generation of atypical antipsychotic drug therapies,\u201d quoting psychiatrist <strong>Jeffrey A. Lieberman<\/strong>, who receives funding from makers of antipsychotics. <strong>NAMI\u2019s<\/strong> press release stated: \u201cAn additional benefit of atypical antipsychotics is increased patient compliance due to a decrease in potential side effects and severity of subsequent episodes.\u201d And in light of the revolutionary new drugs, <strong>NAMI<\/strong> was quick to reiterate is policy that there should be no limitations on their availability\u2014a \u201cphilosophy,\u201d it says is supported by the APA.<sup>[36]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>1998:<\/strong><strong>Eli Lilly<\/strong> (of <strong>Prozac<\/strong> infamy) invented the <strong>\u201cWelcome Back Award\u201d<\/strong> to \u201cfight the stigma associated with depression and promote understanding that it is treatable\u201d [with Prozac and other antidepressants.] In 2004, <strong>Lilly<\/strong> awarded this to the Consumer Services Director of <strong>NAMI-DE (NAMI-Delaware),<\/strong> for serving the \u201cdepression community.\u201d<sup>[37]<\/sup>\u00a0Winners will share a total of $55,000\u2013$15,000 each\u2014to be donated to the not-for-profit organizations of their choice.<sup>[38]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>1998:<\/strong>NAMI released its \u201c<strong>PACT Model of Community-Based Treatment for Persons with Severe and Persistent Mental Illnesses<\/strong>: A Manual for <strong>PACT<\/strong> Start-Up\u201d as part of its <strong>Anti-Stigma Foundation<\/strong>. The <strong>PACT<\/strong> manual and standards outline what <strong>NAMI<\/strong> considers to be the most effective treatment\u2014drugs\u2014with the plan to get it implemented by every state by 2002.<sup>[39]<\/sup>\u00a0Part of this is the\u00a0<strong>Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)<\/strong>\u00a0that includes patients being forced to take psychiatric drugs in the community and increases psychiatrists\u2019 powers to force and coerce patients in taking drugs made by those companies funding <strong>NAMI<\/strong>.<sup>[40]<\/sup>\u00a0The program endorses greater involuntary commitment powers for psychiatrists.<\/li>\n<li>Patricia Spindel and Jo Anne Nugent of Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology who researched <strong>PACT<\/strong> also voiced concerns about its stigmatizing effects by trampling on patients\u2019 rights: \u201cThe <strong>PACT<\/strong> model would seem to be a throwback to a time when the rights of those being \u2018treated\u2019 were not of much concern to mental health practitioners.\u201d Further, \u201cThe emphasis placed upon medication management and \u2018managing difficult clients\u2019 points to a process which stigmatizes and labels people for not following the wishes of society in general, and their doctors and workers in particular\u2026.\u201d<sup>[41]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>A February 8, 2001 article about the dangers of the PACT program published on the website of the Sutherland Institute\u2014a Public Policy Research Institute based in Utah noted that based on these PACT standards, admission criteria included \u201csignificant functional impairments\u201d such as \u201cinability to be consistently employed at a self-sustaining level or inability to consistently carry out the homemaker role (e.g. household meal preparation, washing clothes, budgeting, or child-care tasks and responsibilities.\u201d Further, \u201cLack of good personal hygiene, not obtaining medical care, and not meeting one\u2019s nutritional needs are other indicators that a person might need PACT\u2019s services. If one in 15 people are in need of care, a lot of bad housekeepers could find themselves subject to involuntary psychiatric treatment, which can include the administration of psychotropic medication.\u201d<sup>[42]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>And showing NAMI\u2019s further hypocrisy about stigma, \u201cPACT standards do not require that a patient\u2019s consent be obtained before he is admitted to the program,\u201d with calls from NAMI to loosen existing involuntary commitment laws to enforce treatment.\u00a0<sup>[43]<\/sup>Yet no medical patient could be stigmatized in the same way and be forced to undergo medical treatment. As the Sutherland Institute pointed out, \u201cLoosening the standard for involuntary commitment would allow PACT to treat patients presenting a marginal danger to themselves or others and would open the door to involuntarily treat people, who like the bad housekeeper, merely differ from society\u2019s accepted norm. \u2026\u201d<sup>[44]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>A review of 27 clinical trials on PACT programs done by Tomi Gomory, Ph.D. in 1999 found, <strong><em>\u201cThe current promotion of PACT appears to be based more on professional enthusiasm for the medical model than upon any benefit to the clients.\u201d <\/em><\/strong>A negative effect of the PACT model found in Dr. Gomory\u2019s review was an increased incidence of suicide in PACT settings. One study found that during an 8-month period in one hospital doing the program 10% of the PACT client group attempted suicide while none of the other group of patients had done so (Hoult,\u00a0<em>et al<\/em>. 1983). Another study noted that several PACT patients were judged improved by PACT experts immediately before they committed suicide.<sup>[45]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Sarah Thompson, M.D., a policy specialist, authored another article for the Sutherland Institute on PACT stated, \u201cOnce a precedent is created for incarcerating and drugging people for minor deviations from \u2018normal\u2019 thoughts and behavior, how far are we from creating a system such as that used by the former Soviet Union, where people were incarcerated and drugged for politically incorrect beliefs?\u201d<sup>[46]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>1999:<\/strong>Laurie Flynn, director of NAMI worked on the <strong><em>\u201cExpert Consensus Guideline Series: Treatment of Schizophrenia 1999\u201d<\/em><\/strong> to establish uniform \u201cmedication guidelines\u201d for schizophrenia. Pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of\u00a0<u>TMAP<\/u>\u00a0generously funded the development of the guidelines.<sup>[47]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>2002<\/strong>: <strong><em>NAMI\u2019s\u00a0\u201cLiving With Schizophrenia &amp; Other Mental Illnesses\u201d<\/em><\/strong>educational program was renamed <strong><em>\u201cIn Our Voice: Living With Mental Illnesses.<\/em><\/strong>\u201d Funded by a grant from <strong>Eli Lilly<\/strong>, the program was implemented into 10 states. The \u201cprogram also serves as a gateway to other NAMI programs, including the organization\u2019s 12-week\u00a0<em>Family-to-Family<\/em>\u00a0curriculum.\u201d<sup>[48]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>Other campaigns were <strong> <em>NAMI C.A.R.E. (Consumers Advocating Recovery through Empowerment),<\/em><\/strong> <strong> <em>NAMI Provider Education Program<\/em><\/strong>, <strong><em>NAMI Family-to-Family Education Program<\/em><\/strong>, (as of 2003 in 45 states and the District of Columbia), <strong><em>Peer to Peer<\/em><\/strong>, and <strong><em>Hearts and Minds<\/em><\/strong>.<sup>[49]<\/sup>NAMI C.A.R.E. announced it would significantly expand due to \u201can exclusive multi-year partnership with <strong>AstraZeneca<\/strong>, LP.\u201d \u201cWe look forward to enhancing an already successful partnership with <strong>AstraZeneca<\/strong> through the expansion of NAMI-C.A.R.E,\u201d said Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, M.D., president of the NAMI national board.<sup>[50]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li><strong>October 2002:<\/strong>The catch-sounding <strong><em>\u201cCampaign for the Mind of America\u201d<\/em><\/strong> pushed for an all-out mental health screening of all ages, stating: \u201cThe Campaign highlights the need to build a comprehensive, efficient system to\u00a0<em>screen<\/em>, evaluate, diagnose and treat mental illnesses\u00a0<em>at every stage of life<\/em>.\u201d<sup>[51]<\/sup>\u00a0[Emphasis added]<\/li>\n<li>In the third and fourth quarters of 2008, <strong>Pfizer gave NAMI a grant of $357,000 for <em>\u201cCampaign for the Mind of America.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <strong>Marketingis also funding the <em>Campaign for the Mind<\/em>,<\/strong> with grants of $450,000 in both 2007 and 2008. Lilly also provides extra funding to NAMI groups all over the country for the <strong><em>\u201cWalk for the Mind of America.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> In 2007, walking money totaled $41,500 and in 2008, $50,000.\u00a0<sup>[52]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>In 2007, <strong>NAMI presented a $50,000 <em>\u201cMind of America Scientific Research Award<\/em>\u201d to Dr. A John Rush<\/strong> who was under Senate investigation for his failure to disclose drug company dollars he\u2019d taken as a researcher.\u00a0<sup>[53]<\/sup><\/li>\n<li>November 2007<strong>:<\/strong>NAMI established an online <strong>Veterans Resource Center<\/strong> to help support active duty military personnel, veterans and their families facing serious mental illnesses.<sup>[54]<\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>On April 6, 2009, Senator Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee sent a letter to NAMI asking for the disclosure of all funding from drug makers and industry created foundations over the past few years.<\/p>\n<p>Sally Zinman of the California Network of Mental Health Clients summarized the primary omission made by most mainstream media when crediting NAMI as a valid source of information on mental illness: <strong><em>\u201cNAMI is seen by the media as the voice of the mental health community, but the integrity of its work is called into question by its sources of funding.\u201d<sup>[<\/sup><\/em><\/strong><sup>55]<\/sup><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Duty to Warn The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI): Just One of the Many Cunning Front Groups for Marketing Psych Drugs for Big Pharma By Gary G. Kohls, MD Excerpts from: https:\/\/www.cchrint.org\/issues\/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups\/nami\/ \u201cHe who pays the piper, calls the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=159539\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-159539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=159539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159539\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=159539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=159539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=159539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}