ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« NPR: DuPont Under Fire for Teflon Fumes | Main | Wetland: Land That Gets Watered? »
New Study Questions Experts' Independence
In a study published today in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, researchers found that over half of the 170 experts that review and revise our nation's key mental health manual had undisclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
All of the experts on the panel that work on the mood and psychotic disorders sections had ties to the drug industry.
Because doctors must use codes listed in this manual to diagnose patients and provide information to health insurance companies, anyone who has input into its contents should be free from even the perception, let alone the pursestrings, of drug companies. Read more in the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune or USA Today.
If the people who did the DSM excluded all the researchers who had ties to
the pharm industry, they'd be left with no experts. The way research is
done in this country is that the pharm companies fund it because the
government can't, being too busy bringing democracy to the teeming masses
yearning to breathe free in Iraq, Afganistan, Iran, North Korea, Sudan,
and so on. So, since any researcher has to have pharm money or else fund
his own research with spare change, the least he/she can do is acknowledge
it, which is required and which is why all those acknowledgements are
available. If all those researchers dried up, we'd be left with unfunded
boobs like me who would simplify the DSM into the following disorders:
Sad, Mad, Bad, Worried, Crazy, Distracted, None of the above--and that
wouldn't be sufficiently complex to occupy the legions of administrative
people who work for the insurance companies.
I applaud your blog,mental health consumers are the least capable of self advocacy,my doctors made me take zyprexa for 4 years which was ineffective for my symptoms.I now have a victims support page against Eli Lilly for it's Zyprexa product causing my diabetes.--Daniel Haszard www.zyprexa-victims.com