1.) The main thesis of the film was that big pharmaceutical corporations, who boast billions of dollars in profits each year, have been lying to the public and making backroom deals with doctors by paying M.D.'s commissions when prescribing anxiety, depression, and ADHD medication. In turn, the public is left ill-informed of the unsafe nature of the drug, since big pharmaceutical has been covering up and botching studies, claiming the drugs they pedal are safe, when in reality they simply are not.
2.) The arguments in the film that supports this thesis are frequent and consistently brought up in the film. One of the more prolific arguments brought up is when the F.D.A. held a conference to discuss the negative psychological and physical side effects of the drug Prozac. During this press conference, hundreds of people offered their testimony of the tragedies their loved ones and themselves had experienced with the drug. This conference resulted in no change; the FDA said that there was no sound basis or science to conclude there was anything wrong in Prozac that left a user more prone to severe side affects that could harm them or someone else. Next, the film discussed the sheer increase in ADHD medication in the 80's and 90's compared to the 60's and 70's. According to the film, our nation consumes more than 400% of Ritalin than all other nations--combined. This startling statistic really lays into the fraud and deception that has gone on for so long unrecognized by the general public, and really supports and speaks to the thesis and overall purpose of the film.
3.) The thesis of the film relates very well to the course because in this class we are being asked to question our preconceived notions. One preconceived notion that we all have or want to have is that our doctors know what is best for our health, and will give sound advice in the calmest and direst of circumstances. However, as the film demonstrates, these doctors are financially incentivized to prescribe these drugs to patients, since they will in many cases receive kick-backs from the drug companies. Next, it relates to this course because the medical and pharmaceutical industry have found a way to label yet another group of people deviant. Since kids can no longer be kids and need to behave like mature, mellow adults, the ones who can't sit in a desk for 6 hours nonstop are said to have a chemical inbalance in their brain, that can be fixed by a 3 times a day prescription or Ritalin or Aderol.
4.) The point I found most convincing was the fact that of the M.D. doctors on the committee board for the FDA, 56% of them have financial links and incentives to the drug companies. The implications for that much conflict of interest has been huge, and we can see it currently in our youth nation that is being fed minor doses of cocaine, speed, and meth. Next, out of the 13 well known school shootings that had occurred by the time this film was released, 8 of them were taking anti-depressants like Prozac. Coincidence? Doubtful, when you consider that well under 10% of the nation takes it.
5.) The point I found least convincing in the film was the doctor's testimony at the conference on ADHD in which a reported asked "What symptoms does a child with ADHD typically exhibit." To that, before the doctor almost ate his own tongue, he murmured that the biggest problem was that individuals exhibit it differently, but that it was a serious problem....after not being able to concisely or even cohesively formulate a recognizably sensible sentence to answer in response...where did he go to school? Probably Harvard.
6.) The point that really stands out to me in the film was financial relationship between the doctors and big pharmaceutical. However, I was disappointed the film didn't go into depth on the issue of the schools being pressured. Therefore I would like to research the links between big pharmaceutical, the FDA and other governmental agencies, doctors, and the schools, to make more sense of how and why the money flows where it was--specifically with the schools though. The way I see it, the Big Pharmaceuticals create and research the drugs, go through the FDA where the conflicts of interest are obscenely evident, and get released for prescription to the doctors, where they receive a kickback. However, the film didn't mention anything about the schools in this equation, I would argue and research that it should. Take this for example, the federal government with No Child Left Behind mandated that schools reach certain learning goals and test requirements each year in order to get funding. So teachers have increased pressure from principals and vice principals, and they have pressure from the school districts, who have pressure from the states, who finally have pressure from the federal government. So what do you think the odds are that a teacher who has let's say 3 students out of a class of 30 that are disruptive and hyper and are therefore hard to control, decides to "medicate" them (apparently they are doctors now) in order to teach the rest of the children without disruption--in order to try and get the learning done to get those test scores up so the school can once again receive federal funding? I love the film, and think they did a great job, but I would love to see that scenario looked into and played out. Because it seems that it would be pretty obvious to me that teachers sending home letters to students "diagnosing" them of ADHD is a little of base and track within the lines of their profession, expertise, and business.
Once again all, thanks for reading my blog. I hope I made you think.
Brett Hoyt
No comments:
Post a Comment