In 2011, Wilens, and fellow ADHD ‘experts’ Biederman and Spencer, were sanctioned by Harvard University for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical company support they received (Kowalczyk, 2011).
from ADHD debate clouded by preconceptions and undisclosed conflicts of interest
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2013
It's very popular today to accuse someone of "being on the spectrum" if they act in a way that you don't find conducive to whatever "social norms" you espouse (usually what is every on television at current times). But very few people realize that psychiatry is rife with Big Pharma manipulation.
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHA) is one of the most
common comorbid disorders of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that can
accompany autism, triggered by it, or be a consequence of it.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10983102/
So we know that Asperger's Syndrome was removed from the DSM when the "spectrum" was created to make up for the disease created by the Nazi collaborator - shuffling off children to be killed as being mentally diseased for not properly following "social norms" of Nazism.
The question is - to what extent has fascist corporate culture now made "the spectrum" the norm accusation for those not willing to socially conform?
when ‘industry support’ involves hidden payments like those given to Biederman, Spencer and Wilens.
Gary Greenberg's research has similarly exposed Big Pharma corruption funding psychiatry research and the making of the DSM. But what needs to be realized is this cozy Big Pharma funding of psychiatry is the norm for the industry!
Other researchers cited who were involved in conflict of interest controversies include Dr Wagner and Dr Rush of the University of Texas, and Dr Christopher Gillberg of the University of Gotheburg, Sweden. Dr Gillberg has a criminal conviction for destroying research documentation (Ramshaw, 2009; Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen, 2006). In addition, the vast majority of members of the RACP coordinated ADHD guidelines committee, and the RACP itself, had financial ties to ADHD medication manufacturers (RACP, 2009).
It is totally unacceptable for Mr Whitely to suggest that the members of the RACP involved in the development of the Draft Guidelines had ‘hidden commercial ties’ when in fact all potential conflict of interest statements were clearly recorded in Appendix B.
the committee disregarded submissions highlighting the issues around Biederman, Spencer
and Wilens. They also ignored research that challenged their preconceptions by bringing into question the long-term safety and efficacy of ADHD medications, most notably the Oregon Health & Science University, Drug Class Review on Pharmacologic Treatments for ADHD. (McDonagh et al., 2007).......
I agree with Professor Levy that the finding that: ‘In children with ADHD, ever receiving stimulant medication was found to increase the odds of being identified as performing below age-level by a classroom teacher by a factor of 10.5 times (compared to never receiving stimulant medication)’, is a ‘startling figure’ (Department of Health, 2010). However, I cannot understand how the appropriate response to ‘startling’ results is to ignore them.
Liz Kowalczyk's reporting in July 2011 covered high-profile Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital psychiatrists (including Dr. Joseph Biederman) who violated institutional conflict of interest rules regarding undisclosed pharmaceutical industry financial ties.
the three doctors of accepting millions of dollars in consulting fees
from drug makers from 2000 to 2007, but failing to report much of the
income to university officials.
https://www.madinamerica.com/2026/03/undisclosed-industry-payments-found-in-top-psychiatry-journals/
Over 50% of psychiatrists accept industry payments, and studies show that industry-sponsored drug trials are substantially more likely to report positive results than independent research
A 2021 Mad in America investigation
revealed that industry paid psychiatrists alone $340 million between
2014 to 2020. The same investigation also reported that financial COIs
were present in the testing of every new psychotropic drug approved by
the FDA between 2013 to 2017.
financial conflicts of interest (COIs)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7260092/
Exploring the Psychiatrist-Industry Financial Relationship:
Insight from the Open Payment Data of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services
Over half of active psychiatrists (55.7%) received some form of payments
from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Of these, top 2.8% of psychiatrists
received 82.6% of the payments.
741 Shrinks (2.8%) received over $60,000 each for "services" includes serving as faculty or a speaker at a venue, for a
non-accredited and noncertified continuing education program, or for an
accredited or certified continuing education program.
| $61,746,388 in total for "services" (67.7) |
680 (91.8) |
In 2016–2017, pharmaceutical manufacturers provided 812,877 payments worth $110,512,607.18 to 26,422 psychiatrists in the US.
The majority of payment to psychiatrists receiving ≤$20,000 were in the
form of food and beverages, totaling $12.6 million (65.2%). The
majority of payment to psychiatrists receiving >$20,000 were for
compensation for services ($61.7 million, 67.7%) or consulting fees
($12.1 million, 13.2%).
