This page will provide background information on the various people behind Columbia University's TeenScreen program, whose goal is to screen every school-age child in the U.S. for mental health — which means hundreds of thousands of kids popping antidepressants and related drugs daily.

For information on the creator of TeenScreen, TeenScreen's Directors, and the Chairman of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, see below.

Click here for TeenScreen's Advisory Board Members and their connections to pharmaceutical companies.

	David Shaffer is a Professor of Child Psychiatry and Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics. He is the Director ofColumbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Division of Child Psychiatry, at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. His strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry and major drug companies span decades.

David Shaffer
Psychiatrist, Creator of TeenScreen

David Shaffer was the head and driving force behind the development of the computerized screening tool that TeenScreen employs, the "Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children" (also known as DISC). Following this he helped to devise a shorter computerized version that is easier to use in schools, the "Diagnostic Predictive Scales" (DPS), and a paper and pencil version of the screening tool, the "Columbia Health Screen" (CHS). For more information on the development of the screening tools and how they are used to label children with normal childhood reactions as "mentally ill" and funnel them into the psychiatric / pharmaceutical system, click here.

Shaffer’s Ties to the Pharmaceutical Industry
Shaffer has known connections to the pharmaceutical industry. He has been a consultant to Hoffman la Roche, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. His resume (see page 21 of this report) includes serving as an expert witness to several drug companies and as a paid consultant on psychotropic drugs.

Shaffer is the past president of The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) and currently on their board of directors. AFSP is an organization with known pharmaceutical ties. For example, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, all have members on AFSP’s board. Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. has provided at least $1,250,000 in the AFSP’s effort to build up a $5 million research fund and Pfizer Inc. has contributed funding for surveys.

The following corporations have provided funding for different conferences held by Shaffer’s AFSP:

• Forest Laboratories, Inc.
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.
• Pfizer Inc.
• Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories

Shaffer is also on the Executive Board of the “Center for the Advancement of Children’s Mental Health at Columbia University” (CACMH). This organization has partnered with the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI) and has received funding from the following corporations:

• AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
• Bristol-Myers Squibb
• Celltech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Eli Lilly and Company
• Forest Labs
• Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.
• Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals
• Pfizer, Inc.

Shaffer’s Statements on TeenScreen
In an interview that Shaffer did in 2003 on TeenScreen, he states: "We did studies to look at the accuracy of the TeenScreen. […] it does identify a whole bunch of kids who aren’t really suicidal, so you get a lot of false-positives. And that means if you’re running a large program at a school, you’re going to cripple the program because you’re going to have too many kids you have to do something about."

When Shaffer was asked how he addresses people who question the dangers of prescribing to the false-positives, he stated: "I think that standing by itself, that criticism is meaningless because we don’t know what harm the antidepressants do, if any, and we don’t know who they do harm to". He is either unaware of the hundreds of suicides and murders caused by children and adults on antidepressants, or he is telling a bald-faced PR lie.

In the same interview, Shaffer confirmed his stance on pro-drugging when he was asked: “Finally, what are your thoughts about non-pharmacological approaches to suicide prevention?”  Shaffer says: “... psychotherapy is not terribly effective [...] So if there really is evidence that certain or all antidepressants can cut this cycle of depression, plus stress, plus this rapid response, then that seems to be where the big hope is.” You'll note that he does not mention any statistics of suicide rates dropping due to people being on these drugs—nor does he mention that the FDA has determined that teens are more susceptible to suicidal thoughts while on antidepressants, and that these drugs have been shown in hundreds of cases to cause normal teens to commit suicide and murder out of the blue. Also note that Shaffer does not entertain any alternative solutions such as nutritional methods— and in many cases it has been discovered that depression has been due to improper nutrition and bad diet. For example, a lack of the B vitamins alone in a person's diet can reduce energy and cause mental lethargy, including depression. Shaffer seems to consider that only artificial drugs can combat suicides. Whatever happened to "Say No to Drugs"?

Shaffer Attempted to Block Negative British Findings
In December of 2003 British drug regulators recommended against the use of antidepressants in the treatment of depressed children under 18. They concluded that “their benefits [the drugs] did not outweigh their potential risks”, risks that included suicidal thoughts and self-harm.

According to a December 11, 2003, New York Times article, Shaffer sent a letter, at Pfizer's request, to block the findings of the British drug agency, saying he had concluded that there was insufficient data to restrict the use of the drugs in adolescents. Naturally if these findings were to be widely known to be true, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth-Ayerst and other large pharmaceutical companies would stand to lose BILLIONS of dollars in revenue.

	Flynn, well connected to pharmaceutical companies through NAMI, now works diligently through the media and her connections in Washington, DC, to expand TeenScreen using every possible avenue. One of the tactics, which was contrived by one of TeenScreen’s PR firms, is to keep track of teen suicides all over the country and then write letters to the editors of those local newspapers to market TeenScreen and take advantage of vulnerable communities in mourning.  Flynn has “authored” most of those letters and comes across as very professional and caring in these letters. However, this is how she really talks with fellow marketing allies. In an e-mail from Flynn to Jim McDonough, Director of the Florida Office of Drug Control, obtained by Ken Kramer, Flynn wrote:
	“I'm looking for a horse to ride in here! ... I need to get some kids screened—if the schools are a road block we are interested in community organizations. Next week we are talking with the Boys and Girls Club in Pinellas. ...I also think we should see if local agencies or businesses could be engaged in ‘community screenings.’ Issue here is assuring the link to follow-up…” —Laurie Flynn, from an email to Jim McDonough

Laurie Flynn
TeenScreen Director

On January 1, 2001, Laurie Flynn joined the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry, hired to serve as the Director of the Center for Child Mental Health Policy, co-direct its Carmel Hill Center and eventually to direct the TeenScreen Program. Prior to this, Flynn was the Executive Director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) for 16 years, but left in December of 2000 after a no-confidence vote from the board. 

Well Funded by Pharmaceuitical Companies
The pharmaceutical industry has long funneled money to groups like NAMI which become conduits for spreading industry-friendly information and funding marketing schemes.

NAMI, in particular, was well funded by the industry during Flynn’s tenure. According to internal documents obtained by Mother Jones, 18 drug firms gave NAMI a total of $11.72 million between 1996 and mid-1999. These include Janssen ($2.08 million), Novartis ($1.87 million), Pfizer ($1.3 million), Abbott Laboratories ($1.24 million), Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ($658,000), and Bristol-Myers Squibb ($613,505). Click the links above to see actual letters and cancelled checks from the drug companies to NAMI with some of their contributions.

Remember, it's these pharmaceutical companies who are currently making billions in drug sales from the people who NAMI purports to support (and their insurance companies).

A Critic Speaks Out
Following a PR campaign devised by one of TeenScreen's PR firms, Flynn monitors areas of teen suicides, then authors letters to local newspapers to take advantage of the grief of the community, offering condolences and TeenScreen as a solution. Flynn's emails to her associates are a bit more crass (see the sidebar).

Evelyn Pringle, investigative journalist and columnist for Independent Media TV, describes Flynn’s conduct this way:
“In my book, trying to capitalize off the pain and guilt of parents and communities who have just suffered the loss of a child to suicide makes Flynn a despicable human being. I propose that local school boards tell her to take her TeenScreen survey and ride out of town on the same horse she rode in on.”

Flynn Lies to a Senate Committee
Flynn has also perjured herself in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Bill H.R. 3063, in a Capitol Hill Hearing on March 2, 2004, when she testified: "In partnership with the University of South Florida we are piloting district wide mental health screening of 9th graders in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties."

The truth? There was no piloting of any TeenScreen program in either of these school districts. In fact, the day before Flynn's testimony, the Hillsborough County School District said they were not partnering with TeenScreen, did not feel comfortable with the information provided by TeenScreen and had serious concerns about the program, including liability and risk issues. In Pinellas County, TeenScreen is prohibited from doing their suicide survey because Board policy protects the identity of students when surveys are done. In addition, the Pinellas County School Board Superintendent, Dr. Clayton Wilcox, has serious reservations about partnering with such an organization.

Leslie McGuire
TeenScreen Director

Leslie M. Mcguire began her career at Columbia in 1998 and is now one of the Directors of the Columbia University TeenScreen Program and Co-Deputy Director of the Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis and Treatment, both housed in the Department of Child Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

McGuire is a seasoned presenter and speaks for TeenScreen at numerous national conferences annually. At these conferences, McGuire presents TeenScreen’s intentions clearly.

She states that TeenScreen has a big goal:

• “We — our goal, we have a big one. We want every child in America to get a mental health checkup.”
• “…we believe this is something that every child in America deserves.”
• “This is also something we believe should be an annual requirement …”
• “Our one group isn't going to be able to ensure that every child in America gets a mental health checkup so we're creating partnerships with advocates, state departments of mental health, with school districts, education associations, service agencies and other places so that they can help us create this new initiative. There are a number of organizations that have signed on and agree with our goal that every child in America should get a mental health checkup”.

During McGuire's presentation at the national NAMI convention June 2005:

• "Getting the kids to buy in is such an essential thing because for the most part, you're distributing the consent forms to the kids to bring home to their parents and bring them back. So you have to get their buy in, you have to get them interested in it." When asked about "incentives", McGuire replied: "Hollywood Video coupons, you get that regardless. Even if the form says no, you still get the reward."
  
  One incentive for taking the test, some students admit, is a chance to miss class.

• "I've been talking a bit about this campaign of mis-information that's going on. And we do need your help, so what I'm going to do is I'm going to pass around a blank notebook here. And if anyone in this room would be willing to be contacted if umm there if, if there was a sort of a uprising against screening in your community we have lots of people throughout the country who, ya' know, there might already be screening going on in your community, we may ask you to write a letter to the editor in support of screening. We could possibly ask you to go to a school board meeting, umm, something like that. Obviously this would be your choice, but, we are starting to create really a response network and an e-mail list sorta' kinda thing, to keep people in the loop on this, ummm, so I'll pass it around and if you're interested please sign up."

	In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Michael F. Hogan to chair his New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC). Hogan is also the Director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health and a strong supporter of drugging of teens and children with psychiatric medications.

Michael F. Hogan, PhD
Chairman of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
Director of Ohio Department of Mental Health, TeenScreen Advisory Board Member


Hogan's close ties to TeenScreen and various pharmaceutical companies
Michael Hogan is a member of TeenScreen’s Advisory Council and a member-at-large of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD). He is the past president of both NASMHPD and the NASMHPD Research Institute (NRI), and is currently on the NRI Board of Directors. Both entities are heavily supported by Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly through "educational grants".

Hogan is also an Advisory Board member of Janssen Pharmaceutica’s, “Mental Health Issues Today” (MHIT). This journal is published by Parexel Medical Marketing, which receives funds from the drug companies to run "advisory panels" on their behalf. Janssen contracts with Parexel International Corporation to produce MHIT. Janssen funds the project, but Parexel writes the checks.

With Hogan at the helm in Ohio, it is no wonder that TeenScreen has more locations than any other state in the nation with 68 sites, more than double of any other state. The Ohio state budget proposal for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 includes a total of $140,000 for TeenScreen, $70,000 for each of those years. (page 61)

Universal Mental Health Screening for Everyone
What is Hogan’s personal stance on mental health screening? He would have preferred universal mental health screenings for the population, but he has stated that "science and public opinion" have not advanced to the point where universal mental health screening is acceptable. Hogan has expressed his frustration that implementations of the NFC recommendations have not proceeded faster. He "conceded that 'we in the field' would have an easier time convincing the public of the need for at least broader, if not universal, screening if the CMHS (Center for Mental Health Services) had published the NFC Action Plan that has been delayed." CMHS is the federal agency within the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) that is charged with the efforts to implement the recommendations of the NFC.

The following indicates what has happened in Ohio under Hogan’s watch and what might happen in other states if Hogan, Laurie Flynn, NAMI and the drug companies achieve their aims.

Drugging Babies in Ohio—$65.5 million for kids' mental health drugs
In a Columbus Dispatch article dated April 25, 2005, the headlines read, “EVEN BABIES GETTING TREATED AS MENTALLY ILL; Prescriptions on the rise even though they haven't been tested on children”.

The Dispatch reported, “Nearly 40,000 Ohio children on Medicaid were taking drugs for anxiety, depression, delusions, hyperactivity and violent behavior as of July [2004]. For the entire year, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services paid out about $65.5 million for kids' mental-health drugs.” They also reported that 696 Ohio children, ages newborn to 3 years old, received sedatives and powerful, mood-altering, mental-health drugs through Medicaid in July of 2004.

Valid research shows that ages 0–3 are the most critical years for the development of children. Combine that data with the recent FDA black box warnings on these drugs that list the physical side effects ranging from headaches, nausea and weight gain to heart attacks, liver damage, suicidal ideations and sudden death.

Hogan’s views on all this?

In 2003, Medicaid in Ohio paid out over 39% of their pharmacy budget for psychotropic drugs (see page 119 of this report). Medicaid spending in Ohio currently accounts for 37 percent of the state's $49-billion budget. Ohio spent $2 billion last year alone on prescription drugs — a 94-percent increase since 2001. In 2002, psychotropic drugs were 23 percent of their Medicaid pharmacy budget.

In the U.S., Medicaid is the primary funding source for mental health services with public funds currently accounting for 63% of all national mental health spending. The October 23, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle reported that, "Nationwide, Medicaid programs purchase an estimated 60 to 75 percent of antipsychotic drugs."

The cost to Medicaid of reimbursement for prescription drugs has grown faster than any other area of the program. More specifically, according to a report issued by the United States Surgeon General, expenditures for psychiatric drugs are among the fastest-rising costs, currently representing an estimated 20 percent of Medicaid’s total payment for pharmaceuticals. Typically, the costs for psychiatric drugs out-strip the costs for heart, asthma, antibiotics and blood pressure medications combined.

According to the National Pharmaceutical Council, Ohio has been rated one of the top 10 states in terms of the highest amount of Medicaid reimbursement for prescription drugs. Those 10 states alone, account for 58 percent of the total Medicaid drug payment amount ($7.9 billion out of $13.7 billion), with two antipsychotics, Zyprexa and Risperdal, representing almost 20 percent of all of the prescriptions. The Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) website indicates that over the past few years there is a large advancement of psychostimulant drug use in children in the state of Ohio. They now rank #2 per capita (only behind New Hampshire) in methylphenidate (Ritalin) purchases, per the DEA. 

"Medicaid eventually will bankrupt every state in the nation"
The Washington Post, on June 16, 2005, reported a statement by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Joe Barton (R-Texas) about the current conditions of Medicaid throughout the nation. He said, “We have reached a point where there just are not enough taxes or taxpayer money to keep Medicaid going,” adding, “Medicaid eventually will bankrupt every state in the nation.”

With the rising Medicaid expenses to state budgets, states are scrambling to rein in costs and meet budgetary constraints. Ohio Representative, Catherine Barrett, expressed concerns for these issues and states: “Ohio's Medicaid spending on drugs for mental health, needs a Task Force and an Oversight Commission to investigate the spike in Medicaid spending on antipsychotic drugs.”

An expensive lesson in Ohio: Hogan admits OMAP a failure
In 1999, under Hogan’s direction, Ohio’s version of the costly Texas Medication Algorithm Program (TMAP) was implemented in the state (OMAP), which was put into place in conjunction with Janssen Pharmaceutica, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca. The Ohio Department of Mental Health and Ohio-NAMI, were two of the primary movers of this program.

In an interview with WIMA-AM Radio in November 2005, Hogan had this to say on OMAP in Ohio: “…frankly it didn’t work very well for us and we’ve discontinued it…..Increasingly it’s clear that the scientists don’t have pretty good information to give the doctors about which works best……So we thought, and frankly I thought at one point in time that this kind of algorithm where you’d give the docs [doctors], “try this first, try this second”, would be a good idea but it just hasn’t worked that well.”   That must have been a pretty expensive lesson in Ohio.