- Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, is still accepting money from the drug companies which brings his total to $151,474.00 since 2010, our experience to push the drugs if you need them or not.
In our experience the facts below prove Cathal Grant is doing what he paid for by the drug companies
|A Glance: this Prescriber Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, in 2010|
|2,092 Medicare Part D Prescriptions Filled||$280K Total Retail Price||$135 Average Prescription Price||204 Medicare Part D Patients Receiving at Least One Drug|
Source: Pro Publica
It is our experience that Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, has prescribed medication without proper evaluation , in he 2 to 5 minute diagnostics sessions for years, people are given drugs which has been proven to do no better than placebo or sugar pill in a Harvard medical School study, Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, has only one way of doing business prescribing drugs, where you need them or not, you then are hooked on these drugs , and you must come back to him for refills as his patients have said:
“ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY! RUN AWAY! They avoid proper diagnosis so they can keep you coming back and put you on the wrong meds for your actual condition, even sometimes prescribing meds that make you worse. This guy is a MILLIONAIRE. Wonder why?”
“DO NOT go to Grant. He is a legal drug pusher who prescribes drugs notorious for their toxic side effects, including SUICIDE. If you were desperate when you went to Grant, you may be DEAD afterwards”
“The only way Grant could depersonalize his practice more than it is already, is to post a two minute video on the Internet telling you about how qualified he is and then emailing a prescription for Cymbalta. As an ex-patient of Grant’s, I saw him for 4 – 5 minutes while he glance at notes his staff had taken of my medical history, and then prescribed Cymbalta. This drug is notorious for its brutal side effects, including suicide. Thank you, Dr. Grant!”
Psychiatry gets under the skin
by: Luke Hallum
July 20, 2013 12:00 AM
Sigmund Freud decoupled nervous illness from the body. Picture: Sigmund Freud Museum Source: AP
LIFE is arduous, no doubt. And for some all the effort steers only a course to the doldrums. But do we suffer more now than in previous times?
Are we more depressed or just more diagnosed? Many critical thinkers, within the medical industry and without, are incredulous of the notion that, in fact, we do suffer more. For centuries people have believed themselves to be living in stressful times – indeed, heaving away on Hamlet’s “sea of troubles”.
But what surely is credible is the influence of culture, that changeable lens through which we view our suffering. In 1950s England, few people received the diagnosis of depression – about three in every 1000. Now, in Australia, some estimates of the prevalence of depression run to 10 per cent – about 103 in every 1000. So who crafted today’s lens?
In 1980, the American Psychiatric Association radically revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), which finds widespread use in the US, Australia and across the world by physicians, researchers, courts and schools. In doing so, the APA rendered diagnostic criteria for depression so vague as to potentially encompass us all.
At about the same time, pharmaceutical industry executives, wide-eyed at having sensed an opportunity, began propounding the notion that, much like the common cold, “mental illness” was epidemic and curable.
That commercial opportunism – the drug companies’ relentless marketing to physicians and lay people – along with slackened diagnostic criteria is central to Edward Shorter’s argument in How Everyone Became Depressed.
But let’s lighten the mood a little. Let’s talk about Sigmund Freud and his literary career.
In about 1900, Freud declared neuroses, including “neurotic depression”, were caused by sexual episodes in childhood, too much masturbation or both. And so, with doctrine firmly in hand, he began dismantling psychiatry. Psychiatry’s epicentre at the time was German-speaking Europe. Throughout the preceding century, European psychiatrists had developed a clear distinction between “melancholia” – the serious, relatively rare psychotic illness – and the more common “nervous illness” (to use Shorter’s term) comprising fatigue, anxiety, mildly depressed mood, somatic complaints and obsession about it all. Indeed, worry about worry.
Shorter laments the loss of that clear distinction. He explains how German psychiatrists were also trained as neurologists and thus were familiar with internal medicine, acquiring, during their training, “a feeling for brain illness as involving the entire body”.
But Freud and his adherents, self-styled “scientists of the unconscious psyche”, were largely uninterested in melancholia – for its sufferers were not readily amenable to psychotherapy – and, in the early and middle parts of the 20th century, in Europe and elsewhere, they parleyed nervous illness out of the body and into the mind. Certain psychoanalytic centres, especially those in and around New York, began encouraging the admission of “bright, young and verbal patients” suitable for psychotherapy. A phrase began to figure prominently in patient self-reports: “Doctor, I am depressed.”
But, in a strange plot twist, it was Freud who effectively held the pharmaceutical industry at bay; at bay, that is, until the decline of psychoanalysis and the rise of “neurotransmitter chatter”. By 1960, the main technique in the US psychiatrist’s armamentarium was Freudian psychoanalysis. Though often required to prescribe drugs to the severely ill, psychiatrists did so “reluctantly and with an absence of conviction”, Shorter says. But late in the 1960s the depression epidemic began to surge. Shorter argues the key was the pharmaceutical industry’s “marketing to the public of drugs for depression on the grounds that they rested on an unshakeable foundation of neuroscience”.
That foundation? The hypothesis that a lack of the neurotransmitter serotonin, allowing the communication of signals between certain brain sites, is the biological basis of depression. Neuroscientists quickly accumulated doubt over the serotonin hypothesis; today it is widely disbelieved. But Shorter explains it lives on in pharmaceutical advertising and in the explanations doctors give to their patients.
And all that has been potentiated by the DSM-III, which, says Shorter, “completed the job by separating completely anxiety and depression, and fragmenting anxiety into a volley of meaningless micro-syndromes” – indeed, creating a mental illness that could be applied to everyone.
The APA recently published the fifth revision of the DSM, upping the number of diagnoses from the 265 contained in the third revision to more than 300.
Shorter is professor of the history of medicine at the University of Toronto. He argues from a platform of painstaking research, but he doesn’t always engage a wide audience – physician and layperson alike. At times, he is technical. And at times I was adrift. Does he mean depression the diagnosis per se? Or depression as in low mood? Or, here, melancholia?
But maybe Shorter is necessarily obscure in places, with the overall effect being to exemplify a dilemma; psychiatry lacks biological tests for its serious ailments – tests akin to a blood test for diabetes or a skin test for tuberculosis – and so instead the discipline relies on the phrase books of patients and physicians in which words can wheel around disorders without really alighting on them.
And, at times, Shorter is dramatic (this, on the effect of Freud’s doctrines on psychiatry: “I am unaware of any comparable wholesale demolition of a field of scientific knowledge and its replacement with a fairy castle of fantasies.”) But that lends his book its gripping quality.
In early chapters, he examines certain symptoms (for example, A Brief History of Fatigue) that, he laments, have gone out of the psychiatrist’s focus – all part of the shift from body to mind. His narrative gathers speed in the middle chapters (Paradigm Shift; Something Wrong with the Label), where he discusses Freud’s tyranny, the rise of biological psychiatry only to have it co-opted by pharmaceuticals advertising and the political horse-trading (Shorter’s words) behind the DSM-III.
Throughout, Shorter is sympathetic to sufferers. His point is not to mitigate anyone’s experience of depression, no matter how minor. Rather, he aims to underscore psychiatry’s shortcomings, to shift the vantage from a narrow view of depression to a wide view of nervous illness and its causes. Shorter’s polemical spirit is difficult not to admire. And let’s hope he succeeds because we live in stressful times.
Luke Hallum is a research fellow at the Centre for Neural Science, New York University
1. Studies in numerous countries reveal that between 10% and 25% of psychiatrists and psychologists admit to sexually abusing their patients.
2. Germany reported that 50% of registered psychologists and psychotherapists are unacceptable as practitioners because they have more problems than their patients.
3. The so-called ethics system used by psychiatrists has been universally attacked as soft and inadequate.
4. A 1997 Canadian study of psychiatrists revealed that 10% admitted to sexually abusing theirs patients; 80% of those are repeat offenders.
The real truth about the money paid to Cathal Grant by the drug Companies
Notice Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is paid by Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Cephalon, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer to push their drug in our opinion it is clear what Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas is doing, prescribing drug if you need them or not.
Click here to read the Texas Tribune: Drug Company Payments to Texas Doctors Raise Questions
Doctors Paid Big By Drug Companies?
One patient statement about Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas:
“We found out that he gets paid to speak for almost every drug company out there, even if the drugs are competitors. He is out to make the money and it is apparent the way patients are herded through the practice with no regard for the patient’s needs. Beware if he tries to prescribe you a “new” drug on the market, it probably means they are paying him now. “
In our experience Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not tell you one big fact that you the patient has and that is Informed Consent, Dr. Cathal P Grant MD, Bedford, Texas, does not discuss this or wants you to know about this, in our experience so he can get you hooked on psychotropic medications so you can do nothing but feed you greed for money, and you do not care at all what you do to the patient’s life.
This video proves what we are saying in our opinion about Cathal Grant’s medical practice, it also shows how Cathal Grant does not want you to have informed consent in your visit with him, and he does not tell you the truth, as the video below shows: