New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

New York Times: Beware of Anti-Homeopathy Journalists and Bloggers- They May Be Sponsored By Drug Companies
Posted on November 27, 2008
by homeopathyresource

An article in the New York Times based on a study in a Medical Journal says that medical journalists may receive payments from Drug Companies in the form of “awards ” for their medical writings.

One of the journalists,

Ben Goldacre who writes anti-homeopathy diatribes has received such awards.

“Journalism awards consisting of cash prizes and all-expense-paid trips given out by drug companies are among the more “astonishing” financial ties between journalists and drug companies, the authors said.”

New York Times-

Also other bloggers, have been linked to Drug Companies such as the gimpyblog,

a hard hitting anti-complimentary medicine blog which regularly attacks homeopaths and homeopathic associations and accuses complimentary medicine practitioners of murder and calls women homeopaths “c#nts”.

Homeopathy has many supporters in the scientific and journalistic community but any one speaking on behalf of homeopathy or doing studies of homeopathy are regularly attacked by Drug Company sponsored journalists and bloggers.

Views: 398

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ben is a reasonably smart guy, even though he parrots the party line. At least he had the good grace to feel ashamed when the fake medical journal story came out. Gimpy, though, is pretty clueless and I sort of feel sorry for him.
Hi Bernie
Ahh dont give Ben any credit,he has managed to cause havoc in the homeopathic community by his rhetoric ranting .
He knows NOTHING about the principles of homeopathic prescribing yet has big oppinions on this.
Just because he comes from the Medical world does not make him worthy of factual knowledge. He himself has been brainwashed by his own peers,thinking allopathics are the gods of medicine (we all know otherwise dont we).I feel sorry for him. He has become drunk on his own poison tongue,and is gloating in it.
His blogs are worthless,thats like a 10 yrs old writing a thesis on astrophysics,without any knowledge of the subject itself!
Hi Gina,

Running Zeus Homoeopathy News all this time, I regularly come across their rants. I have started posting comments on the masses of blogs which are anti-homeopathy. I don't bother to check back to see their anger. I just tell it like it is and leave them to fume or joke or whatever. I feel if anyone with commonsense reads the blog, there should be some comment of truth. They just haven't a clue about homeopathy.
I agree that to spend all their time attacking it, they must be paid in some way. Often if there is a pro homeopathy article, they are on to it SO FAST, it makes you think it must be what they do for a living.
If you think about it, there are lots of things a person doesn't particularly like that doesn't necessarily affect them, but they don't spend all their time obsessively attacking those things. UNLESS there is some inducement for them to do so. I personally think Pharma is employing ths ARMY of skeptics and trying to grow this Army.
NYT Exposes Ben Goldacre and Gimpy as Critical of Homeopathy Because They Might Be In the Pay of Big Pharma: Homeopathy Resource Speaks Out

Found another link on this with more on it but can't see how to create the hyperlink.
An article in the New York Times based on a study in a Medical Journal says that medical journalists may receive payments from Drug Companies in the form of “awards ” for their medical writings. One of the journalists, Ben Goldacre who writes anti-homeopathy diatribes has received such awards.

“Journalism awards consisting of cash prizes and all-expense-paid trips given out by drug companies are among the more “astonishing” financial ties between journalists and drug companies, the authors said.”…

Also other bloggers, have been linked to Drug Companies such as the gimpyblog, a hard hitting anti-complimentary medicine blog which regularly attacks homeopaths and homeopathic associations and accuses complimentary medicine practitioners
Thanks Louise
Good article to expose these 'pests' of homeopathy.

Lets add to this on going database-
Anyone else please post future articles here-
Gina- I think the word is slowly getting out. The recent news about acetaminophen, a number of antidepressants and pain killers have demonstrated that big pharma is in the pockets of the FDA, universities, and the medical establishment. People are becoming very jaded about allopathic drugs, vaccines etc. The homeopathic community needs to keep up the pressure.
Thanks Gina. The only thing that surprises me is that the NYT actually reported on it!

Hi Elaine Yes agreed
You dont normally see these type of articles exposing Big pharma employees in the main stream media.The more the better.

Its like exposing the Wizard of OZZ(Remember the movie?)When the curtain was pushed open?
Hi Dr. Bruck,
Just wanted to say that it is the other way round:

The FDA, universities, medical establishment is in the pocket of Big Pharma!
But I guess that is probably what you meant?!
Gina - You are always right there! Thanks so much.

Here is the article:
Conflicts of Interest May Ensnare Journalists, Too By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: November 21, 2008
Health reporters may become entangled in the same kinds of ethical conflicts they often expose when accepting industry-sponsored awards and relying on corporate public relations offices, three researchers warn.

Journalism awards consisting of cash prizes and all-expense-paid trips given out by drug companies are among the more “astonishing” financial ties between journalists and drug companies, the authors said. The paper appears in the online edition of the British medical journal BMJ.
  • Incredible news. The drug companies BUY their message. No ethics at all.

Among the prizes cited are the Embrace Award for reporting on urinary incontinence — consisting of trips to Washington, D.C., and Paris — offered by pharmaceutical firms Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as another Eli Lilly award for cancer treatment stories that includes a weeklong international trip for two.
  • We must expose these covert actions and enlighten the public.

The authors also point a finger at journalism training and education programs sponsored by the health care industry and to professorships funded by drug company grants. The writers go on to criticize reporters’ reliance on drug company press officers for referrals to experts or to patients, whose views may have been carefully screened.
  • Conflict of interest. Reminds me that doctors give out FREE medications to patients based on the drug reps that frequent their office. These medications may cause more problems than they solve.

Pharmaceutical companies “work really hard to get their message out to the public and physicians through advertisements and continuing medical education and all the other things people hear about, so it makes sense they would go after the media as well,” said Dr. Steven Woloshin, associate professor of medicine at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, one of the paper’s authors. “It’s striking that nobody’s been writing about this.”
  • That has got to change. And we may be the ones to do it. We must and can write about it.

Dr. Woloshin said reporters have told him that they often get names of patients from the press officers of drug companies but don’t include that fact in the coverage. “That may be a blind spot for journalists,” he said.
  • What happened to patient privacy laws?

The paper also expressed concern over television programming produced for doctors’ waiting rooms, which may feature journalists but also serve as a platform for drug advertising. “Physicians are legitimately being questioned about their ties to industry and their independence and apparent conflicts of interest, and it’s just as important for the journalists who are doing it,” Dr. Woloshin said.
  • The lines between commercials and education has blurred. This is seen when reading a magazine which says in small letters at the top, "THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT" when it looks exactly like an article in the journal, or viewing 'info-mercials.'

But Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank and training center, said that while a few freelance writers or magazine writers might vie for industry-sponsored awards, most journalists do not, because the conflicts of interest are obvious.
  • Let's see the numbers?

Len Bruzzese, executive director of the Association for Health Care Journalists, a group that was lauded in the paper for its high ethical standards, said he is concerned about a growing number of online outlets that operate in a “grayer area,” because they do traditional journalism but also provide opportunities for commercial interests to air videos through commercials or more direct sponsorship. For the most part, he said, “journalists are good solid people who will avoid these conflicts, or they wouldn’t have entered journalism to begin with.”
  • Generallized blanket statement. Prove it. Today everyone and their mother are publishing blogs. The media is losing ground as the purveyor of news. It's in our hands. Let's get the message straight. Drugs have side-effects, are costly, are not well tested, especially not tested when given to young people or women or when mixed with other medications.
Hi Debby
Yes Correct,Thanks for posting that article!
And why is this happening all may ask?
Because allopathic medicine does not work/it cures nothing!
So they place billions of dollars each year into marketing/publishing articles paid by drug corp funds.
No allopath,No scientist,no researcher- would in their right mind write a positive review about any prescription on the market IF THEY WERE NOT PAID .

In turn we have homeopathics-no one gets paid to write journals,no one gets paid to do research,no one gets a cent to post cured cases in a database-Homeopathy does not need to manipulate the MEDIA because it works! Homeopathy does nOT endanger the patient like allopathics does.Homeopathy cures the incurable (see my curecase database discussion)
see stats on allopathic adverse effects/and how these numbers are buried; media)
Media free drug promotion

[The media are just disguised pharma trade rags, and a million times more effective than if it had 'drug advertisement']

Quotes re promotion
Whitaker exposes the massive lies and cover-ups that have corrupted the Food and Drug Administration's drug review process, and co-opted research trials in order to spin the results of drug tests and conceal the serious hazards and even deadly side-effects of brand-name drugs like Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil and Zyprexa.
Whitaker starts by debunking the effectiveness of these massively hyped wonder drugs -- antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil, and the new atypical antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa. His research shows how they often are barely more effective than placebos in treating mental disorder and depression, despite the glowing adulation they have received in the mainstream media.
Psychiatric Drugs: An Assault on the Human Condition Street Spirit Interview with Robert Whitaker
(just one example)
more on how big pharma promotes poison;

Chairman of psychiatry at Stanford received an NIH grant to study a drug, while partially owning a company that was seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of that drug. He was later removed from the grant. [The name here is Alan Schatzberg].

Three professors at Harvard failed to report almost a million dollars each in outside income while heading up several NIH grants. Harvard plans to release a report and is working to update their conflict of interest policies. [These professors are Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens, and Thomas Spencer].

Host of a show that ran on the National Public Radio (NPR) satellite station received over a million dollars from pharmaceutical companies to give promotional talks. The show had received funding from the NIH and has been cancelled. [That would be Fredrick Goodwin]

Chair of orthopedic surgery at the University of Wisconsin reported taking more than $20,000 from a company every year, for five years. The actual amount was around $19 million. The University of Wisconsin is revising its rules. [The name here is Thomas Zdeblick].

Professor at the University of Texas received an NIH grant to study Paxil in kids, while also giving dozens of promotional talks on Paxil. This matter has been referred to Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. [This professor is Karen Wagner]

Professor at the University of Washington in St. Louis who was formerly at Walter Reed Army Hospital failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars he had received from a device company to develop their products. [That would be Timothy Kuklo].

“To bring some greater transparency to this issue, Senator Kohl and I introduced the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (Act),” Grassley said in the letter the Universities. “This Act will require drug, medical device, and biologics companies to report publicly any payments that they make to doctors, within certain parameters.”

The latest addition to the Grassley list is Emory University’s Zachary Stowe, for not disclosing money he received from drug makers at the same time that he was conducting federally funded research on the use of antidepressants, such as Paxil, by pregnant and nursing mothers.

Stowe has been the primary investigator of an NIH grant since 2004 to study children delivered by women who may also be taking antidepressants. From 2003 to July of 2008, he was the primary investigator of another grant that looked at fetal exposure to medications consumed by pregnant mothers. In 2008, Stowe was the primary investigator of another NIH grant where the stated purpose was “to stimulate vigorous debate with the emphasis on the reproductive safety of antidepressant medications,” according to a June 2, 2009, letter from Grassley to Emory University.

In 2007 and 2008 alone, Stowe received about a quarter of a million dollars from Paxil-maker, GlaxoSmithKline, mostly for giving promotional talks.

Grassley was especially disturbed by an email between Glaxo employees and a public relations firm Glaxo hired, titled “For your review/Paxil Breast Milk Press Release”.

During a 2008 deposition in a birth defects lawsuit against Glaxo, Stowe confirmed that the press release was written by the PR firm and concerned his research on Paxil, and explained that placing the press release on Emory letterhead would make the data more credible to the public, as opposed to Glaxo letter head.

Stories on the internet show the Emory name was apparently used to add credibility to Paxil studies. For instance, citing a February 2, 2000, press release by Emory University School of Medicine, titled “New Study Shows Paxil Not Found in Breast-Fed Infants of Depressed Mothers,” on March 13, 2000, the StorkNet website featured an article with the headline: “Study Results Show Paxil Safe for Use by Breastfeeding Mothers With Depression.”

The story included the following paragraph with Emory specifically mentioned and Stowe’s comments:

“Due to the increased occurrence of mood and anxiety disorders during child-bearing years, it is imperative that we continue to research and make treatment options such as Paxil available for mothers who want the opportunity and benefit of breastfeeding their children,” said study leader Dr. Zachary N. Stowe, director of Emory University School of Medicine’s Pregnancy and Postpartum Mood Disorders Program.

“This study provides compelling data that Paxil is a viable treatment option for mothers who would like to continue breastfeeding.”

In the deposition, Stowe said he had been on Glaxo’s speaker’s bureau since 1999 and claimed that on top of his $232,000 Emory salary, he earned an additional 20 – 30% more doing work for drug companies.

On June 10, 2009, on the “Carlat Psychiatry Blog,” Dr Daniel Carlat noted that, “Stowe appears to have been deceptive during a recent deposition, when he claimed that on top of his $232,000 Emory salary, he earned an additional 20 – 30% more doing work for pharmaceutical companies.”

If he made $154,400 from GSK alone in 2007, “by my calculation this is already 66% more salary than he got from Emory,” Carlat said. “And Stowe did work for lots of other companies as well.”

Here is his disclosure from a Medscape CME gig he did in March 2007: “he has received grants for clinical research, grants for educational activities, and has served as an advisor or consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, and Pfizer. … he has served as an advisor or consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb. … he has served on the speaker’s bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly.”

“Who knows how much money he was also getting from Wyeth, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly?” Carlat wrote. “He may very well have doubled his Emory salary, or more.”

“Furthermore,” he explained, “the $154,400 disclosed by GSK does not include all the cash they paid Stowe through laundered CME money.”

“For example, here is a CME program Stowe did for Medscape that was funded by GSK,” Carlat said, and wrote:

“The program is entitled “Long-term health risks of antiepileptic drugs in women” and is essentially a commercial for using Lamictal in pregnant women with bipolar disorder.”

“In it, Stowe begins by saying nasty things about Lamictal’s competitors, Depakote and Tegretol, and then minimizes a large study showing that Lamictal causes cleft palate.”

“I’m sure he got paid a lot for this, and that he did plenty of other similar CME programs that are scattered somewhere throughout the internet.”

“The bottom line is that Stowe has run into the same ethical problem as his boss Dr. Nemeroff-he was taking public NIH money to conduct research, while at the same time giving dozens of promotional talks for a company that stood to benefit from the results of that research,” Carlat pointed out.

On June 10, 2009, the Wall Street Journal health blog reported that, “Emory University has disciplined a prominent psychiatrist who was being paid by an antidepressant maker at the same time he was conducting federal research about the use of such drugs in pregnant women.”

The university said its medical school dean issued a letter of reprimand on April 30 to psychiatrist Zachary Stowe related to his “external relationships,” the WSJ wrote.

Emory has reprimanded Stowe, “who was instructed to immediately eliminate conflicts related to current federal grants,” the health blog noted.

Also, “the National Institute of Mental Health said it is reviewing Stowe’s activities, prompted by a letter from a U.S. Senate committee that said Stowe received $253,700 in 2007 and 2008 for “essentially promotional talks” for the drug maker GlaxoSmithKline,” the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on June 11, 2009.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 25 June 2009 )

New Fax Campaign
Written by Administrator
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Why The MOTHERS Act Should Not Be Passed
(a great example of corruption in politics meets Big Pharma)

Please go to and print a PDF that you can fax to the Senate:

Here is the text of the fax if you want to format your own letter:


On the surface, The MOTHERS Act (S. 324) reflects its sponsors’ compassion for mothers suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis. But when one looks closely at the important sections of the legislation, it is clear that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation not only fails the mothers of America, it’s intended to inflate the balance sheets of Big Pharma.

The bill omits language clearly stating there will be an evaluation of the large amount of data available on the known risks of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications currently being prescribed to pregnant women and nursing mothers (including birth defects, heart defects, spontaneous abortions, and infant deaths). See May 9, 2009 Vogue article, “Pregnant Pause: With a flurry of recent reports challenging the safety of antidepressant drugs for unborn babies, doctors and concerned mothers-to-be are rethinking the guidelines” by Alexis Jetter at

The bill defines ‘postpartum condition’ as only ‘postpartum depression (PPD) or postpartum psychosis.’ The danger is that per these DSM-extracted terms to label women with mental disorders, this is only psychological, not physiological conditions which will be checked for, ruling out discovery of any real physical causes, such as hormonal imbalances or vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and neglecting the treatments thereof. This relates to the issue of “screening tools” in development cited in the bill. Are these merely psychological questionnaires, and who is developing them? Are they pharmaceutically funded?

The bill cites various “entities” that will be eligible for grants and for participating in research and/or development of screening methods and/or treatments and delivery. Who or what are these “entities?” Are they pharmaceutically funded? Do they have conflicts of interest? There are ongoing investigations of various “non-profit” organizations who heavily promote or conduct screening. For example, Screening for Mental Health, Inc., and its sub-organization Signs of Suicide, who heavily promote and conduct mental health screening, received $4,985,925 from pharmaceutical companies prior to 2008. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) receives 56% of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. Ten leading psychiatric researchers (many from prominent universities) have been exposed in the last year for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical payments – yet this bill contains no provisions for full disclosure of conflicts of interest for any “entity” receiving federal taxpayer funded grants.

Given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the financial conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S., it is no small issue that The MOTHERS Act provides no research guidelines for public disclosure.

Under The MOTHERS Act’s current language, research will be conducted without peer review – no checks and balances, no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status.

Simultaneously, without allowing any checks and balances whatsoever on the research, it promotes a national “public education” campaign to include Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements, essentially giving Pharma an opportunity for free, federally-funded advertising.

SUMMARY: Without a fully completed, published, and publicly disclosed investigation of the dangers of current methods of treatment (drugs), efficacy of non-drug treatments, and discovery and disclosure of the causes for these conditions, clearly defined and available for review by the medical/scientific community and consumers, there should be no endorsement of a national educational or advertising campaign. There must be no new or massive utilization or promotion of any “screening tools” without first disclosing the researchers, entities, and methods used to develop these “screening tools.”

Therefore, as a concerned citizen and voter, I urge you to vote “NO” on The MOTHERS Act (S. 324).

Sincerely, Address:

Stress Testing The MOTHERS Act

by Kelly Patricia O’Meara

May 7, 2009

It seems these days that everything is a test. Yes, the powers that be have decided that taxpayer benevolence now is contingent upon passing a stress test. But much to the dismay of those being tested, the results may reveal, for example, that the nation’s financial wizards and auto giants are actually bankrupt midgets and unworthy of America’s support.

Given that officialdom has embraced the stress test as a barometer of future viability and success and a determinant for public financing, it seems reasonable to request that other important issues that very personally impact the health and welfare of the American people be subjected to similar stress tests. There is none more deserving of stress testing than the proposed MOTHERS Act.

On the surface, the MOTHERS Act reflects its sponsors overwhelming compassion and empathy for women suffering from alleged mental health disorders resulting from childbirth – often referred to as Postpartum Depression. But when one conducts a brief stress test on important sections of the legislation, taxpayers may find that this costly and sweeping mental health legislation actually fails women of America, but goes a long way in inflating the balance sheets of one of the most lucrative industries in the nation – big Pharma.

For instance, the MOTHERS Act legislation that currently is pending in the U.S. Senate states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services may “make grants to eligible entities…” to deliver essential services to individuals with a postpartum condition. What the legislation doesn’t delineate is who and what entities may receive these grants. Are these “entities” funded by pharmaceutical companies? Lawmakers have not specified what constitutes an “entity” so it will be impossible to know if there are conflicts of interest between those who develop the screening tools and conduct research and the pharmaceutical companies who most certainly will benefit financially from the increased diagnosing.

Furthermore, no research guidelines have been provided for public disclosure. This is no small issue, given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S. who had received millions of dollars in pharmaceutical funding. Where is the guarantee that the “entities” are not pharmaceutical front-men?

The legislation also allows for the “expansion and intensification of activities” into the research of Postpartum conditions and “evaluation of new treatments.” This is a humdinger. Despite ever-increasing published data and clinical studies challenging the safety of antidepressants and other antipsychotic drugs, there is no guidance provided by lawmakers to mandate that the public be made aware of the avalanche of scientific data that not only questions the efficacy of the drugs available to mothers suffering from these conditions, but also warning of the dangers associated with currently available “treatments.”

The section of the legislation dealing with expanding the research into the causes of Postpartum conditions is wholly void of any guidelines that insure the validity of the research conducted, and provides nothing in the way of public disclosure or peer-review of research before it is launched in education campaigns. In the real world, research is conducted and submitted for peer review. In this instance, it appears that Congress has learned nothing from the ongoing banking debacle and naively believes that the researchers will be on their best behavior – self-policing themselves. This is a dangerous omission in the legislation, especially since the Senate Finance Committee has exposed the serious conflicts of interest that exist between researchers and pharmaceutical companies.

Making matters worse, much of the legislation revolves around funding national education campaigns about Postpartum Depression, including Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements. Based on the current language of the legislation, research will be conducted without peer review – no checks and balances; no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status. Given that this research will be used to develop questions or tests for screening new mothers for possible mental disorders, one might find it important to know that the research has integrity and has been validated by the scientific community, free of pharmaceutical largesse. Congress apparently didn’t think integrity of the research is important and there are no provisions to protect women from pharmaceutical driven research.

Taxpayers may also expect that such important legislation would make provisions for some kind of oversight; some government entity that could provide feedback on the success or failure of this mental health campaign. One avenue that may help lawmakers’ determine if these new programs are working is the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reports. MedWatch collects information about people who have experienced adverse reactions to drugs overseen by the FDA. With the increased drugging that most certainly will occur with the increase in diagnosing, it seems logical that lawmakers would insert provisions in the legislation to annually review Adverse Event Reports collected by MedWatch, especially those relating to drugs prescribed in the treatment of Postpartum Depression. Unfortunately, because the nation’s lawmakers have provided no provisions for oversight, countless numbers of women may be harmed by the “treatments” but will be none the wiser because no protections were provided in the legislation.

There also is the very basic question of why the government is endorsing this sweeping mental health legislation and sanctioning a national advertising campaign about Postpartum Depression when there is no definitive data about the cause of the condition or that it is an objective confirmable abnormality – the scientific standard for disease. Given that there are so many unknowns in this legislation, it seems irresponsible to go forward without reasonable protections in place.

Congress must insure that all research and screening tests proposed and endorsed by this legislation be disclosed for peer-review and consumer input before implementing any screening tests and approving any research to be used in the national education campaign, including Public Service Announcements and radio and television advertising.

Given the documented risks related to the current modes of treatments, including antidepressant and antipsychotics, which are commonly prescribed for Postpartum Depression and documented to cause birth defects and host of other issues in pregnant and nursing mothers, Congress must include mandatory reviews of published research and clinical data on the drugs prescribed for the treatment of Postpartum Depression.

Finally, Congress must protect the integrity of the research by providing strict guidelines to insure that there are no conflicts of interest between the researcher and the pharmaceutical industry.

Without these safeguards, the MOTHERS Act cannot today, or ever, pass a stress test of viability and mothers and their children certainly will be on the losing end of this mental health campaign. Sometimes it’s in the best interest of the people for Congress NOT to act, and until our lawmakers are confident that all legislative precautions have been taken to insure optimum results, this is one of those times.

About the author:

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award-winning investigative journalist who authored more than two dozen articles examining the psychiatric pharmaceutical industry during her tenure at the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine. Her articles resulted in record sales of the issues in which they appeared and among the national and international press that have featured her articles are Fox News, the O’Reilly Factor, CBS News, BBC, ABC’s 20/20 and Hannity and Colmes. She is also the author of Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Sickness and Pushes Pills that Kill. Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill and was the lead investigator in several Congressional investigations. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 03 June 2009 )


HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...