We’ve all rolled our eyes at a pharma-funded study.
But if we tossed out every researcher who’s ever worked with industry—what evidence would we have left?

You get a call from the ER about a patient in restraints.
Bipolar disorder. Disrobing. Yelling at staff. They need his medication history.
But his outpatient clinic won't talk to you.
"HIPAA," they say. "He needs to sign a release first.

She's slower than her colleagues. Always the last to leave meetings. Takes forever to finish tasks.
Then you ask the right question: "Do you have any repetitive behaviors or thoughts that feel hard to control?"
Suddenly, everything clicks.

GLP-1 agonists may get the spotlight—but they’re not the only option. Many patients can’t afford them, don’t want the side effects, or prefer to stick with psychiatric meds they already know.

When patients are acutely psychotic, manic, or suicidal, our impulse is to fine tune the meds. But a few years ago—while working primarily inpatient—I realized I was leaning too heavily on medication. My patients needed more. 

TD affects ~2.6 million people in the U.S., but only 40,000 are being treated.

I just read a Lilly-sponsored CME on Medscape featuring Dr. Malaz Boustani—a respected geriatrician doing critical work with underserved communities. But this isn't just education—it's marketing for Lilly’s anti-amyloid drug Donabemab.

At Carlat Publishing, we regularly debate trends in psychiatry—and neurodivergence is one of today’s most charged topics.
Let’s call it opinion divergence: Some on our team feel that the DSM-5 term “autism spectrum disorder” is politically insensitive. Others see it as clinically essential.