Breggin - "Expert witness" - hire this man at your peril !

Over the past forty years, Breggin has testified in more than seventy[citation needed] trials involving claims of tardive dyskinesia induced by neuroleptics, brain damage from electroconvulsive therapy, violence and suicide caused by psychiatric drugs, and other issues related to patient rights. His work has included criminal cases, malpractice suits and product liability suits. Although he continues to testify in court a few times a year, the great majority of cases in which he acts as a medical expert are settled before going to trial[citation needed].
Breggin testified as an expert witness in the Wesbecker case (Fentress et al., 1994), a lawsuit against Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac. Ultimately, the jury found for Eli Lilly. Breggin later claimed that this was because the plaintiffs and defendants had secretly settled behind closed doors[36]. Breggin alleges that pharmaceutical manufacturers, particularly Eli Lilly, have committed ad hominem attacks upon him in the form of linking him to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs. Breggin acknowledges that he did work with Scientology starting in 1972, but states that by 1974 he "found [himself] opposed to Scientology's values, agenda, and tactics", and in consequence "stopped all cooperative efforts in 1974 and publicly declared [his] criticism of the group in a letter published in Reason." [37] Breggin has also stated that he has personal reasons to dislike Scientology since his wife, Ginger, was once a member. [37] [24]
Several judges have questioned Breggin's credibility as an expert witness. For example, a Maryland judge in a medical malpractice case in 1995 said, "I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. . . he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion"[4]. In that same year a Virginia judge excluded Breggin's testimony stating, "This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny. . . Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on 'good science'"[3].


In 2002, Breggin was hired as an expert witness by a survivor of the Columbine High School massacre in a case against the makers of an anti-depressant drug. In his report, Dr. Breggin failed to mention the Columbine incident or one of the killers, instead focusing on the medication taken by the other, "...Eric Harris was suffering from a substance induced (Luvox-induced) mood disorder with depressive and manic features that had reached a psychotic level of violence and suicide. Absent persistent exposure to Luvox, Eric Harris probably would not have committed violence and suicide"[38]. However, according to The Denver Post, the judge of the case "...was visibly angry that the experts failed to view evidence prior to their depositions" even though they had months to do so. The evidence would have included hundreds of documents including a significant amount of video and audio tape that the killers had recorded. The judge stated, "..lawyers will be free to attack them on the basis of the evidence they haven't seen and haven't factored into their opinions". [39]. The lawsuit was eventually dropped with the stipulation that the makers of Luvox donate $10,000 to the American Cancer Society[38].

In 2005, a Common Pleas Court disqualified the testimony of Breggin because it did not meet the scientific rigor established by the Frye Standard. The judge stated "...Breggin spends 14 pages critiquing the treatment provided not because it ran counter to the acceptable standards of care, but because it ran counter to Breggin’s personal ideas and ideologies of what the standards ought to be.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin