Here in Washington State we have only the newest and most expensive neuroleptic drugs listed as the "first-line" treatment for psychosis and schizophrenia; they are "preferred" drugs according to the Washington State Medicaid program. This is in no small part due to the advocacy of NAMI Washington, through NAMI National, and on the "expert advice" of psychiatrists who are aware of the results of NIMH drug trials. The NIMH trials of these drugs for both adults and children concluded that the newer more expensive drugs are not safer or more effective than the older MUCH cheaper drugs---yet they are "preferred." The preferred status of the neuroleptic drugs called "atypical anti-psychotics" or, second generation anti-psychotics, "SGAs" benefits the pharmaceutical companies and their stockholders; not the taxpayers whose money funds the Medicaid program, and certainly not the patients.
The NIMH clinical trials for these drugs do not in fact support the conclusion that neuroleptic drugs called "Atyical Antipsychotics" are any safer, or more effective than the older much cheaper neuroleptic drugs. This claim is a ploy used to sell the drugs; having no basis in fact, it is a fraudulent claim. These drugs are in fact only effective for a minority of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia; for those who are "effectively treated" the risks are extremely high. Risks which directly impact both morbidity and mortality include diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. These are three of the top ten conditions which have caused Medicaid costs to spiral out of control, the conditions that the most Medicaid dollars are expended on.
Washington State's Attorney General has joined in class action lawsuits which have resulted in payments to Washington State for the off-label marketing of psychiatric drugs; but this has not led to increased public awareness. It has not lead to appropriate psychiatric drug policies being implemented by the Medicaid program. The changes that have occurred do not protect the children who are wards of the State of Washington, or the adults who are compelled under Court Order to take neuroleptics. The deleterious effects are still largely minimized, or ignoreed by those who prescribe the drugs; and the iatrogenic injuries and illnesses are MEDICALLY NEGLECTED as a matter of course.
At the same time the settlements for the off-label marketing were being distributed, NAMI was lobbying the Washington State legislature to strengthen the Involuntary Treatment Laws; ensuring that more and more people will be taking these teratogenic drugs, against their wishes, and to their detriment. Neuroleptics cause a wide variety of iatrogenic illnesses and will continue to cause Washington State's health care costs to spiral out of control. One cannot help but wonder why is appropriate and medically necessary follow up rarely provided to psychiatric patients? And, what effect is this having on increased mortality rates?
This is an ongoing tragedy around the globe. People are not being informed of the risks involved with treating emotional and behavioral issues with drugs. Primarily this is because the professionals are not being informed; the drug manufacturers conceal adverse event data from the professionals and the public. Incredibly it gets worse, the FDA has actually concealed risks and has claimed it had no duty to inform the public about adverse events, even fatalities; because the risks were considered, "trade secrets" of the pharmaceutical industry according to the FDA! There is no way of knowing the actual numbers of those killed, or disabled, by FDA approved drugs, there is no requirement for psychiatrists or any medical professional who prescribes drugs to report suspected side effects or adverse events--not even death. Only a small minority of the deaths are reported by doctors or medical professionals.
I want to know why so-called patient and family advocacy groups are not telling the people who come to them for help about this? Why is there no effort being made by these "mental health advocacy groups" to change these obvious flaws in the drug regulatory safety system? I suspect these "advocacy groups" are not speaking out about the known dangers of psychiatric drugs due to an obvious, and well documented Conflict of Interest that exists: It is the Pharmaceutical Industry that is the source of much of their funding, and it is the drug industry who oversees development of educational materials they disseminate to patients and parents, friends and concerned community members wishing to support a person with a psychiatric diagnosis.
More than anything, I want to know why Washington State's Legislature and the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery have used biased data and flawed reasoning while allowing people with Conflicts of Interest to drive policy for Washington's publicly funded mental health programs?
Recently a documentary, Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child was released. The documentary features several parents who have buried their children. All of the parents lost children as the direct result of their children being prescribed psychiatric drugs---one child died in her mothers arms--she was eight years old. Any person who cares about children and believes that people should be told the truth when they seek professional help for emotional and behavioral issues should know: The serious risks are seldom discussed or even disclosed when people are prescribed psychiatric drugs. Parents are not told of the risks to their children's health and well being; I know I wasn't. My son is cognitively and physically impaired, and I was never told it was even possible. I now know it is common for a patient to experience serious, negative effects and even permanent iatrogenic injury; risks include sudden death. I now know these risks are directly correlated with dose and length of treatment---No psychiatrist who has 'treated' my son ever told us any of this.
Psychiatric Drug Facts Peter Breggin AHRP
Recently a documentary, Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child was released. The documentary features several parents who have buried their children. All of the parents lost children as the direct result of their children being prescribed psychiatric drugs---one child died in her mothers arms--she was eight years old. Any person who cares about children and believes that people should be told the truth when they seek professional help for emotional and behavioral issues should know: The serious risks are seldom discussed or even disclosed when people are prescribed psychiatric drugs. Parents are not told of the risks to their children's health and well being; I know I wasn't. My son is cognitively and physically impaired, and I was never told it was even possible. I now know it is common for a patient to experience serious, negative effects and even permanent iatrogenic injury; risks include sudden death. I now know these risks are directly correlated with dose and length of treatment---No psychiatrist who has 'treated' my son ever told us any of this.
Psychiatric Drug Facts Peter Breggin AHRP
via ProPublica: Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash--
- We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors aren’t the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the only stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t complete.
According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health, not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those groups.
The study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:
Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments should prompt “far more detailed” disclosure of their corporate grants and industry relationships.
This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny back in 2009 when Sen. Charles Grassley, a top Republican, began making inquiries.
From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be” and promised greater disclosures.
Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Charles Grassley sent letters to 33 health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received from the groups.
Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:
As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not include company payments to health advocacy organizations. here
15 Dirty Big Pharma Tricks from Alternet
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment