Showing posts with label SSRI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SSRI. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Dr. David Healy: Psychotropic Drugs Cause Violent Behavior

via WND:
Top Psychiatrist: Meds Behind school Massacres
Society conducting 'vast social experiment' without knowing its end


by JEROME R. CORSI 

If lawmakers and authorities are truly concerned about stopping gun violence in schools, they need to take a close look at the prescription of psychotropic drugs for children and young people, says a leading psychiatrist.

In an exclusive in-person interview in New York City with WND, London-based Dr. David Healy criticized pharmaceutical companies that have made billions of dollars marketing Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, known as SSRIs.

Psychotropic drugs “prescribed for school children cause violent behavior,” Healy stated.

The drugs are widely used in the U.S. as antidepressants by doctors working in the mental health field and increasingly by primary care doctors, he noted.

Healy insisted the problem today is that doctors working with schools to control the behavior of children are inclined to prescribe SSRI drugs without serious consideration of adverse consequences.

“The pharmaceutical companies made these drugs with the idea of making money,” he said. “There’s a wide range of problems when it comes to looking at these drugs for children. Very few children have serious problems that warrant treatment with pills that have the risks SSRI drugs have.”

The drugs can make children “aggressive and hostile,” he noted.

“Children taking SSRI drugs are more likely to harm or to injure other children at school,” said Healy. “The child may be made suicidal.

“We are giving drugs to children who are passing through critical development stages, and as a society we are really conducting a vast experiment and no one really knows what the outcome of that will be.”

Healy cautioned that there is a very high correlation between mass shootings and use of the drugs.

“When roughly nine out of every 10 cases in these school shootings and mass shootings involve these drugs being prescribed, then at least a significant proportion of these cases were either caused by the drugs or the drugs made a significant contribution to the problem,” he said.

President Obama, in a series of 23 presidential memoranda and proclamations signed last week, called for the Centers for Disease control to undertake research to examine gun violence and to explore medical means to control the problem.

WND contended that putting more mental illness screening into schools would actually increase the incidence of school shootings, not reduce the violence.

“You can draw a line between the number of child psychiatrists in the United States and the number of school shootings, and you will find that both have gone up in the same direction at the same time,” he said.

He sees a “propaganda campaign” being conducted in the U.S. in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., cinema shooting and the Newtown, Conn., school shooting asserting gun violence is being caused by mental illness and could be stopped by additional school programs that screen for it.

“If school children are screened for mental illness problems, this presumably will lead more medical doctors to put more students on more pills,” he said. “I would predict then the outcome of more school screenings for mental illness will be more mass killings, even if the guns are taken away and the mass killings are not done with guns.”



He cautioned shareholders of pharmaceutical companies to realize share prices can be adversely affected should judges and juries determine the companies bear legal liabilities. Law enforcement investigators could conclude one of the company’s medications was prescribed to a child who ended up perpetrating a school shooting.

Healy cautioned that medical doctors who prescribe pills do not necessarily cure mental illness problems.

Dr. David Healy
He argued that today medical doctors are inclined to solve a wide range of health problems by prescribing drugs. In previous generations, however, extended families were capable of providing a context of family history to understand behavioral problems and to identify a wide range of problem-solving treatments. The families understood the issue as a developmental problem better treated by family intervention than by medicine.
Read more at WND.com


Sunday, May 27, 2012

Study 329 and the fraudulent FDA approval of Paxil for pediatric use


via Project on Government Oversight

Warning to readers: hold your nose. Study 329 really stinks.

If you’re new to the issue, corporate funded ghostwriting involves a pharmaceutical company that hires a PR firm to write medical studies. The PR firm then presents the manuscript to academic physicians to sign their names on as authors. Sometimes, the authors make only minor changes. The professors get credit for a publication to add to their CVs, and the pharma company gets a study that is "authored" by physicians who are leading researchers in their field and appear to be independent.

The practice of ghostwriting drives up the costs of healthcare, because these studies trick doctors into prescribing drugs that may be more costly, and sometimes less safe. These studies can also be used to seek approval by the FDA and payment from federal healthcare programs.

In the case of Study 329, GlaxoSmithKline used the study as a tool to market Paxil for use on children, until both the FDA and its British counterpart warned doctors to stop prescribing Paxil to children because it could cause them to commit suicide.

Last November, POGO sent a letter to National Institutes of Health (NIH) asking why taxpayers were funding researchers involved in Study 329 when it was ghostwritten and flawed.

Anyways, the retracted article in The Coast detailed some of Study 329's problems and quoted Alison Bass, a former medical writer at The Boston Globe. Ms. Bass wrote an extensively referenced book titled Side Effects on the scandals and corruption involved in Study 329. The book was widely reviewed by media such as The New York Review of Books and The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

But her book isn't the only detailed account of ethically questionable behavior in Study 329.

In January 2007, the BBC ran an investigative report on Study 329, calling it "one of the biggest medical scandals of recent times." Thttp://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179/12/1309he BBC released several internal company documents purporting that GlaxoSmithKline knew that Study 329 was flawed years before the results were published. The BBC also quoted Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, who called Study 329 a "problem" in scientific research.

The list of studies and experts critiquing Study 329 goes on and on.

I vote for Paxil!

So with such an extensive public record on corruption in Study 329 (just use Google, for goodness sake!) how did Dr. Kutcher characterize Study 329?

"I don't think that study caused any particular controversy," he said. "There certainly is a group of people who would like to cause a controversy around it, but science is nasty, brutish and long."

Nasty and brutish? No doubt. Especially, when all those documents and reports on Study 329 are splashed across the Internet.

Still, The Coast apparently ran afoul of Canadian law by publishing a negative story so close to the time of an election. After The Coast retracted and apologized, Dr. Kutcher dashed off a press release.

"It comes as a great surprise that The Coast is confusing opinion with science," he wrote. Dr. Kutcher then crowed, "[T]his is something we are more accustomed to hear from the American right wing than the Canadian left wing."

Yep. Right. Uh-huh.

Intrigued, I called the contact person listed at the bottom of the press release, Layton Dorey. When I asked if he had looked into the problems with Study 329, he said that I should contact Dr. Kutcher at his university.

"Did you see the BBC documentary on Study 329?" I asked.

Long pause…more pause…finally… "I'm not in a position to discuss that," Mr. Layton said.

We then agreed that I would email him questions. He never responded.

I also sent questions to Dr. Kutcher. I then called to confirm that he had received them.

Yesterday morning, Dr. Kutcher's attorney sent a terse email, writing that Dr. Kutcher would not be commenting further on The Coast article. I extended another offer for Dr. Kutcher to respond to questions about Study 329.

Nothing.

For the edification of readers, Canadian voters, and parents whose children were prescribed Paxil, we have provided those questions below. Feel free to provide any answers you feel are pertinent in the comment section of POGO's blog.


Questions for Stan Kutcher regarding press release and Study 329

Dr. Kutcher,

I need to ask you some questions regarding the press release on Tom Bosquet's [sic] article and the comments by author and former Boston Globe medical reporter, Alison Bass. I am an investigator at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) in Washington. I'm working on a deadline for this, so I need your responses by tomorrow 5 p.m. EST.

In case this is the wrong email, or if you are out of town, I am copying the head of your department to ensure you get them before the deadline.

1. In the press release, you note that Alison Bass is "a writer who is among those most frequently cited by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights." What exactly are you implying with this statement?

2. Do you have any information that Alison Bass is a Scientologist and/or is a supporter of Scientology's public campaign against the field of psychiatry?

3. Alison Bass wrote a book alleging corruption in Study 329 titled Side Effects. The book received positive reviews in, among other places, The New Journal of Medicine, The New York Review of Books, The Boston Globe, and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Were there errors in this book, and if so, could you please explain?

3. Your press release also states: "Dr. Kutcher intends to launch a defamation suit against the publication as a result of its inflammatory innuendo and the potential to damage his personal, professional and political reputation." Does you plan a defamation lawsuit against Alison Bass for the book Side Effects?

4. In January 2007, the BBC ran an investigative report on Study 329, calling it "one of the biggest medical scandals of recent times." Do you feel that the BBC, like The Coast, is guilty of "inflammatory innuendo"? If not, why not? Please be as expansive as you wish, in your response.

5. Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, told the BBC that Study 329 is an example of a "problem" in scientific research. "[W]e have to work very hard not only to uncover cases such as this but to work out how to prevent things like this happening in the future," she said. How do you respond to Dr. Godlee's charges against your study?

6. Jon Jureidini, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide, and Leemon McHenry, lecturer in philosophy at California State University Northridge, published a study in 2008 that examined Study 329 and charged that the authors selectively reported results that favored GlaxoSmithKline. They have called for Study 329 to be retracted. How do you respond to their charges?

7. Drs. Jeffrey Lacasse and Jonathan Leo published a study in PLOS Medicine last year charging that Study 329 was ghostwritten by a company paid by GlaxoSmithKline and misrepresented data. How do you respond to their charges and do you plan to write a letter to PLOS Medicine to set the record straight?

8. Last November, POGO sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health charging that Study 329 was ghostwritten and "clearly flawed." We attached several document to our letter to support the claims of ghostwriting. Do you have documents to counter our claims? If so, will you make them part of the public record?

9. Are you required to disclose your financial conflicts to your university as is required here in the United States? If so, what was your financial relationship with GlaxoSmithKline at the time of Study 329's publication? How much money have you received from pharmaceutical companies in the last two years?

10. Within two years of Study 329's publication that found efficacy for Paxil in adolescents, the United Kingdom government warned British physicians to not prescribe Paxil for children due to fears of potential suicide. In May 2004, our own FDA issued a similar warning. Why do you think these two regulatory bodies came to dramatically different conclusions from your own published research?

Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Again, I need a response to our questions by tomorrow at 5 pm EST. If you have any other questions, please feel free to give me a call.

Sincerely,

Paul

UPDATE: Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot got a response from Stan Kutcher's chairman, Nicholas Delva. Dr. Delva toldPharmalot, "I have no concerns about Dr. Kutcher or his participation in Trial 329, and we will, therefore, not be conducting any investigation of his participation in this study."

I'm a little nonplussed by this response. Three years ago, a couple of reporters at Brown University did some digging and found plenty of concerns about the study. As I told Pharmalot, "It's pretty pathetic that a couple of college students can figure out the problems with the study, but Dr. Delva still remains confused."

For goodness, sake. The only thing Dr. Delva needs to do for an investigation is search the internet. Doesn't the man know how to use Google?

Paul Thacker is a POGO Investigator.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Federal Suit filed in Illinois against Pfizer for birth defects caused by Zoloft


 

St. Louis-based Carey, Danis & Lowe Files Federal Suit in Illinois Against the Maker of Zoloft

Suit asserts Pfizer hid risks of birth defects when the antidepressant was taken during pregnancy read here

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Treatment for Adolescents with Depression

1970 Bayer ad
via Mad In America: 
The Real Suicide Data from the TADS Study Comes to Light 
February 20, 2012 Robert Whitaker 
a few excerpts:


"Last week, Robert Gibbons published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry in which he claimed, based on his “reanalysis” of the data from studies of fluoxetine in youth, that “treatment with fluoxetine was not found to be related to suicide risk when compared with placebo.” This led Irish psychiatrist David Healy, who has investigated this issue at length, to write a blog in which he categorized the various statistical tricks that Gibbons had employed to come to his conclusion, and he noted that the British Medical Journal described a 2007 paper by Gibbons on this topic “astonishing,” “misleading,” and “reckless.”
"But in Healy’s blog, there was a reference to new data from the NIMH’s Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS), and therein lies a much more important story.
"In his blog, Healy published a table on suicidal events from the NIMH’s TADS study of antidepressants in youth, which had been prepared by a Swedish correspondent, Göran Högberg. That table put the suicidal risk associated with fluoxetine in a different light than had been presented in the published articles about the TADS study, and I thus asked Högberg where he had obtained this “updated data.” He pointed me to a 2009 article authored by Benedetto Vitiello, titled “Suicidal Events in the Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS),” which was published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In particular, Högberg pointed me to a table titled “Timing of First Suicidal Event.”  And there, hidden in plain sight,  was the real suicide data from the TADS study." read here
Op-Ed A MadMother: We Have a Duty To Protect Children Becky Murphy February 15, 2012
The recent reports by ABC News and the Senate Hearing on December 1, 2011, which was presided over by Senator Tom Carper, are the latest of many investigations and hearings into psychiatric drugs being used on foster children.  But the fact is that the indiscriminate use of psychotropic drugs prescribed off-label is widespread, and not limited to children in foster care. Children who live with their parents often have the same safety and protection issues as children in foster care and experience equally harmful effects from the drugs. read the rest here
vintage ad found here

Friday, January 27, 2012

The doctor doth protest too much...

He got lost and fell asleep in the woods. Now he has the head of an ass and the queen of the fairies wants to marry him. The last thing he needs is more complications. Do you dream of an uncomplicated antidepressant? Chances are you're dreaming of Cipramil. It's effective, well tolerated and associated with a low risk of drug interactions. In other words, Cipramil helps to make treating depression or panic disorder less of a performance.  CIPRAMIL citalopram   Antidepression not antipatient   Lundbeck

warning: very long post...


I don't think it takes any special kind of expertise to acknowledge that the FDA is failing to do it's duty to regulate the pharmaceutical industry; worse it's failing to protect people from dangerous drugs it approves on shoddy evidence. The facts are plain, the failure permeates all of medicine. 

The excuses offered by psychiatrists for the real world outcomes of psychiatric patients sound like the ill-conceived justifications offered by misbehaving juvenile delinquents. To realistically assert one's professional integrity, requires a record for demonstrating ethical behavior. Ethical integrity is not an affectation. Professional opinions and treatment recommendations need to be based on more than a professional's subjective experiences; without empirical support, a subjective opinion is still the weakest, most fallible type of scientific "evidence." For this reason, subjective observation is used only to support empirical data in ethical scientific research. Diagnoses are not consistently reliable among psychiatric professionals; therefore they are not verifiable or replicable. Psychiatric treatment recommendations are not supported by empirical data, but are more reliant upon consensus. A consensus of well-educated opinions is evidence of agreement; it is not evidence of diagnostic validity or treatment safety and effectiveness. Pretending that a consensus is a valid or sufficient substitute for evidence serves to add insult to the iatrogenic injuries caused by consensus-based psychiatric medicine.

to paraphrase William Shakespeare: The doctor doth protest too much...

via Psychiatric Times: 
Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the “Chemical Imbalance”
By Ronald Pies, MD | July 11, 2011 an excerpt:
"In short, we cannot afford to view our patients’ afflictions in the balkanized terms of “mental” vs. “physical”, “mind” vs. “body”, “psyche” vs. “soma”. Neither can we afford the luxury of supposing that only one type of treatment—medication or psychotherapy—will be effective for the illnesses we treat." here
in the comment section  Ronald PiesSeptember 01, 2011 
More on the So-called Chemical Imbalance Theory
an excerpt:
"My usual practice is to ignore crackpot bloggers who misrepresent psychiatric writing in general, or my own writing, in particular. However, when an academician with some influence over public opinion radically misreads-and misrepresents-my views, I find myself with no alternative but to rebut the errors." (emphasis mine)

Nine months later, Pies wants to clarify exactly who he did not characterize as being "crackpots" and "predictably irresponsible bloggers." Incredibly, it's not Jonathan Leo, even though it is Leo, Pies complains of in his comment enumerating the instances Pies believes that Leo, "misreads-and misrepresents-my views." Apparently, Pies' lengthy enumeration of perceived slights he complained of, were unrelated to do the "crackpot bloggers who misrepresent psychiatric writing in general, or my own writing, in particular" comment which preceded the list of slights. Pies makes it as clear as mud by stating, "With respect to my comments dated Sept 1, 2011, I would like to clarify one statement. My allusion to "crackpot bloggers" was not intended to apply to anyone in particular. Rather, I wanted to contrast such predictably irresponsible bloggers with established academic writers, such as Prof. Jonathan Leo. I regret any confusion or misunderstanding arising from my wording.

"And, to reiterate a point I have made on numerous--bordering on "innumerable"! --occasions: I do not advocate, and never have advocated, the use of antidepressant medication for ordinary, "adaptive" grief or sadness, as typically encountered with uncomplicated bereavement. For further review of the bereavement exclusion controversy, please see the recent publications by Zisook at al, in :

Depress Anxiety. 2012 May;29(5):425-43; and Lancet. 2012 Apr 28;379(9826):1590 Best regards, Ronald Pies, MD"  June 08, 2012 8:52 PM EDT


Reading the second comment, particularly the second to last sentence 

almost broke my trusty bullshit meter:

via The New York Times:

Redefining Depression as Mere Sadness



Published: September 15, 2008
an excerpt:
"Third, and perhaps most troubling, is the implication that a recent major loss makes it more likely that the person’s depressive symptoms will follow a benign and limited course, and therefore do not need medical treatment. This has never been demonstrated, to my knowledge, in any well-designed studies. And what has been demonstrated, in a study by Dr. Sidney Zisook, is that antidepressants may help patients with major depressive symptoms occurring just after the death of a loved one.

"Yes, most psychiatrists would concede that in the space of a brief “managed care” appointment, it’s very hard to understand much about the context of the patient’s depressive complaints. And yes, under such conditions, some doctors are tempted to write that prescription for Prozac or Zoloft and move on to the next patient.

But the vexing issue of when bereavement or sadness becomes a disorder, and how it should be treated, requires much more study. Most psychiatrists believe that undertreatment of severe depression is a more pressing problem than overtreatment of “normal sadness.” Until solid research persuades me otherwise, I will most likely see people like my jilted patient as clinically depressed, not just “normally sad” — and I will provide him with whatever psychiatric treatment he needs to feel better."

Ronald Pies is a professor of psychiatry at Tufts and SUNY Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse.

via Psych Central:

Why Psychiatry Needs to Scrap the DSM System:
An Immodest Proposal By RONALD PIES, M.D.

Why is this so? Well, on the one hand, none of the major DSM psychiatric disorders, such as Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, is linked to any specific biological abnormality or “biomarker” — the proverbial “lab test” so many in my profession have been seeking. This is nobody’s fault: it simply reflects our limited (though growing) biological knowledge in what is still a relatively young science.  read here


brief excerpts about schizophrenia and bipolar on PsychCentral:
"Since schizophrenia may not be a single condition and its causes are not yet known, current treatment methods are based on both clinical research and experience. These approaches are chosen on the basis of their ability to reduce the symptoms of schizophrenia and to lessen the chances that symptoms will return." here

"The cause of bipolar disorder is not entirely known. Genetic, neurochemical and environmental factors probably interact at many levels to play a role in the onset and progression of bipolar disorder. The current thinking is that this is a predominantly biological disorder that occurs in a specific part of the brain and is due to a malfunction of the neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the brain). As a biological disorder, it may lie dormant and be activated spontaneously or it may be triggered by stressors in life. Although, no one is quite sure about the exact causes of bipolar disorder." here


via Mad in America:

Psychiatry’s Grand Confession Posted on January 23, 2012 by Jonathan Leo, Ph.D. / Jeffrey Lacasse, Ph.D. an few excerpts: "Given the enormous marketing programs that pushed this theory combined with the media’s lack of skepticism, we were sympathetic to the general public who could hardly be faulted for thinking that theory had some foundation in fact. Following the publication of our piece a reporter contacted us and suggested that we were attacking a well accepted theory. We pointed out to the reporter that we weren’t attacking a sacred cow but that instead we were pointing out the mainstream psychiatry didn’t even accept this theory. We urged the reporter to contact the FDA, NIMH, APA, etc and ask them about the science behind the advertisements. He did, and as expected, an expert from the FDA explained that the theory was really just a metaphor. The problem is that patients who heard their physician explain the serotonin theory thought they were hearing real science. They weren’t told it was a metaphor and hence thought it was a fact." read here
via: TELOSscope
Is Talk Therapy Dead? by Nicole Burgoyne
an excerpt:
"Leo takes a closer look at the idea that mental illnesses are just like other diseases, chemical imbalances that should be rectified by introducing ameliorating substances.
"Aside from pointing out that nearly all scientific studies that establish a direct relationship between behavioral problems and chemical treatment have later been called into question, or found unsatisfactory in terms of replication, Leo also hits on a more insidious aspect of the trend toward biological psychiatry, the problem of successful corporate marketing:
"In their marketing efforts to promote the biological explanations of mental illness, pharmaceutical companies have stretched their fingers into patient advocacy groups, consensus panels, continuing education for psychiatrists, and even major medical journals. Most problematic is the way funding drives research. Because they hold the purse strings, the pharmaceutical companies dictate what gets studied, resulting in little investigation into the role of psychosocial factors in the etiology of mental illness. Worse yet, doctors in search of information about a drug are much more likely to read a pharmaceutical company brochure than scientific journals." read here

It is my impression that Ronald Pies called Jonathan Leo a "crack pot blogger" and my perception is that Pies seemed to feel justified in calling him that since Pies believed that Leo had misrepresented what Pies had written.  Although Pies states he usually ignores bloggers who according to him, "misrepresent psychiatric writing in general, or my own writing, in particular."   It seems obvious to this crackpot blogger that Dr. Pies, is disrespectful and less than honest.  It's a fine example of how academic debate is actively discouraged.  

What is most troubling to me however, is the lack of personal responsibility of psychiatists  in general. In particular, responsibility for the adoption of a bio-disease paradigm; without any definitive evidence to support the decision, or the skeptical claim that mental illnesses are caused by biological diseases and genetic defects.  In the absence of evidence for the disease hypothesis, absence of evidence supporting the prolific use of teratogenic drugs that psychiatrists claim actually "treat" cognitive and emotional reactions of human beings to distress.  Without evidence,  psychiatrists claims are simply a means of perpetrating fraud.  Psychiatrists have mis-treated millions; and encouraged other medical professionals to use unethical standards of care not empirically validated but standardized by agreement among psychiatrists. Psychiatry appears to lack an understanding of scientific principles, and do not seem to value medical ethics enough to exercise ethical medical judgement in the best interests of their patients enough to find out what the patient's interests are... 

Psychiatry disseminated it's pseudo-medical, pseudo-scientific specialty through professional Journal articles, practice parameters, clinical guidelines and treatment algorithims.  The general public and other medical professionals, including  psychiatrists who practiced psychoanalysis, assumed that these articles, parameters and algorithims were based on empirical data ethically collected and ethically reported.  It is now known that this is an erroneous assumption.  All of the diagnoses and all of the psychopharmacological treatment standards are ratified in committee; then validated by a vote of the membership of the American Psychiatric Association.  Psychiatry is a medical profession in name only; the methods relied upon developing both the diagnostic criteria and the treatment standards are political; ergo, not scientific.

The academic psychiatrists who allowed their names to be put on educational materials disseminated to other professionals, are not unwitting victims; but are in fact willing participants in fraud.  The manner in which mainstream bio-psychiatry developed is not simply due to the undue influences of "BigPharma," and "managed care;" it is ludicrous and insulting for psychiatric professionals to claim they are merely victims or pawns in this charade. While the aforementioned entities indeed contributed to and influenced the wholesale adoption of the bio-disease model, it was only made possible by working collaboratively with academic psychiatrists who are willing collaborators; not unwitting victims.  Pharmaceutical company executives, the HMO executives and insurance companies may have an undue influence, but it is psychiatrists who write the prescriptions and the treatment guidelines. 

The fact is the proliferation of the bio-disease model requires the willing and active complicity of psychiatrists who are members of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.  Dr. Pies is not exceptional in his abdicating any personal responsibility, or unique in blaming BigPharma and managed care for the damage done because of the seriously flawed bio-disease paradigm of care.  It is common for psychiatric "experts" to abdicate responsibility for the harm caused psychiatric patients who defend their professional status and their right, i.e. priveledge to continue to use seriously flawed diagnostic criteria and unethical clinical standards of care; with the excuse, "It's what we have, as if this is the case by accident.  I would be willing to bet that not a single drug company executive, sales person, or  managed care executive wrote those prescriptions...  

While much of mainstream psychiatry's information and advocacy literature states that a combination of psychosocial, cognitive behavioral therapies, educational support, and prescription drugs are necessary for effective treatment; the fact remains that in real world practice, there is a bias favoring pharmacological treatment, and more often than not, it's all that is available.  Many psychiatrists claim that psychiatry had nothing to do with the current clinical lanscape and it's bias for using drugs first and recommending drugs for life...



As if the bias favoring biological treatment has nothing to do with the APA and AACAP selling the bio-disease pardigm!  It is simply unbelievable; this claim adds insult to injury.  In effect, this claim is predicated on the notion that psychiatrists are unwitting victims, not active and passive participants who are complicit. Defending a bio-disease bias without scientific support is exacerbating the damage caused from an abject failure to be accountable individually and collectively as a profession. It is a definitive abdication of a physician's primary ethical duty: to serve the best interests of the patient, according to the patient's morals and values repecting and supporting the patient's self-determined goals. 
  
It took the active willing participation of practicing academic psychiatrists to manipulate the scientific data, and clinical psychiatrists to coerce and manipulate patients and families in order to gain treatment compliance; to maintain psychiatric authority.  It took active participation to formulate public policies and lobby for the legislation that gave psychiatry Police Powers to detain and forcibly treat unwilling patients.  It was only psychiatrists cast votes for the validation of diagnoses and treatments.  It was only psychiatrists who voted to adopt coercive, manipulative social control strategies as tools used in this "medical" specialty. 

What matters now for any psychiatrist to regain any lost respect and trust is defending the patients who are being harmed, attending to instead of denigrating and invalidating survivors.  A psychiatrist who endeavors to regain lost trust and respect by defending himself or herself, defending pseudo-scientific methodology, defending social control strategies disguised as treatment protocols, will only further erode psychiatry's diminished integrity.

The reason I state this is that while psychiatrists are busy defending their professional integrity (it seems more of a defense of their own EGOs) they are abdicating responsibility to the people who are being grievously harmed.  The harm is real and it is inevitable as long as psychiatrists believe that therapeutic treatment is something that can be forced on human beings without Informed Consent. As long as psychiatrists reclassify the traumatic iatrogenic injuries as "tolerable side effects" and iatroginic drug-induced death as "natural death" due to the inability or the unwillingness to actually believe every patient is humanity suffering. 

None of this would in fact be possible without stigma being part and parcel an intrinsic aspect of a psychiatric diagnosis.  The biological defect/disease HYPOTHESIS is the source; it is used to propogate fear and perpetrate medical fraud. It is used to deprive patients of their basic Human Rights, among other crimes...  All of this required the willing and ongoing participation of psychiatrists. A physician's professional integrity requires having respect and empathy for all patients, it requires being honest with patients and their family members; it requires ethical integrity. The ethical principles of science and medicine are necessities that are indispensable. Medicine is both science and art; it requires a great deal of humility to be a 'good' doctor. A physician's primary duty is to serve the patient; it is not to serve his colleagues, her profession, the general public or to feed his ego or  her wallet...

Psychiatrists who are in the APA and/or the AACAP, but who are failing to take personal responsibility, and who are not encouraging collective responsibility of APA and AACAP members active and passive participation in the selling of the bio-disease paradigm of care lack fortitude and humility. Bio-psychiatry is reliant upon deceit, coercion, emotional manipulation and abuse of power, these are methods of maintaining political control, not any way to provide ethical medical treatment.  The biological treatments were standardized and implemented as clinical care standards without being supported by any definitive empirical  evidence, most still don't have empirical support years and decades later.

The APA, the NIMH and the AACAP and the FDA have worked collaboratively with the pharmceutical industry.  The direct to consumer and professional marketing of FDA approved drugs is supposed to be regulated by the FDA---The FDA is utterly and completely failing it's supposed mission to protect the public. In approving drugs based on sub-standard and outright fraudulent data and abdicating it's ethical duty to warn about known risks of FDA approved drugs, the FDA protects BigPharma. The have a lot of help...

Obviously this has been forgotten by more than a few psychopharmacologists:
"We have to remember that we are not treating diseases with this drug. 
We are using a neuropharmacologic agent to produce a specific effect." 
~ Dr. E. H. Parsons, 1955 
on clorpromazine

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

SSRI Antidepressants: Marketing Mayhem and Madness


The story of the SSRI antidepressants is one of fraud, corruption and greed.  It is not a unique or uncommon story; it is enormously tragic, nonetheless.

If depression is due to a 'chemical' or neurotransmitter imbalance; it is an imbalance that has yet to be identified.  The claim that antidepressants are fixing an identified imbalance was developed as a marketing strategy.  The strategy is based not on an identified or defined imbalance; it is a hypothesis based on what is understood about the biological mechanism of action of the SSRI antidepressant drugs.  While researchers may one day discover a biological mechanism causing depression, they have not yet actually done so.  This being the case, it is not honest to imply that a 'chemical imbalance' causes depression--it is unethical to use what is essentially a false claim as a marketing tool; in truth using a false claim to encourage "treatment compliance" or to convince a person that they have a disease the must be treated with psychotropic drugs it not ethical, it is criminal fraud. It is morally reprehensible for a professional or trusted patient advocacy organization to imply a hypothesis is a fact.  To claim that depression is caused by an imbalance that psychiatric drugs "safely and effectively" treat without warning patients and parents of children about the well known, inherent risks of taking teratogenic drugs that can cause an episodic condition to become chronic; physical dependency; aggressive, violent behavior; and suicidal and/or homicidal behavior is unethical and morally reprehensible.  How could any medical professional believe that a patient has given Informed Consent for a recommended treatment if serious inherent risks are not disclosed and understood prior to taking a prescribed SSRI antidepressant?   How could any advocacy group fail to warn patients about well-documented risks and the corporate dishonesty which allowed pharmaceutical companies to bury the evidence along with the bodies of those who died due to an adverse reaction to a drug?

The Consumer Protection Act does not apply to the direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs, and the FDA is failing to protect consumers.  Indeed, the FDA consistently protects the pharmaceutical industry, not the American people.  It is FDA policy to consider known negative effects discovered in clinical trials before FDA approval of a drug, including death; 'trade secrets.'  Prescribers are not even legally required to report adverse events for drugs they prescribe to the Adverse Event Reporting System; not even death.  I have spent hours researching on this database, and what is  striking is that most of the deaths are reported by someone other that a doctor, or medical professional with prescribing privileges.

Glaxo Smith Kline the makers of Seroxat, known as Paxil here in the United States, covered up the fact that their drug causes violence, aggression, suicidal and homicidal behavior.   Covered up that it causes birth defects, some so severe the babies die shortly after being born.  Paxil has caused people to have horrific extended withdrawal symptoms, and some people can not in fact seem to stop taking it; no matter how badly they want to. The professionals call it 'discontinuation syndrome,' instead of withdrawal; this is a ploy to disassociate the withdrawal from the fact the drug causes dependency; i.e. addiction.

In England, SSRIs have been restricted; and are rarely prescribed to people under eighteen years old due to the negative effects; the negative effects are known to be more severe for adolescents and children. 
 
Watch Seroxat in News  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com 

via BBC ONE: Secrets of the drug trials a few excerpts:

"GSK's biggest clinical trial of Seroxat on children was held in the US in the 1990s and called Study 329.

"Child psychiatrist Dr Neal Ryan of the University of Pittsburgh was paid by GSK as a co-author of Study 329."

"In 2002 he also gave a talk on childhood depression at a medical conference sponsored by GSK."

"He said that Seroxat could be a suitable treatment for children and later told Panorama reporter Shelley Jofre that it probably lowered rather than raised suicide rates."

"In amongst the archive of emails in Malibu, Shelley was surprised to find that her own emails to Dr Ryan from 2002 asking questions about the safety of Seroxat had been forwarded to GSK asking for advice on how to respond to her.
She also found an email from a public relations executive working for GSK which said: "Originally we had planned to do extensive media relations surrounding this study until we actually viewed the results."

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Paxil Birth Defects Lawsuits on the Rise

GlaxoSmithKline logo 
viawebwire:                 Tuesday, October 11, 2011 Since the once-touted antidepressant Paxil was first prescribed to a patient in 1992, the number of Paxil birth-defect lawsuits filed against its maker GlaxoSmithKline has skyrocketed. Paxil has been shown to cause heart abnormalities known as atrial and ventricular septal defects, which means that an infant is born with holes in the walls of its heart’s chamber. Paxil may also cause persistent pulmonary hypertension in an infant, which is a potentially fatal lung condition. This malady is caused by abnormally high pressure in the blood vessels of the new infant’s lungs. This keeps the baby oxygen starved, and if it survives, the child may need intensive care for a long period of time.In addition to these serious birth defects GlaxoSmithKline advised physicians in 2005 of even more birth defects caused by PaxilThey include:
  • Cranial birth defects that cause an infant’s skull to be deformed.
  • Abdominal birth defects such as having the infant’s intestine or other abdominal organs protrude from its navel.
  • Neural tube defects, which are birth defects of the infant’s brain and spinal cord.
  • Cub foot, which is a birth defect that causes an infant’s foot to be stiff, turned inward and unable to be moved to a normal position.
FDA Issued an Alert
Paxil’s connection to these serious birth defects in babies became apparent in 2005 when the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert about the antidepressant. In the alert, the FDA ordered GlaxoSmithKline to put a warning label on the Paxil and advised that doctors not prescribe the antidepressant to any woman who planned to become pregnant or was in her first three months of pregnancy.
Number of Lawsuits Growing
Since then, there have been more than 600 lawsuits filed against the pharmaceutical giant by attorneys representing women who say their babies have been born with serious birth defects as a result of taking the drug during their first three months of pregnancy.The plaintiffs in the very first Paxil birth-defect case were awarded$2.5 million in compensatory damages on Oct. 13, 2009 as a result of their child being born with three cardiac birth defects, according to the Public Record. Since then, the maker of Paxil has paid out more than $1 billion to settle hundreds of similar lawsuits. Because many of these cases are settled quietly between the plaintiffs and corporate lawyers for GlaxoSmithKline, there is no way to be sure how many total cases are still pending.
Don’t let your time limit to file a lawsuit run out
If you or one of your loved ones took Paxil during the first three months of a pregnancy and you or their child was born with one of the above birth defects it’s time to seek legal representation before the time limit runs out. That’s because all lawsuits filed in the United States have an expiration date, although they vary from state to state. Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a Paxil lawsuit expires anywhere from two to six years. Why not contact an attorney who specializes in Paxil lawsuits today by visiting http://paxillawsuitv.com


ACOG Issues Opinion on SSRI Antidepressant Use During Pregnancy
Washington, DC -- The use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of depression during pregnancy should be individualized based on their respective risks and benefits, according to a new Committee Opinion issued by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) Committee on Obstetric Practice. The Committee also advised that a particular SSRI medication known as paroxetine (Paxil®) be avoided, when possible, by pregnant women or women planning to become pregnant due to the potential risk of fetal heart defects, newborn persistent pulmonary hypertension, and other negative effects. source

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...