Systems of Care Yakima: Zyprexa

via the New York Times:

Drugs Used for Psychotics Go to Youths in Foster Care

By BENEDICT CAREY Published: November 20, 2011

a couple of excerpts:

"Foster children are being prescribed cocktails of powerful antipsychosis drugs just as frequently as some of the most mentally disabled youngsters on Medicaid, a new study suggests.

The report, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is the first to investigate how often youngsters in foster care are given two antipsychotic drugs at once, the authors said. The drugs include Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa — among other so-called major tranquilizers — which were developed for schizophrenia but are now used as all-purpose drugs for almost any psychiatric symptoms."

“The psychiatrists who are treating these kids on the front lines are not doing it for money; there are very low reimbursement rates from Medicaid,” said Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, a mental health services researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s enormous anguish because everyone knows that this is not what we should be doing for these kids. We as a society simply haven’t made the investment in psychosocial treatments, and so we are forced to rely on psychotropic drugs to carry the burden.” read here.

The final paragraph frankly, made me extremely angry---it is a disgusting attempt to justify something that is not in fact NOT justifiable--no matter how much these poor unfortunate psychiatrists who "treat" children feel they are underpaid by Medicaid!

Anybody who is above ground, and not in a coma, who has the ability to think critically, knows the reason, "We as a society simply haven’t made the investment in psychosocial treatments." It is because psychiatrists misled and outright lied about what was known, and not known about the nature of the conditions they diagnose and treat, and lied about the treatments as well! Stating psychiatric symptoms are evidence of diseases of the brain, and/or "chemical imbalances;" to market the bio-psychiatry belief system, is fraud not ethical medicine. Illusory "neurobiological" diseases which are treated with disabling and teratogenic treatments that are ineffective and even tortuous to a significant percentage of patients.

Psychiatrists lied about the safety of the drugs they use, and over exaggerated the drugs' potential for actual benefit; published the lies in professional journals and textbooks; taught the lies to students in Institutions of Higher Learning, and continuing education programs. So, when this researcher stated, “There’s enormous anguish because everyone knows that this is not what we should be doing for these kids." I almost vomited.

I am certain the anguish the professionals experience is nothing like psychiatric patients who are harmed by psychiatric treatment; and the parents who have buried their children, who are victims of iatrogenic, "physician caused" homicide. I know that I am damn lucky my son is alive, knows who he is, and where he lives, literally. The drugs have done to his overall health exactly what the drugs have always done. The first neuroleptics were used before I was born; the "new" ones, like the old ones, cause permanent neurological, cognitive, and physical impairments, disability and increased mortality.

I know that I have never had any psychiatrist tell me the facts I have found out myself about these drugs ever. I have had the last two psychiatrists who "treat" my son look me right in the eye and tell me the drugs do not cause brain damage. One said it 3 times, and then demanded my respect. That day, I had posted the American Psychiatric Association's newsletter discussing the brain damage the drugs are in fact known to cause! This was less than a year ago. There is no solace in knowing the doctors who treated my traumatized child were misinformed, or simply indoctrinated into a belief system that medicalizes all emotional and behavioral problems. There is no changing the past.

I simply hope to one day take my son to a doctor who has the ethical integrity
to tell the truth.

oringinally titled, "There’s enormous anguish because everyone knows"

The following is from the Alliance for Human Research Protection, whose mission statement on their website states:

"The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) is a national network of lay people and professionals dedicated to advancing responsible and ethical medical research practices, to minimizing the risks associated with such endeavors and to ensuring that the human rights, dignity and welfare of human subjects are protected"

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials

Presented by Vera Hassner Sharav
14th Tri-Service Clinical Investigation Symposium
Sponsored by
The U.S. Army Medical Department
and
The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine
May 5-7, 2002

Case 7: Children exposed to risks in psychotropic drug trials:

Psychotropic drugs are being tested in children despite the acknowledged risks of harm. Psychotropic drugs are advertised as normalizing a "chemical imbalance" in the brain. In fact, they do the opposite: they induce profound changes in the central nervous system with demonstrable physical and neurological impairments.[48] Dr. Steven Hyman, former director of NIMH, an expert on the mechanisms by which psychoactive drugs work, explained that, whether abused or prescribed, the mechanisms by which psychoactive drugs work are the same.[49] Hyman stated that antidepressants, psychostimulants, and anti-psychotics created "perturbations in neurotransmitter function."[50] The drugs' severe adverse side effects are symptoms of the drugs' disruptive effect on the neurotransmitter system and on brain function.

In 2001 Dr. Benedetto Vitiello, NIMH's director of Child and Adolescent Treatment and Preventive Interventions Branch acknowledged the impact of FDAMA: "pediatric psychopharmacology has recently seen an unprecedented expansionclinical trials in youths has more than doubled in the last few years."[51] Indeed, children as young as three are being recruited to test mind-altering drugs that may affect their developing brain. Parents are being offered financial inducements to volunteer their children for drug trials. The foremost problem with prescribing or testing psychotropic drugs for children is the absence of any objective criteria for diagnosing children with pathological behavioral problems to justify pharmacologic intervention. Vitiello acknowledged "diagnostic uncertainty surrounding most manifestations of psychopathology in early childhood."[52] Vitiello also acknowledged the possibility of long-term harm: "The impact of psychotropics on the developing brain is largely unknown, and possible long-term effects of early exposure to these drugs have not been investigated."

Eli Lilly's highly touted new anti-psychotic, Zyprexa,[53] reveals much about the collision between corporate interests and the health and safety of children. In clinical trials averaging 6 weeks, Zyprexa was tested in 2,500 adults. The drug was linked to serious, in some cases life-threatening side effects requiring hospitalization in 22% of those tested.[24]Acute weight gain of 50 to 70 lbs is usual, and with it the increased risk of diabetes. FDA data (under FOIA) reveals a 65% drop out rate, and only 26% favorable response. During those 6 week clinical trials there were 20 deaths, of which 12 were suicides.[54] David Healy, who found a suicidal link to antidepressants (Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors) in his research says, as far as he can establish, the data from these trials "demonstrate a higher death rate on Zyprexa than on any other antipsychotic ever recorded." [55] In 2000, FDA approved Zyprexa for short- term use only, in bi-polar patients. [56]

Yet, children aged six to eleven were recruited for clinical trials to test the drug. According to their published report, UCLA investigators tested Zyprexa on children who were not even diagnosed as having schizophrenia. The children were diagnosed as having a variety of questionable psychiatric disorders, including ADHD.[57] According to the published report, all the children in the trial experienced adverse effects, including sedation, acute weight gain, and akathisia (restless agitation). The trial was terminated less than six weeks after it had begun.

Controversy surrounds a Zyprexa trial at Yale University. In that experiment, 31 youngsters aged 12 to 25 who have not been diagnosed with any psychiatric illness are being exposed to the drug for one year. The stated rationale given by the researchers (who are under contract with the sponsor) is their speculation that these children may be "at risk" for schizophrenia. Since there are, as yet, no objective tests or biological markers for the illness - they hypothesize without evidence, merely on the basis of conjecture. The shaky basis for their conjecture is that assumption that the children may develop schizophrenia because one of their siblings has been diagnosed with the disorder.

The risk of schizophrenia for the general population is 1%. For siblings the risk increases from 2% to 15% - in other words there is 85% likelihood that these children will never develop schizophrenia.

Given the absence of scientifically accurate tools for interpreting psychiatric symptoms, psychiatrists cannot as yet accurately diagnose schizophrenia much less predict which children will get it. Is it ethical to expose healthy children to risks of drug- induced pathology on such speculation? The Wall Street Journal aptly noted that such a study "raises the question of whether the drug companies are mainly interested in "creating" a new illness that requires drug treatment." Read the entire report here

Here is another Report from Alliance for Human Research Protection:

State Medicaid agencies began to question "off label" use of antipsychotics after the December 2006 death of Rebecca Riley, a four-year-old Massachusetts girl whose family received Medicaid benefits. After being diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age two, she was prescribed a cocktail of drugs, including an antipsychotic, court records show.

Some states began moving to require special approval before they would cover a claim for an antipsychotic. A group of 16 states started studying the use of psychiatric medication in children in 2007 in an effort they dubbed "too many, too much, too young," says Jeffrey Thompson, the medical director of the Washington state Medicaid program.

In California, the number of children six and under using psychiatric medications has fallen to 4,200 from 5,686 since a 2006 prior-authorization plan was put in place, the state's top Medicaid official says.

Florida's state Medicaid agency says the number of prescriptions for atypical antipsychotics written for children under age six in the second half of last year dropped to 1,137 from 3,167 a year earlier.

The agency says the decline was the result of a state program started last year under which prescriptions for children under six are reviewed for appropriateness by state-hired psychiatric consultants before Medicaid will cover them.

Washington has created a system to flag the use of psychiatric drugs that may contain too high a dose for young children or have side effects that it regards as particularly dangerous. From May 2006 to April 2008, the system flagged 1,032 cases for review by outside consultants.

Write to David Armstrong at david.armstrong@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page B1 Complete article here

It is obvious to me the informed consent guidelines for foster kids in Washington State primarily protect the State of Washington; not the children in State care. Let's be real, who in their right mind would believe that it is in the "best interests" of the children and teenagers in Washington State to lower the legal age of consent for psychiatric treatment to thirteen? Human's brains are not fully fully mature,until we are in our early 20's. Couple this reality with the dishonesty, abuse of authority and of "Medical" privilege that psychiatry is known to rely upon in standard clinical practice; we have in effect, "legally" placed kids in harm's way.