Archive for December, 2009

New Scientist – Psychiatry’s bible: Its time has passed – Growing criticism of DSM has Prompted Psychiatry’s Civil War

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Peter Aldhous
New Scientist
December 9, 2009

WHEN doctors disagree with each other, they usually couch their criticisms in careful, measured language. In the past few months, however, open conflict has broken out among the upper echelons of US psychiatry. The focus of discord is a volume called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, which psychiatrists turn to when diagnosing the distressed individuals who turn up at their offices seeking help. Regularly referred to as the profession’s bible, the DSM is in the midst of a major rewrite, and feelings are running high.

Two eminent retired psychiatrists are warning that the revision process is fatally flawed. They say the new manual, to be known as DSM-V, will extend definitions of mental illnesses so broadly that tens of millions of people will be given unnecessary and risky drugs. Leaders of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which publishes the manual, have shot back, accusing the pair of being motivated by their own financial interests – a charge they deny. The row is set to come to a head next month when the proposed changes will be published online. For a profession that exists to soothe human troubles, it’s incendiary stuff.

Psychiatry suffers in comparison with other areas of medicine, as diseases of the mind are on the whole less well understood than those of the body. We have, as yet, only glimpses into the fundamental causes of the common mental illnesses, and there are no biological tests to diagnose them. This means conditions such as depression, schizophrenia and personality disorders remain difficult to diagnose with precision. Doctors can only question people about their state of mind and observe their behaviour, classifying illness according to the most obvious symptoms.

Read entire article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427381.300-psychiatrys-civil-war.html?full=true

« Return to news items


Share

How Vested Interests Created the Perfect Marketing/Lobbying Machine: Mental Health “Advocacy” Groups—Funded by Pharma

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

by CCHR International

An ongoing U.S. Senate investigation headed by Senator Charles Grassley has  sought disclosure of pharmaceutical funding paid to researchers, physicians,  medical schools and medical journals.  Some of the nation’s most prominent psychiatrists have now been exposed for extensive conflicts of interest amounting to millions in undisclosed pharmaceutical funding, including Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Dr. Joseph Biederman, Dr. Melissa DelBello, Dr. Timothy Wilens, Dr. Thomas Spencer, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, Dr. Martin Keller, Dr. A. John Rush, Dr. Karen Wagner, Dr. Jeffrey Bostic and Dr. Frederick Goodwin — many of which serve as advisory board members to mental illness “advocacy groups” which are now also the subject of the Senate investigation for their undisclosed pharmaceutical funding.

The majority of the public may or may not be familiar with these so-called mental health advocacy organizations, such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) or the myriad of bipolar, depression or ADHD “support groups” that are inundating the internet.

But they need to be.

These are groups operating under the guise of advocates for the “mentally ill,” which in reality are heavily funded pharmaceutical front groups – lobbying and working on state and federal laws which effect the entire nation — from our elderly in nursing homes to our military, pregnant women, nursing mothers and school children. Presenting themselves as patient advocacy groups is highly disingenuous not only to their membership, many of which may have a sincere desire to help a loved one or a family member with mental problems, but to legislators, the press and the American public — for they have consistently lobbied for legislation that benefits the mental health and pharmaceutical industries which fund them, and not patients they claim to represent.

Certainly any organization claiming to be for the rights of patients diagnosed mentally ill would have as their primary goal, full informed consent in the field of mental health – including full and complete disclosure of all drug risks, the right to refuse treatment, the right to know that psychiatric diagnoses are not medical conditions (evident by the fact there is not one confirmatory medical/scientific test). Above all such groups would provide patients with an abundance of information on non-harmful, non- drug, medical solutions and options considering the dangerous and well documented risks of psychiatric drugs by international drug regulatory agencies.

These groups do not.

A patients rights group for the mentally ill would never endorse something as absurd and obviously dangerous as giving electroshock to pregnant women, nor condone schools being able to require children to take a psychiatric drug as a condition of attending school. Furthermore, they would never be opposed to the FDA actually doing its job and finally issuing long overdue warnings that antidepressants can cause children to commit suicide, or issue warnings that ADHD drugs have serious and even deadly side effects. Yet these are just some of the actions condoned and promoted by these so-called patients rights groups.

As another example take the federally proposed bill, The Mothers Act; a previous version of this bill called on using a method of “screening” pregnant women and new mothers called EPDS, a screening method documented to triple the number of women diagnosed with Postpartum depression, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health stated that EPDS screening was unethical and should not be used. None of the so called advocacy groups for the mentally ill had any objections to this bill whatsoever, or endorsing such an unethical screening tool. They supported it. The bill would have passed with no objections from them whatsoever, if not for the dedication of real advocacy groups with no vested interests (ties to Pharma) opposing language in this bill that would have led to women being falsely diagnosed and put on dangerous psychiatric drugs to “treat” them, unnecessarily placing new mothers and their infants at great risk.

To put it simply, these groups are not what they appear to be. Yet their influence over legislation, lobbying, drug regulation (or lack thereof), and public relations campaigns is substantial and effects the entire nation. For they claim to be the voice of the “mentally ill.” But are they? Or are they the result of a brilliant marketing/lobbying campaign designed to benefit the industry that funds them—the Psycho/Pharmaceutical industry.

To find out how it all started click here: http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/

« Return to news items


Share

Illinois psych hospital dosing foster kids with combinations of dangerous psychiatric drugs as chemical restraints

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

David Jackson
Chicago Tribune
December 10, 2009

One of Illinois’ largest psychiatric hospitals dosed foster children with dangerous combinations of mood-altering drugs, sometimes using the medicines as “chemical restraints” to control youth who needed counseling, according to a sharply worded new report by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of psychiatry.

The northwest suburban Streamwood Behavioral Health Center, which has treated roughly 475 Department of Children and Family Services wards since 2007, is “so understaffed as to be counter-therapeutic,” the UIC report said. Amid violent outbursts by young patients, hospital staff resorted to extraordinarily high rates of emergency psychiatric medications, physical restraints and seclusion, the report said.

DCFS Director Erwin McEwen reacted to the findings by angrily criticizing Streamwood owner Psychiatric Solutions Inc., the nation’s largest for-profit behavioral health firm.

“Profiteering at the expense of the mental health of vulnerable children will not be tolerated in Illinois,” McEwen’s statement said. “PSI needs to develop a different business model if they want to continue caring for our children. Unless and until this corporation pays attention to children with the same fervor that they devote to the bottom line, we will seek alternatives to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence on this provider.”

Read entire article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-psi-psychotropicsdec10,0,5938749.story

« Return to news items


Share

FDA ‘considers’ Antipsychotic drug labels warning of weight gain/diabetes. Considers? Do your job-issue the warnings.

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

Jennifer Corbett Dooren
The Wall Street Journal
December 8, 2009

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–A top Food and Drug Administration official said Tuesday the agency is considering strengthening the labels of antipsychotic drugs to warn about weight gain and diabetes amid concerns the impact could be stronger in children compared to adults.

Thomas Laughren, the director of FDA’s division of psychiatric products, said the agency has asked manufacturers of drugs like Seroquel, Abilify and Zyprexa for all of the information they have on metabolic side effects such as increases in blood glucose, which can cause diabetes and blood cholesterol levels which can lead to cardiovascular problems over time.

While the labels of the drugs already discuss weight gain and its associated problems, Laughren said the agency is considering putting all the information in the warnings section, which would amount to a strengthening of the warning.

Laughren made his comments Tuesday at a pediatric advisory committee meeting which was reviewing the safety of several drugs used in children, including antipsychotics.

Laughren said the labels for AstraZeneca PLC’s (AZN) Seroquel and Eli Lilly & Co.’s (LLY) Zyprexa were already changed last week when the agency approved the products for use in younger patients and, in Seroquel’s case, when it was approved as an add-on treatment for major depression. However, he said all of the drug labels in the class could change as the FDA continues its “comprehensive” review.

The drugs are used to treat a variety of mental illnesses, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and depression that doesn’t respond to other types of medication.

A study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association found the drugs caused children and adolescents to gain an average of 19 pounds in 11 weeks of treatment. The concern with weight gain seen with most antipsychotic drugs is whether it causes additional problems such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

In advance of the pediatric panel meeting, FDA staff recommended the agency should conduct an additional review of antipsychotic drugs to look at the impact of weight gain in children. Several studies have shown children and adolescents gain weight at a faster rate than adults.

Other drugs in the class include Risperdal, made by a unit of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ); Abilify, by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.; and Pfizer Inc.’s (PFE) Geodon. Antipsychotics were the top-selling drug class in the U.S. last year, with $14.6 billion in sales, ahead of the $14.5 billion in sales of cholesterol drugs, according to IMS Health.

See article: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091208-714877.html

« Return to news items


Share

Grassley asks more mental health ‘patients rights’ groups (for ADHD, Bi-Polar, TeenScreen, etc.) to disclose Pharma $$

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

For several years now, Senator Grassley has conducted extensive oversight and sought disclosure of financial ties with industry from research physicians, medical schools, medical journals, continuing medical education, and the patient advocacy community.   Now Senator Grassley has asked 33 medical groups for information about their financial backing they get from the medical device, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, including several psychiatric front groups such as Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Mental Health America, NARSAD, Screening for Mental Health Inc. and the National Center for Mental Checkups at Columbia University (TeenScreen).  Senator Grassley’s previous inquiry into the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) found that the majority of funding received was from the pharmaceutical industry; more than $28 million from pharmaceutical companies in the last four years.

In just the last two years, Grassley investigated and exposed extensive financial conflicts of interest of prominent psychiatrists with the pharmaceutical industry amounting to millions of dollars including Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Dr. Joseph Biederman, Dr. Melissa DelBello, Dr. Timothy Wilens, Dr. Thomas Spencer, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, Dr. Martin Keller, Dr. A. John Rush, Dr. Karen Wagner, Dr. Jeffrey Bostic and former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr. Frederick Goodwin.  Additionally, Grassley investigated the American Psychiatric Association and the funding they received from the pharmaceutical industry.

For the latest inquiry from Senator Grassley read this article: http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=179090

« Return to news items


Share

Former electroshock patient compares the treatment to rape – ‘Professionals who advocate it don’t have to undergo it’

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

The Irish Times
Letters
December 8, 2009

Madam, – On the subject of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without consent (Home News, December 7th), it is important we listen to people such as Mary Maddock who are speaking after having had ECT, and personally suffered its effects.

Professionals who advocate it don’t have to undergo it.  Instead, they note that after  the shock is administered to patients, there is sometimes a lightening of mood – euphoria (which is the natural reaction to shock), but very soon this subsides, and the patient returns to depression again, this time with an impaired brain.

It may be that ECT is a drastic remedy, but the cure may be worse than the disease. Trust and confidence are slow to repair, and the loss to memory, especially the time leading up to the treatment – makes the patient very vulnerable. The fact that vessels and connections are ruptured, and cannot be repaired,  as it is a closed head wound – all make this treatment undesirable. In some cases the result is more incapacity.

Read entire letter: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/1208/1224260292813.html

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin debunks myth that Electroshock is improved, safe and/or effective in this series

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Psychiatric Drug Facts
Dr. Peter Breggin

By far the most up-to-date information of the dangers associated with ECT can be found in a chapter in Dr. Breggin’s book, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex, Second Edition (2008). Dr. Breggin brings together and evaluates dozens of articles demonstrating permanent brain damage from ECT including irreversible severe memory loss and wide spread cognitive disabilities. Many patients lose their ability to practice their professions or to conduct their lives in a normal fashion. Dr. Breggin was the medical expert in the first and only electroshock malpractice suit won by the injured patient. He was also the expert in a recent malpractice suit against an ECT doctor that resulted in a settlement of more than $1 million.

In 2007 a long-term follow-up study of ECT patients conducted by a team of shock-advocates lead by Harold Sackeim confirmed Dr. Breggin’s observations that the “treatment” is devastating to the mental functions, frequently causing dementia with permanent disruption of memory and a variety of other cognitive functions.

The acronym ECT stands for “Electro Convulsive Therapy” (also called EST, for Electro Shock Therapy) a psychiatric treatment in which electricity is applied to the head and passed through the brain to produce a grand mal or major convulsion. The seizure brought about by the electric stimulus closely resembles, but is more rigorous or strenuous than that found in idiopathic epilepsy or in epilepsy following a wide variety of insults to the brain.

Read entire article: http://breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=52

« Return to news items


Share

Woman describes devastating results of electroshock – calling it a human rights abuse that psychiatry gets away with

Monday, December 7th, 2009

The Irish Times
December 7, 2009

MARY MADDOCK (62) doesn’t remember anything about the first time she received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Memory loss was the biggest side-effect of the treatment. In fact, she says, she has lost entire chunks of her life.

“It completely wiped everything out,” she says. “I spent eight weeks in the psychiatric hospital and most of it is gone. I don’t remember where I ate or slept or who came to see me.”

Mary had given birth to her daughter Claire two weeks earlier. Doctors believed she was suffering from a form of post-natal depression, but she had no history of psychiatric problems or depression.

She remembers more about the second time she underwent ECT, in the late 1980s. “I remember the cylinders for the electric shock; I remember them taking your pillow, so they had better access to your head, taking the anaesthetic and counting backwards until you were knocked out.

“It was a very scary thing to be part of, not knowing what was happening and then waking up with the most awful pain in your head like you wouldn’t believe. And not remembering things which had happened recently. It was like a big chunk of your life being taken away.

“This is why I can’t even remember holding Claire in my arms for the first time. It breaks my heart.”

Read entire article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1207/1224260241533.html

« Return to news items


Share

Father sues Harvard over son’s suicide – 3 psychiatric drugs prescribed him were all documented to cause suicide

Saturday, December 5th, 2009

Thom Weidlich
Bloomberg.com
December 5, 2009

The father of a Harvard College sophomore who killed himself in 2007 sued the school’s president and fellows for wrongful death, alleging the institution’s health service prescribed drugs known to increase suicide risk.

John B. Edwards II of Wellesley, Massachusetts, sued on behalf of the estate of his son, known as Johnny, in state court in Middlesex County on Dec. 2. A doctor and nurse employed by Harvard simultaneously prescribed skin, antidepressant and attention-deficit disorder drugs linked to suicide and other side effects, according to the complaint.

“Three of these drugs have risks associated with heightened suicidality,” the father’s lawyer alleged in the complaint. “All four drugs have significant side effects.”

Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts is the undergraduate school of Harvard University, whose $26-billion endowment is the world’s largest academic fund.

“The care he received at Harvard University Health Services was thorough and appropriate and he was monitored closely by its physicians and allied health specialists,” Harvard said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “Similar complaints previously have been filed with the Board of Registration in Medicine, the Board of Registration in Nursing and the Board of Registration in Pharmacy, and in all three instances the complaints were dismissed upon review.”

Read entire article:  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aIlr9YQwCSnY

« Return to news items


Share

Number of Prescriptions Written in UK for Antidepressants Nearly Equals Entire Population

Friday, December 4th, 2009

David Gutierrez
NaturalNews.com
December 4, 2009

There were 36 million prescriptions issued for antidepressant drugs in the United Kingdom in 2008, nearly one for every adult in the population, according to numbers obtained by the Liberal Democrat party.

The number is 2.1 million higher than in 2007.

Writing in the Guardian, Ed Halliwell examines the reason for this trend, noting that antidepressant prescriptions have increased more than threefold since the beginning of the 1990s, far outstripping the increase in the percentage of the population classified with a “common mental disorder.” From 1993 to 2007, this number increased by only one million, going from 15.5 percent of the population to 17.6 percent.

Halliwell notes that while national guidelines recommend that psychological therapies are the preferred treatment for mental illness or distress, 75 percent of doctors report having prescribed drugs in cases where they thought that therapy or other non-pharmaceutical treatments would have been more effective. In part, this is because despite government recommendations, psychotherapy treatment remains difficult to find in the United Kingdom, with long waiting lists.

Read entire artilcle: http://www.naturalnews.com/027651_antidepressants_prescriptions.html

« Return to news items


Share