Archive for March, 2010

Former DSM Chairman: Psychosis Risk Syndrome (being pushed by Patrick McGorry) is “ill conceived and potentially harmful”

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

DSM 5 ‘Psychosis Risk Syndrome’-far too risky

Psychology Today
By Allen Frances
March 18, 2010

Among all the problematic suggestions for DSM5, the proposal for a ” Psychosis Risk Syndrome” stands out as the most ill conceived and potentially harmful. It aims to solve a pressing problem in psychiatry- the need for early identification and preventive treatment. Psychotic episodes create tremendous short term impairment and may impact negatively on long term prognosis and treatment efficacy. It would save great suffering if we could get there early and do something useful to reduce the lifetime burden of illness before too much damage is done.

But good intentions are not enough. The whole concept of early intervention rests on three fundamental pillars- being able to diagnose the right people and then providing them with a treatment that is effective and safe. “Psychosis Risk Syndrome” fails badly on all three counts: 1) it would misidentify many teenagers who are not really at risk for psychosis; 2) the treatment they would most often receive (atypical antipsychotic medication) has no proven efficacy; but, 3) it does have definite dangerous complications.

First, let’s deal with the misidentification problem. Even in the most expert of hands (ie in very highly selected research clinics), at least two of three people who get the diagnosis do not go on to become psychotic. Of great counterintuitive interest, the longer the research clinic operates the lower becomes its rate of correct identification. With time and spreading reputation, the clinic attracts increasingly heterogeneous referrals- so that it is more difficult to discriminate from among them those who are truly at risk for psychosis.

That would be the misidentification rate once the diagnosis became official and was applied in the real world? No one can say for sure, but two thirds is certainly a lower limit of misidentification. There are several reasons to believe that the ratio of wrong diagnoses would actually be much higher: 1)the raters in general practice would be much less expert than specialists in research clinics; 2) the “patients” would be closer to normal and harder to discriminate; and, 3)drug company marketing would influence parents and clinicians to be especially alert to any strangeness in teenagers. It has been estimated that the false positive rate would jump from about 70 percent in specialty clinics to about 90 percent in general practice.

This means that as many as an astounding nine in ten individuals identified as “risk syndrome” would not really be at risk for developing psychosis.

Those supporting the diagnosis for DSM5 have attempted to fix this overwhelming problem by inserting a definitional criterion that the person must be seeking treatment. They hope this requirement would both reduce the rate of false positives and ensure that those who are misidentified will need some form of treatment. Their preferred treatment for “risk syndrome” is cognitive/behavior therapy which might be helpful (and is unlikely to be harmful) even to those who have been misidentified.

This fix fails badly on both counts- ie in reducing false positives and in guaranteeing safe treatment. Under the best of circumstances, the overwhelming majority of “treatment seekers” will still be false positive. Once the diagnosis is official and marketted, the problem will get much worse as a new army of “treatment seekers” is brought in by their families. Their perceived “strangeness” may come from many causes other than psychotic risk, including:1) drug use; 2) adolescent developmental issues and rebelliousness; 3) culturally dystonic creativity 4) stable schizotypal personality; or, 5)normal eccentricity. A far more efficient signal to noise filter would have been to require that the individual must also have a close family member who has experienced psychotic episodes.

Then we get to the worrying treatment issues. It is the height of unrealistic wishful thinking to assume that most of the misidentified patients will get cognitve therapy. Cognitive theray is in short supply and largely unavailable-especially for this population. On the other hand, antipsychotic medications are fairly ubiquitous and already frequently given for off label indications, particularly to kids on Medicaid.

It has not yet been established that antipsychotic medications are effective in preventing psychotic episodes or in improving life course in those who would meet the criteria for “risk syndrome”. This is an area that to date has received little study and the few existing findings are equivocal.

In contrast, the harmful effects of atypical antipsychotics are extremely well established and frightening. Teenagers starting at an average weight of 110 pounds gained an average of 12 pounds in 12 weeks- and one of the antipsychotics caused an 18 pound weight gain in this period. This raises the risk for diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and a shorter life span.

To sum up: 1) The “risk syndrome” would misidentify many (somewhere between 3-9) kids for every one correctly identified;and, 2) the treatment most likely to be offered has no proven efficacy, but can have extremely dangerous complications. This is a clearly the prescription for an iatrogenic public health disaster.

Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201003/dsm-5-psychosis-risk-syndrome-far-too-risky

Read comments by Patrick McGorry pushing Psychosis Risk Syndrome

Also see TIME Magazine Article “Drugs Before Diagnosis?”

« Return to news items


Share

CCHR Increases Investigations into Psycho/Pharma Conflicts in Australia in Wake of Psychiatrists Calling for Millions in Federal Funds to Drug More Kids

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Jan Eastgate, President CCHR International, arrived in Australia this week from CCHR’s international headquarters in Los Angeles following calls by psychiatrist Patrick McGorry for the federal government to hand over $200 million to fund programs that could lead to hundreds of thousands more children and youths being drugged. She said Australian psychiatrists are pushing a biological drug model in her home country that drug regulatory agencies have warned could place children at risk of suicide, heart irregularities, hallucinations, psychosis and death. Read more from CCHR Int on Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry and what he promotes.

Eastgate, an Australian, spent 10 years helping investigate the lethal psychiatric drug practice known as deep sleep treatment, which resulted in the NSW government banning the practice after 48 deaths. She says Australia hasn’t learned from the $15 million inquiry into this psychiatric practice 20 years ago. Today, psychiatrists, backed by the pharmaceutical industry, advise governments that clearly want to see better healthcare for Australians without breaking the bank. However, Eastgate said governments are being misled as Big Pharma and psychiatrists with vested interests puts profit before patient care. Eastgate’s investigations in the U.S. and globally during the past 16 years have found that government goodwill can be unwittingly compromised by psychiatric-pharmaceutical interests. She is investigating this further and expects a series of exposes to be featured on CCHR’s National site during the next few weeks. A report will also be provided the government on CCHR’s findings.

CCHR’s accomplishments in worldwide mental health reform are well documented, and the organization has helped to enact more than 150 laws protecting individuals from abusive or coercive psychiatric practices.  In the United States, CCHR was instrumental in the passage of the Prohibition of Mandatory Medication Act, which prohibits school personnel from forcing children onto psychotropic drugs as a requisite for their education. The Act was a positive response to the harmful influence the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry had had on education and Eastgate says there is every indication the same influence is happening in Australia.

« Return to news items


Share

Medicating the Military—76% increase in psychiatric drugs; one in six now on a psychiatric drug or drug cocktail

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Army Times
By Andrew Tilghman and Brendan McGarry
March 17, 2010

At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug.

And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations.

The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides.

“It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.

A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

Read entire article:  http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/military_psychiatric_drugs_031710w/

« Return to news items


Share

Senator Grassley Investigates WebMD Links to Eli Lilly & WebMD’s ad for people to undergo a Lilly “depression screening”

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Epoch Times
By Martha Rosenberg
March 16, 2010

It is not too hard to find evidence of links between WebMD and drug giant Eli Lilly.

A 2002 article on the gigantic medical site about pain and depression says “Lilly is a WebMD Partner,” and an advertising award in 2004 went to the FCB “client” Eli Lilly & Co./WebMD—not clients.

Banner and skyscraper ads for Lilly’s blockbuster antidepressant Cymbalta on WebMD’s home page never seemed to yield to other advertisers in 2009, and the Washington Post reported Lilly and WebMD to be partners in 2000.

Now Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating financial ties between Lilly and WebMD Health Corp. because of a WebMD TV ad exhorting people to undergo a Lilly depression screening.

You can joke about the need to tell people they are depressed—do people need to be told they have a headache—but pharma’s screening ruse to recruit new patient pools for the volatile drugs among teens, adolescents, and new mothers is not funny.

Three thousand five hundred news articles about antidepressants linked to violence appear on the Web site SSRIstories.com, including 700 murders, 200 murder-suicides, 51 school shooting incidents, and 54 postpartum depression cases since 1989.

Read entire article:  http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31511/

« Return to news items


Share

“Desperate to sell drugs, psychiatrists use their ‘scientific’ manual…an ever-broadening panoply of absurd new syndromes”

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Boston Globe
By Alex Beam
March 16, 2010

The irresistible, plus-size piñata for on-the-case journalists is the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, now undergoing revision. The DSM famously includes snoring and jet lag as mental disorders. I took a whack last year, calling the 880-page doorstop “a naked land grab by a profession threatened with marginalization by biomedical research.’’

Last month historian Edward Shorter accused the DSM of accelerating “the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases: turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity.’’ Just a week ago in The New Yorker, Harvard professor Louis Menand called out the shrinks for the “blatant pathologization of a common personality trait’’ — shyness — “for the financial benefit of the psychiatric profession and the pharmaceutical industry.’’

We all agree on one thing: Desperate to sell drugs, psychiatrists use their “scientific’’ manual to identify an ever-broadening panoply of absurd new syndromes amenable to pharmaceutical cure. But what if we are all wrong? Suppose the opposite is true? Perhaps the psychiatric profession has been far too conservative about proclaiming new, treatable disorders. Here is my own modest list of psychological problems that I hope to see addressed when the new DSM-V is published, three years from now:

Dysphoric iPhobia, or single cell anomia: the counterintuitive feeling that somehow I can survive in the 21st century without owning an iPhone, and its impossible-to-resist “apps.’’ Or the forthcoming iPad, another, pointless $500 geegaw. My junky Verizon cellphone serves me fine.

Read entire article:  http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/03/16/alex_beam_a_new_diagnostic_psych_manual_calls_for_some_new_disorders/

« Return to news items


Share

Ireland: Psychiatry has “too much power” to electroshock patients against their will causing memory loss/brain damage

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Irish Times
By Carl O’Brien
March 16, 2010

A CONSULTANT psychiatrist employed by the HSE has warned that psychiatrists have “too much power” and that rules on the use of electro-shock therapy need to be changed to protect patients.

Dr Pat Bracken, clinical director for the West Cork mental health service, was speaking at a private briefing for members of the Oireachtas on whether changes are needed to laws governing use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). These rules state that ECT can be used where a patient is “unable or unwilling” to give consent once it has been approved by two consultant psychiatrists.

Dr Bracken said this law meant there was no legal comeback for a patient who felt they had been harmed.

“In any other branch of medicine it would be unconscionable to allow a procedure to go ahead, except in the most dire emergency, without procuring consent, if not from the patient then from a next-of-kin,” he said.

He said ECT was the “most invasive procedure” currently used by psychiatrists and that research showed that at least a third of recipients had suffered substantial memory loss after treatment.

Read entire article:  http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0316/1224266346885.html

« Return to news items


Share

One Million UK Patients Addicted to Prescription Drugs

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Natural News
By David Gutierrez
March 15, 2010

Approximately 1.5 million people in the United Kingdom are addicted to prescription or over-the-counter drugs, many of which were legally acquired.

In July, the Department of Health launched a review of the problem, after the House of Commons All-Party Group on Drug Misuse called for greater awareness, better doctor training and more treatment options.

Although medical guidelines discourage doctors from prescribing benzodiazepine tranquilizers such as Valium for more than four weeks at a time, many patients still become addicted.

“There are still lots and lots of patients being put on these drugs and kept on them for a long time,” said Pam Armstrong of the Council for Information on Tranquillizers and Antidepressants. “I have some sympathy with [doctors] — they get a lot of pressure from patients who want these drugs. But the problem has been ignored.”

Other highly addictive drugs include sleeping pills and narcotic painkillers. A recent study found that painkillers containing codeine can be addictive within as little as three days.

Read entire article:  http://www.naturalnews.com/028375_painkillers_addiction.html

« Return to news items


Share

Pharma Backed Australian of the Year Psychiatrist Wants Millions in Government Funding for Brave New World of “Pre-Drugging” Kids

Monday, March 15th, 2010

By CCHR Int
March 15, 2010

Who is Patrick McGorry and what does he promote?  He’s a psychiatrist just named Australian of the Year for his work in “youth mental health reform.”  What does that reform consist of?  What he calls a “new form of climate change.” It sure is.

[See TIME Magazine Article "Drugs Before Diagnosis?"]

He not only promotes youths being put on antipsychotics and antidepressants, cited by international drug regulatory agencies as causing hallucinations, hostility, personality change, life-threatening diabetes, strokes, suicide and death, McGorry goes a giant step further—drug them before they’ve even developed a “psychiatric” disorder.

The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AHRPP) likens such concepts to “performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of—but do not have—breast cancer.”[i]

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed “serious concerns” about child drugging and Senate investigations in the United States have found high profile psychiatrists who were pharmaceutically funded and using fraudulent research being among the heaviest promoters of psychiatric drug use on children. While the rest of the world is experiencing serious alarm at the rampant use of deadly psychiatric drugs on children, McGorry pushes full steam ahead to increase the amount of children being needlessly subjected to psychiatry’s most powerful drugs—antidepressants and antipsychotics.

His theory and practices are so controversial that even his colleagues in the United States have backed away from it.  And a parallel study done in the United States based on the same theory that McGorry uses was considered an abject failure—even by the investigators themselves.  Other psychiatrists have criticized McGorry’s pre-drugging practice as unethical and harmful to adolescents.  More on that later.

This is especially so as the “symptoms” McGorry and cohorts invented to “pre-label” youths as potential candidates for psychosis and “schizophrenia” (to start with) are, according to one U.S. psychiatrist, “remarkably common…adolescence is a period of life that is normally marked by tumultuous changes in personality.”

And what was the first thing he did to capitalize on his winning his “Australian of the Year” award?  He demanded the Australian government hand over another $200 million to fund more of his centers where he can drug more children.  Worse, the government is entertaining the idea.

Yet, for who ever nominated him—apparently an “anonymous supporter”—due diligence wasn’t done on what McGorry advocates.

A cursory look at his research shows that while behavioral symptoms are evaluated and, on a hunch, drugged to see if they “prevent” the onset of a “mental” disorder, there’s no mention of the teens being given full and searching physical exams to first rule out undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions that may be causing it.  Yet dozens of physical conditions can manifest as behavioral problems.

  • Australia, like the U.S., has recently seen major media and legislative exposure of the conflicts of interest between psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry.  McGorry has received unrestricted research grant support from Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myer Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

  • He is also a paid consultant for, and has received speaker’s fees from all or most of these companies.[ii] His recent report on “early intervention” for young people acknowledges AstraZeneca, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer.[iii] [Since 2001, the U.S. Federal and state governments have recovered more than $4 billion from many of these companies that settled criminal or civil charges of fraud and misleading advertising filed against them.]

  • Even Big Pharma is bowing out of psychiatric drug research. In February, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline said it was dumping antidepressant research because it is too hard to prove that antidepressants work because “patient improvement is measured by subjective mood surveys” and not by any blood or biological test used to confirm medical diseases. AstraZeneca followed with the head of development, Anders Ekblom, announcing it would no longer research and develop drugs for depression, bipolar, anxiety and schizophrenia, saying the decision reflects the unpredictable and risky nature of clinical trials to assess medicine working on the brain. [emphasis added]
  • Yet, despite the unpredictability and risk of these drugs, McGorry wants to go full steam ahead, increasing the funding to increase the number of children being placed on them.

A Closer Look at McGorry’s Brave New World

  • In 1996, Patrick McGorry and fellow pharmaceutical company-funded researcher Alison Yung set up a clinic in Australia to monitor young people considered at a “high risk” for developing psychosis.  They invented a subjective method for assessing symptoms that, while not based on science—claimed to predict early onset of psychosis or schizophrenia called prodromal (early symptoms), and drugged the teens and young adults.  In other words, gave them toxic chemicals for a mental disorder they did not have.[iv]
  • The theory wasn’t McGorry’s alone, but he decided to test it in a world-first trial that had psychiatry’s skeptics and even psychiatrists themselves aghast.  The Australian program inspired the development of similar programs worldwide.[v]
  • A follow up study was conducted in 2002, funded with an unrestricted grant from Janssen-Cilag pharmaceuticals, and supported by psychiatric-pharmaceutical front groups NARSAD and Stanley Foundation, as well as several Australian agencies.  McGorry and colleagues said that risperidone (Risperdal)—made by Janssen—reduced the risk of “transition to psychosis” in young people.[vi]
  • Risperdal has been linked to diabetes and, more specifically, Type 2 diabetes. Other serious side effects include Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS), a potentially fatal syndrome involving muscle rigidity, and irregular blood pressure and pulse.[vii]
  • McGorry’s friend and colleague, Yale University professor of Psychiatry, Dr. Thomas McGlashan, conducted a parallel study (1997-2003), the results of which were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry.   Eli Lilly funded the experiment.  Sixty adolescents, who did not meet any criteria for a diagnosis of mental illness, were prescribed Lilly’s antipsychotic Zyprexa (olanzapine).[viii]
  • The experiment failed to demonstrate any significant benefit of Zyprexa, and 54.8% of adolescents prescribed the drug compared to 34.5% on placebo refused to complete the study (the 20% difference indicating substantial intolerable safety problems with the drug).[ix]
  • Even McGlashan later admitted to The New York Times in May 2006 that, “the drugs were more likely to induce weight gain than to produce a significant, measurable benefit….” Those on medication gained an average of about 20 pounds. The entire process changed Dr. McGlashan’s thinking.[x]
  • In fact he distanced himself from McGorry in a TIME Magazine article the same year on McGorry titled, “Drug Before Disorder?”  “There may be gold in the early-intervention hills,” McGlashan conceded, “but the data are not plentiful enough and the findings not replicated enough for us to recommend anything more than further research at this point.”[xi]
  • Undeterred, and buoyed by an Australian government $A54 million funding of a National Youth Mental Health Foundation, McGorry plowed on to expand his unproven and potentially risky methods to the early diagnosis and treatment for “a range of mental health problems in young people: substance abuse, personality disorders, bipolar—the whole lot, really.”[xii]
  • Richard Warner, MB, DPM, director of Colorado Recovery in Boulder, Colorado, and professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado, completely debunks McGorry’s theory, writing: Medicating at the earliest appearance of symptoms, without thought for the natural history of the condition, may lock the person experiencing a brief psychosis into a long-term career as a psychiatric patient.”[xiii]
  • Further refuting McGorry’s theory, Honorary Professor Anthony Pelosi from the Department of Psychiatry, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, wrote, “So far, evidence from randomized trials does not support the use of psychological therapies or drugs as preventive interventions.”[xiv]

No Science to “Pre-Disorder” Screening

  • Dr. Warner counters any idea that science drives McGorry’s pre-disorder assessment: “As for the claim that we can prevent psychosis by intervening before the illness has become fully evident, this effort requires effective screening to detect those at risk.”  Something that McGorry clearly doesn’t have.
  • “Patrick McGorry and colleagues at the PACE clinic in Melbourne…report that their screening instrument is capable of 80 per cent accuracy in their clinic.  But the instrument is not that accurate in routine use.  In the PACE sample, 35 per cent developed psychosis within one year.  Probability theory tells us that if the same instrument were used to screen a general population sample…it would be correct only seven per cent of the time.”
  • “In fact, in another Australian clinic, the PACE instrument only achieved nine per cent accuracy. False-positive rates of the order of 70 to 90 per cent are clearly unrealistic for intervening with medication or other forms of treatment.”

Harmful Drug Outcomes

  • Further, the antipsychotic drug interventions McGorry suggests as one intervention approach are dangerous. Given the expected number of false positives, the potential for harm is significant,” Dr. Warner stated.[xv]

  • Dr. Pelosi concurs: “[M]ost patients who enter these specialist programs will unnecessarily receive potentially dangerous treatments.  Data are emerging from the clinics of early intervention enthusiasts that illustrate nicely what they have been warned about for years.  When psychiatrists referred selected patients to a schizophrenia prodrome clinic, about half went on to develop a psychosis.  After teachers, college counselors, and families were encouraged to refer young people with possibly prodromal symptoms directly to the same clinic for the same care plans…almost 90% were receiving unnecessary ‘preventive’ interventions.”[xvi]
  • Dr. Jerald J. Block, a U.S. psychiatrist, writing in Bioethics Forum, says that “preventive pharmacology” (what McGorry is practicing) is “ethically questionable territory” because the treatments given “frequently have side effects and complications” and you are potentially harming people.  Further, the symptoms used to identify them as at risk of schizophrenia are “also remarkably common…adolescence is a period of life that is normally marked by tumultuous changes in personality.”[xvii]
  • He says, “[I]t is unclear how the quality of one’s life will be affected during and after one year of getting daily neuroleptic,” especially for a condition you haven’t even developed. “Forming and solidifying new relationships occupies much of the time in adolescence and young adulthood.  As neuroleptics affect cognition and emotionality, we might expect [an antipsychotic] to influence one’s ability to build relationships, for better or worse.”[xviii]
  • Moreover, Dr. Warner points out, if left untreated, the person exhibiting so-called “prodromal” symptoms is likely to recover without drug treatment. “The Soteria projects in California and Berne, Switzerland, and a multi-center study in Finland demonstrated that medication is not essential for good outcome.”[xix]

Despite the Failure, Keep Lobbying for the $

  • Dr. Pelosi points out that when the leaders of the early intervention movement are pinned down, while they accept the criticisms against them, “this has not stopped their skilful lobbying of politicians, journalists, patients, and carers with upbeat messages about the prevention and attenuation of schizophrenia.”
  • Which is precisely what McGorry is doing now—using his award and unquestionably unscientific theories to advocate for more funds.[xx]

Australia’s Joseph Biederman?

  • McGorry has been equated with America’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, the psychiatrist who came under U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigation for failing to disclose more than $1.6 million he’d earned in consulting fees from drug makers while conducting research for universities.  Biederman was on the Advisory Board of Eli Lilly, which manufactures antipsychotics and antidepressants. The New York Times said that Biederman helped to fuel a 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric “bipolar disorder” and corresponding increase in children taking antipsychotics.
  • How much McGorry may have impacted on pediatric and youth prescriptions of antipsychotics and antidepressants in Australia is unknown, but certainly warrants a closer look. As do the outcomes of his studies and what, if any, influence the drug companies that funded him may have had.
  • Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has received reports of 26,506 adverse reactions linked to antipsychotics, including 477 deaths.  That’s since they were introduced over many years.  By January 2009 there were 36,804 adverse reactions reported to the TGA linked to antidepressants, including 217 deaths, of which 4 were from the 10 to 19 age group.
  • But add to that the Food and Drug Administration’s adverse drug reaction reports (ADRs) during a five-year period alone (2004-2008) and the magnitude of where the potential risk of this “Drugs before Disorder” practice is heading.  For antipsychotics, there were 91 deaths for those under 18.  For antidepressants, there were 321 deaths, of which 251 were suicides. As these reports represent between one and ten percent of the ADRs, that figure could be as high as 3,210 deaths, and for antipsychotics, nearly 1,000.

Australia’s health care system ranks well internationally, and preventative measures may seem the way to enhancing it; however, the last thing the country needs, then, is a psychiatrist banner heading the idea that children and youths should be gotten to early and drugged on the precept that they might become mentally ill.  Rather, they need proper medical—not psychiatric—care and educational solutions.  The last thing they need is $200 million of taxpayers’ dollars funding what could be a lifetime sentence to taking mind-altering drugs.

Someone needs to care for Australia’s children and youth, but it’s definitely not Patrick McGorry.


[i] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf

[ii] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695

[iii] http://www.mhanet.ca/documents/2008/Research-Colloquium/0920%20-%20Keynote%20MCGORRY.pdf

[iv] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632176/

[v] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632176/

[vi] Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol 59, Oct. 2002, http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/psychiatrie/zebb/literatur/mcgorry.pdf

[vii] http://www.coreynahman.com/atypical-antipsychotic-lawsuits.html

[viii] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf

[ix] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf

[x] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/health/psychology/23prof.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

[xi] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205408,00.html#ixzz0i0DykBNV

[xii] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205408,00.html#ixzz0i0NMJQyd

[xiii] http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html

[xiv] Anthony Pelosi, “Head to Head, Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? No,” BMJ 2008;337:a710, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710

[xv] http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html

[xvi] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710

[xvii] http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=386 http://www.bioethicsforum.org/ethics-of-preventive-psychopharmacologic-treatments.asp

[xviii] http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=386 http://www.bioethicsforum.org/ethics-of-preventive-psychopharmacologic-treatments.asp

[xix] http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html

[xx] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710

« Return to news items


Share

UK Professor of Psychology “Psychiatry – The Nightmare of the People”

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Psychology Articles
By Stephen Myler
March 2010

In this paper I want to review the investigations from the Citizens Committee for Human Rights in Mental Health. It is this organisation in the United States and other countries that have consistently brought the dangers of psychiatry to the attention of the general public who by and large are the victims of a marriage between pharmaceutical companies and their paid distributors of lethal drugs, psychiatrists. This alliance has been based on the greed for money, profits and kudos all in the name of a science that as one leading authority called – “hokum”

Introduction: A Short History

The history of psychiatry is strewn with the deaths; torture and misadventure that would make any sane person wonder why it has been allowed to continue to practice this black art for so long. Of course the anti-psychiatry movement has been around for almost as long as the profession itself. How did this all begin? You have to go back to the days of the asylums that grew up in the early part of the 1800’s particularly in England and the USA. These places were no more than prisons for the mad, those souls that could not function within the societies norms that dictated how one should act and behave. The head of the asylums was a medical doctor, the first psychiatrist. This man caged the mentally ill in cells, with no heating, little food but rotten scraps and in order to cure them of their madness the inmates were tortured by flogging, burning, immersion in water and many other inhumane acts called treatment. The down fall of the asylums started in England with the York Retreat a Quaker run institute for the mentally ill run on very different lines from the asylums that were government institutions. In the York retreat the inmates were given jobs to perform, were helped by keeping simple rules and rewarded for following them.

Read entire article:  http://www.freepsychologyarticles.com/psychiatry-the-nightmare-of-the-people.html

« Return to news items


Share

Johnson & Johnson Internal Documents Reveal Unsavory & Potentially Illegal Marketing of Antipsychotic drug Risperdal

Friday, March 12th, 2010

InjuryBoard.com
By Jim Lewis
March 12, 2010

The multi-billion dollar drug company, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), has come under fire for allegedly violating the rules in their marketing of Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug. Back in 1999, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told J&J that their marketing materials for geriatric patients overstated Risperdals benefits and minimized risks, according to Bloomberg.com. In 2000, an internal business plan strategized a way to increase Risperdals market share by marketing the benefits for elderly dementia, an unapproved use.

This was described as one of the more egregious examples of marketing drugs to vulnerable patients by Jerry Avorn, who works at the Harvard Medical School. He went on to say, seeing such clear evidence in black and white of the details of a campaign like this is still pretty upsetting.

J&Js marketing of Risperdal could be illegal since current law states that drug companies cannot promote a drug for uses other than those approved by the FDA. At the time this marketing and business plan was crafted, Risperdal was only approved for psychotic disorders like schizophrenia, not for dementia.

Read entire article:  http://virginiabeach.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/johnson-johnson-internal-documents-reveal-unsavory-and-potentially-illegal-marketing-of-risperdal.aspx?googleid=279316

« Return to news items


Share