Archive for September, 2010

Britain ‘Massive spin’ on child ADHD study

Thursday, September 30th, 2010
The Morning Star/UK
Thursday 30 September 2010
Lizzie Cocker

A high-profile child psychologist accused drugs companies and other scientists on Thursday of falsely claiming attention deficit disorder (ADHD) was a genetic disease in order to promote the controversial drug Ritalin.

Clinical child psychologist Dr Oliver James tore into a Cardiff University study on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, accusing the university’s child and adolescent psychiatry professor Anita Tharpar of “putting a massive spin” on the research which claimed to prove that ADHD was a genetic disorder.

The study said it found that children with ADHD were more likely to have a difference in the brain caused by small pieces of DNA that were duplicated or deleted. But of the 336 children with ADHD in the study’s sample, just 16 per cent of them had such DNA.

Dr James said the study in fact disproved any link between genes and ADHD because almost nine out of 10 of the children did not have the gene supposed to cause it.

While the research sought to downplay the effects of poor diets, deprivation and other environmental pressures such as parental stress, Dr James said: “Why are we even talking about this study? Hardly a month goes by without a study being published showing strong environmental factors.”

He said it was in the interests of major drugs companies to promote the idea that genetic factors had a greater influence than environmental factors as this would signal the importance of medical solutions over social remedies, adding: “They want them to keep taking Ritalin.”

The number of children prescribed the drug has soared over the past 15 years and it is known to have side effects such as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, mood swings and sleeping problems.

Read the rest of the story here: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/95901

Note from CCHR,  the Lancet Journal shows one of the sources of funding for this study was the Wellcome Trust, if this name sounds familiar, it is because it was named after, and established in order to administer the fortune of American born pharmaceutical giant, Sir Henry Wellcome (Glaxo-Wellcome later became GlaxoSmithKline) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellcome_Trust

« Return to news items


Share

Pharmaceutical Company AstraZeneca Settles Allegations of Off-Label Marketing and Paying Kickbacks, Pays $520M

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010
ASC REVIEW
By Jaimie Oh
September 29, 2010
Pharmaceutical manufacturer AstraZeneca, based in Wilmington, Del., has agreed to pay $520 million to settle allegations that it had illegally marketed its antipsychotic drug Seroquel, according to an AZ Central news report.

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company is required to specify each intended use of a product in its application to the Food and Drug Administration. After the FDA approves the product for its specified uses, any promotion by the manufacturer for other uses, or “off-label” uses, renders the product misbranded. AstraZeneca had been accused of marketing Seroquel as off-label treatment for insomnia and psychiatric conditions, according to the report.

The company had also been accused of paying kickbacks to physicians. The physicians allegedly agreed to be authors of articles written by the company and its agents about the off-label uses of Seroquel. Additionally, physicians were allegedly paid to travel to resort locations to advise AstraZeneca about marketing the off-label use of the drug, according to the report.

Although it has agreed to settle the allegations, AstraZeneca is denying any wrongdoing. State Medicaid programs, including Kansas, will receive a portion of the pharmaceutical company’s settlement.

Read the AZ Central news report about AstraZeneca’s settlement.
Read other coverage about pharmaceutical company fraud.

- New Jersey-Based Pharmaceutical Company to Pay More Than $41M to Settle Allegations of Kickback Violations, Off-Label Marketing

- Omnicare Pays $21M to Settle Allegations of Medicaid Fraud

- Justice Department Files to Intervene in Whistleblower Kickback Case Against Pfizer

Read rest of this article here http://www.beckersasc.com/stark-act-and-fraud-abuse-issues/pharmaceutical-company-astrazeneca-settles-allegations-of-off-label-marketing-and-paying-kickbacks-pays-520m.html

« Return to news items


Share

Instead of Prescribing Deadly Drugs, Prescribe Children More Time Outdoors and More Play Time

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

Note from CCHR: This is just one example of rational, workable and non-harmful programs that help kids and which do not require prescribing them dangerous and potentially lethal drugs— due to the fact psychiatrists have determined that childhood itself is a mental “illness.”   For more information on non-harmful, non-drug solutions for children, visit our alternatives page http://www.cchrint.org/alternatives/


The Guardian, September 28, 2010

by Ruth Stokes

Kim Yucksei, rosie, recipe tree

Photograph: Gareth Davies

Kim Yucksei, with two-year old granddaughter Rosie and friend Ashton looking at the recipe tree on their estate in east London Photograph: Gareth Davies

Schemes are growing up around the UK that seek to reconnect inner city children with nature by encouraging them to appreciate the bugs and birds on their doorstep.

“We want to let people know that they can just go outside their front door to see wildlife,” says Isabel MacLennan, development officer of Nottinghamshire Wildlife trust.

Next month will see the official launch of Wildlife in the City, a collaboration between Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, that will focus on 10 groups within the city failing to make use of their local green spaces and with a poor understanding of the benefits of doing so.

One of the key focuses of Wildlife in the City is the attitudes of children. In outreach work done by the trust earlier this year in preparation for the project, children were asked where they go to see nature. Many said they would have to go on jungle and safari trips; one answered that their family didn’t have a car.

“People aren’t accessing natural spaces, or if they are they’re not really understanding or appreciating what’s there,” says MacLennan.

A UK survey commissioned this summer by the Eden TV channel, looking at 2,000 eight- to 12-year-olds, found that a fifth had never climbed a tree or visited a farm, more than a quarter did not know what happens to a bee after it stings you, and a third play outside only once a week or less.

Nature-deficit disorder

US author Richard Louv coined the term “nature-deficit disorder” in his 2005 book, Last Child in the Woods, to describe the trend of children spending less time outdoors, resulting in a wide range of behavioural problems.

MacLennan agrees that it is particularly important for children to connect with nature. “There are health and social benefits associated with access to natural spaces. And if you work with people from a young age, they’ll hopefully carry that through to when they’re older,” she says.

Wildlife in the City will attempt to create interest by running hands-on activities such as bug hunting and bird-house building alongside walks and talks. But MacLennan admits that it probably won’t be easy. “It will be a huge challenge. We will be using arts and crafts – that sort of thing – to break down barriers.”

Tim Howell has been running a young people‘s nature and activity project, Change of Scene, in Northampton since the beginning of August. For him, the key to sparking interest is having a combination of activities within the city and trips farther afield, and putting an attractive spin on ideas.

“To get young people to appreciate the natural world, we need to think outside the box,” he says. “If we turn to them and suggest looking at flowers or appreciating some birds, that’s not going to get them going. But when we say let’s go and climb a mountain and take a photo from the top, that’s a bit more interesting. It’s all about finding the right hooks.”

Change of Scene, funded by Natural England’s Access to Nature grant scheme, aims to engage 300 young people over three years from five estates in the east of the city, and hopes not only to improve knowledge and enjoyment of nature but also to raise aspirations and goals through schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. It has already signed up 127.

“It’s not necessarily about the flora and fauna; it’s about that connection with the world around you,” says Howell. “When I take the young people on residentials, they tell me that one of the most enjoyable experiences is lying down on their back in a field, surrounded by darkness, looking at the stars. Because you don’t get to see that in a town – firstly you don’t get a chance, and secondly you’ve got all the light pollution. You just don’t know what an experience could open up for a young person.”

But for projects working exclusively with green spaces confined within urban areas, how easy is it to create a lasting and meaningful connection to nature? The reinvention of a green space on the Eric Estate in east London, financed by Kerrygold Farmer Cooperative, has certainly made a difference since it was completed in May, according to Kim Yucksei, who has been a resident on the estate for 28 years.

Planting vegetables

“There was a green space there, but it wasn’t used for anything other than people putting their dogs on there,” she says. “Now we’ve got a wonderful play area with tables, benches, natural wooden climbing frames, little hills and a recipe tree [which residents use to share recipes]. The children are very enthusiastic because there’s nothing else here. We all love it.

“The children helped plant vegetables and we left the labels on the plants so they can see what’s what – they go there and say ‘that’s the one I planted’, help water them, take out the dead leaves. They didn’t just plant it and leave it, they’re now looking after it, and they’ve got a sense of pride.”

Penny Wilson, head of play at Play Association Tower Hamlets, believes the health benefits of engaging children and young people with the natural world shouldn’t be underestimated. “If you watch a child playing outside they’re just doing so many physical tasks – they run for hours, dig, climb. If you told them to do it they wouldn’t, but they want to because they’re playing. You won’t get that level of physical activity with anything else. As far as their mental health goes, a child that doesn’t play is a frustrated, unhappy and unbalanced child.”

Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/28/back-to-nature-inner-city-children

« Return to news items


Share

One Million Kids on Anti-Psychotics

Monday, September 27th, 2010

Dissident Voice

by Susan Rosenthal,  September 25th, 2010

In July, the Washington Post reported that Corporate America is hoarding a record $1.8 trillion in cash while it waits for profit-making opportunities. At the same time, record numbers of American children are being prescribed toxic psychiatric drugs at earlier ages. These two facts are connected.

The corporate class stole its trillions from us, by exploiting workers at home and abroad – paying us less than our labor is worth – and by laying off workers and squeezing the rest to work a lot harder for much less.

They also steal from our children.

Exploitation and deprivation cause parents to be distressed, depressed, angry, anxious and overwhelmed. An estimated 15 million American children (one in five) live with an adult who suffered a major depression in the previous year. Children respond to parental distress with symptoms and behaviors. The greater the parent’s distress, the greater the child’s distress.

Instead of using some of the corporate treasury to invest in families, distressed children are being labeled with mental disorders and drugged into submission. These children are being robbed of their health and the hope of any real improvement in their lives.

For several decades, researchers like Peter and Ginger Breggin have documented the shocking extent to which American children are being drugged with stimulants and anti-depressants.

Now, thanks to the power of drug-company marketing, distressed children are being drugged with powerful anti-psychotics. In adults, these toxic compounds increase the risk of stroke, cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, suicide, seizures, infection, kidney failure, nervous-system damage and sudden death. The effects on children are unknown.

Last September, an FDA report found that the number of anti-psychotic prescriptions dispensed to children (0-17 years) had risen 22 percent over the previous five years.

The FDA examined six anti-psychotic drugs: Seroquel® (quetiapine); Zyprexa® (olanzapine); Risperdal® (risperidone); Abilify® (aripiprazole); Geodon® (ziprasidone); and Invega® (paliperidone).

In 2008, of the 32 million prescriptions dispensed for these drugs, 4.8 million were dispensed to children (15 percent of the total).

That same year, one million individual children were prescribed these anti-psychotics (19 percent of the total of 5.5 million individuals). Here are the numbers, by age group:

1,770 children aged 0-2
64,664 children aged 3-6
414,451 children aged 7-12
540,760 children aged 13-17

Diagnoses applied to the infants and toddlers (aged 0-2) included: Attention Deficit Disorder; Mental/Behavior Problems, Behavioral
Problems; Other Emotional Disturbances, and Residual Schizophrenia, a diagnosis that can be made on the basis of “odd beliefs and unusual perceptual experiences.”

A more accurate diagnosis for these children’s symptoms and behaviors would be “Parental Distress due to Heartless Social Policies.”   A recent report from the Urban Institute found that 7 percent of all 9-month-old infants live with severely depressed mothers, and 41 percent of 9-month-old infants live with mothers who suffer some form of depression. These rates are higher among mothers living in poverty, who are also more likely to suffer domestic violence.

Only a sick social system would enrich the few by stealing the present lives and future hopes of the many.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/one-million-kids-on-anti-psychotics/

« Return to news items


Share

Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers Site Offers News And Information About Antidepressant Heart Defects

Monday, September 27th, 2010
Quote startDespite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, Glaxo deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug.Quote end

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy. Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects.

PR WEB

September 27, 2010

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy.

Paxil is part of a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). After it first went on the market in December 1992, Paxil has gone on to become one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States, with annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2002.

Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects. In December 2005, the Food and Drug Administration called for stronger birth defects warnings on the drug’s labeling after two studies found that Paxil doubles the risk of birth defects when taken by women during the first trimester of pregnancy. Most of these birth defects involved cases of atrial and ventricular septal defects (holes in the walls of the chambers of the heart).

Paxil has also been linked to an increased risk of birth defects when taken later in pregnancy. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who take Paxil or similar antidepressants after the 20th week of pregnancy are six times more likely to give birth to a child with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), a condition which causes breathing and circulation problems that may lead to hospitalization or death.

Taking Paxil during pregnancy may also be linked to a number of other serious heart defects in newborns, including cardiomyopathy, tricuspid stenosis, cleft mitral valves, hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), hypoplastic right heart syndrome (HRHS), bicuspid aortic valves or patent ductus arteriosus (PDA).

Documents uncovered in the ongoing litigation against GSK [Paxil] products liability litigation (MDL-1574)] have revealed that GlaxoSmithKline, the drug’s manufacturer, was aware of the potential link between the antidepressant and birth defects as early as 1980, but failed to recall the drug or properly warn about its dangers until these risks were made public by researchers.

“Despite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, GlaxoSmithKline deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug,” says David Friend of Hissey Kientz, LLP. “It is impossible to say how many lives were drastically altered because of the company’s failure to heed the advice of experts and investigate the link between Paxil and birth defects.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4565144.htm

« Return to news items


Share

Making a Market in Antipsychotic Drugs: An Ironic Tragedy

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

The Huffington Post

September 23, 2010

by Dr. Peter Breggin

Remember not so long ago when Prozac became the world’s largest selling medication of any kind, and then for years how Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft took over many of the top 10 spots? Remember the explanations at the time–that they were wonder drugs and that 15-50 percent or more of Americans would need them some time in their lives? To many people this seemed like a scientific breakthrough when in reality it was … a triumph of marketing.   Some studies suggest that the antidepressants are little or no more effective than a sugar pill and a lot more dangerous. Recent research examined all antidepressant studies submitted in recent years to FDA in regard to antidepressant efficacy and found that the drug performed no better than placebo except in “severely depressed patients,” reaching “clinical significance” only “at the upper end of the very severely depressed category.” Even then, the difference between the antidepressant and the placebo was “relatively small.”

In addition to being largely ineffective, the antidepressants can be very distressing to withdraw from, which keeps the market artificially inflated by people who would desperately like to stop but find the process too emotionally or physically painful. Often these individuals fail to realize that they are undergoing withdrawal and instead mistakenly conclude that they “need” the medication to control their original psychiatric problems.

Now look what have become the new top selling drugs in the world: antipsychotic drugs like Risperdal, Zyprexa, Abilify, Seroquel, Geodon and Invega. Although the FDA has been expanding the approved use of some of these drugs to some cases of autism, Tourettes and a variety of other problems, their original purpose and their main use in psychiatry until now has been largely confined to psychosis and acute mania. Psychosis and acute mania afflict a very small portion of the the population. Yet these drugs are now at the top of the list of most widely prescribed medications worldwide. How did these incredibly toxic chemicals become daily pharmacological mainstays for so many millions of children and adults? It’s time to face the truth that the prescription of psychiatric drugs is driven by marketing trends–and now for the first time by something even more dreadful and insidious than mere marketing.

To begin their market campaigns for the newer antipsychotic agents, the drug companies created the myth that these products were not as dangerous as the old antipsychotic drugs, which were becoming recognized as highly toxic. Especially hard to ignore, it was demonstrated that the old antipsychotics cause tardive dyskinesia, a disfiguring and sometimes disabling array of abnormal movements in 5-8 percent per year cumulative of otherwise healthy patients and more than 20 percent of older patients. But even the unproven and ultimately false claim that the newer drugs were safer could not make a huge market for them. Even if these were wonder drugs, they were wonderful for a relatively tiny percent of the population. The drug companies had to create a new patient population market and that market became “bipolar disorder.”

Once much rarer than schizophrenia, bipolar disorder would soon become one of the most common diagnoses made in medicine and psychiatry. Indeed, while ordinary folks used to talk about their biochemical imbalances and depression, now they’ve upgraded to having bipolar disorder.

Lithium, once the magic bullet without side effects for bipolar disorder–then called manic-depressive disorder–had turned out to be a severe central nervous system toxin that over the years ruins mental function while also producing thyroid disorders, kidney failure and a host of other serious problems. The discrediting of lithium created a new niche for antipsychotic drugs–to be used as “mood stabilizers” for people with severe ups and downs. But it was a relatively smalll niche to begin with.

Where would all the new bipolar patients come from? Many of them would come from the fertile imagination of drug company sponsored psychiatrists who found bipolar disorder in everything from toddlers with temper tantrums to adults with bursts of energy followed by a natural period of feeling fatigued. Leaders in child psychiatry like Harvard’s Joseph Biederman were literally paid under the table to push antipsychotic medications for bipolar disorder in children. A recent study showed that children labeled bipolar actually receive more adult antipsychotic drugs than adults labeled bipolar . Another recent study covering 2000-2002 showed that 18 percent of child visits to a psychiatrist included antipsychotic treatment, and 92 percent of those were for the newer so-called second generation drugs. It took a great deal of marketing to convince physicians that these relatively untried and highly toxic antipsychotic drugs are that safe and effective in children.

But even marketing bipolar disorder to the professions and the public was insufficient to create a huge enough market to satisfy the drug companies. Here’s where the irony of ironies came into play. The newer antidepressants–once the leading drugs in the world–frequently cause mania. They do so in millions of patients, children and adults alike, every year. These once most popular drugs in the world by causing mania made and continue to make the market for the next wave of most popular drugs–the antipsychotic drugs being used as mood stabilizers.

How common is antidepressant-induced mania? Very common. Several studies have found that 6 to 8 percent of patients exposed to antidepressants will develop a manic disorder. One research study, for example, found in a retrospective study that Paxil produced mania in 8.6 percent of patients exposed. Other studies find the rates as high as 17 percent And if a person has already shown a manic tendency or has experienced a manic-like episode, antidepressants will push one-quarter to one-third into new manias (For a review, see P. Breggin, Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, 2008, pp. 157-165) . Yet misguided psychiatrists commonly give antidepressants to patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The result? Millions of people suffer from medication-induced mania and other expressions of what I call “medication madness.”

When I took my psychiatric residency at Harvard in Boston and at SUNY in Syracuse in the early 1960s, we never saw or diagnosed bipolar disorder in children. In my four years of training, I saw one 19-year-old in a manic state and a few adults. When a person was admitted in a manic condition talking a mile a minute, imagining grand things about themselves, making outrageous plans, bursting with anger and energy, unable to sleep and otherwise euphoric, the condition was so unusual that we would hold grand rounds, a medical show-and-tell, to discuss the patient.

Now psychiatric wards are filled with patients having their second and third or umpteenth manic episode and every psychiatrist’s day is filled with patients diagnosed bipolar. It’s mostly about antidepressant-induced mania. Every single child I have evaluated who has suffered what looks like a manic episode has been taking stimulants or antidepressants, both of which cause mania. At least 9 out of 10 adults I’ve seen in the last two decades who have suffered emotional episodes that could be diagnosed as mania had them in direct response to stimulants or antidepressants–mostly the newer antidepressants starting with Prozac.

In the official diagnostic system, these are not cases of bipolar mania but cases of medication induced mood disorder with manic features; but they are almost always mistakenly called bipolar disorder in order to avoid identifying the drug and the prescriber as the causative agents.

For those who want further details, I have reviewed all the studies mentioned in this report in my medical book, “Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition” (2008). In my popular book, “Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime” (2008), I have provided dozens of in-depth illustrations of lives ruined by psychiatric drugs, especially the newer antidepressants.

Read the rest of the article here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/making-a-market-in-antips_b_720861.html

« Return to news items


Share

PTSD and Anti-Depressant Drugs: the Worst Notorious Modern Medical Fraud

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Salem-news.com

September 21, 2010

by Dr. Phillip Leveque

Afghanistan
Afghanistan by Tim King Salem-News.com

(MOLALLA, Ore.) – I’m sure some people will take umbrage at my title. Keep on reading. First of all there are about 30 of them – why? It’s easy, most don’t work. In fact placebos (fake sugar pills) frequently work better.

Another point, their adverse side effects are horrible. Some even cause worse depression and even suicide. The main side effects are nausea, insomnia, anxiety, restlessness, decreased sex drive, dizziness, weight gain or loss, tremors, sweating, sleepiness, fatigue, dry mouth, diarrhea, constipation, headache, et cetera. Who needs that stuff?!? They also screw up ones head and balance with falls and fractures. If one stops taking them, the withdrawal symptoms sound worse than heroin. In addition to all this, some are addicting and it is very difficult to stop taking them.

This kind of drug or drugs has an extremely interesting origin. Around 1950 the first drug in this class was actually an anti-tuberculosis drug Isoniazid. For some reason it also acted as a brain stimulant, much like amphetamine. When this side effect was published by the T.B. doctors, other doctors decided to try it on depression patients. Prior to this certain Morphine-like cousin drugs and amphetamines were used for depression. They had severe addiction liability.

Isoniazid, the T.B. drug, was used on an experimental basis and the patients brain function improved dramatically. The psychiatrists who read about this tried Isoniazid on their depression patients and they coined the word ANTI-DEPRESSANT.

From then on starting about 1957 the Tricyclic drugs were born. They were relatives of anti-histamine drugs and they did combat depression. I think the first well known one was Elavil which is still in use. This type of drug drifted around quietly for several years searching for a disease all of the sudden it erupted – CLINICAL DEPRESSION. The first REAL drug Fluoxetine or PROZAC came out in 1988 by Ely Lilly & Co. It was heavily advertised and we soon had a epidemic of clinical depression spread all over the world.

I’m not going into a recital of the various kinds of anti-depressants. I think there is enough to indicate that at least 500,000,000 prescriptions are written per year and for the 14 or so leaders, each is worth up to several billion dollars to the drug companies.

As I said in the beginning placebos, or fake pills, work about as well as these chemicals and exercise or just plain talking to a psychologist may work as well. The drug companies advertise heavily in the millions of dollars to sell these drugs to doctors and patients. It is worth it. The anti-depressants bring in billions of dollars.

A side comment is that the drug companies have sold the idea to the Veterans Administration and they prescribe these drugs by the ton to PTSD Veterans. The evidence is that they don’t help much and cause a lot of harm.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september212010/ptsd-depressants-pl.php

« Return to news items


Share

J&J pleads guilty to illegal marketing of psychiatric drugs

Monday, September 20th, 2010

Natural News
By David Gutierrez
September 20, 2010

(NaturalNews) A subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has pleaded guilty in federal court to misdemeanor charges of marketing a drug for unapproved uses.

The guilty plea comes as part of a larger, $81-million settlement signed by J&J to settle government allegations that it illegally marketed its anti-seizure drug Topamax for the treatment of conditions including bipolar disorder and drug and alcohol addiction.

U.S. law allows doctors to prescribe drugs for any use they see fit, but prohibits drug makers from actively promoting drugs for any use not specifically approved by the FDA.

According to prosecutors, J&J sought to get around this restriction through a program it called “Doctor-for-a-Day,” in which doctors would accompany sales representatives on marketing visits. These doctors would then promote Topamax for unapproved uses, allowing company employees to keep their hands clean. According to internal documents, sales representatives told doctors that the Doctor-for-a-Day could “talk to you about things I can’t talk to you about.”

Participating doctors were paid up to $3,000 per day plus expenses, with one neurologist making half a million dollars for 200 appearances.

Read entire article here:  http://www.naturalnews.com/029790_Johnson_&_guilty.html

« Return to news items


Share

Stop the Stigma of Mental Illness? Try Stopping the Pharma Funded Campaigns & Groups Behind the “Stigmatizing”

Friday, September 17th, 2010

(Image taken from: http://herinst.org/sbeder/corppower/pharm-agenda.html)

by CCHR Int

A new study, the result of a joint collaboration between Indiana University and Columbia University, and published  by the American Journal of Psychiatry, reports that prejudice and discrimination still exists among people with serious mental illness.  Headlines include “Mental Illness Stigma Hard to Shake, Survey Finds” and “Despite Deeper Understanding of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers.”

So what exactly is behind this study? Taking aside the fact that Columbia University is well known for its collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, its medical center having collaborated with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer. Or the fact that Indiana University received a $1 million grant from Eli Lilly.

With a seemingly altruistic agenda, the fact is the campaign to end the “stigma” of mental illness is one driven and funded by those who benefit from more and more people being labeled mentally ill—pharma, psychiatry and pharmaceutical front groups such as  NAMI and CHADD to name but a few.   For example, take NAMI’s campaign to stop the “stigma” and “end discrimination” against the mentally ill—the “Founding Sponsors” were Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (For an in-depth look at what else Pharma funds and how this funding not only helps set mental health policies but campaigns such as this, read Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies at the bottom of this post)

The fact is that the  “stigmatization ” is coming from those that benefit from people being labeled/stigmatized with mental disorders that have no medical/biological evidence. Case in point, if you are rebellious, you are “stigmatized” with the label “oppositional defiant disorder.” If your kid acts like a kid he is “stigmatized” with the label “ADHD.” If you are sad, unhappy (even temporarily) you are “stigmatized” with the label “depressive” or “bi-polar disorder.” If you are shy you are “stigmatized” with the label “social anxiety disorder.” Moreover, you or your child are now stigmatized for life as this label, which is based solely on opinion, is now part of your medical record, despite the fact there is no medical evidence to prove you are “mentally ill”.

This is also true of people diagnosed “schizophrenic.” There is no medical test to verify someone has a brain abnormality or medical condition of schizophrenia. And while no one claims  people can’t become psychotic, the fact remains there is no biological evidence to support schizophrenia as a brain disease or chemical abnormality.  And consider this, if people do become psychotic, or irrational,  is it in fact caused by some  underlying medical (not psychiatric) problem?   And why did a 15-year multiple follow up study find that there was a 40% recovery rate for those diagnosed schizophrenic who did not take antipsychotics, versus a 5% rate for those who did?  What happened to their supposed “brain disease?” Did it simply vanish?  Moreover, if they could recover from such a mental state, do they deserve the “stigma” of “schizophrenia” still being part of their permanent medical record?  For life?   Think about it.  Imagine you were extremely overweight—obese.  You lose all the weight so you are no longer obese.  Yet your medical records continue to say that you are.

And if schizophrenia is in fact a “disease” despite the fact there is no medical or biological evidence (note we did not say speculation, or theories, but evidence) then why is it that psychiatrist Loren Mosher, the former Chief of Schizophrenia Research for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) openly state that there is no biological condition of schizophrenia as a disease or brain malfunction? And why didn’t the mental health industry take advantage of his 2-year-outcome studies proving that those diagnosed schizophrenic could recover without the use of drugs? Is it because this proved that recovery was possible and thereby disproved the theory that something was wrong with their brain? Or was it the fact that they recovered without the use of drugs, thereby threatening a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry?  Maybe this explains why Mosher was fired from his position at NIMH (http://www.moshersoteria.com/)

As a final note regarding “stigmatization,” keep in mind that psychiatrists admit there is no recovery from “mental illness.” They admit no cures. So once you are labeled—game over.

The new “study” also reports, ” more people now believe that illnesses like schizophrenia and depression are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.”  This is marketing at its best—say people believe in a chemical imbalance so you don’t have to bother pointing out the fact that there is no chemical imbalance .  How can the layperson be sure of this? It’s simple. Find one person who has a lab test showing their chemical imbalance.  Not one of the millions of people taking drugs to cure their “chemical imbalance” has a lab test showing they have an imbalance.  Now it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out… does it?

For more information  about pharmaceutical front groups see this:  http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/

For an in-depth look at this topic, read Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies


Abstract: The development of political agenda-setting through the use of sophisticated public relations techniques is threatening to undermine the delicate balance of representative democracy. This has important ramifications for policies aimed at providing mental health services and the implementation of mental health laws. The principal agenda setters in this area are pharmaceutical companies with commercial reasons to promote public policies that expand the sales of their products. They have manufactured highly effective advocacy coalitions that incorporate front groups in order to set the policy agenda for mental health. However, policies tailored to their commercial purpose are not necessarily beneficial either for patients or the society at large.



« Return to news items


Share

Are Independent Thinkers Mentally Ill?

Thursday, September 16th, 2010

Nestmann.sovereignsociety.com

September 16, 2010

by Mark Nesmann

Do you question authority? Fail to accept conventional wisdom?  Lose your temper when you hear a politician make a promise that you know he or she can’t keep?

If so, you may be mentally ill, according to the most recent revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  In this revision, psychiatrists hope to add dozens of new mental disorders.  Unfortunately, many of these so-called illnesses target people who merely think or behave differently from the majority population.

A case in point is “oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).”  DSM defines ODD as “an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior toward authority figures.”  Symptoms include losing one’s temper, annoying people and being “touchy.”  Other “disorders” include antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism and narcissism. Sounds like many of my readers!

While diagnosis of ODD “victims” focuses on children, there’s no reason why ODD can’t exist in adults.  Indeed, ODD can evolve into “conduct disorder” (CD), which DSM defines as “wherein the rights of others or social norms are violated.”

Uh-oh.  So violating “social norms” is now a mental illness as well.

Let’s connect the dots, shall we?  There’s a long and sordid history of governments using psychiatry for political repression.  In the Soviet Union, thousands of political prisoners were detained in mental hospitals.  There they were isolated from friends and family, and many cases, forcibly medicated.  Nazi Germany went even further: it murdered over 180,000 psychiatric patients.

Laws in most states allow child protective services agencies to forcibly medicate your children.  Indeed, if you fail to administer drugs ordered by a physician or have your children submit to vaccinations, you can be imprisoned.

As The Washington Post observed:

“If seven-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality.”

The conversion of personality differences into psychiatric disorders, and the forced medication of children, is a dangerous trend.  It is but a short step to extend these laws to adults who have a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.”

I’d prefer a different approach: institutionalizing the psychiatrists that came up with all these new disorders.  Perhaps we could call their condition “overmedication psychosis.” And those of us with ODD, CD, or who simply don’t like the government telling us how to live our lives could breathe a bit easier.

http://nestmann.sovereignsociety.com/2010/09/16/are-independent-thinkers-mentally-ill/

« Return to news items


Share