Archive for November, 2010

Drug Maker Wrote Book Under 2 Doctors’ Names, Documents Say

Tuesday, November 30th, 2010

Alan F. Schatzberg

Note from CCHR: The two “prominent authors” of this Pharma-funded handbook for diagnosing and drugging patients, are psychiatrists Alan F. Schatzberg and Charles Nemeroff.   Schatzberg is the former President of the American Psychiatric Association and owned $6 million equity in drug developer Corcept Therapeutics at the same time that he was principle investigator in an NIH-funded, Stanford-based study of Corcept’s drug mifepristone.

Charles Nemeroff

Charles  Nemeroff was Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. Senate investigations revealed Nemeroff failed to disclose at least $1.2 million in Pharma funding including GlaxoSmithKline.



The New York Times
November 29, 2010
by Duff Williams

Two prominent authors of a 1999 book teaching family doctors how to treat psychiatric disorders provided acknowledgment in the preface for an “unrestricted educational grant” from a major pharmaceutical company.

From the book “Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care.”

But the drug maker, then known as SmithKline Beecham, actually had much more involvement than the book described, newly disclosed documents show. The grant paid for a writing company to develop the outline and text for the two named authors, the documents show, and then the writing company said it planned to show three drafts directly to the pharmaceutical company for comments and “sign-off” and page proofs for “final approval.”

“That doesn’t sound unrestricted to me,” Dr. Bernard Lo, a medical ethicist and chairman of an Institute of Medicine group that wrote a 2009 report on conflicts of interest, said after reviewing the documents. “That sounds like they have ultimate control.”

The 269-page book, “Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care,” is so far the first book among publications, namely medical journal articles, that have been criticized in recent years for hidden drug industry influence, colloquially known as ghostwriting.

“To ghostwrite an entire textbook is a new level of chutzpah,” said Dr. David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, after reviewing the documents. “I’ve never heard of that before. It takes your breath away.”

The book has never been in wide circulation and has not been sold for a few years. Guidelines restricting the use of industry money to support medical journal articles or doctors’ research have come into wide acceptance within the last several years, to try to minimize the influence of companies’ marketing on medical practices.

The book’s listed co-authors were Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, chairman of psychiatry at the University of Miami medical school since 2009 and Emory University before that, and Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg, who was chairman of psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine from 1991 until last year.

The letter documenting the relationship between Dr. Nemeroff, a writing company and SmithKline was dated Feb. 4, 1997. It and a “preliminary draft” of the book, dated Feb. 21, 1997, and adding Dr. Schatzberg’s name were released Monday by the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington advocacy group. They were attached to a letter of complaint to Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. In the letter, Danielle Brian, executive director of the project, and Paul Thacker, an investigator, formerly with the staff of Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, also cited other examples of what they termed ghostwriting and asked the N.I.H. for better policing of such practices.

The documents were separately obtained by The New York Times from the Los Angeles law firm of Baum Hedlund, which received them as part of discovery in lawsuits against the drug company, now known as GlaxoSmithKline, involving Paxil. Leemon B. McHenry, a bioethicist with California State University, Northridge, who consults for the law firm, said many similar documents remain sealed. “This is only the tip of the iceberg,” he said.

Responding to questions by e-mail last week, Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Schatzberg emphasized the “unrestricted” nature of the grant from the drug maker to develop the book and said they did most of the work. SmithKline “had no involvement in content,” Dr. Schatzberg said, adding, “An unrestricted grant does not give the company any right of sign-off on content and in fact they had no sign-off in content.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he and Dr. Schatzberg “conceptualized this book, wrote the original outline and worked on all of the content.”

But the writing company, Scientific Therapeutics Information of Springfield, N.J., had developed “a complete content outline” for Dr. Nemeroff’s comment, according to the 1997 letter from one of the company’s officials. The company also said it had “begun development of the text.” The writing company did not respond to requests for comment.

Kevin G. Colgan, a spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, said the company’s role in the book was described in its preface. In recent years, he added, the company has tightened its internal guidelines for medical writers.

Ron McMillen, chief executive of American Psychiatric Publishing, which published the book, said he reviewed files on it Monday and found no evidence of influence by the writing company or GlaxoSmithKline. But Mr. McMillen also said he had been unaware of the plan outlined in the two-page letter to Dr. Nemeroff.

“This would show more involvement than we would accept,” he said after reviewing it.

The book sold about 26,000 copies, including 10,000 bought by SmithKline Beecham for American family doctors and 10,000 purchased by the Dutch pharmaceutical company Organon, Mr. McMillen said. The authors together received a 15 percent royalty of the $120,000 sales, or about $18,000, he said.

Since there are about 100,000 family physicians in the United States, the book reached only a small percentage of them and has probably declined in usage since 1999. Dr. Howard A. Brody, an author, blogger and professor of family medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, speculated that family doctors may have had some resistance to a book from a psychiatric press.

Mr. McMillen said the book was co-published with the American Medical Association. He said it was distributed until a few years ago.

Dr. Nemeroff said the book was written to fill an unmet need in educating family doctors and primary care physicians on how to provide adequate treatment for people with mental illness. “Remarkably, the book remains quite accurate and relevant to clinical practice today,” he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he and Dr. Schatzberg “scrutinized every page and rewrote and edited as we deemed necessary,” keeping control of the final draft.

Dr. Schatzberg said he had not seen the 1997 letter to Dr. Nemeroff. He termed it “a theoretical proposal that bears little, if any relationship to what actually happened.”

Dr. Lo, who is a professor of medicine and director of the medical ethics program at the University of California, San Francisco, said that medical textbooks and handbooks should make it clear — as peer-reviewed journals now do — whose idea it was, who wrote the first draft, and who edited. Dr. Lo and other experts said ghostwriting has receded in recent years with tougher journal standards.

Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Schatzberg have been listed on other titles, including co-editors of the Textbook of Psychopharmacology, a book for psychiatrists and medical students, whose third edition appeared in 2003. In 2008, Emory University imposed a two-year ban on Dr. Nemeroff receiving N.I.H. grants after a Senate inquiry found that he had failed to disclose at least $1.2 million in industry financing over seven years from pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline.

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatrist on Payroll of Glaxo Pleads Guilty to Research Fraud

Monday, November 29th, 2010

NaturalNews, November 29,2010

by David Gutierrez

GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of Paxil, paid Palazzo $5,000 for every child she enrolled in the study.

A psychiatrist on the payroll of GlaxoSmithKline has been sentenced to 13 months in prison after pleading guilty to committing research fraud in trials of the company’s antidepressant Paxil on children.

Maria Carmen Palazzo is already serving a sentence of 87 months for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid.

Palazzo was accused by the FDA of enrolling children in a clinical trial even though she knew they did not actually suffer from major depressive or obsessive compulsive disorder, the conditions being studied. Palazzo then falsified records and psychiatric diagnoses.

GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of Paxil, paid Palazzo $5,000 for every child she enrolled in the study.

The case’s significance goes beyond simple research fraud, as Glaxo is now defending itself against charges that for 15 years it deliberately concealed evidence that Paxil increases the risk of suicide in children.

Glaxo is also defending itself against accusations that it manipulated data to conceal the risks of its diabetes blockbuster Avandia, and that it failed to warn parents that Paxil may cause birth defects if taken by pregnant women. The company has already agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle roughly 700 birth defect lawsuits; another 100 or so suits are pending.

Although the FDA eventually required Paxil to carry a warning about the risk of birth defects and an even more prominent “black box” warning about suicide risk, many critics allege that the agency acted too slowly.

“There [had] been hints for many years that antidepressants, such as Paxil, when given to children, can cause serious side effects, including suicide, but the FDA delayed taking any action to prevent these drugs from being prescribed for children,” writes Brent Hoadley in Too Profitable to Cure.

Palazzo will not actually serve any additional prison time for potentially placing children’s safety at risk; her new term will be served concurrently with her first.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030557_psychiatry_fraud.html

« Return to news items


Share

Parents Warn of Possible Psychiatric Drug Dangers

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

The Post & Courier

by Glen Smith

Matthew Steubing committed suicide by jumping from the Silas Pearman Bridge in Charleston on July 18, 2003. He was 18.Matthew Steubing committed suicide by jumping from the Silas Pearman Bridge in Charleston on July 18, 2003. He was 18.

Darkness hung over Charleston Harbor as Matthew Steubing parked his Ford pickup truck on the aging bridge and left a note on the seat beside his Bible. He put on a life jacket and began to climb — up, up, into the span’s superstructure.

Then, he jumped.

His parents were waiting for Matthew to arrive home in Winchester, Va., when they received the news on July 18, 2003. Their 18-year-old son plunged more than 160 feet from the Silas Pearman Bridge before slamming into the Cooper River. He was gone.

“Our world blew apart,” his mother, Celeste Steubing, said. “We couldn’t imagine this happening because this wasn’t Matthew. … It made no sense.”

Matthew, the youngest of six children, had been a vibrant kid, happy and full of life. But after a rough patch in his senior year of high school left him feeling down, a psychologist suggested he would benefit from the antidepressant drug Lexapro. He soon became withdrawn and anxious, his parents recalled during a recent visit to Charleston.

Matthew committed suicide just nine weeks after starting on the drug. Only later did his family learn that antidepressants carry a heightened risk of suicide in children, the Steubings said.

The Steubings have made it their mission to warn other parents about the hidden dangers of psychiatric drugs. To that end, Celeste Steubing was featured in the recently released documentary, “Dead Wrong,” produced by the Los Angeles-based Citizens Commission on Human Rights.

The 90-minute film profiles Matthew’s story and documents Celeste Steubing’s travels to speak with doctors, health experts, drug counselors and other mothers with painful tales of loss associated with psychiatric drugs.

Forest Laboratories, makers of Lexapro, would not comment on Matthew Steubing’s case but defended the drug’s safety in a prepared statement. The company stated that antidepressants such as Lexapro have been associated with a substantial reduction in the suicide rate in the United States.

“Forest has tremendous sympathy for any family dealing with the suicide of a loved one, and Forest understands that family members dealing with such a tragedy often are looking for answers,” the statement read. “However, Lexapro is a safe and effective medication for the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients as young as 12, when used according to the FDA-approved package insert.”

Celeste Steubing and her husband, Daniel, said Matthew had never been suicidal before going on the drug, which was prescribed by a doctor to correct a perceived chemical imbalance.

The couple said they would not have given Matthew the Lexapro had they known it carried a risk of increased suicidal thinking and behavior in children and young adults. The drug’s label now carries that “black box” warning.

Matthew quickly went downhill on the drug, the Steubings said. He had trouble sleeping, lost weight and seemed agitated and out of sorts. Normally outgoing, he became distant and isolated, they said.

“He was like a caged cat,” his father said. “We couldn’t understand what was happening to him.”

After balking at a long- anticipated beach trip with friends, Matthew opted to travel to Charleston in July 2003 to visit his older brother Eric, who was attending college here. He stayed for 10 days before bidding his brother goodbye on July 18, 2003. Matthew called his mother that day to report his progress heading home. His last call indicated he had just passed through Roanoke, Va.

In reality, Matthew was still in the Charleston area, apparently planning his own death. In the note he left behind, he indicated that he wore a life vest so his family wouldn’t have to look for his body and worry about where he was.

After reading an article about a possible link between antidepressants and suicide, the Steubings started digging and doing research of their own. The more they learned, the angrier they got.

They went on to testify at a 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing in Washington, D.C., that led to the warning labels. Telling Matthew’s story still brings pain and tears, but they continue to speak out.

“It’s important so that other parents don’t have to go through the heartache and anguish we have,” Celeste Steubing said. “So that other parents don’t have to miss their children for the rest of their lives like we do.”

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/nov/27/parents-warning-others/

To view the documentary, Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child,  click here http://www.cchr.org/take-action/parents/message-to-parents.html

« Return to news items


Share

Your Kids Aren’t Sick—Towards the Death of Psychiatry

Friday, November 26th, 2010

OPED NEWS November 26, 2010

by R.L. Cima, Ph.D.

The Beginning

My first contact with the psychiatric profession was in 1974.  Armed with a new Bachelor’s degree in Sociology,  I found work as a counselor at a 65 bed boy’s home in Corona, California.

I went back to college at 25 to get a bachelor’s degree so I could become a teacher and coach.  I was a good coach.  I commanded respect from the kids, I treated them with respect, I was in their face just like my best coaches were with me when I needed it, and I tried to help them improve on their talents and skills, no matter how old or what sport.  I liked coaching almost more than playing.  Coaching was my style at the boy’s home too, and it was effective.

Dr. Duncan was our MD.  Dr. Duncan was a wonderful man.  He donated his time, services, and money to the care of these teenage boys.  Dr. Duncan was not a psychiatrist.  Though there were psychiatric medications available to adults at the time, they were not in common use for children.  However, Dr. Duncan sought out and found some new psychiatric training available to MD’s regarding some miracle chemicals available to help children.  So, once he was trained, we began to medicate children.

Not all children mind you.  It was the most difficult to manage children that were medicated, the ones the adults complained about the most.  The explanation used by the experts at the time was that these children were hard to manage “because . . . ,” and then these same experts would say something vague about chemicals and parts in their brains that didn’t make sense.  That’s when this whole idea of magical chemicals began to get fuzzy for me.

“because . . .”

“What is this Ritalin stuff?” I asked Dr. Duncan.

After all, I was giving these pills to kids, and I wanted to know what they were.

By the mid-seventies, Ritalin was quickly becoming the treatment of choice for hyperactivity, or what was then called “hyperkinesis.”  A few years later Attention Deficit Disorder was coined, and by 1987, ADHD was voted in as a new disease in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

I used to keep the pill packets in my shirt pocket.  I gave them to the kids as prescribed, usually after dinner or before bed.  All I noticed is that the kids had a tough time going to sleep, and often were groggy in the morning.  That was explained to me as a “side effect.”  I came to quickly hate that term.  There was nothing “side” about it.  These were full-blown effects.

“It’s a stimulant,” Dr. Duncan answered.

I thought that was odd.  A few of the boys I was giving it to were arrested and placed on probation because they were taking stimulants, usually Benzedrine (“bennies”).

“Why do we give it to kids already too stimulated?” I asked.

This is where it begins to get tricky.

“We don’t know,” Dr. Duncan would say. “It’s what they call a “paradoxical effect.’”

This made me nervous.  You see, I’m a bit of a skeptic.  Skeptics make good scientists and terrible blind proponents.  My ears perk up when I wait to here someone answer a why question, about anything.

To begin with, I wanted to know who “we” and “they” are, and I wanted to know how “we” and “they” know what they say they know.  Besides, saying something like “paradoxical effect” doesn’t explain anything.  It’s just another way of saying “we” and “they” don’t have a clue.  I continued:

“But that doesn’t make any sense,” I deplored of Dr. Duncan.  “How can a stimulant calm a kid down?”

Seems like a reasonable question, doesn’t it?  Why would something that’s given to narcoleptics to “perk them up” be given to kids who need to “perk the hell down.”  How does a chemical act as a stimulant for adults, and as a sedative for children?  How does a chemical know how old someone is?

The reply to this?  Well, it was the same from all MD’s and other experts that I knew at the time, because I would persistently and annoyingly ask.  At some point the conversation usually ended with, more or less:

“. . . shut up and give him the pills.”

I had a degree in sociology for chrissake.  So, I gave them the pills.

But I didn’t shut up.

A Very Private Practice

One day, a boy had to be hurried to the psychiatrist.  The doctor’s office called and said there was a last minute cancellation, and my supervisor picked me to take him to the doctor’s office.

I was a little nervous.  I had pestered this doctor with my questions, apparently to the breaking point.  I was nearly 30 by then, I had two kids of my own, and I wanted clear answers.  I don’t do well with platitudes.  I guess it showed.  At some point he decided he didn’t want to answer any more of my questions, especially when he found out I had a bachelor’s degree in sociology.  So, this time, I walked in with one of the boys and I quietly found a seat.  The boy was soon escorted to a room in the back where he would wait to see the doctor.

It was late in the day and the office was empty.  I took a seat just below and to the right of the sliding glass window where the receptionist was.  I was extra quiet.  After a few minutes, I was out of sight and, as I soon found out, out of mind.

About 10 minutes later, I heard the doctor approach the receptionist area.  The receptionist, I would learn, also did the doctor’s billing for Medi-Cal.  Her name was Evelyn.  I remember her name because, unbeknownst to the doctor, this is what I heard the doctor say to her, in no uncertain terms:

“God dammit Evelyn, how many times do I have to tell you?!  I don’t get paid for this diagnosis!!”

Hmmm.  As I was to learn in the next few years, the love of money really is the root of all evil after all.

Jimmy

A few years later my wife and I were running an 8-bed facility for teenage boys.  We were independent.  We were the child’s counselor, social worker, and therapist all in one.  There weren’t any licensed, master’s level therapists yet in California, and if you had a bachelor’s degree you could do most anything.

With one of our best friends at the time working on the weekends, the three of us were very successful.  We had a work ethic, and the kids were busy around the house.  We made sure they got a lot of recreation, we fed them well, we included their parents in the program from the beginning, and at the end of two years all eight were attending public school.  One 12 year old boy, Rodney, was playing little league, and another 16 year old, Jimmy, was taking piano lessons.  Jimmy was the reason I stopped medicating children.

He arrived drugged.  He was a perfect medication icon.  He had been in and out of a number of facilities from the time he was five, never completing a program and, according to his parents, had just gotten “worse and worse.”  He was verbally aggressive, sometimes physically aggressive, but mostly he was defiant.  Tell him to go left, and he went right.  You get the picture.

One day, about three months into our home, during a common confrontation, I told him to do something or not do something, I don’t know which.  It doesn’t make any difference.  It’s what adults do with teenagers.  He explained his non-compliance to me rather matter-of-factly:

“I can’t help it.  I’m hyperactive.”

This bothered me.  Though I’d heard it before, this time it was done with what I though was way too much self-assurance on Jimmy’s part.  I think he kind of smiled when he said it.   I was caught in the same dilemma as everyone is who adheres to the Disease Model.  If it’s really a disease and out of a person’s control, why does anyone expect them to control it  when you ask them to?

In any event, I replied to his nearly proud declaration, just as matter-of-factly:

“Not anymore.”

With his parents’ blessings, we stopped giving him his daily chemical the next day.  That was the last time I ever gave a child a psychotropic chemical that was under my direct care.

Jimmy improved.  With time, trust, persistence, old-fashioned parenting, educated guidance, and Jimmy’s gutsy fight to become normal again, he improved.  So did his confidence.  He was “cured” of a disease he never had.  Despite the cautious and pessimistic hand wringing by all the medics that had known him, he was relieved and so were his parents.  Now, when he acted like a jerk, he was just a jerk.  He wasn’t sick, nor was he “out of control.”  In time he went home to his family.

I think it went to my head, just a little.

First Date:  Meeting a Live Psychiatrist

About a year later we received a call from the Department Head at the psychiatric hospital located in the UCLA Medical Center.  Pretty big stuff.  The doctor said he had a boy there, Mark, who has been with them for about four months, and would I be interested in meeting with him to see if he would be an appropriate placement in our home.  Sure, I said.  Bring him out.

Mark was 15 and overweight.  He had gained 40 pounds while at UCLA.   This was common in psychiatric settings.  There were still some “psyche hospitals” for kids back in the ’70′s in California and I was familiar with several.  They all looked the same.  Locked doors everywhere, little if any outside recreation areas or equipment – nor the inclination to provide any – locked rooms where “crafts” and groups occurred, always populated by unhappy children and unhappy professionals, with all those new medications leading the way.  They weren’t treated as kids in these places.  God help them, they were treated as patients with diseases.  They still are.

Mark and his doctor showed up for an interview the next day.  He told us about Mark’s history again, and he let us know Mark was “clinically depressed.”  Sounded serious.  He told us about what his hospital did, he told us about the professionals there and the papers they’ve written and will write, and in general, overwhelmed us with credentials, experience, and vocabulary.  He then told us this:

“Before I forget, Mark is taking 1500 milligrams of Lithium a day because of his depression.  I’ll make sure you get his medication and a new prescription until you can get him to your psychiatrist.”

Does 1500 mg seem like a lot to you?  It did to me.  OK, maybe I wasn’t sure what a milligram was, however, 1500 seemed like a big number.  Also, from my point of view, given his history, it would have been strange had he not been depressed.  And what the hell is lithium?

Lithium is a salt.  It was used to treat gout in the 19th century because scientists discovered that lithium could dissolve uric acid crystals from the kidneys.  However, to do this successfully, you had to use so much lithium that it was toxic – poisonous – to human beings.

Not to worry.  There were theories at the time that uric acid was “linked”  to a range of disorders, including depression and mania.  Danish physician and psychologist Carl Lange and the American neurologist William Alexander first started to use lithium for mania in the 1870″s, though it’s use was, for a number of reasons, abandoned by the turn of the 20th century.

In 1949 it was “rediscovered” by John Cade , an Australian psychiatrist.  He also prescribed it for mania patients.  Though slow to catch on by the treatment profession because of its toxic nature, after much lobbying, lithium was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1970.

Now back to that head psychiatrist from UCLA, Mark, and me.

After hearing his best medical advice, I said to the psychiatrist in a firm yet respectful manner:

“I’m going to take him off his medication when he gets here.”

His response was equally respectful, as though I hadn’t heard everything he said.  So, he repeated himself, explaining again how serious Mark’s disease was, and that he had to be on this medication – probably for life – or there would be serious and dire consequences to his health and well being.  To this I said:

“I’m going to take him off this medication when he gets here.”

This time he was angry and accusatory.  He made it clear he did not approve and that it was evident I didn’t understand.  I fully expected him to get up, grab Mark, and leave, huffing and puffing his way out the door.  He didn’t.

He placed Mark with us instead.

So much for his conviction, I said to myself, this medical doctor who was the head of the psychiatric department at UCLA.  He placed him with me because Mark was a management problem and he wanted to get him out of his hospital.  If he was true to his science, he would have driven him back to Westwood, cursing me as he did.  He either didn’t believe what he was saying, or it didn’t matter to him.

Either way, we were glad to have Mark in our home.

We took him off his chemicals immediately, with mother’s approval.  Within four months, he had taken off all his weight and he fit in with the rest of the kids.  There were, of course, the same problems along the way that we had with Jimmy.  That’s the nature of our business.  We eventually sent him back home to his mother a year later.

For the next few years I was promoted to ever increasing responsibilities.  I had little regard for the psychiatric profession and this practice by then.  There were times when I would be training others, and I would steer the conversation to this subject, just so I could say:

“If we gave this many chemicals to animals, the ASPCA would be screaming.”

Chemicalizing children was a growing “truth” among professionals, and I was out of sync.  Nonetheless, I thought the practice was despicable.  Most important, I never saw any improvement, in any of the kids, at any time.

To me, this was child abuse.

Keirsey

A bout this time, colleagues convinced me I should go back to school to get my Master’s degree if I wanted to be taken serious, so I did.  By 1979, I started at Cal State University in Fullerton.  I was going to get my Master’s Degree in Counseling Psychology and, along with learning new skills, I hoped I was going get to the bottom of the medication thing.

I knew I was enrolling as a little fish from a little pond.  It’s one thing to be a little cocky based on self-proclaimed successes.  It was quite another to go into a field where chemicals were being touted as the second coming.  I didn’t think I’d fit in, and I knew I wouldn’t be able to keep my big mouth shut.

I was a little trepidatious, to say the least.

My first class in my first semester was counseling 735.  It was also the last class for Dr. David Keirsey before he retired from a long career.  He had already written Please Understand Me with Marilyn Bates.  Since then he has written several other books, including his seminal work, Please Understand Me II.  He is the preeminent temperament theoretician in the world.  If you want to understand human behavior, and yourself, read this book.  Millions of others have, around the planet.

As the Department Head for the Counseling/Psychology Department and he developed a unique program based on the practice of doing therapy rather than learning the various theories of therapy.  He was also a walking bibliography when it came to the history and evolution of human psychology.  That made it easy for me.  Why go through all the pain of reading this stuff if he already had, I reasoned to myself.  Better to see if he had anything worth saying.

Turns out he did.  A number of things.  A few that changed my entire view of psychology, including an orientation to Holistic Theory that I will reserve for another time.  It was at one of his initial lectures that my ear perked for the first time.  There were only fifteen of us in the class, so it was comfortable.

He somehow got onto the subject of medicating children.  Before academia, he had a career as a child psychologist.  He worked with troubled kids in a variety of settings.  He had an opinion.  He expressed it, and when someone pressed him as to what, exactly, did he mean, he turned, looked at his student, and declared:

“I said I think it (the practice of medicating children), should be criminalized.”

Did I hear just him right?  Did he just say that giving these chemicals to children should be against the law?  Yes he did.  I sat up in my chair.  He didn’t sound at all like that doctor from UCLA.  If I were hearing him right, he would have had that doctor locked up.

This was affirming.  Though he was unknown to me, this was Dr. David Keirsey, Clinical Psychologist, and the head of the Counseling Psychology Department at Cal State Fullerton.

But it wasn’t just that.  I’m not so easily impressed by credentials or experience.  Fools often have all the right credentials and experiences.  I had met a lot of them already.  No, it was that there were voices out there in the professional world that had long ago came to the same conclusion as I.  This was just the first time I heard it.  This meant my views had professional merit.

By 1983 I was immersed in my Master’s program.  I took work as an Admissions Director at a 120-bed agency.  I was a vocal critic of medication for any kids at any time.  I did many training seminars about strategies and techniques in child management, and I always folded this subject in, indicating that the practice was (1) unproven, (2) ineffective, (3) detrimental to children, and I would list the evidence for each.  I was not persuasive, and I still had that damn degree in sociology.

It didn’t matter.  No one paid attention.  The chemical wave had started.

The APA

Around this time, I was sitting in a barbershop on a Saturday morning, waiting my turn.  I was thumbing through a psychology magazine.  I ran across an article written by someone from the American Psychiatric Association.  The APA is a member based lobby group.

Back then psychiatrists were still doing therapy while their client was on a couch, staring at the ceiling, and disclosing his or her most private thoughts and feelings.  Troubled adults went to their psychiatrist to talk with them about their troubles, and the relationship they had with their doctor was very important.

More and more often, according to the author of the article, psychiatrists were giving their clients different doses of different chemicals to ease some of their symptoms.  This was understood to be an addendum to the real therapy that took place in a quiet office for an hour.  After all, a psychiatrist is first an MD, and if there are medicines available to ease symptoms, they could be used with certain clients.  Once medicated, then the therapy in the office could continue with better results.

This article was concerned with a developing trend:  there were a growing number of psychiatrists who were relying too much on medication.  The author, also a psychiatrist, went on to warn that it seemed like many psychiatrists were abandoning more traditional forms of therapy, and were succumbing to the appeal of giving their clients chemicals to curtail symptoms, and in so doing minimizing, and sometimes eliminating, traditional “talk therapy” sessions.

Psychiatry, the author feared, was turning away from psychology and towards medicine when it came to helping their clients with their persistent life problems.  The tone of the article was cautious and meant to discourage their members from getting too far from the couch.  It didn’t take.

Now, quickly, roll the clock forward 15 years.  By 1999, I was the Executive Director for a new wraparound program.  We had a contract with a County Mental Health Department in California.  While we were an independent, private, nonprofit agency, the contract was clear that we would defer all medical decisions to the county psychiatrist.  Any adult or child in the Mental Health system was required to be reviewed by a psychiatrist.  Funding depended on it.

We attended a weekly meeting along with other providers and county personnel.  The psychiatrist sat at the head of the table while therapists would review client progress.  Based on this information presented, the psychiatrist would prescribe an increase or decrease of a chemical, leave it the same, or change the chemical to something more effective.

On this day, one of the therapists from another program was exasperated.  Her client was not improving, and in fact was getting worse.  With the best of intentions, and desperation, she was seeking support and assistance, so she asked the psychiatrist:

“Would you mind talking to my client yourself, just to see what you think?”

I perked up, again, like I always do when something interests me.  I wanted to hear his answer.  I thought it put him on the spot and I didn’t mind him squirming a bit.   Once again, I underestimated the implied ascendency that accompanies psychiatrists.

In an angry, frustrated, and accusatory tone, he replied to this young, uninformed therapist, and everyone else in the room in case they needed it, slamming the palm of his hand on the table for emphasis as he did so (beginning the same expletive as the first psychiatrist!):

“God dammit!!  When is everyone going to finally understand?!  Psychiatrists prescribe meds!!  That’s it!!”

And that was it.  He made it official.  There was neither need nor inclination to pretend psychiatrists did anything else.  In just 15 years from the time I read that cautious APA article, the author’s concern had been addressed and firmly answered.

Psychiatrists had kicked their couches to the curb, got a lifelong supply of prescription pads, and became engaged in their work:  prescribing chemicals for every human shortcoming known from the past through the present, fully prepared for the future’s crop of diseases.   “Talk therapy” was demoted to others without prescriptive powers.  Without anyone noticing, talking directly to the client for an hour about his or her problem was no longer necessary, and by some frowned upon, in the scope of practice for the psychiatric profession.

The relationship between patient and psychiatrist was no longer important.

I knew by then there was a small but growing number of professionals who saw this for what it is:  a vast marketplace worth billions a year, and a remarkable era on earth when well-meaning adults give harmful chemicals to children for diseases they don’t have.

Finally, I completed my Master’s degree in 1984, and I was awarded a doctorate degree in Psychology in 1987.

I know the science.

So will you.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Your-Kids-Aren-t-Sick-by-R-L-Cima-101123-643.html


« Return to news items


Share

The Illegitimacy of the “Psychiatric Bible” by Thomas Szasz, M.D.

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

The Freeman,  November 25, 2010

“Mental health experts ask: Will anyone be normal?” So read the title of a July 27 Reuters report. The “experts” warned that the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), scheduled for publication in 2013, “could mean that soon no-one will be classed as normal. . . . [M]any people previously seen as perfectly healthy could in future be told they are ill.”

This is not news. More than 200 hundred years ago Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) warned: “I believe that in the end humanitarianism will triumph, but I fear that, at the same time, the world will become a big hospital, each person acting as the other’s humane nurse.”

Moreover, Goethe foresaw the moral hollowness of the “humanitarian science” on which such therapeutic tyranny would rest: “I could never have known so well how paltry men are, and how little they care for really high aims, if I had not tested them by my scientific researches. Thus I saw that most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”

The depths to which such men would happily sink when worshiping error brings them fame and fortune became obvious only in the twentieth century.

Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis (1839–1908), the great Brazilian novelist and playwright, advanced the prescient literary satirization of the dark art of psychiatric diagnosis and the engine that drives it: the phony expert’s insatiable vanity and thirst for controlling his fellow man. His short story “O alienista” (1882, “The psychiatrist”) is a fable of a celebrated doctor retiring to a small town to pursue his scientific investigation of the human mind, gradually finding more and more of the townsfolk insane and needing to be incarcerated in his private asylum. Eventually he alone is left at liberty. As soon as modern psychiatry became a legitimate branch of medicine, Machado de Assis recognized and exposed its quintessentially unscientific-sadistic character.

It remained for the French playwright Jules Romains (1885–1972) to call public attention to the corruption of modern medicine by political power. “It’s a matter of principle with me,” declares his protagonist, “Dr. Knock” (1923), “to regard the entire population as our patients. . . . ‘Health’ is a word we could just as well erase from our vocabularies. . . . If you think it over, you’ll be struck by its relation to the admirable concept of the nation in arms, a concept from which our modern states derive their strength.”

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), too, has played an important part in persuading people that health is an abnormal state. This old joke is illustrative: “If the patient is early for his appointment, he is anxious; if he is on time, he is obsessive-compulsive; if he is late, he is hostile.”

Particular psychiatric diagnoses have not escaped professional criticism. Wishing to make a name for themselves as psychiatrists, “critics” object to one or another diagnosis (homosexuality)—or to “overdiagnosis” (ADHD)—but continue to respect the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a scientific organization and regard the various incarnations of the DSM as respectable legitimating documents. This is dishonest. Confronted with the DSM, the challenge we face is to delegitimize the authenticators, the APA and DSM, not distract attention from their fundamental phoniness by ridiculing one or another “diagnosis” and trying to remove it from the magical list.

I have consistently rejected this piecemeal approach. In my essay “The Myth of Mental Illness,” published in 1960, and in my book with the same title that appeared a year later, I stated my view forthrightly. I proposed that we view the phenomena conventionally called “mental diseases” as behaviors that disturb others (or sometimes the self), reject the image of “mental patients” as helpless victims of patho-biological events outside their control, and refuse to participate in coercive psychiatric practices as incompatible with the foundational moral ideals of free societies. In short, I rejected the authority of the APA as a legitimating organization and of the DSM as a legitimating document. I believe nothing less can undo the mischief wrought by the successive editions of the “psychiatric bible.”

Settled by Political Power

But times have changed. Fifty years ago it made sense to assert that mental illnesses are not diseases. It makes no sense to do so today. Professional debate about what counts as mental illness has been replaced by political-judicial decree. The controversy about the nature of so-called mental diseases/disorders has been settled by the holders of political power: They have decreed that “mental illness is a disease like any other.” Political power and professional self-interest have united in turning false beliefs into lying facts: “Mental illness can be accurately diagnosed, successfully treated, just as physical illness” (President William Clinton, 1999). “Just as things go wrong with the heart and kidneys and liver, so things go wrong with the brain” (Surgeon General David Satcher, 1999).

The claim that “mental illnesses are diagnosable disorders of the brain” is not based on scientific research; it is a deception and perhaps self-deception. My claim that mental illnesses are fictitious illnesses is also not based on scientific research; it rests on the pathologist’s materialist-scientific definition of illness as the structural or functional alteration of cells, tissues, and organs. If we accept this definition of disease, then it follows that mental illness is a metaphor, and asserting that view is stating an analytic truth not subject to empirical falsification.

For centuries the theocratic State exercised authority and used force in the name of God. The Founders sought to protect the American people from the religious tyranny of the State. They did not anticipate, and could not have anticipated, that one day medicine would become a religion and that the alliance between medicine and the State would then threaten personal liberty and responsibility exactly as they had been threatened by the alliance between church and State.

The Founders faced the challenge of separating the cure of souls by priests from the control of people by politicians. Today the therapeutic State exercises authority and uses force in the name of health. We face the challenge of separating the consensual treatment of patients by medical doctors from the coercive control of persons by agents of the State pretending to be healers.

When psychiatry was in its infancy the belief that all human “dysfunctions” are manifestations of brain diseases was a naive error. In its maturity the mistake was treated as a valid scientific theory and the justification for a powerful ideology and the powerful institutions based on it. Today, in its senescence, psychiatry is deceit and self-deceit—coercion concealed as objective science (“medical diagnosis”) and benevolent help (“medical treatment”). As a result, paraphrasing Orwell, telling the truth becomes “a revolutionary act.”

Dr. Thomas Szasz is a Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at the State University of New York, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute and a Lifetime Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He is also the co-founder of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights.  Considered by many scholars and academics to be psychiatry’s most authoritative critic, Szasz has authored more than 35 books on the subject, the first being The Myth of Mental Illness, a book which rocked the foundations of psychiatry upon its release more than 50 years ago.  Find out more: http://www.cchrint.org/about-us/co-founder-dr-thomas-szasz/

The Freeman Online article http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-therapeutic-state/the-illegitimacy-of-the-%E2%80%9Cpsychiatric-bible%E2%80%9D/?utm_source=The+Freeman&utm_campaign=c353b7523c-Freeman_Jan2010_Issue&utm_medium=email

« Return to news items


Share

“Sunshine: Best Rx for good medicine” by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010
The Daily Nonpareil, November 24, 2010
By  Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator

As Americans count their blessings during this season of thanksgiving, many of us can be thankful to gather around the holiday table with multiple generations of family and friends. More Americans are enjoying greater longevity and an improved quality of life well beyond retirement. In 21st century America, the bar of expectation has been raised for each successive generation not only to live the American Dream, but also to live longer and healthier than those before us. Many of us can thank modern medicine for creating breakthrough cures and treatments.

As the taxpaying public shoulders a growing share of the nation’s health care spending, it’s important now more than ever to protect the integrity of each tax dollar and strengthen the integrity of the U.S. health care system.

That’s why I’ve focused for the last several years to improve transparency and accountability between health care providers and the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

In 2004 I began an inquiry regarding the financial ties between Food and Drug Administration advisory board members and the drug industry. Later, I broadened my scope to include the National Institutes of Health in order to assess its effectiveness in monitoring conflicts of interest between the industry and medical researchers.

It became clear more transparency was needed. In my work in public office, I’ve found sunshine to be very effective in revealing problems and promoting good behavior.

Starting in 2007, I led a bipartisan legislative effort to bring transparency to the financial relationship between drug and medical device makers and doctors conducting research or practicing medicine.   My “Physician Payments Sunshine Act,” which became law this year as part of health care reform, will require all payments above $10 from drug and device makers to physicians to be reported every year by the drug or device company. A user-friendly data base will be available to the public, so that anyone can see industry payments to physicians prescribing treatments and medical researchers conducting studies whose outcomes can significantly influence the commercial success of a drug or device.

The pharmaceutical industry spends tens of billions of dollars every year to market its products to providers. Some physicians receive industry payments for speeches, consulting activities, travel and research. While these payments are often a good and necessary part of drug development, they can also create bad behavior when kept hidden from the public.

In the past few years, congressional investigations and state gift disclosure laws have raised eyebrows about these financial connections, especially where the amount that has been publicly reported is vastly less than what has actually been paid. For example, a congressional review I led from my position on the Senate Finance Committee revealed a troubling financial link between a drug maker and a child psychiatrist at Harvard, whose work led to a significant spike in diagnoses of pediatric bipolar disorders and prevalent use of antipsychotic medicines for children.

Separately, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Wisconsin received more than $19 million from a medical device company, although he reported only receiving “more than $20,000” per year on his financial disclosure records to the university.

My sunshine legislation that’s now law will require the pharmaceutical and device industries to collect information on their payments to physicians beginning in 2012 and submit it to the Department of Health and Human Services by March 2013 and annually thereafter. The Department of Health and Human Services is required to make that payment information available to the public starting in September 2013. Some within the industry already are developing self-reporting requirements in response to the effort.

While I’m glad to see companies, manufacturers, universities and even the National Institutes of Health are getting a head start to increase disclosure, I’m concerned the information could create even more confusion because the data is not standardized.

That’s why I am working closely with the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure the implementation of the sunshine law works as intended. That means the data must be made available in a timely, user-friendly format.

This effort has been part of my continued work to build openness and establish accountability for taxpayers. Banning anonymous “holds” in the U.S. Senate would shine the light of day on lawmakers who delay the people’s business. I’ve said lawmakers who take issue with a specific bill or nomination ought to have the guts to stand up and say so.

Likewise, creating a meaningful database of financial ties between Big Pharma and medical researchers ought to strengthen our health care system. Financial ties should withstand the light of day.

« Return to news items


Share

Drug Industry Settlements In 2010 Largest Ever—$2.5 Billion

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

NPR November 23, 2010

by Carrie Johnson

Image: Carlos Porto

The Justice Department has collected a whopping $3 billion in settlements this year with help from whistleblowers and a powerful law known as the False Claims Act, Assistant Attorney General Tony West announced this morning.

And guess where $2.5 billion of that $3 billion came from? Big Pharma.

This year’s biggest hauls under the False Claims Act include $669 million of the record-shattering $2.3 billion total the government took from Pfizer over its improper promotion of the painkiller Bextra, $302 million from Astra Zeneca over the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel, and $192 million from Novartis.

West told reporters the Civil War era law had become “one of our most successful civil enforcement tools,” allowing the Justice Department to recover “money that otherwise would have padded the bank accounts of defendants who sought profit over quality.”

And he vowed that the Obama administration would do more to go after individual executives who had green-lighted frauds against the federal government by seeking to bring civil and criminal charges that could put them out of business and in some cases, into federal prison.

“We’re going to hold both companies and individuals accountable,” West said.

Justice Department officials say the 2010 health care recovery is the largest in history, and the total recovery is the second largest, up from some $2.4 billion last year. Altogether, they’ve taken in $5.4  billion since January 2009 under the Act.

Congress recently strengthened the law and expanded the ability of whistleblowers to recover money if they alert the Securities and Exchange Commission to financial fraud.

That, West said, could be one of the next fronts in a battle against fraud that’s been intensifying rapidly.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/22/131517940/drug-industry-settlements-in-2010-largest-ever-under-false-claims-act

« Return to news items


Share

South Carolina Doctors Under Fraud Investigation After Writing Thousands of Antipsychotic & Painkiller Prescriptions

Monday, November 22nd, 2010
The State, November 22, 2010
By Renee Dudley

CHARLESTON — An influential U.S. senator is checking up on South Carolina doctors who have billed millions of dollars in prescriptions to the financially struggling, taxpayer-funded Medicaid program.

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, requested data from each state this year listing which doctors write the most prescriptions for eight common drugs covered by Medicaid, the federal health program for the poor. The reports were intended to “ensure that taxpayer dollars are appropriately spent,” Grassley wrote in a letter to state officials.

The Palmetto State’s report, released to The (Charleston) Post and Courier, identifies a handful of doctors who have written thousands of prescriptions for painkillers and anti-psychotics over the past two years. While many of the claims are legitimate, state Department of Health and Human Services officials confirmed this week that some doctors on the list are under investigation for fraud.

  • The report detailed the top prescribers of the following drugs:

    Abilify

    Geodon

    Oxycontin

    Risperdal

    Roxicodone

    Seroquel

    Xanax

    Zyprexa

Kathleen Snider, the state agency’s compliance chief, declined to say which doctors are under review because their cases are open. State health departments are responsible for monitoring Medicaid prescription rates and billing irregularities.

Among the doctors getting the most reimbursements were a Columbia psychiatrist who wrote about 3,900 prescriptions for the drugs in question in 2008 and 2009. The doctor billed about $1.3 million to Medicaid, according to a Post and Courier review of the data.

A family doctor in Summerville billed about $635,000 for writing nearly 2,400 prescriptions for antipsychotics and painkillers during that time.

A psychiatrist with an Augusta address wrote more than 1,300 prescriptions, billing nearly $720,000 over the two years.

A Sumter family doctor billed more than $500,000 for writing about 860 prescriptions.

Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, requested the state reports after discovering a Florida provider wrote 96,685 prescriptions for mental health drugs in a 21-month period.

Although the report shows no Palmetto State doctors approached that figure, Grassley took South Carolina’s data into consideration when he wrote to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius last month. His letter detailed states’ findings and encouraged the federal department to “step up efforts to monitor providers that are outliers” in both the Medicaid and Medicare systems.

A spokeswoman for Grassley said Friday Sebelius has not yet responded.

The states’ data does not indicate illegal activity, but shows that “there are very often providers that prescribe certain drugs at significantly higher rates than their peers,” Grassley wrote in his letter.

He continued, “This may be because a particular physician has a specific expertise or patient population, but it might also suggest overutilization or even health care fraud.”

Grassley also noted that the top prescriber for a particular drug often writes several times more prescriptions than the 10th highest prescriber. This was the case for several of South Carolina’s lists.

For example, a Greenville area neurologist wrote 100 prescriptions for Oxycontin in 2009 — 10 times more prescriptions that the No. 10 prescriber on the list.

The No. 1 prescriber of Xanax, a Greenville psychiatrist, wrote 1,073 prescriptions in 2009, while the number 10 prescriber wrote 63, according to the data.

Snider, of the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services, said over the past several years, the state has enacted data-mining surveillance systems to target Medicaid doctors who over-prescribe drugs.

While prescription drug abuse strains the system, Snider said other examples of fraud — billing for duplicate tests, extra hours or phantom patients — cause even more wasteful payouts because they can be harder to detect.

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2010/11/22/1572561/medicaid-questions-raised-about.html#ixzz162671Yli

« Return to news items


Share

Vatican City— Catholic Church Called On To Counter Corporate Greed Fueling Harmful Psychiatric Drugging of Children

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Catholic News Service, November 19, 2010

by Rita Fitch

photo: Graur Ionut

VATICAN CITY – The Catholic Church may be the only organization that can counter the corporate greed fueling the over-prescribing of harmful psychiatric drugs to children and young people, said Dr. Barry Duncan, a clinical psychologist and director of the Heart and Soul of Change Project.

Flawed methodologies in research and a drastic minimization of actual risks make the cited efficiency and safety of these drugs untrustworthy, he told a meeting of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry.

And clinical trial evidence on psychiatric drugs is often skewed by conflicts of interests, particularly when trials are funded by the drug industry or when the studies are conducted by people who are paid consultants of the company under review, Duncan told the Nov. 18-19 meeting.

He said because of the church’s broad networking capabilities and international influence, it “may be the only power on earth that can counter the forces of corporate greed that have no moral or ethical conscience.”

He called on religious orders, Catholic schools, hospitals, medical associations, media and parishes to become informed and help children and families discover alternatives to psychiatric medications as well as help them have real input when discussing the risks and benefits of such medication.

Duncan spoke Nov.19 on “The Question of the Use of Psychiatric Pharmaceuticals in Pediatrics” during the conference, and he spoke about his findings in a separate meeting Nov. 18 with Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Duncan told the conference that the United States leads the world in the number of psychiatric prescriptions to young people and that the trend to resort to antipsychotics before or in lieu of social and behavioral therapy is on the rise in Europe.

Most disturbing, he said, is that poor children in the United States, particularly those in foster care or on Medicaid, are four times more likely to be prescribed antipsychotic drugs and six times more likely to be treated with a number of different psychotropic medications.

Poor children are also “vulnerable to dangerous drugs used as interventions of control rather than therapy,” he said.

Clinical evidence does not support the practice of prescribing pharmaceutical drugs as a first response to behavioral or psychiatric issues, he said, not only because of the drugs’ questionable long-term effectiveness, but also for the risk of serious health consequences, dependence and disability.

“The belief in the power of chemistry over church, community, social and psychological process – fueled by unprecedented promotion from the drug industry that targets all players in health care – forms the basis of pharmacology’s growing centrality in treatment, research, training and practice,” he said.

Children have no voice, and they rely on adult judgments and decisions for their well-being, he added.

Families, pastoral workers, pediatricians and health professionals “need access to accurate data – to the truth untainted by corporate influence,” Duncan said.

http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=9117

« Return to news items


Share

Ablechild—Unsung Hero in Battle Against Psychopharmaceutical Industry

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

Patricia Weathers and Sheila Matthews co-founders of Ablechild a national non-profit parent's rights organization

by Evelyn Pringle

The founders of Ablechild, Patricia Weathers and Sheila Matthews, have earned the title of “Unsung Heroes,” as both pioneers and warriors for over a decade, in the battle to protect children from the Psychopharmaceutical Industry.

Ablechild (Parents for A Label and Drug-Free Education), is a national non-profit founded in 2001, by these two mothers who each had personal experiences with being coerced by the public school system to label and drug their children for ADHD. Patty and Sheila went from being victims to become national advocates for the fundamental rights of all parents and children in the US.

Now with thousands of members, Ablechild acts as an independent advocate on behalf of parents whose children have been subjected to mental health screening and psychiatric labeling and drugging, and as a proponent for children in foster care who are improperly treated with psychotropic drugs, many times off-label, without informed consent.

Long Battle Against Coerced Drugging

Roughly eight years ago, on September 26, 2002, then Chairman the US House Government Reform Committee, Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), held a hearing on the “Overmedication of Hyperactive Children,” prompted by a series in the New York Post.

“It’s estimated that 4 to 6 million children in the United States take Ritalin every single day,” Burton said in his opening statement. He pointed out that Ritalin was a Schedule II stimulant under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, that research showed it was a more potent transport inhibitor than cocaine, and use in the US had increased over a 500% since 1990. The Schedule II category also includes drugs such as cocaine, morphine, and Oxycontin.

On one side of the issue, Burton said, they would hear from the associations of psychiatrists and an organization known as Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), and they believed 13% of the US population suffered from an attention disorder and it should be treated with medication.

At the other end of the discussion, he said, was the Citizens Commission for Human Rights (CCHR), and concerned parents, who challenged the legitimacy of calling ADHD a neurobiological disorder and raised questions about giving psychiatric drugs to children. Two of these “concerned parents” were Patty Weathers and Neil Bush, the brother of then President Bush, who was pressured by a private school in Houston to drug his son with Ritalin after he was misdiagnosed with ADHD by the school.

Unsung Hero – Patty Weathers

Patricia Weathers testifying before Congress

At the hearing, Patty testified about the ordeal she and her son, Michael, went through in a public school in New York State that began in 1997. When Michael entered first grade, the teacher told Patty his learning development was not normal and he would not be able to learn without medication.  “Near the end of first grade, the school principal took me into her office and said that unless I agreed to put Michael on medication, she would find a way to transfer him to a special education center,” Patty told the committee.

At this point, his teacher filled out an actor’s profile for boys, an ADHD checklist, and sent it to his pediatrician, she said. “This checklist, along with a 15-minute evaluation by the pediatrician, led to my son being diagnosed with ADHD and put on Ritalin.”  Michael was not given a physical exam prior to the prescribing of Ritalin and no exams were conducted during appointments when refills for prescriptions were written.

“I would never have subjected my son to being labeled with a mental disorder if I had known that it was a subjective diagnosis,” Patty told the panel. “I would not have allowed my son to be administered drugs if I had been given full information about the documented side effects and the risks.”

“At no time was I offered any alternatives to my son’s needs, such as tutoring or standard medical testing.” she said. “The school’s one and only solution was to have my child drugged.” Early on, Michael experienced the common side effects of Ritalin, such as sleep problems and loss of appetite, and by the third grade, Michael became withdrawn, stopped socializing with other children, and began chewing on pencils and other objects. He was then put on Dextrostat, an amphetamine, which only worsened the problems.

But instead of recognizing the drug side effects, the school psychologist then claimed Michael had either bipolar or social anxiety disorder and needed to see a psychiatrist. The psychologist gave Patty the number for a psychiatrist to call and the psychiatrist talked to her and Michael for a short time, and “again, with the aid of school reports, diagnosed him with social anxiety disorder,” she recalled.

Without telling her it was not approved for children, the psychiatrist prescribed the antidepressant, Paxil, saying it was a “wonder drug for kids.” “Those were her exact words,” Patty told the committee. The drug cocktail caused even more horrendous side effects, until Michael’s behavior became so out of character that Patty could not even recognize her own son. “Through this whole ordeal, the school psychologist’s favorite saying was that it was trial and error,” she said. “If one drug didn’t work, try another.”

2001: Patty being interviewed after giving Congressional testimony

After watching Michael become violent, psychotic, hear voices and hallucinate, Patty stopped giving him the drugs. Not recognizing that he was going through withdrawal, the psychiatrist wanted to hospitalize Michael and try different sedatives and antipsychotics until they found “the right one,” but Patty refused to allow it. After she became unwilling to give Michael the drugs, “the school threw him out,” she told the panel. “As a final blow, they proceeded to call Child Protective Services on my husband and I, charging us with medical neglect for refusing to drug our child,” she said.

The complaint filed by the school stated in part: “[Michael's] behavior at school is bizarre: He hears voices and appears delusional, he chews on his clothes and paper, he talks to himself and rambles when he talks.” A month-long investigation cleared the charges and independent psychiatrists determined the bizarre behaviors were caused by the drugs and Michael did not need hospitalization. Medical testing by Dr Mary Ann Block, a Texas osteopathic physician, later showed that Michael suffered from anemia, hypoglycemia and allergies. When those conditions were treated, any attention problems disappeared.

On August 7, 2002, the “New York Post” ran a front-page article featuring Patty’s story.  Within a few days, over 65 parents came forward to describe similar stories of coercion and intimidation used by school districts to strong arm them into drugging their kids.

Unsung Hero – Sheila Matthews

Connecticut mom, Sheila Matthews, turned on the TV one day and saw Patty testifying on C-Span at a hearing titled, “Behavioral Drugs in Schools,” on September 29, 2000, before the US House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Sheila immediately related with Patty because she was then going through what she would later call the “ADHD nightmare,” of being pressured to put her 7-year-old son on Ritalin, after he was screened and diagnosed with ADHD by a school psychologist, with claims he would “self-medicate” and end up a drug addict if she did not medicate him.

While testifying at this hearing, Patty explained that being labeled made Michael feel worse about himself and “like a freak” because he “had to be drugged to go to school.” She also voiced her concerns for other families over the intimidation tactics used by schools to coerce parents into drugging their children. “If I didn’t have family members who were willing to financially back my son and I in my son’s cause, it is entirely possible that my son would have ended up in a psychiatric ward,” she told the panel.

That very day, Sheila made up her mind to expose the misleading information being given to parents about so-called mental disorders in public schools and expose the coercive tactics being used on parents who refused to label and drug their children.

She wanted to meet Patty so she contacted the Congressional office and they put her in touch with Marla Filidei, Vice President of CCHR International.    Marla hooked her up with  Patty, and together, they founded Ablechild.

National Spokespersons

Over the past ten years, Patty and Sheila have become national spokespersons. The normally shy, quiet Patty has made appearances on more than two dozen media programs including ABC’s Good Morning America, the Today Show on NBC, Hannity & Colmes on Fox, CNN’s Lou Dobbs, A&E’s Investigative Reports, and Montel Williams.

She has also been interviewed for stories in major newspapers including the New York Times, New York Post, USA Today, and Christian Science Monitor, as well as Time, People and Redbook magazines, and has been interviewed by Gary Null, Sean Hannity, Michael Regan, and other popular radio talk show hosts.

Priscilla Presley & Patricia Weathers, CCHR Awards banquet

In February 2001, Patty received a “Human Rights Award,” from CCHR, and was recognized for standing up against the injustice of psychiatric labeling and drugging of children in public schools at the group’s annual banquet. Sheila received an award from CCHR in 2002, and was recognized for her hard work and role as national spokesperson.

Sheila has also appeared on TV numerous times including shows on CNN, NBC and Fox, and has been interviewed on many talk radio programs. Her story has also been featured in major newspapers and magazines including the Boston Globe, USA Today, Insight News, and the Hartford Courant, as well as Time Magazine and the Ladies Home Journal.

In her home state of Connecticut, Sheila worked with State Representative, Lenny Winkler (a nurse by trade), to secure passage of the first state law in the country that restricts schools from suggesting psychiatric diagnosing and drugging of any child as a condition of attending school. She testified before the Connecticut State Assembly about her own personal experience with the school trying to pressure her to put her son on Ritalin and the lack of validity of the disorders children are being labeled with.

Sheila was with the Connecticut Governor when he signed the bill into law in 2001 and told USA Today that she was thrilled “because it gives parents an awareness that there should be a clear difference between education and medication.”

“No other industry has total access to our children the way the psychiatric community does, and I think this new law is just the beginning of changes to come,” she told Kelly Patricia O’Meara, in an interview for Insight News.

“Kids should be off-limits as targets of convenience for the drug industry,” Sheila said. “I want the mental-health industry out of our schools.”

However, any victory celebration was short lived because in September 2001, a number of family orientated magazines began running the first ever ads for ADHD drugs. “It seems like every time we take a step forward, they come back and hit us harder,” Patty told Time Magazine.

After the Connecticut law was passed, Sheila continued to work with other parents on state and federal levels to pass similar bills. By 2003, seven states had passed laws against schools coercing parents to drug their children or expelling students whose parents refused to medicate them.

Sheila Matthews, Congressman Sweeney and Marla Filidei, Washington DC

On a national level, both Sheila and Patty made many trips to Washington to educate lawmakers. In September 2001, Patty and CCHR’s Bruce Wiseman and Marla Filidei, briefed legislators at a national congress of the “National Foundation of Women Legislators,” and gained their unanimous approval of a model law in the “Child Medication Safety Act (CMSA),” which mandates that: “State educational agencies develop and implement policies and procedures that will prohibit school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a controlled substance such as Ritalin as a condition of attending school or receiving services.”

In both October and November of 2001, Sheila traveled to Washington with Marla and Lawrence Smith, whose 11-year-old son died of a heart attack caused by Ritalin, to meet with key lawmakers and discuss the crisis of children being diagnosed and drugged in schools and the need for federal legislation to end it. They also worked with Congressional staff to get co-sponsors for the CMSA

In July 2002, the nationally syndicated columnist and radio show host, Armstrong Williams, featured Sheila, Patty and Lawrence Smith in a radio show on safeguarding children from being labeled and drugged in public schools.

The next month, Patty appeared on NBC’s “Today Show,” on August 8, 2002, and the same day, the “New York Post,” ran an article reporting that Patty was calling for a state wide tracking system to determine how widespread forced drugging was in schools.On September 24, 2002, Patty was a guest on Hannity & Colmes on Fox, and was interviewed on CNN’s “Talk Back Live,” two days later. The next month, Patty and Michael were both guests on the “John Walsh Show,” on NBC.       Patty was also featured in a Discovery Channel program that month with pediatrician, Dr Lawrence Diller, and psychiatrist, Dr Peter Breggin, which focused on the over-drugging of kid  for ADHD.

Strongest Foe Funded by ADHD Drug Makers

In March 2003, Patty, Michael, and Sheila appeared on a Montel Williams show on promoting “A Parents Right to Choose,” along with Connecticut Rep, Lenny Winkler, Bruce Wiseman, Patricia Marks, Dr Mary Ann Block, and Vicky and Steve Dunkle, whose 10-year-old daughter died from Desipramine toxicity, after the antidepressant was prescribed for ADHD as a result of pressure from school officials to medicate the child.

Sheila and Patricia speaking at CCHRs Fight For Kids Campaign in New York City

The guests covered everything from the subjective diagnosis of mental disorders, with no confirming medical testing, to the many side effects of psychiatric drugs, to the fact that most children involved in school shootings were on psychiatric drugs. They warned that due to coercion in schools, parents all over the country were losing the right to choose whether their kids would take powerful drugs, including stimulants, referred to as “kiddie cocaine.” At the end of the program, Montel asked the audience to write to Congress asking for federal legislation against the coerced drugging of school children.

After the show aired, CHADD, the main front group for the stimulant makers, organized a letter writing campaign to Montel, who they said “mocked” ADHD, as part of responding to “offensive media depictions” of ADHD, they claimed in CHADD’s 2002-2003 Annual Report.

The group also published an open letter to Montel, saying no one would “dispute that unnecessarily placing a child on medication is deplorable.”

“But the greater travesty is delaying proper diagnosis and effective treatment for those who truly need it,” CHADD said. “The sad truth is that many more children with mental disorders slip unrecognized past the gatekeepers of mental health services than those who are improperly diagnosed.”

In April 2003, Ablechild issued a press release blasting CHADD for lobbying against the CMSA with claims that only a “handful” of incidents had occurred involving parents being coerced by schools to drug their children.

Patricia Weathers, Dr. Mary Ann Block, Lisa Marie Presley and Bruce Wiseman testify before Congress in support of the Child Medication Safety Act prohibiting forced drugging of schoolchildren

In lobbying to CHADD’s membership, the group’s CEO, E Clarke Ross, used the electronic newsletter, “News from CHADD,” to raise questions about whether the problem was common enough to require federal legislation and called such cases “isolated and highly publicized.” Because a number of states and school boards had passed laws or resolutions, Ross claimed the federal bill was “legislative overkill.”

However, for a May 13, 2003 investigative report on the CMSA published in “Insight Magazine,” in which Ross again referred to “a few highly publicized cases,” Kelly Patricia O’Meara interviewed Mike Stokke, deputy chief of staff to the Speaker of the House at the time, and found cases of school personnel demanding that parents drug children as a condition of staying in school were far from isolated in numbers or areas.

In case after case, Stokke told Insight, “when we started meeting some of these families who have been through this problem, such as in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, we saw the coercive action of the state come in and say that the teacher says you have to take these drugs.”

“And if you don’t it’s child neglect and the child is taken away from the parents,” he said.“Many of the parents that we talk to are people who have the means to fight back but what is troubling,” he said, “is that there are many families out there in similar situations who don’t have the means to fight the system.”

AbleChild and CCHR represenatives after meeting with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert on the Child Medication Safety Act

In the press release, Ablechild noted that CHADD was only opposing the CMSA because its livelihood was at stake being the group was funded by stimulant makers. Complaints about the funneling of money through CHADD, to increase drug sales and the diagnosis of ADHD, were discussed at length during the September 29, 2002, hearing on the use of behavioral drugs in schools. Portions of a 1995 report on the matter, by  the US Drug Enforcement Administration, were even read into the record.

“It has recently come to the attention of the DEA that Ciba-Geigy, the manufacturer of Ritalin, marketing under the brand name Ritalin, contributed $748,000 to CHADD from 1991 to ’94,” the agency reported. “The DEA has concerns that the depth of the financial relationship with the manufacturer was not well known to the public, including CHADD members, that have relied upon CHADD for guidance as it pertains to the diagnosis and treatment of their children,” it wrote.

The agency was particularly concerned that most of the ADHD material prepared for public consumption by CHADD, and made available to parents, did not address the potential or actual abuse of Ritalin. Instead, it was portrayed as a benign, mild substance that’s not associated with abuse or any serious side effects.

CHADD received $848,000 from Novartis in 2001, according to testimony at the hearing.

Kids Disabled for Cash

Patricia Weathers and Senator Charles Grassley

On its website, CHADD provides a link to a webpage on “Disability Benefits,” and tells parents that some kids with ADHD can be declared disabled and receive benefits including “cash payments,” under the federal Supplemental Security Income program.

“Children under age 18 who have disabilities, including some children with AD/HD, can receive SSI if they meet eligibility criteria,” CHADD says. “The SSI program can provide monthly cash payments based on family income, qualify the child for Medicaid health care services in many states, and ensure referral of a child into the system of care available under State Title V programs for Children with Special Health Care Needs.”

At the congressional hearing ten years ago, Colorado Representative, Bob Schaffer, reported concerns about Federal cash incentives to label children with ADHD, and specifically the two that resulted in cash payments to parents and schools. In 1990, the SSI program made low-income parents eligible for a cash benefit of more than $450 a month for each ADHD child, and in 1991, the Department of Education made it so schools could receive more than $400 a year for students with ADHD, under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  Both cash incentives coincided with a dramatic rise in the number of children labeled with ADHD. In 1989, children citing mental impairments, including ADHD but not retardation, made up only 5% of disabled kids on SSI.     But that figure rose to nearly 25% by 1995. Between 1990 and 1992, the number of ADHD diagnoses jumped from about one million to over three million,     Schaffer informed the committee.

The IDEA also had a “child find” provision which required states to actively seek out kids who may qualify for special education in order to receive Federal special education funds, Patti Johnson, a member of the Colorado State Board of Education, told the panel. In many states, schools had also become authorized Medicaid providers and collected funds for children labeled with one of the learning or behavior disorders, she reported.

“Between SSI, Medicaid and IDEA, we have turned schools into aggressive identifiers of disabled children,” Schaffer told the panel. “Without a doubt we are subsidizing the aggressive pursuit of children with disabilities.”

“It is not resulting in accurate diagnosis,” he said. “It is resulting in an over diagnosis.”

Roughly a decade after the hearing, the new book, “Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America,” by Robert Whitaker, reports that the number of kids receiving SSI checks due to mental illness increased 35-fold between 1987 and 2007, from 16,200 to 561,569.

Drug Money Pours In

Despite non-stop criticism over being in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, money from ADHD drug makers continues to pour into CHADD year after year.

The group’s Income & Expense Reports, show CHADD received $507,000 in 2002, $674,000 in 2003, and five years later, the amounts nearly tripled. For the fiscal year of July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, CHADD received a total of $1,205,000, from Eli Lilly, J&J’s McNeil division, Novartis, Shire US, and UCB. In addition, 64% of sales and advertising, or $466,104, came from drug companies.

The next year’s report shows CHADD received a total of $1,174,626, from Lilly, J&J’s McNeil division, Novartis, and Shire, and 57.2 % of sales and advertising, or $412,500, was from drug companies.

For the year 2008, Lilly’s full year grant report lists a $200,000 donation to CHADD. The 2008 IRS filing for the Eli Lilly Foundation also shows a $50,000 gift, a drop from the $100,000 given to CHADD in 2007. Lilly’s 2009 grant report lists a $130,000 donation and the first quarter report for 2010 shows a $50,000 grant for CHADD. Lilly is the only ADHD drug maker required to post grant reports online, so there is no way to break down how much money is pouring into CHADD from the other companies.

The group’s 2008 IRS filing lists CHADD’s most significant activity as, “provides support for individuals with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders.” Yet the non-profit blew $330,000 on its annual conference and another $114,950 on a 20th Anniversary Gala that same year, according to the 2008 I&E report.

Also, in sharp contrast to the yearly SSI income of about $8,000 for persons disabled by ADHD, the group’s 2008-2009 tax forms lists compensation for CEO Ross as $187,747, and the next two highest paid officials of this “non-profit” earn $130,217 and $121,095.

Landslide Vote

Congressman Max Burns introduced the Child Medication Safety Act

On May 21, 2003, the CMSA passed by a landslide vote of 425-1 in the House. On May 27, 2003, Sheila and Patty appeared on the national radio show “Scams and Scandals,” for a program about the need for the Act to end the abuse of parents by schools. During the show, they asked all parents who had experienced abuse similar to theirs to go online and sign Ablechild’s petition.

The next month, Sheila was featured in her hometown newspaper, “The New Canaan Advertiser,” in a front-page article on June 5, 2003 with the headline: “Mother pushing Congress to prevent schools from ADD testing,” with details of her campaign to enact federal legislation. The article profiled AbleChild, and criticized CHADD for its industry funding and opposition to the CMSA.

When public health officials in the UK and US announced that Paxil increased the risk of suicide in children in June 2003, Sheila pushed her Governor’s office to issue a press release warning against the use of Paxil with kids. In July 2003, the Associated Press reported that the Department of Children and Family Services in Connecticut planned to stop using Paxil to treat young people with depression.

The “New American,” published an article titled, “Drugging Our Kids,” by William Norman Gregg in August 2003, and covered Patty and Michael’s story in depth, along with similar cases reported by other parents including Neil Bush and two families in which children died as a result of coerced drugging. On February 20, 2004, Patty spoke on the nationally syndicated Joyce Riley radio show, and discussed the need for the CMSA in the wake of recent FDA hearings on the link between antidepressants and suicide, including Paxil, the drug Michael was prescribed.

Patty and Michael were both on CNN’s Lou Dobbs on April 15, 2004. Patty noted the need for the CMSA, evidenced by nearly 1,000 signatures on Ablechild’s website from parents with similar stories. Michael described how bad it felt to be on medications and Patty warned about the lack of informed consent given to parents regarding both the diagnoses of mental disorders and the drugs used as treatment.

The next month, Patty led a protest of hundreds of parents, children and human rights activists at the opening of the American Psychiatric Association’s annual conference in New York City, saying parents were fed up with psychiatrists telling them their children’s behavior was a “mental disorder” requiring dangerous drugs.

Sheila was again featured in her hometown newspaper on May 10, 2004, in an article about the need for an investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General into the drugging of children in foster care. Sheila was quoted throughout and promoted passage of CMSA.

Another federal bill that was introduced as a “Prohibition on Mandatory Medication,” amendment to the IDEA in April 2003, was passed by the House and Senate on May 13, 2004, and banned state and local educational agency personnel from requiring a child to take a drug covered by the Controlled Substance Act as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation, or receiving services. Key wording from the CMSA was included in the amendment.

On September 13, 2004, Patty testified at an FDA advisory panel hearing on the need for black box warnings on antidepressants about the risk of suicide and violence. “The FDA had enough evidence 14 years ago to issue these warning labels,” she told the committee.

She also testified about the lack of science behind psychiatric labels given to children. “Parents are told that their child has a chemical imbalance or a neurobiological illness,” she testified. “We risked our child’s life based on this fundamental lie.”

“The FDA is well aware that there are no x-rays, biopsies, blood tests or brain scans that verify these mental disorders as a disease or illness,” she said. “The FDA should not be condoning or approving these drugs without evidence of disease, illness or physical abnormality that would justify risking our children’s lives with a harmful and potentially lethal drug.”

The hearing ended with a vote by the panel in favor of black box warnings.

In November 2004, Patty was interviewed by a French TV producer for a news program in France, similar to 60 Minutes, focused on the pressuring of parents by schools in American to put children on psychiatric drugs. Other guests included Vicky Dunkel and Tom Woodward, whose daughter committed suicide after being prescribed an SSRI.

On February 17, 2005, Patty testified at a hearing titled, “ADHD Diagnosis, Treatment & Consequences,” in New York City, and told the story of what happened when Michael was labeled mentally ill in a public school and she refused to keep drugging him.

“The irony of the whole ordeal was that I was charged with medically neglecting my son, when there was no proof that anything was medically wrong with him,” she testified.

The next month, the “Ladies Home Journal,” ran an article titled, “A Generation out of Control,” with a sub-heading that read: “A record four million children — some as young as 2 — are being diagnosed with ADHD and many are being put on powerful medications, perhaps for life.”

The article featured Sheila, and Patricia Marks, another Connecticut mom whose son was misdiagnosed with ADHD. The article discussed the dangers of teachers diagnosing kids in schools to solve classroom problems and warned parents to make sure and rule out undiagnosed medical conditions that might manifest as ADHD.

Also in March, in letters to the US Attorney for the District of Minnesota and the FDA, Ablechild called for an investigation into the role of antidepressants in a school shooting by Jeff Weise in Red Lake, Minnesota, who was on Prozac when he went on a rampage, killing his grandfather first, and then fellow students and teachers at his school, before committing suicide with the same gun.

In a press release, Ablechild expressed outrage and frustration with the FDA for “continuing to turn a blind eye to the all so obvious link to violence and mania that these drugs are having on our youth, and even more, their deadly link to uncontrolled school terror that has occurred from coast to coast.”

Congressman Ron Paul, Author of the Parental Consent Act, with Sheila Matthews

In October 2005, Sheila issued a statement from Ablechild strongly opposing TeenScreen, a program aimed at screening kids for mental illness in schools. “TeenScreen is nothing more than the bio-behavioral health industry’s attempt to garnish big government funding for useless programs that profitably promote a course of recommended psychotropic drug “treatment” which has been clearly liked to suicide and violent behavior,” she warned.

In October 2006, Sheila appeared on “The Big Story,” with John Gibson on Fox, in a segment titled “Investigating the Link: Antidepressants & Violence,” based on recent school shootings in Pennsylvania and Colorado, and spoke of the need to investigate the correlation between psychiatric drugs and school shooters, and toxicology tests to determine whether shooters were on drugs. As the founders of Ablechild, parents came to them all the time, Sheila said. “Their children are committing suicide on these drugs and we’re very concerned.”

At the end of the show, the reporter noted particular concern about the fact that 30 million Americans were taking antidepressants, and being that 5% would develop mania, there could be “a million and a half potential maniacs waiting to explode.”

Focus On Drug Side Effects

Over the years, Ablechild has also focused on educating the pubic on drug side effects and MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse drug reaction reporting system. On December 13, 2006, Sheila testified at the FDA advisory hearing on the risk of suicide with adults on SSRIs and presented the results of two surveys showing a lack of public knowledge about Medwatch, and asked the FDA to initiate campaigns to let consumers know where and how to report ADRs, as consumers detect adverse effects sooner than providers.

In June 2007, Shelia, along with two CCHR representatives, met with Washington lawmakers regarding the renewal of the “Prescription Drug User Fee Act.” The new Act was signed into law in September 2007, with key measures to help increase public knowledge about prescription drug risks, as well as better safety monitoring by the FDA.

On November 6, 2007, Ablechild issued a news alert to warn that despite the black box warnings, the mental health industry was continuing to downplay the suicide risk of antidepressants. Based on information posted within the MedWatch system, “an estimated 63,000 suicides have been committed by people under the influence of antidepressants,” the alert reported.

It also noted that most parents were not aware that at least eight school shooters “were under the influence of antidepressants documented to cause not only suicidal ideation but also mania, psychosis, hostility, hallucinations and even ‘homicidal behavior.’
With 1.5 million children on antidepressants in the US alone, “Ablechild is deeply concerned about the number of children being prescribed the powerful and potentially lethal drugs,” the alert stated.

In December 2007, Sheila called into a National Public Radio program, when the topic was the recently passed FDA reform bill, and discussed a new requirement that all print ads include an 800 number and information on reporting side effects to MedWatch. She also noted the importance of the new clinical drug trial registry that would be available on the internet, and the elimination of conflicts of interest on FDA advisory committees.

Protect Youngest Victims

In 2008, Ablechild teamed up with Amy Philo’s “Unite for Life” coalition of advocacy groups in efforts to protect unborn children and nursing infants from forced drugging through their mothers’ ingestion of drugs, by lobbying against a bill called the “Mothers Act,” for short, aimed at screening pregnant women and new mothers for mental illness.

The Act “quite simply is a feeder line for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry and will result in more mothers and infants being put at risk for being prescribed antidepressants and other dangerous psychiatric drugs,” AbleChild warned in a letter made available on its website for persons to sign and send to members of Congress.

In April 2008, Patty, Amy Philo, Marla Fidili from CCHR, Mathy Downing, whose 12-year-old daughter committed suicide after being given Zoloft off-label for test anxiety, and about 40 more advocacy allies, went to Washington to lobby against the Mother’s Act.

The latest evidence of infants being harmed by psychiatric drugs ingested by their mothers was reported on July 2, 2010, with a Medscape Today headline, “Psychotropic Medications Linked to Serious Adverse Drug Reactions in Children,” for a study by Danish researchers of 4,500 adverse drug reactions (ADRs), in children younger than 17, listed in the national Danish ADR database between 1998 and 2007.

The results showed 429 reports were from psychotropic drugs, with the largest share from stimulants at 42%, followed by antidepressants with 31%, and antipsychotics at 24.5%.

Almost 19%, or 80 of the ADRs, were for children between the age of birth and 2. All but one was serious, with two deaths associated with the SSRIs Celexa and Prozac. These findings were “probably due to the mothers’ intake of psychotropic medicine, primarily antidepressants and antipsychotics, during pregnancy,” the study authors wrote.

CCHR's Outstanding Achievement Award 2009 presented to Vicky Dunkle, Patricia Weathers, Sheila Matthews, Mathy Downing and Amy Philo

Sheila and Patty, along with Amy Philo, Mathy Downing, and Vicky Dunkle, received an “Outstanding Achievement Award for Children’s Rights,” in February 2009, at CCHR’s annual banquet, highlighted by a video tribute featuring much of their work.

In April 2009, Sheila drafted a petition in support of the “Parental Consent Act,” and made it available on Ablechild’s website for persons to sign and send to members of Congress. Introduced by Texas Congressman and physician, Ron Paul, the bill prohibits federal funds from being used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health screening program for public school students and establishes a parent’s right to refuse screening of a child without fear of being charged with child abuse or neglect. In an April 30, 2009 speech, Paul pointed out that “parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children.”

“Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation,” he said.

Million Kids Misdiagnosed With ADHD

After a decade of work by Sheila and Patty to expose the fraud behind labeling kids with ADHD, on August 17, 2010, USA Today reported that a new study from Michigan State University found nearly 1 million children may have been misdiagnosed with ADHD, not because of any real behavioral problems, but because they were the youngest in the class. Children who are the youngest in their grades are 60% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest kids, according to the study published in the Journal of Health Economics. In fifth and eighth grade, the youngest children were more than two times as likely to be on Ritalin compared with the oldest students, the study found.

(This article is the first in an on-going series honoring the many “Unsung Heroes” in the two decade battle against the drugging of children by the Psychopharmaceutical industrial Complex).

(Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist and researcher focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


Share