Archive for November, 2010

Physicians on Pharma’s Payroll: Educators or Marketers?

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

WNCY NEWS November 18, 2010

by Alisa Chang

Most people getting a prescription for a drug don’t ask if their doctor is getting paid to promote that drug.  But thousands of physicians all over the country get paid by pharmaceutical companies to speak about brand-name medications. Some have made more than $300,000 in the last 18 months. And at least 1,500 of these speakers are licensed in New York. All these details have just come to light after the investigative news organization ProPublica compiled a database based on disclosures made by seven pharmaceutical companies after federal lawsuits.

(See a list of New York’s top earners and check and see if your health provider has received funds here.)

For more than 20 years, psychiatrist Richard Schloss has been treating Long Island patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and social phobias.  But he has another job. Pfizer has paid him thousands of dollars to tell other psychiatrists about a drug the company sells, an anti-psychotic medication called Geodon.

In all his years of speaking for Pfizer, the company’s never asked Schloss (right) about an embarrassing stain on his state record. In 2001, the New York State Health Department suspended Schloss and then put him on probation for five years for helping supply Vicodin for a year and a half to six patients who were drug addicts.  Schloss says he didn’t know at the time those patients were lying to him about their pain symptoms.

“I was just trying to be compassionate and was misguided and maybe a little naïve, but that was 10 years ago that the disciplinary action occurred based on incidents that occurred 13 years ago. So I feel like I’m a different doctor than I was then,” said Schloss, “and it doesn’t really detract from what I know and what knowledge I can impart about the medications that I speak for.”

Drug companies say the goal of their speaker programs is to educate — and that they merely pick the best experts to teach fellow doctors about the latest drugs. But many people in the medical community disagree with those claims and want to see the practice end. They say the way drug companies recruit and script their speakers has less to do with education and more to do with marketing.

Speakers With Tainted State Records

Among the 17,000 speakers in the ProPublica database are hundreds of doctors like Schloss — doctors with tarnished state records who have been paid by drug companies to teach other physicians about the latest medications. Schloss says he doesn’t know if Pfizer even knows about his record.

“They didn’t bring it up, and I didn’t volunteer it but if they asked, I would have been forthcoming, obviously,” said Schloss.

ProPublica’s database for New York doctors shows GlaxoSmithKline recruited a physician after he was suspended for unzipping his pants and fondling himself while examining a female patient. An Eli Lilly speaker wrote fake prescriptions for Ritalin to feed his own addiction. And Johnson & Johnson hired a doctor who lost his New York license after giving patients drugs that weren’t approved for human use. Medical ethicists are now asking if drug companies are checking the state records of their speakers.

“It shows that drug companies aren’t necessarily that selective in who they’re using to promote their products. They will take people who will do what they need them to do,” says Susan Chimonas, a researcher at the Center on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University. “Their number one concern is making money for their shareholders. That is their legal obligation. And if they can’t find enough physicians with unblemished records to go out and push their products for them, they will take who they can get.”

When WNYC asked Pfizer and other companies how these doctors ended up on their speaker lists, none would grant interviews. Some of them have told ProPublica they do conduct background checks on their speakers, but are now re-evaluating the process.

Targeting High Prescribers

To be clear, the doctors with blemished state records only comprise about one percent of the New York speakers in the database. That is about the same percentage of doctors who are disciplined every year in New York. But evidence from these speaker programs raises troubling questions that go far beyond doctors with blemished records. The companies insist these programs are purely educational, and they get the best teachers they can find. But documents and interviews with several physicians chip away at that claim.

First, the industry says it picks the doctors who are the most knowledgeable about the drugs. But Schloss said Pfizer first picked him because he was a high prescriber of Geodon.

“What they do is they get the pharmacy records, and they know who’s prescribing what,” said Schloss, “and they can come in and say, ‘I see you’re prescribing, you know, a lot of, in this case, Geodon. What do you like about it?’ And you if say nice things, they say, ‘Will you be interested in speaking for us?’”

Schloss said he agreed to be a speaker because he genuinely believes in Geodon, and he enjoys teaching. But even he admitted the speaking has actually changed the way he prescribes.

“You know, I may use Geodon maybe 10 percent more than I did before I was a speaker,” said Schloss. “I use it 10 percent more because I’ve spoken about it so many times, and thereby, learned a lot more about what the drug can and can’t do.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/nov/18/physicians-pharmas-payroll-educators-or-marketers/

« Return to news items


Share

Disciplined doctors receiving pharmaceutical funds

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

San Francisco Chronicle, November 18, 2010

by Victoria Colliver

About 48 of the more than 1,730 California doctors who received money from pharmaceutical companies over the past 21 months have been the subject of disciplinary action, a database compiled by the investigative news organization ProPublica found.

While that represents less than 3 percent of the California doctors who take pharmaceutical money, the fact that drug companies are paying those doctors – some of whom have multiple disciplinary actions – for their expertise calls into question how closely these companies vet the physicians who serve as the spokespeople for their drugs.

California doctors have received $28.6 million from top pharmaceutical companies since 2009, with at least three physicians collecting more than $200,000 and 36 others making more than $100,000 for promoting drug firm products. That cash flowing from drug companies to doctors has raised ethical concerns from some observers.

“If they’re getting as much money from pharmaceutical companies as they do for being a doctor, what are they really? Are they working for a pharmaceutical company, or are they being a doctor?” asked Lisa Bero, a pharmacy professor at UCSF who studies conflicts of interest in medicine and research.

Bero also questioned why drug companies – which presumably would want medical leaders who could influence prescribing patterns – would use doctors with a history of disciplinary actions.

“Are those really the most influential physicians?” she asked. “I don’t think they’re (the drug companies) on top of this.”

Company payments

Payments to doctors and other health professionals made by Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson and Cephalon, some of the world’s largest drug companies, added up to more than $281.9 million in 2009 and 2010 nationwide. The figures do not include drug samples, the cost of continuing education programs, and meals brought to doctors’ offices.

In total, 384 of the approximately 17,700 health professionals in the 30 states surveyed who received some money from drug companies in ProPublica’s database, almost all of them physicians, earned more than $100,000 apiece for their promotional and consulting work on behalf of one or more of the seven companies in 2009 through Oct. 19 of this year.

ProPublica found that the seven drug companies paid $6.7 million to 290 doctors who faced disciplinary action or other regulatory sanctions in various states.

San Francisco psychiatrist Karin Hastik, for example, took $168,658 in speaking and consulting fees from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline since 2009.

But in May, the Medical Board of California placed Hastik on probation for negligence, prescribing drugs without prior examination, and failing to keep adequate records about a patient she had been caring for since 2000. Hastik did not return calls for comment.

Dr. Gerald Sacks, an anesthesiologist with offices in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, was California’s top earner in the database, receiving $249,822 from drug companies since 2009. More than half – $150,097 – came from Pfizer.

In 2003, the state medical board cited Sacks, who did not return calls for comment, for failing to maintain adequate records of a patient he treated for back pain.

Undermining trust

While the disciplinary actions in the database vary greatly – everything from failing to maintain accurate paperwork to sexual misconduct – some experts say the very act of taking large sums of money from pharmaceutical companies raises ethical concerns.

“It undermines the trust in the doctor-patient relationship,” said Maryann O’Sullivan, executive director for the Campaign for Effective Patient Care, a nonprofit based in Fairfax. O’Sullivan said patients shouldn’t have to worry if their doctors are making medication recommendations because they are beholden to drug company money.

Officials for several of the pharmaceutical firms told ProPublica that they intended to tighten and improve their selection and screening processes in light of the disciplinary results. ProPublica provided each company with lists of all speakers who had been disciplined in the 30 states and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

A survey conducted in 2004 found that more than 80 percent of physicians had some relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, ranging from accepting drug samples to collecting consulting fees and participating in paid clinical trials.

Since that time, greater attention has been placed on the relationship between doctors and drug companies, and many hospitals and medical schools have adopted rules that limit these ties.

A survey published this month in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that more than 80 percent of doctors still had industry relationships, but the level of involvement had decreased. For example, the survey found the percentage of physicians receiving payment for speaking engagements and other services dropped from more than one-fourth in 2004 to 14.1 percent last year.

Several doctors who were not the subject of any disciplinary action but did take large sums from pharmaceutical companies told The Chronicle they spoke on behalf of only those drugs they believed in and thought they were performing an important educational service for other physicians.

A teaching tool

Dr. Rona Hu, clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, said she earned more money from speaking engagements in 2009 than usual because several drugs she prescribes became available for new uses. The psychiatrist said she has since stopped getting paid by drug firms to speak because Stanford tightened its policy regarding industry gifts to staff.

One of the top earners in Northern California, Palo Alto psychiatrist Manoj Waikar, who earned $185,875 since 2009, ended his affiliation with Stanford as an adjunct professor after the school extended its ban to adjunct staff in March.

“Speaking for drug companies is a great vehicle for me for teaching. I end up reaching more people who are eager to learn, especially in rural parts of the country,” he said, adding he does not disclose what drugs he prescribes to pharmaceutical companies so they hire him for his expertise, not because of his prescribing patterns. “As much as I loved teaching at Stanford, abiding by their rules would (keep) me from teaching as many people in as many ways as I can.”

Dr. Michael Lenoir of Oakland, who collected $112,600 from GlaxoSmithKline, said he uses his speaking engagements to visit urban and underserved areas around the country to discuss the high rate of asthma in black communities and the treatment options.

A San Francisco pain doctor who has earned $176,771 since 2009 from Pfizer and Cephalon said he doesn’t believe speaking for drug companies poses a conflict because he discloses the payments to his patients.

“So far, every patient has been OK with it,” said Dr. Wayne Anderson, adding that doctors who take money from equipment manufacturers and other medical suppliers don’t fall under the same scrutiny. “I don’t get bonus payments at the end of the month. I’m not trying to do anything secretive. I have complete transparency and honesty, and I tell people when I have been paid to promote a drug.”

About this story: It was produced in partnership with ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative news organization. To read the stories in the investigation and to search the ProPublica database on pharmaceutical company payments to doctors, go to projects.propublica.org/docdollars.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/18/MNJU1GDLRF.DTL

« Return to news items


Share

Justice to Pharma: “Do the Perp Walk!”

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

PharmaExec.com – November 17, 2010

by Walter Armstrong

Former GSK counsel is the first target in government’s executive-liability crackdown. Could J&J be next?

The US Department of Justice filed criminal charges last week against Lauren Stevens, a former VP and assistant general counsel at GlaxoSmithKline. Going after pharma execs marks a seismic shift in the government’s efforts to stem the tide of fraud and other illegal pharma marketing practices, which a raft of billion-dollar settlements have so far failed to end. Stevens is charged with obstruction of an investigation, concealment and falsification of documents, and making false statements to the FDA in its 2002 investigation of off-label promotion of the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss, an indication for which it has never been approved but has shown some clinical benefit. The DoJ says that it has evidence, in the vast paper and electronic documentation turned over by GSK, showing that Stevens hid and otherwise misled the agency about some 1,000 instances of GSK-paid doctors promoting Wellbutrin for weight loss to other doctors.

Officials had warned that they would target “repeat offenders,” and GSK certainly qualifies for that dubious distinction. The British firm has racked up some of the biggest settlements of the past decade, including $750 million in October to put to rest civil and criminal charges arising in part from a whistleblower suit filed by a quality-control cop who was fired after she advised temporarily shutting down one of its major manufacturing plants because it was routinely producing adulterated drugs (and selling some of them on the black market) between 2001 and 2005. GSK execs chose instead to look the other way. The former compliance advisor’s cut of the settlement was a record-setting $96 million.

In fact, GSK has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons this year: Prior to the whistleblower suit settlement news came the denouement of the Avandia side effects case revealing that the company had failed to disclose damaging data and otherwise misled the FDA about the diabetes drug’s heart-attack risks.

But the new charges against a former VP in its legal department and all the bad press are almost certainly coincidental, says Daniel Carpenter, a professor of political science at Harvard and leading expert on the FDA. “I am not inclined to read anything political into the fact that it is a Glaxo employee,” he says. “The real symbolic feature of this action is the general message that any criminal proceeding sends to the pharmaceutical industry, namely that the FDA general counsel is now willing to use criminal proceedings—something it has had the power to do for seven decades.” Lauren Stevens, who was said by a GSK spokesperson to be “retired,” has hired a high-profile team of defense attorneys who told the media that their client was innocent and looking forward to her day in court. Be that as it may, if convicted, Stevens could spend at least some of her retirement years in the slammer because the charges are felonies carrying lengthy prison sentences.

BNet’s Jim Edwards has raised the possibility on his Placebo Effect blog that the DoJ may offer Stevens immunity for spilling the beans on other misdeeds at GSK, especially those committed by top management. That lineup include, of course, several of the industry’s most powerful players: former GSK CEO Jean-Pierre Garnier; his successor in 2008, Andrew Witty; Chris Veihbacher, who was GSK’s head of US pharmaceuticals from 2003 to 2008, when he became the CEO of Sanofi-Aventis; and David Stout, the head of global pharma operations from 2003 to 2008.

But the most probable scenario, according to Pharm Exec’s legal sources, is that the DoJ has picked a first case that it is confident it can win a conviction in. And Stevens is likely merely the first shoe to drop. It is widely assumed that the coming months will offer other executives at other firms the opportunity to do a perp walk, with some insiders betting that J&J is next on deck following recent congressional hearings into the company’s recent series of OTC product recalls, including a “phantom” recall of defective Motrin during which consultants posing as consumers attempted to buy out the product.

Slammed for failing to announce an official recall in a speedy fashion, FDA deputy commissioner Josh Sharfstein told Congress last June that J&J had misled the agency about the scope of the retrieval, not to mention its bizarre counterfeit style. But when J&J CEO William Weldon took the hot seat, he countered that his firm had informed the agency of its plans.

One of the two men is lying to Congress, so this line of speculation goes, and if it’s Weldon, the FDA may be expected to pounce—calling its no. 2 a liar only adds insult to injury.

http://blog.pharmexec.com/2010/11/17/lauren-stevens-charged-with-obstruction/

« Return to news items


Share

Study Claims “ADHD Boys” Get in More Car Accidents—Fails to Mention ADHD Drug Side Effects & Recommends…More Drugging

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

It’s hard for anyone with a modicum of reason to understand how such glaringly flawed studies as the one posted below are pawned off on the public in the name of “mental health” recommendations.  Case in point, a new study claims that  “teenage boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are twice as likely to be involved in a serious car collision.” Now, by the researchers own admission, “they couldn’t determine whether the teens with ADHD were taking medication when the crashes occurred.” Well that’s a seriously major omission.   Any teenager who has been diagnosed “ADHD” is almost assuredly on drugs.  The most common of which is methylphenidate (Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta, etc.)

According to the U.S. FDA methylphenidate is documented to cause:  Hallucinations, Delusional Thinking, Sensory Disturbances,  Mania, Psychosis, Aggression, Violence,  Headaches, Nausea, Vomiting, Depression, Sleepiness, Drowsiness, Fatigue, Agitation, Irritability, Insomnia, Disturbed Sleep,  Abnormally Tight Muscles, Cardiac Events, Stroke and Cerebrovascular Events. All side effects that would seriously impair a person’s ability to drive.

Yet even this glaring omission is not the worst part of this study, their recommendation is—  “The researchers suggested the family doctors, psychiatrists and community health workers could help by treating ADHD patients with methylphenidate or Ritalin.” We weren’t sure we read that right, so we went to the actual study to see for ourselves,  and sure enough,  it said  “Greater attention by primary care physicians, psychiatrists and community health workers can perhaps reduce the risk including medical treatments (e.g. methylphenidate.)    It gets even more ludicrous,  with this statement, “children with ADHD are known to go off their meds because of side-effects.”

Yes.  Exactly.  Side effects.  Serious, motor- skill impairing and even life-threatening,  side effects.

So to summarize;

1) Teenage boys diagnosed ADHD are getting in more car accidents.

2) Teenage boys diagnosed ADHD are almost certainly on  drugs “recommended” for ADHD (methylphenidate)

3) The FDA says Methylphenidate causes hallucinations, mania, psychosis, sensory disturbances, an abundance of side effects that can seriously impair a person’s motor-skills and ability to drive.

4) They recommend putting more kids on methylphenidate.

And there you have it.

ADHD puts teen drivers at risk: study

CBC News —November 15, 2010

Children with ADHD are known to go off medications like Ritalin because of side-effects, but researchers suggest that doctors stress the importance of treatment to reduce the risk of traffic crashes.Teenage boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are twice as likely to be involved in a serious car collision compared with the general population, an Ontario study suggests.

The study in Tuesday’s issue of the online journal PLoS Medicine looked at 3,421 males between the ages of 16 and 19 who were involved in serious road trauma between 2002 and 2009, compared with a control group of teens admitted for appendicitis.

The researchers suggested listing ADHD the same way as other medical disorders like epilepsy, which require drivers to show they are road worthy to keep their driver’s licence.

Study author Dr. Donald Redelmeier, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, estimated if the crash risk for teenagers with ADHD could be reduced to that of teens without the disorder then it would prevent about 700 crashes a year in Ontario.

Teenaged girls with ADHD also showed an increased risk of crashes, but the study focused on teenaged male drivers because they have the highest incidence of road crashes, at twice the population average.

“The findings call attention to a widespread, preventable, and costly cause of death and disability,” the study’s authors concluded.

“Most people know that teenage males are prone to traffic injuries, but the current data show that prevailing adjustments are not sufficient.”

Compliance issues for meds

The researchers suggested the family doctors, psychiatrists and community health workers could help by treating ADHD patients with methylphenidate or Ritalin, as well as talking to patients about ways to reduce the risk, such as abstaining from alcohol and avoiding distractions like using cellphones while driving.

The researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including that they couldn’t determine whether the teens with ADHD were taking medication when the crashes occurred.

But children with ADHD are known to go off their meds because of side-effects.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/15/adhd-males-traffic-collisions-ontario.html

Read the international drug regulatory warnings and studies on Methylphenidate (Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta and other psychostimulants) here http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/


« Return to news items


Share

In Indiana, Psychiatrists Once Again Top the List of Top Drug Prescribers Under Medicaid/Medicare

Monday, November 15th, 2010

IndyStar.com

by John Russell

Indiana doctors who write thousands of prescriptions a year for drugs covered by publicly funded Medicaid and Medicare programs are coming under federal scrutiny.

U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa has launched an investigation into doctors here and around the country who are top prescribers for drugs billed to the federal program, citing concerns that expensive medications are being overprescribed. Several states, including Indiana, have already responded with lists of top prescribers.

Grassley said that some physicians are writing tens of thousands of prescriptions for costly drugs. He cited a doctor in Florida who wrote 96,685 prescriptions for mental health drugs in a 21-month period.

No Indiana doctor came close to that amount, according to a list sent to Grassley’s office by the Indiana Family & Social Services Administration. The agency compiled a list of top prescribers overall in 2008 and top prescribers for certain psychiatric medications in 2008 and 2009, including Zyprexa, Geodon, Risperdal and Abilify.

According to the list, the top overall prescriber in Indiana is Dr. Daniel Kinsey, a psychiatrist in Goshen. He wrote 2,894 prescriptions in 2008, which resulted in $791,289 in medication charges to the state.

The next highest was Dr. Melinda Weekly, a psychiatrist in Bloomington, who wrote 2,456 prescriptions in 2008, resulting in charges to Indiana of $1.16 million.

Other states have also compiled lists. In Texas, one doctor authorized 13,596 prescriptions for anxiety drug Xanax in 2008, and increased it to 14,170, according to a letter Grassley recently sent to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In Connecticut, one doctor ranked consistently as the top prescription writer across a full range of pharmaceuticals, Grassley said, writing 5,945 prescriptions in 2008 and 7,459 in 2009 for seven medications.

“I want to be clear that none of the information provided suggests any illegal or wrongful behavior,” Grassley wrote. “It merely demonstrates that across pharmaceutical brands and categories, as well as across states, there are very often providers that prescribe certain drugs at significantly higher rates than their peers.”

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, who is a top member of the Senate Finance Committee, urged federal authorities to look into the matter.

“The trend is found again and again across the states, suggesting that top prescribers stand out not only against other providers in their state, but against the very top prescribers in those states,” he said.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20101115/NEWS09/101115017/Inquiry-eyes-Ind-doctors-who-write-prescriptions?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com|optionb|t

« Return to news items


Share

ADHD: Ritalin – Brain damage, heart attacks, hallucinations & liver damage

Monday, November 15th, 2010

NYCBlink.com November 15, 2010

by Kevin Flat

Ritalin is prescribed to 6 million children with ADHD every year and like all drugs comes with a long list of side effects including nervousness, nausea, dizziness, drowsiness, insomnia, joint pains, headaches, increased blood pressure, fever, rapid heartbeat, abdominal pain, and psychosis.

Tom Sawyer may have been a layabout, a truant and self-indulgent. He may have picked fights with strangers for no apparent reason; but he was also resourceful, spirited and refreshingly clever. Huckleberry Finn was an illiterate outcast, but as a long term rafting companion he had no peer.

Today children who have difficulty playing quietly or following instructions find themselves under the scrutiny of parents, teachers, guidance counsellors and child therapists, all of them looking for the slightest sign of a medical syndrome. (Fully referenced articles regarding ADHD and Magnesium, ADHD and Fish oil and ADHD and Tonsillectomy can be found on my website which is linked to at the bottom of this article).

The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) only mandates a warning be printed on the package insert for Ritalin which is now associated with 19 confirmed childhood deaths due to cardiovascular problems. Stimulants might be far more dangerous to the heart than Vioxx or Bextra, drugs that were withdrawn over the past two years because of their ill effects on the heart.

On March 21, 2000, a 14-year-old boy dropped dead of a heart attack while skateboarding. The ninth-grader had been on Ritalin since the first grade. The father of the youngsterhas testified that he and his wife were forced by Michigan Social Services to put their child on Ritalin or else be charged for neglecting their son’s educational and emotional needs. (WorldNetDaily.com January 3, 2003).

These agents substantially increase the heart rate and blood pressure. In a placebo-controlled trial, mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall) administered to adults increased systolic blood pressure by about 5 mm Hg; similar effects were found with methylphenidate formulations. Blood-pressure changes of this magnitude, particularly during long-term therapy, are known to increase morbidity and mortality. (Steven E. Nissen. ADHD Drugs and Cardiovascular Risk. New England Journal of Medicine 2006; 354: 1445-1448).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising health care professionals about a new warning for Strattera, a drug approved for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults and children. The labelling warns that severe liver injury may progress to liver failure resulting in death or the need for a liver transplant in a small percentage of patients. The labelling also notes that the number of actual cases of severe liver injury is unknown because of under-reporting of post-marketing adverse events. (Medical News Today 18/12/2004).

Hallucinations

Stimulants like Ritalin lead a small number of children treated for ADHD to suffer hallucinations that usually feature insects, snakes or worms, according to federal drug officials, and a panel of experts said on Wednesday that physicians and parents needed to be warned of the risk. (The New York Times March 23, 2006).

Current labelling for the ADHD drugs – Adderall, Focalin, Concerta, Metadate, Methylin, Ritalin and Dexedrine – does not mention the possibility of hallucinations in patients who had no history of them and had taken the usual dose. “We read case upon case of these children who do experience these hallucinations,” Rosemary Johann-Liang of the FDA’s Office of Drug Safety told the committee. “That is something that really struck all the reviewers.” (USA Today March 23, 2006).

Dr. Kate Gelperin, an F.D.A. drug-safety specialist, told the committee that the agency had discovered a surprising number of cases in which young children given stimulants suffered hallucinations. Most said that they saw or felt insects, snakes or worms, Dr. Gelperin said. (The New York Times March 23, 2006).

Fully referenced articles regarding ADHD and Magnesium, ADHD and Fish oil and ADHD and Tonsillectomy can be found on my website which is linked to at the bottom of this article

Depression and Brain Damage

A new study conducted in rats by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School suggests that the misdiagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) combined with prescription drug use in children may lead to a higher risk of developing depressive symptoms in adulthood.

These findings are critical because they suggest that Ritalin can have long-term consequences on normal-functioning brains. The study is particularly relevant when considering the difficulty in correctly diagnosing children with ADHD. There is increasing evidence to suggest that correct diagnosis of ADHD is of the highest importance – children who are misidentified as having ADHD and subsequently placed on prescription drug therapy could face possible impaired brain performance as adults. (American College Of Neuropsychopharmacology 29 December 2004).

Dr Joan Baizer and colleagues from the University at Buffalo, State University of New York have found that relatively high doses of the drug methylphenidate, the generic form of Ritalin, changed the expression of a gene involved in brain function in laboratory rats. The same gene is known to be affected in humans by other psychoactive drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine. According to Dr Baizer, the dose used was comparable to the high end of the dose used to treat children with ADD and ADHD, after taking into account differences in metabolism between rats and humans. (Anna Salleh, ABC Science Online 12/11/2001).

Dr Alasdair Vance of Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital said: “Yes, there are studies that show Ritalin is effective, but they only look at single doses, or what happens in the first three to six weeks. The vast majority of children are on it for months to years. The handful of longer-term studies of Ritalin use had only looked at symptoms, not brain physiology?, he cautioned. (Anna Salleh, ABC Science Online 12/11/2001).

The ADHD drug manufacturers have been instructed to produce Patient Medication Guides that tell patients about possible risks of adverse cardiovascular and psychiatric symptoms and the precautions they should take. The new instruction affects 15 products, including various forms of Adderall, Concerta, Daytrana, Dexedrine, Focalin, Metadate, Methylin, Ritalin, and Strattera. The FDA has been criticized for failing to notify the public sooner. (Medical News Today 22 Feb 2007).

Read the rest of this article here:  http://www.nycblink.com/article/adhd-ritalin-brain-damage-heart-attacks-hallucinations-liver-damage

For all international studies/warnings on Ritalin and other psychiatric drugs, visit CCHR’s psychiatric drug side effects database http://www/cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/

« Return to news items


Share

Death of Canadian Teen Under Investigation- Following Unwarranted Forced Antipsychotic Injections

Monday, November 15th, 2010

Note from CCHR:  The use of antipsychotics on juvenile’s in custody as punishment or to control their behavior has recently been highlighted in a report by Youth Today, which found that antipsychotics were prescribed to many incarcerated youths in juvenile facilities in the US. “Fifty years ago, we were tying kids up with leather straps, but now that offends people, so instead we drug them,”  according to Robert Jacobs, a former Florida psychologist and lawyer,  “We cover it up with some justification that there is some medical reason, which there is not,” he said.  The case below, of a young girl in Canada highlights this exact same abuse.

Ashley Smith’s sedations in custody unwarranted: report

CBC NEWS CANADA November 15, 2010

Ashley Smith, 19 at the time, was in solitary confinement and on suicide watch when she strangled herself with a piece of cloth in October 2007 at the Grand Valley Institution for Women, a federal prison in Kitchener, Ont.

Three months earlier, Smith had been at Quebec’s Joliette Institution, and it is her treatment there that is the subject of a January 2010 report by psychiatrist Paul Beaudry.

The report was done at the request of the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator and provides a medical opinion on Smith’s treatment from June 27 to July 26, 2007.

“We saw the use of medication where it was, in our opinion, not clinically warranted,” Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers said. “So, in other words it was medication that was being used to manage her behaviour but not necessarily being used for a therapeutic purpose.”

Sapers ordered the investigation after information in a report by the Correctional Service of Canada on the use of force on Smith during her stay at Joliette contradicted what was shown in videotape recordings of the incidents.

Inquest should look at whole time in custody: lawyer

Julian Falconer, the Smith family’s lawyer, filed Beaudry’s report with a coroner’s court in Toronto on Monday in an effort to expand the scope of an upcoming inquest into Smith’s death.

He argues the inquest should not be limited to the few months Smith spent in Ontario jails but rather look at the entire time she spend in federal custody.

Smith, who first entered the youth criminal justice system at 13 when she was charged with assault and creating a disturbance in a public place, spent the last four years of her life in federal custody. In the last year alone, she was shuttled 17 times among a series of institutions across Canada — including ones in the Maritimes, Ontario and the Prairies.

The Psychiatrist’s Report Read the medical opinion by Dr. Paul Beaudry.

In the report, Beaudry says Smith suffered from an anti-social personality disorder with borderline traits.

On July 22 and 23, 2007, Smith was removed from her cell, placed in restraints and given injections of tranquilizers and anti-psychotic drugs because she had pulled a metal plate off a cell wall and began hurting herself with screws.

The nursing staff found she was agitated and posed a danger to herself and others.

But a review of the recordings of the incidents helped determined there was no medical condition affecting Smith’s capacity to give free and informed consent and her behaviour didn’t pose an imminent danger to herself or others.

“Ms. Smith was therefore placed in restraints and received anti-psychotic and axiolytic medications that were not medically indicated during these events,” Beaudry concluded.

Furthermore, several comments made by the nursing staff on Smith’s state of health do not match the state she presented and raise doubts about the information conveyed by phone to the psychiatrist on call.

“A psychiatrist prescribed medication without ever seeing her,” Falconer said. “Another health professional force administered, through forced injections, chemical restraints on Ashley.”

In Beaudry’s opinion, Smith could have instead been removed from her cell, had her injuries examined, been strip searched and placed in segregation as is often done under such circumstances.

Laws may have been broken

Ashley Smith is shown being restrained in a New Brunswick correctional facility, in footage obtained by CBC's The Fifth Estate. Ashley Smith is shown being restrained in a New Brunswick correctional facility, in footage obtained by CBC’s The Fifth Estate. (CBC)Sapers told the Fifth Estate ‘s Hana Gartner that physical restraints and administration of drugs without the prisoner’s consent have only been used a few times in Canada and that he thinks some laws might have been broken.

“We think it does [violate the law],” he said.

“This is very serious.”

In late September, an Ontario coroner delayed an inquest into Smith’s death from Nov. 1, 2010, until January 2011 and agreed to hear arguments from the family on whether to widen the scope of the probe.

The family wants the inquest to look at why Smith was transferred so many times across Canada and denied adequate mental health care in the final year of her life.

Late last week, a report from a psychologist retained by the Correctional Service of Canada as part of a national board of inquiry into Smith’s death concluded her death was likely an accident, not a suicide.

Smith’s mother, Coralee, said it comes as no news to her that her daughter’s death was probably not a suicide.

“I’ve learned a bunch of horror stories,” she said. “I’ve learned that this just can’t be — this just can’t be what happened, but, you know, you have to face reality.”

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/01/ashley-smith-report.html#ixzz15NBcmJ8H

Read the report from Youth Today on children/adolescents being put on antipsychotics as punishment/behavior control, here http://www.naturalnews.com/030391_juveniles_antipsychotics.html

« Return to news items


Share

Update of Swedish Study Upholds Concern for Antidepressant Induced Birth Defects

Sunday, November 14th, 2010

LawyersandSettlements, November 13, 2010

by Gordon Gibb

Swedish research on maternal use of antidepressants in pregnancy continues to bolster existing concerns about SSRI birth defects, according to a recent issue of Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week (OFWW). “Concerns have been expressed about possible adverse effects of the use of antidepressant medication during pregnancy, including risk for neonatal pathology and the presence of congenital malformations,” according to the authors of the study.

Update of Swedish Study Upholds Concern for SSRI Birth Defects

According to the September 18th issue of OFWW, the researchers used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register from July 1995 through 2007. Women who reported the use of antidepressants in early pregnancy, or were prescribed antidepressants during pregnancy by antenatal care, were identified for the study.

The end number for study purposes was 14,821 women with 15,017 infants.

“Maternal characteristics, maternal delivery diagnoses, infant neonatal diagnoses and the presence of congenital malformations were compared with all other women who gave birth, using the Mantel-Haenszel technique and with adjustments for certain characteristics,” the authors noted.

“There was an association between antidepressant treatment and pre-existing diabetes and chronic hypertension, but also with many pregnancy complications. Rates of induced delivery and caesarean section were increased.”

The study authors noted that neonatal complications were common, especially with regard to the use of tricyclic (TCA) antidepressant use. “An increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) was verified. The congenital malformation rate was increased after TCAs,” wrote M. Reis and colleagues.

The conclusion?

“Use of TCAs was found to carry a higher risk than other antidepressants, and paroxetine (Aropax, Paxil, Seroxat) seems to be associated with a specific teratogenic property.”

Paxil, one of the antidepressants mentioned, is a drug belonging to the SSRI class (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and includes a host of SSRI side effects. One of the most grievous adverse reactions is PPHN, or persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. The latter is considered a serious birth defect.

M. Reis is affiliated with the National Board of Forensic Medicine, Department of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Toxicology, Linkoping, Sweden. The study authored by Reis and colleagues updates a previous study and was published in the Journal of Psychological Medicine, published out of New York.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/15389/ssri-birth-defects-side-effects-pphn-swedish.html

« Return to news items


Share

Pharmaceutical Scandal in Britain Sheds Disturbing New Light on Benzodiazepines

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

Psychology Today, November 12, 2010

by Christopher Lane, Ph.D.

Touted as the world’s first wonder drug, benzodiazepines—”benzos” for short—were widely prescribed in the 1960s for anxiety and stress. Within a decade they had become the most commonly used treatment for such conditions in the States and Britain. Use of benzos such as Valium, Mogadon, and Librium in both countries was widespread. Today, the same class of drugs—including Klonopin, Xanax, and Ativan—is still frequently prescribed for anxiety and panic. Widely known to be addictive and to cause a range of serious side effects, benzos became less popular in the 1980s and 1990s owing largely to the rise of SSRI antidepressants, which were widely considered to be safer and nonaddictive. A combined search for benzos and “adverse effects” on PubMed yields a staggering 15,157 hits, ranging from sleep disorders and increased violence among patients to discontinuation problems and dependency issues that bear all the hallmarks of a serious addiction.

With such widespread, well-publicized medical knowledge about this class of drugs, you might think doctors and psychiatrists would now shun them as excessively risky. But the drugs are still commonly prescribed for generalized anxiety and panic attacks. Healthy Place, which calls itself “America’s Mental Health Channel,” is far from alone in stating: “You can take benzodiazepines as a single dose therapy or several times a day for months (or even years). Studies suggest that they are effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety in approximately 70-80% of patients. They are quick acting. Tolerance does not develop in the anti-panic or other therapeutic effects. Generics are available for many, which helps reduce cost. Overdose is not dangerous.”

A new report on the drugs by Britain’s Independent is likely to dispel such thinking. According to the national newspaper, “the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Britain agreed in 1982 that there should be large-scale studies to examine the long-term impact of benzodiazepines after research by a leading psychiatrist showed brain shrinkage in some patients similar to the effects of long-term alcohol abuse.”

The Medical Research Council, founded in 1913,  is the agency in Britain responsible for co-ordinating and funding the nation’s medical research.

The only problem with the MRC’s response to such warnings about benzos? It appears to have sat for thirty years on the very documents that warned about the risks of brain shrinkage in patients taking them. Moreover, the MRC appears to have marked the documents “closed until 2014,” despite their obvious importance to public health, given the millions of Britons and North Americans who’ve been prescribed such drugs.

According to Nina Lakhani at The Independent, who has seen the documents, “no such [investigative] work was ever carried out [by the MRC] into the effects of drugs such as Valium, Mogadon and Librium—and doctors went on prescribing them to patients for anxiety, stress, insomnia and muscle spasms.”

“Members of Parliament and lawyers,” she continues,  “described the [recently revealed] documents as a scandal, and predicted they could lead the way to a class action costing millions. There are an estimated 1.5 million ‘involuntary addicts’ in the UK, and scores display symptoms consistent with brain damage.”

The chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, Jim Dobbin, is quoting as telling the same newspaper last week: “Many victims have lasting physical, cognitive and psychological problems even after they have withdrawn. We are seeking legal advice because we believe these documents are the bombshell they have been waiting for. The MRC must justify why there was no proper follow-up to Professor Lader’s research, no safety committee, no study, nothing to further explore the results. We are talking about a huge scandal here.”

Catherine Hopkins, the legal director of Action against Medical Accidents, is quoted as adding: “The failure to carry out research into the effect of benzodiazepines has exposed huge numbers of people to the risk of brain damage. This research urgently needs to be carried out, and if the results confirm the suspicions of the 1981 expert group, it could lead to one of the biggest group actions for damages against the Government and the MRC ever seen in the courts.”

One possible reason why the MRC sat on this story for thirty years? The regulatory agency in Britain that oversees the safety of medicines, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, is funded entirely by the drug companies it is meant to oversee. A 2005 parliamentary report in Britain spells that out with remarkable precision in paragraph 98 of its Fourth Report to the House of Commons:

“The MHRA is unusual in being one of few European agencies where the operation of the medicines regulatory system is funded entirely by fees derived from services to industry (drug regulatory agencies in other countries are more often only partly funded by licence fees). The MHRA’s activities are 60% funded through licensing fees paid by those seeking marketing approvals and 40% through an annual service fee, also paid by the industry.”

That oddly revealed fact in a parliamentary report makes the MRC’s three-decade-long inaction over the health risks of benzos a fair bit easier to explain.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201011/pharmaceutical-scandal-in-britain-sheds-disturbing-new-light-benzodiazepine

« Return to news items


Share

ADHD’s Rapid Rise: 5 Theories [And One Answer]

Friday, November 12th, 2010
by CCHR
THE WEEK posted a pretty good article called “ADHD’s Rapid Rise: 5 Theories”—   pretty good because though several of their theories may play some part  in why so many kids are diagnosed ADHD,  they never quite nail the answer.  So we did.
Adding to their 5 points of various theories,  we present you with point number 6: The actual answer:

Psychiatrists got together and decided to pathologize normal childhood behavior into a mental disorder and call it ADHD.  They created a checklist of behaviors, took a vote on it, and voilà! A whole new client base was born – kids. With the help of billions in Pharma funds spent on shrinks to promote ADHD in journals, on TV and in press, glossy ads in magazines, slick lobbyists to “educate” members of Congress about it,  and the creation of Pharma front groups such as Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD) to infiltrate schools endorsing the so-called disease —an epidemic of “mentally ill” children was born.    And that’s the real reason for the “rapid rise” in kids diagnosed ADHD and put on drugs.  Drugs the U.S.  Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) categorizes in the same class of highly addictive substances as cocaine and morphine—drugs such as Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta — documented by the US FDA to cause hallucinations, mania, heart attack, stroke, sudden death to name but a few.    And it all starts with one simple thing: The Diagnosis. (We challenge anyone to find a kid that would not fit some, if not all of psychiatry’s criteria for a “mentally ill” child they call ADHD.
Psychiatry’s exact list of “ADHD” criteria (and it does not require all of them to result in an ADHD label):

  • Fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities.
  • Has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play.
  • Does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
  • Does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions).
  • Has difficulty organizing tasks and activities.
  • Avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or homework).
  • Loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools).
  • Easily distracted by extraneous stimuli.
  • Forgetful in daily activities.
  • Fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.
  • Leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected.
  • Runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness).
  • Has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly.
  • Appears “on the go” or acts as if “driven by a motor.”
  • Talks excessively.

And there you have it.  The Answer:  Psychiatry plus Big Pharma plus Billions in Marketing = Epidemic of “ADHD” Kids.

THE WEEK

One in 10 U.S. kids has been diagnosed with ADHD, a significant increase. Are “hypochondriac” parents jumping to conclusions — or are other factors at play?

Best Opinion: NPR, Strollerderby, ParentDish…

Almost 10 percent of U.S. kids have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), according to a survey of parents conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s a shocking 22 percent jump over 2003 figures — representing an additional 1 million children — and the increase was seen in all races, income levels, and areas of the U.S., with the exception of the West. What’s behind the rise? Here are 5 theories:

1. Doctors are doing a better job of diagnosing ADHD
Improvements in screening programs and greater awareness of the disorder among parents and doctors have helped identify more cases, says CDC epidemiologist Susanna Visser,  , the report’s lead author. “We have become much more sensitive to behavioral differences,” agrees Dr. Jeffrey Brosco,  an ADHD expert at the University of Miami. But that doesn’t mean doctors can say “whether kids in the 1970s are really different from kids in the ’90s or the 2000s.”

2. Demographics
The increases were more significant in certain demographic groups, note Scott Hensley at NPR. “The biggest jumps were seen in children between 15 and 17 and among Hispanic or multiracial children.” The jump in Hispanic ADHD cases likely reflects “greater cultural acceptance of the disorder.” Mysteriously, increases were particularly significant in 12 states, says Ray Hainer at CNN. North Carolina, for example saw a 63 percent spike in cases, with 15.6 percent of its kids diagnosed with ADHD.

3. Big Pharma is pushing the cure
Of the 5.4 million kids diagnosed with ADHD, the CDC reports, 2.7 million are taking medication for the condition. You have to question “the role of pharmacological companies in all of this,” says University of Kentucky psychiatrist John D. Ranseen. “It is very much in their interest to increase the diagnosis and treatment of this condition.” That alone should “give the mental health field pause.”

4. Blame our lousy diet
Nobody really knows what causes ADHD, says David Knowles in AOL News, but “one recent study suggested a correlation with a diet high in processed and fried foods.” Intriguingly, new research also ties ADHD to obesity in adulthood, says Healther Turgeon in Strollerderby. There’s no proof — yet — that one causes the other, but “the two are correlated.”

5. The real spike is in “paranoid” parents
“Are kids really that messed up?” asks Tom Henderson in ParentDish. “Or are parents becoming a bunch of second-party psychological hypochondriacs?” Remember, these million extra ADHD cases are “parent-reported diagnoses,” and today’s parents have been known to be “all too eager to control normal childhood restlessness and general weirdness by bombing kids with Ritalin.” Because, after all, “children often have the attention spans of, uh, children.”

http://theweek.com/article/index/209282/adhds-rapid-rise-5-theories

« Return to news items


Share