Archive for December, 2010

American Psychiatric Association’s Interests in Conflict

Friday, December 31st, 2010

CounterPunch New Year’s Edition
December 31, 2010 – January 2, 2011

by Martha Rosenberg

At the annual American Psychiatric Association meeting in New Orleans this summer, 200 protestors chanted “no conflicts of interest” and held up photos of individual doctors outside the convention center. Inside the hall, their charges were verified.

The meeting’s Daily Bulletin disclosed that the APA president himself, Alan Schatzberg, has 15 links to drug companies including stock ownership and serving on a speakers bureau.

Doctors on other speaker bureaus like Shire’s Ann Childress and Wyeth’s Claudio Soares gave presentations and workshops that — surprise! — extolled company drugs.

And signing books, side by side, was the duo now accused of penning an entire book for the drug industry: Alan Schatzberg and Charles Nemeroff.

This month ProPublica and the New York Times report that Schatzberg and Nemeroff’s book, Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Pharmacology Handbook for Primary Care, may be the first entirely drug industry-approved textbook ever. Published in 1999, the book’s preface says it was funded by an unrestricted education grant to Scientific Therapeutics Information through London-based GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Scientific Therapeutics Information of Springfield, NJ is the same medical publishing company that spun Vioxx.

Schatzberg was investigated by the Senate in 2008 which found “a lack of consistency” between what he earned from drug companies and what he reported to Stanford where he continues to head the psychiatry department. He owns $6 million of stock in a company he co-founded, Corcept Therapeutics, which sought FDA approval for a psychiatric drug despite Schatzberg’s APA position.

Nemeroff, for his part, left Emory University in disgrace after a 2008 Congressional investigation unearthed $1.2 million in drug industry income, his $9 million NIH grant was terminated (a rare occurrence) and he was banned from further NIH grants for two years. But he resurfaced as head of the psychiatry department at the University of Miami in 2009 after the medical school dean, Pascal Goldschmidt, was assured by crony Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), that Nemeroff could still draw NIH money, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. It was payback for when Nemeroff got Insel a job, say observers. Nemeroff still sits on NIH scientific panels reviewing others’ grant applications, ensuring further cronyism.

Ghostwriting, of course, solves the “Company-Says-Company’s-Product-Is-Great” problem and increases the chance of a paper’s publication in a journal. It helps “authors”‘ careers and may even spur their individual prescribing habits since studies show doctors prescribe more of a drug they are paid to promote.

But the consumer version, unbranded advertising, is also effective: radio and TV commercials posing as public service announcements that push “awareness” of diseases like ADHD, Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) or Excessive Sleepiness (ES) and drive worriers to sites where they can self-diagnose with simple quizzes.

Meanwhile, the consumer version of bought doctors is “Astroturf” or patient front groups like the “grassroots” National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), investigated by Congress for drug industry links. These bought patients flash mob the FDA with sob stories when an expensive drug is up for approval and lobby Medicaid to not substitute less expensive drugs, inflating entitlement program and insurance premium costs for industry’s benefit.

In the war against drug industry duplicity, company employees are increasingly reporting misdeeds thanks to provisions that entitle whistleblowers to 15 and even 30 percent of fraud settlement sums, in some cases. And last month the Justice Department filed the first criminal, not civil, charges against a the drug industry operative, Lauren Stevens, a former VP and assistant general counsel at GlaxoSmithKline. But as long as politicians like former Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin, who headed the industry trade group PhRMA, and former CDC director Julie Gerberding, now head of Merck vaccines, are willing to parlay a career’s worth of knowledge and relationships to sell product, the government is essentially fighting itself.

Read the article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/rosenberg12312010.html

For more information on the APA/Conflicts of Interest see:

CCHR: American Psychiatric Association Called Upon to Cut Drug Company Ties and Put Lives of Children Before Profits http://www.cchrint.org/2010/05/21/apa-leaders-called-upon-to-cut-drug-company-ties-and-put-the-lives-of-children-ahead-of-personal-profits/

CCHR: DSM Panel Members Still Getting Pharma Funds http://www.cchrint.org/2010/05/21/dsm-panel-members-still-getting-pharma-funds/

« Return to news items


Share

What’s A Mental Disorder? Even Experts Can’t Agree

Thursday, December 30th, 2010
The definitions for some mental illnesses may change.

Mark Strozier/iStockphoto.com

NPR— December 29, 2010

by Alix Spiegel

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM, updated roughly every 15 years, has detailed descriptions of all the mental disorders officially recognized by psychiatry. It’s used by psychiatrists, insurance companies, drug researchers, the courts and even schools.

But it’s not without controversy: The proposed changes suggested this year have sparked a kind of civil war within psychiatry.

In a small condo on the beach in San Diego lives Allen Frances, who blames himself for what he calls the “Epidemic of Asperger’s.” Frances edited the last edition of the DSM, and he’s also the new DSM’s most prominent critic. Frances is the one who put the word Asperger’s in the DSM in the first place, thereby making it an official mental disorder.

In the editions before Frances was editor, there was an entry for autism, but it was defined by severe symptoms. Frances says doctors felt the diagnosis for autism didn’t cover a more mild disorder they were actually encountering.

“Pediatricians and child psychiatrists would see kids who could talk but who had social discomfort — severe social discomfort — and awkwardness and a very restricted and impairing level of interests and activities, and they wanted a diagnosis for this,” Frances says.

A study was done to figure out how common Asperger’s was, and the results were clear: It was vanishingly rare. Then Frances put it in the DSM, and the number of kids diagnosed with the disorder exploded. Frances remembers sitting in his condo reading articles about this new epidemic of Asperger’s that was sweeping the nation.

“At that point I did an ‘oops,’ ” he says. “This is a complete misunderstanding. It was distressing. Quite distressing.”

Ellen Webber/NPR

Surprising Incentives

It’s not that Frances doesn’t think that Asperger’s exists and is a real problem for some people; he does. But he also believes the diagnosis is now radically overused in a way that he and his colleagues never intended. And why, in his view, did Asperger’s explode? Primarily, Frances says, because schools created a strange unintentional incentive.

“In order to get specialized services, often one-to-one education, a child must have a diagnosis of Asperger’s or some other autistic disorder,” he says.

“And so kids who previously might have been considered on the boundary, eccentric, socially shy, but bright and doing well in school would mainstream [into] regular classes,” Frances says. “Now if they get the diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder, [they] get into a special program where they may get $50,000 a year worth of educational services.”

Disturbing Consequences

Frances worried this might cause a misallocation of school resources. And Frances points to another change he made — which, for him, has had even more disturbing consequences. Essentially, Frances and his colleagues made it much easier to get a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. And he says that created this incredible opportunity for drug companies.

“Drug companies got indications for treating bipolar disorder,” Frances says. “Not just with mood stabilizers, but also with the newer antipsychotic drugs. And they began very intensive ubiquitous advertising campaigns. So the rates of bipolar disorder doubled. And lots of people got way too much antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medicines. And these aren’t safe drugs.”

And for Frances, the lesson of these experiences is clear. Once you put a new diagnosis in the DSM, there is no controlling what will happen to it. So there’s only one thing to do:

“Anticipate the worst. If something can be misused, it will be misused,” Frances says. “If diagnosis can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, that will happen. So you need to be very, very cautious in making changes that may open the door for a flood of fad diagnoses.”

As far as Frances is concerned, the new DSM is proposing too many diagnoses that are written in too broad a way, meaning that ultimately a huge number of new people will be categorized as mentally ill.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/29/132407384/whats-a-mental-disorder-even-experts-cant-agree

To read statements from other psychiatrists/psychologists on the lack of science to support mental disorders as legitimate “illnesses” click here:
http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/psychiatrists-on-lack-of-any-medical-or-scientific-tests/

« Return to news items


Share

Drug-Company Tweeting: Still Awaiting FDA Rules

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

Note from CCHR:  Let’s  see if we’ve got this straight…..last year, Pfizer paid $1.2 billion for illegal off-label promotion -the largest criminal fine in U.S.history. The company also paid $2.3 billion to settle claims that it had marketed numerous drugs for unapproved purposes.  Other corporate violators included GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, TAP Pharmaceutical, Merck, Serono, Purdue, Allergan, Novartis, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, Forest Laboratories, Sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Mylan, Teva and King Pharmaceuticals.  Criminal or civil illegalities included  (1) overcharging government health programs, (2) unlawful promotion, (3) monopoly practices, (4) kickbacks, (5) concealing study findings, (6) poor manufacturing practices, (7) environmental violations, (8) financial violations and (9) illegal distribution. And after all that, the FDA is going to allow Big Pharma to launch into social media?   Seriously?  The article below claims the FDA monitors drug ads –for accuracy.  No they don’t.  The FDA doesn’t bother verifying the ads big Pharma inundates us with on TV & in print, to ensure these ads are not fraudulent or misleading even though its the FDA’s job to do this, and now they’re going to let Big Pharma loose on social media?   Sounds to us  like once again,  the FDA has Big Pharma’s back instead of the general public’s.

TIME Magazine  – December 28, 2010

Tweets are supposed to be quick and to the point, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is neither in its ever lengthening quest to tell the world’s drugmakers how they can promote their potions via Twitter, Facebook and other social media. More than a year ago, after criticizing 14 pharmaceutical companies for posting misleading messages on such sites, the FDA held hearings on the topic and declared it would issue rules by the end of 2010. Now it’s delaying them until sometime early next year, perhaps later.

For more than a decade, the FDA has regulated how drug companies sell their products in newspapers, magazines, television and radio. But as the rest of the business world jumps into booming social-media marketing, there are no rules yet for medicine merchants. The pharmaceutical industry had hoped the FDA would stick to its pledge and issue guidelines this year. Earlier this month, in fact, agency officials said that was still the plan. But last week, the FDA office responsible for drafting the new regs said, without elaboration, that it is going to wait at least until the first quarter of 2011 before issuing them. (See TIME’s best pictures of 2010.)

The companies wish the agency would act. “Without guidance, our activities are limited in a manner that we believe is not in the best interests of informed health care decision making,” the drugmaker AstraZeneca has told the FDA. “In our absence, consumers will turn to information sources that are not regulated and not always well informed.” Not everyone agrees the companies have such altruistic aims. The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), a consumer group based in Washington, D.C., that is focused on marketing and public-health issues, has told the FDA to take as much time as it needs. The agency, says Jeff Chester, CDD’s executive director, “needs to take a deep breath, and shouldn’t open the floodgates and allow pharmaceutical companies to purposely mislead consumers.” (See how drug companies are taking their pitch to social media.)

Despite such qualms, there’s reason to be concerned by the foot-dragging. About 60% of U.S. adults get health information online, often for a partner or child. We’re what experts call “e-patients,” who regularly march into doctors’ offices demanding prescriptions for what ails us. Many of us pore over the Internet, seeking ways to get better, and often surrender personal information to get it. The drug industry surely recognizes the value of such online contact, and is steadily increasing the share of its $4 billion annual marketing budget dedicated to online offerings.

Yet tough questions need to be answered before Big Pharma starts tweeting about our tummy aches. How can drug companies safely sell their products — which often require pages of fine print or speed-talking announcers — in a 140-character tweet? If a drug’s risks and benefits are wrongly cited in a Wikipedia entry, is the company responsible for correcting it? Does that then become advertising regulated by the FDA? Does the drug industry’s proposal to include a symbol, inside a tweet, that links consumers to more detailed information make sense? (Comment on this story.)

It’s enough to give you a headache. In which case, you may want to take two tweetless aspirin, along with a dollop of patience, while awaiting the FDA’s rules.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2039794,00.html#ixzz19WlEIgcZ

« Return to news items


Share

Electroconvulsive Therapy: Will The FDA Whitewash It?

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

The Huffington Post—December 28 , 2010

by Dr. Peter Breggin

For decades the FDA has allowed electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to be used without requiring any proof of safety or efficacy. The machines and the treatment has been “grandfathered” into use rather than tested. A few years ago the FDA proposed to test the treatment but heavy pressure from the American Psychiatric Association caused the agency to reverse itself. ECT remains untested and widely used. Imagine that — the American Psychiatric Association doesn’t want an obviously dangerous treatment to be tested at all.  It just wants psychiatrists left alone to inflict it upon hapless patients.

Now the FDA is reconsidering whether to officially approve ECT without testing and it seems inclined to do so. Given the strength and influence of the American Psychiatric Association, we can anticipate results that will whitewash the dangers and allow the continued use of ECT unhampered by scientific testing. The hearings are scheduled for January 27 and 28, 2011. Anyone can attend and I encourage all interested citizens to get involved by contacting the FDA and asking for time to make a brief presentation.

I have written to the FDA explaining that the treatment has so little efficacy and is so obviously damaging — it routinely produces an acute state of delirium and confusion with severe memory loss — that it should be banned. That document has now been published in two scientific journals. It supplements my chapter on ECT in Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatric: Drugs, ECT and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex, Second Edition (2008).

As I noted in my scientific article and my 2008 book, and in a previous blog, Sackeim and colleagues from the heart of the psychiatric establishment once again confirmed that ECT routinely produces long-term dementia in the form of multiple memory loss in combination with other persistent cognitive deficits. Now a new scientific analysis has confirmed all the bad news about ECT.

The recent review of the scientific literature by John Read (New Zealand) and Richard Bentall (Great Britain) found that ECT treatments show only the most minimal evidence for improvement during the treatment and no evidence for improvement afterward. As my own research confirms, they found no evidence that ECT reduces the suicide rate.

Read and Bentall summarized “strong evidence” for “persistent and, for some, permanent brain dysfunction.” They concluded that “the cost-benefit analysis for ECT is so poor that its use cannot be scientifically justified.” They further stated, “The continued use of ECT therefore represents a failure to introduce the ideals of evidence-based medicine into psychiatry.”

The sad truth is that psychiatry has always promoted brain-damaging treatments, including lobotomy, electroshock and toxic chemical substances. In the 1970s I conducted an intensive international campaign to stop the resurgence of lobotomy and others forms of psychosurgery, and if my campaign had not been successful, lobotomy would have once again become widely accepted within contemporary psychiatry. Using media citations and other sources, that campaign and its success is documented in The Conscience of Psychiatry: The Reform Work of Peter R. Breggin, MD.

Because ECT advocates have successfully lobbied against the states collecting data on ECT use, we can only speculate about the numbers of patients subjected to this treatment. Probably it is at least in the range of 150,000 to 200,000 per year. Most large cities have several facilities doing ECT including private psychiatric hospitals and university hospitals and general hospitals with psychiatric wards.

Elderly women on Medicare are the most frequent victims of this anachronistic abuse, but anyone who gets depressed and overwhelmed with feelings of helplessness can become vulnerable. It’s not your mental condition as much as your doctor’s moral condition that determines whether you get pushed into taking ECT. Recently I’ve encountered three relatively young physicians whose professional lives were ruined by ECT-induced mental dysfunction.

It’s time for public outrage and it’s time for the FDA to close the door on this abusive “treatment.”

Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the author of dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books. His two most recent books are Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime and Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition: Drugs, Electroshock and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex. Dr. Breggin and his wife Ginger have founded a new organization, The Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, Education and Living (empathictherapy.org). It will hold an international conference in Syracuse, New York, April 8-10, 2011. It’s time to sign up!

The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour appears weekly on the Progressive Radio Network where it is archived for convenient listening. Dr. Breggin’s professional website is www.breggin.com.

« Return to news items


Share

Drug Industry Fraud—The Whistle Has Been Blown, But Where’s the Enforcement?

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

Counter Punch, December 28, 2010

by Ralph Nadar

The corporate defrauding of taxpayers (eg. Medicaid and Medicare) and prescription drugs with skyrocketing prices was the subject of a report by Public Citizen’s Dr. Sidney Wolfe and his associates (see citizen.org).

Dr. Wolfe’s team compiled a total of 165 federal and state settlements since 1991 totaling $19.8 billion in penalties. A key finding is that the drug industry’s penalties under the Federal False Claims Act exceed even those assessed against the overcharging defense industry for fraud.

Before we become overly impressed with the cumulative amount of the penalties, specialists in corporate crime law enforcement believe that adding more federal cops on the corporate crime beat, backed by a determined law and order Justice Department with White House backing, would have greatly increased the number of cases and imposition of penalties on these drug industry giants.

Nonetheless, Dr. Wolfe’s study shows that the pace of penalties has picked up over the past five years. This is due to “a combination of increased violations by companies and increased law enforcement on the part of federal and state governments,” says the report.

Many of these cases were initiated by company whistleblowers, who under the False Claims Act can receive a share of the settlements. Since the corporate bosses of these drug firms are almost never prosecuted, what these executives fear the most are company employees who go public with the evidence of corporate misdeeds.

These violations do more than financial damage to consumers and government health insurance programs. One of the worst violations involves companies promoting unproven, often dangerous uses for their medicines. Last year, Pfizer paid $1.2 billion for illegal off-label promotion -the largest criminal fine in U.S.history. Other major corporate violators were GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, TAP Pharmaceutical, Merck, Serono, Purdue, Allergan, Novartis, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, Forest Laboratories, Sanofi-aventis, Bayer, Mylan, Teva and King Pharmaceuticals.

The violations by these and other drug companies point to the wide range of impacts, including taking many lives of patients, which stems from these recurrent activities. These criminal or civil illegalities cover (1) overcharging government health programs, (2) unlawful promotion, (3) monopoly practices, (4) kickbacks, (5) concealing study findings, (6) poor manufacturing practices, (7) environmental violations, (8) financial violations and (9) illegal distribution.

Outside the purview of the Public Citizen study are the ravages of counterfeit drugs and poorly inspected ingredients in drugs, now mostly coming from China and India, due to the outsourcing by U.S. and European drug companies in their thirst for even greater profits.

Drug company sales are huge, growing from $40 billion in 1990 to $234 billion in 2008, and far exceeding inflation with their annual price gouging. To make matters worse, in 2003, the Congressional Republicans, with decisive support from some Democrats, passed the drug benefit bill which explicitly prohibited Uncle Sam, the payer, from bargaining for volume discounts with drug companies.

With over 400 full-time drug company lobbyists putting pressure on Congress, and tens of millions of dollars flowing into the legislators’ campaign coffers, budgets for federal investigators, prosecutors and inspectors are kept to a minimum. Unfortunately, crime in the suites pays over and over again, despite occasional penalties.

A bright spot is the increasing enforcement action at the state level.

By last year, 32 states had enacted false claims acts, including fourteen states that qualified as strong laws by federal standards.

Still, the Wolfe report concludes that the “current system of enforcement is not working.” He gives the examples of the $7.44 billion in financial penalties assessed over the past twenty years on GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, as compared to their combined total of $16.5 billion in global net profits in one year alone.

What would deter these illegal practices and risks to public safety? Dr. Wolfe says “the lack of criminal prosecution that would result in jailing of company executives.” is key. Moreover, the report notes that “a felony conviction could result in their companies becoming ineligible for reimbursement from federal and state health programs, a critical source of pharmaceutical company revenues.”

A flicker of hope that a little change is on the way came from the Food and Drug Administration’s Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, Eric Blumberg. He indicated that the government is considering going after drug company executives for violations such as off-label promotions. He stated: “.unless the government shows more resolve to criminally charge individuals-at all levels in the corporate hierarchy–.we can not expect to make progress in deterring off-label promotion.”

The problem is that the final operating decision is in the hands of the Justice Department-historically short-staffed and short-willed to entreaties for prosecution by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

Furthermore, for over 30 years, the Justice Department has stone-walled requests that it start a corporate crime database as it has done with street crimes. Congress likes it this way, as it continues to cash corporate campaign checks.

Just last week, however, outgoing Judiciary Committee Chairman, Democrat John Conyers introduced a bill (H.R. 6545) to create such a corporate crime data base in the Justice Department. Well, as the saying goes, everything starts with a gesture!

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader12282010.html

Ralph Nader is the author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, a novel.

« Return to news items


Share

DSM: The Book of Woe—Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness

Monday, December 27th, 2010

Wired—December 27, 2010

by Gary Greenberg

Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.

But he recovers quickly, and back in the living room he finishes explaining why he came out of a seemingly contented retirement to launch a bitter and protracted battle with the people, some of them friends, who are creating the next edition of the DSM. And to criticize them not just once, and not in professional mumbo jumbo that would keep the fight inside the professional family, but repeatedly and in plain English, in newspapers and magazines and blogs. And to accuse his colleagues not just of bad science but of bad faith, hubris, and blindness, of making diseases out of everyday suffering and, as a result, padding the bottom lines of drug companies. These aren’t new accusations to level at psychiatry, but Frances used to be their target, not their source. He’s hurling grenades into the bunker where he spent his entire career.

One influential advocate for diagnosing bipolar disorder in kids failed to disclose money he received from the makers of the bipolar drug Risperdal.

As a practicing psychotherapist myself, I can attest that this is a startling turn. But when Frances tries to explain it, he resists the kinds of reasons that mental health professionals usually give each other, the ones about character traits or personality quirks formed in childhood. He says he doesn’t want to give ammunition to his enemies, who have already shown their willingness to “shoot the messenger.” It’s not an unfounded concern. In its first official response to Frances, the APA diagnosed him with “pride of authorship” and pointed out that his royalty payments would end once the new edition was published—a fact that “should be considered when evaluating his critique and its timing.”

Frances, who claims he doesn’t care about the royalties (which amount, he says, to just 10 grand a year), also claims not to mind if the APA cites his faults. He just wishes they’d go after the right ones—the serious errors in the DSM-IV. “We made mistakes that had terrible consequences,” he says. Diagnoses of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and bipolar disorder skyrocketed, and Frances thinks his manual inadvertently facilitated these epidemics—and, in the bargain, fostered an increasing tendency to chalk up life’s difficulties to mental illness and then treat them with psychiatric drugs.

The insurgency against the DSM-5 (the APA has decided to shed the Roman numerals) has now spread far beyond just Allen Frances. Psychiatrists at the top of their specialties, clinicians at prominent hospitals, and even some contributors to the new edition have expressed deep reservations about it. Dissidents complain that the revision process is in disarray and that the preliminary results, made public for the first time in February 2010, are filled with potential clinical and public relations nightmares. Although most of the dissenters are squeamish about making their concerns public—especially because of a surprisingly restrictive nondisclosure agreement that all insiders were required to sign—they are becoming increasingly restive, and some are beginning to agree with Frances that public pressure may be the only way to derail a train that he fears will “take psychiatry off a cliff.”

At stake in the fight between Frances and the APA is more than professional turf, more than careers and reputations, more than the $6.5 million in sales that the DSM averages each year. The book is the basis of psychiatrists’ authority to pronounce upon our mental health, to command health care dollars from insurance companies for treatment and from government agencies for research. It is as important to psychiatrists as the Constitution is to the US government or the Bible is to Christians. Outside the profession, too, the DSM rules, serving as the authoritative text for psychologists, social workers, and other mental health workers; it is invoked by lawyers in arguing over the culpability of criminal defendants and by parents seeking school services for their children. If, as Frances warns, the new volume is an “absolute disaster,” it could cause a seismic shift in the way mental health care is practiced in this country. It could cause the APA to lose its franchise on our psychic suffering, the naming rights to our pain.

This is hardly the first time that defining mental illness has led to rancor within the profession. It happened in 1993, when feminists denounced Frances for considering the inclusion of “late luteal phase dysphoric disorder” (formerly known as premenstrual syndrome) as a possible diagnosis for DSM-IV. It happened in 1980, when psychoanalysts objected to the removal of the word neurosis—their bread and butter—from the DSM-III. It happened in 1973, when gay psychiatrists, after years of loud protest, finally forced a reluctant APA to acknowledge that homosexuality was not and never had been an illness. Indeed, it’s been happening since at least 1922, when two prominent psychiatrists warned that a planned change to the nomenclature would be tantamount to declaring that “the whole world is, or has been, insane.”

Some of this disputatiousness is the hazard of any professional specialty. But when psychiatrists say, as they have during each of these fights, that the success or failure of their efforts could sink the whole profession, they aren’t just scoring rhetorical points. The authority of any doctor depends on their ability to name a patient’s suffering. For patients to accept a diagnosis, they must believe that doctors know—in the same way that physicists know about gravity or biologists about mitosis—that their disease exists and that they have it. But this kind of certainty has eluded psychiatry, and every fight over nomenclature threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the profession by revealing its dirty secret: that for all their confident pronouncements, psychiatrists can’t rigorously differentiate illness from everyday suffering. This is why, as one psychiatrist wrote after the APA voted homosexuality out of the DSM, “there is a terrible sense of shame among psychiatrists, always wanting to show that our diagnoses are as good as the scientific ones used in real medicine.”

If bad tests are sanctioned in the DSM, insurance companies might use them to cut off coverage for patients deemed not sick enough. It could be a disaster.

Since 1980, when the DSM-III was published, psychiatrists have tried to solve this problem by using what is called descriptive diagnosis: a checklist approach, whereby illnesses are defined wholly by the symptoms patients present. The main virtue of descriptive psychiatry is that it doesn’t rely on unprovable notions about the nature and causes of mental illness, as the Freudian theories behind all those “neuroses” had done. Two doctors who observe a patient carefully and consult the DSM’s criteria lists usually won’t disagree on the diagnosis—something that was embarrassingly common before 1980. But descriptive psychiatry also has a major problem: Its diagnoses are nothing more than groupings of symptoms. If, during a two-week period, you have five of the nine symptoms of depression listed in the DSM, then you have “major depression,” no matter your circumstances or your own perception of your troubles. “No one should be proud that we have a descriptive system,” Frances tells me. “The fact that we do only reveals our limitations.” Instead of curing the profession’s own malady, descriptive psychiatry has just covered it up.

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/all/1

« Return to news items


Share

Campaign to “Stop the Stigma” of Mental Illness—Is a Pharmaceutical Marketing Campaign

Monday, December 20th, 2010

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, (CCHR) has launched a new video to expose the hypocracy of the pharmaceutically driven campaign to “Stop the Stigma” of mental illness.    With its seemingly altruistic sounding agenda to eliminate “stigma”  the fact is the real  “stigmatization” is coming from those behind this campaign—pharma, psychiatry and pharma-funded front groups such as  NAMI and CHADD to name but a few.    There are currently 20 million kids & adolescents labeled with mental “disorders” that are based solely on a checklist of behaviors, no brain scans, x-rays, genetic or blood tests can prove they are “mentally ill”,  yet they are being stigmatized with psychiatric labels, which will be part of their permanent medical record,  and prescribed dangerous, life-threatening psychiatric drugs.

Child drugging is a $4.8 billion-a-year industry, and the industry knows where to put its funding to get the most bang for its buck.    For example, take NAMI’s campaign to stop the “stigma” and “end discrimination” against the mentally ill—the “Founding Sponsors” were Abbott Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (For an in-depth look at what else Pharma funds and how this funding not only helps set mental health policies but campaigns such as this, read Pharmaceutical Industry Agenda Setting in Mental Health Policies at the bottom of this post)

The real stigmatization is coming from those that benefit from labeling behaviors as diseases to be “cured” or “treated” despite the complete lack of  medical/biological evidence to support them.  George Orwell coined the term Doublespeak, meaning words redefined to mislead, distort and disguise, and no better example exists than psychiatry’s pathologizing and redefining behaviors into mental “illness”.      For example,  If an adolescent is strong willed,  this is redefined as  “oppositional defiant disorder.” If a kid acts like a kid,   sometimes losing pencils or toys, or acting “on the go” then this has been pathologized into  “ADHD.” If a teenager has normal adolescent mood swings, then this has been repackaged as “bi-polar disorder.” And shyness?  Doesn’t exist.  It is now called  “social anxiety disorder.” Moreover, once labeled, these kids are stigmatized for life.

Psychiatric labels are the stigma.

Various canned press releases and “studies” circulated by the Psycho/Pharmaceutical industry profess,  “more people now believe that illnesses like schizophrenia and depression are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.”  This is marketing at its best—say people believe in a chemical imbalance so you don’t have to bother pointing out the fact that there is no chemical imbalance .  How can the layperson be sure of this? It’s simple. Find one person who has a lab test showing their chemical imbalance.  Not one of the millions of people taking drugs to cure their “chemical imbalance” has a lab test showing they have an imbalance.

So when it comes to “stigmatization” one need look no further than those who benefit from labels which are simply based on opinion—not science, and not medicine. Now it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out… does it?

Watch video: Psychiatry—Stigmatizing Kids with Bogus ‘Mental Disorders’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv49RFo1ckQ

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

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

« Return to news items


Share

Pharma makes hundreds of billions of dollars with government-subsidized Medicaid: buying their overprescribed psychiatric drugs

Sunday, December 19th, 2010

The Boston Globe – December 19, 2010

By Richard D. Lewis

WHILE YOUR three-part series exposed a broken disability system and the difficult choices being made by today’s underclass, it did not mention the biggest welfare recipient of them all — the pharmaceutical corporations. They make hundreds of billions of dollars with government-subsidized Medicaid insurance buying their overprescribed psychiatric medications — drugs that are systematically promoted through sophisticated, but scientifically disputable, public relations campaigns.

Corporations work with the field of biological psychiatry to create huge markets for their medications for ADHD and bipolar and depressive disorders. While these medications are hyped as being a cure for mental disorders, their dangerous side effects and long-term consequences are underreported. Sometimes they can even create or perpetuate the very mental disorders that they are supposed to cure.

Many people need and deserve disability payments. However, it is a sad commentary on this society that, in order to survive in this desperate economy, many poor people feel forced to accept the terrible option of receiving a psychiatric label, taking potentially dangerous psychiatric medications, or accepting the limitations of a lifetime of diability checks. Unfortunately, the Globe series focused more on the poor for taking advantage of a poorly run disability system than on the underlying injustices in America and the real forces fueling the “other welfare’’ system.

Richard D. Lewis
Marion
The writer is a licensed mental health counselor in New Bedford

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/12/19/disability_systems_other_recipient_drug_firms/

« Return to news items


Share

The New Child Abuse: The Psychiatric Diagnosing and Drugging of Our Children

Friday, December 17th, 2010

The Huffington Post—Dec 17, 2010

by Peter Breggin

Every society has found its own methods to abuse its most vulnerable members: children; women; the elderly; ethnic, racial and religious minorities; the poor; the mentally distressed or distressing; the physically disabled; those with unconventional lifestyles. All of these have been widely abused and all remain victims of abuse to varying degrees in societies throughout the world.

Just as it is certain that these abuses can never be fully eliminated, it is also certain that these same abuses will expand to the degree that individual citizens justify or ignore them and fail to take a stand.

In the past, the most rampant abuses have been justified on moral, religious, patriotic or ethnic grounds. But increasingly we will see the worst abuses rationalized on scientific and medical grounds. It’s the modern way.

Science and medicine have so successfully rationalized and justified our society’s most devastating and pervasive form of child abuse that it remains almost wholly unacknowledged, though it is known to every sentient adult and to most children. Probably every adult and half-grown child in America knows and can identify at least one child who is the victim of this abuse. Those who teach, coach, minister to or otherwise serve children may know dozens or even hundreds of children who are victims of the new child abuse.

Our society’s particular form of child abuse is the psychiatric diagnosing and drugging of our children.

The diagnoses are becoming almost innumerable including LD, ADHD, OCD, oppositional defiant disorder, bipolar disorder, and Asperger’s and autistic spectrum disorders. Increasingly children also fall victim to psychological tests that allegedly identify frontal lobe dysfunctions characterized by inattention or flawed executive functions.

Like the diagnoses, the drugs administered to children have mushroomed to involve every class of psychiatric medication, including stimulants, antidepressants, tranquilizers, mood stabilizers and anti psychotic agents. The FDA has increasingly given official approval for giving children especially deadly anti-psychotics such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Geodon and Seroquel. Meanwhile, anything that can sedate the child’s growing brain from anti-hypertension drugs to anti-seizure drugs are routinely dispensed with callous disregard for their harmful impact.

It’s not uncommon to find children subdued and crushed by multiple psychiatric drugs. Probably 10 to 20 percent of our children will at some time be diagnosed or drugged. This number includes nearly every child in special education classes, foster care or on SSI/SSDI. Any child singled out by child services and educational or psychiatric authorities is likely to fall victim to psychiatric drugs.

The Psychopharmaceutical Complex is the source of these abuses: the pharmaceutical industry, organized psychiatry and medicine, NIMH, insurance companies and various other groups supported by the drug companies. Few parents are abusers; they are misled and intimidated by the “authorities” and often medicate their children against their better judgment.

Two principles are self-evident: First, convincing children that they have “something wrong” in their heads such as genetically crossed wires or biochemical imbalances is the surest way to rob them of self-esteem, personal responsibility, self-mastery and the hope of an unlimited future. Second, convincing children that they have a psychiatric diagnosis or treating them as if they have one and teaching them to rely on psychiatric drugs is a prescription for their becoming lifelong mental patients.

Two other principles require a little more thought or scientific evidence: First, all psychoactive substances from alcohol and marijuana to psychiatric drugs reduce and compromise the function of brain and mind, and none improve it. Whether or not we like the feelings we get from them, all psychoactive substances impact us precisely by producing a partial disability of our highest mental and spiritual life. More concretely most are poisonous to brain cells. I call this “the brain-disabling principle” of psychiatric treatment and have described and documented it in a lengthy medical text book with more than 1,000 scientific references.

Second, all psychiatric drugs have potentially horrendous and even lethal adverse effects from chronic depression and growth stunting caused by stimulants to diabetes, severe obesity, disfiguring neurological disorders and shortened lifespan caused by “antipsychotic” agents. You can confirm and expand on these observations by googling antipsychotic drugs or reading my various books on the subject, especially “Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition.” The names of the diagnoses will change. The chemical structures of the drugs will change. The promotional strategies will change. But, in my opinion, it will always be abusive to psychiatrically diagnose and drug children.

Now comes the challenge. Put yourself into the emotional and spiritual life of a child who has been diagnosed and will soon be drugged. Be empathic, but not in a disheartening way. Be empathic by connecting with love to the child’s inherent desire to love and be loved, to benefit from rational discipline, to play and to have fun, to grow up and to take responsibility, to learn, and to reach to his or her self-determined stars.

Are you able to put yourself in that child’s place? How does it feel to be told you’re not normal, that you have a disorder, that you’re special but not in a good or hopeful way? How does it feel to be different, let alone mentally impaired? And what impact will it have on you when the expectations of your parents and teachers are tailored to your limitations?

Be genuinely empathic. Children will say almost anything to adults to cover up their shame or to appease them. Beyond that, the medication spellbinding effects of psychiatric drugs impair the individual’s ability to perceive or evaluate the emotional and cognitive disruption that the psychoactive substances are causing. Put yourself in the child’s place and know what he or she must feel about being stigmatized and marginalized by psychiatric diagnoses.

Now imagine yourself inside the head of the child being drugged. The drug makes you feel different and you don’t like it, but everyone says you need it. You don’t want to have to take a drug to make you normal. But you’re a kid and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Gradually your brain and mind struggle to adapt to the brain-disabling chemical that’s crossed your blood brain barrier and disrupted your normal biochemical functions. As an aspect of medication spellbinding, you become so accustomed to your more flattened emotions and reduced mental acuity that you hardly notice the difference anymore.

And now consider this: All these children will grow up with brains drenched in toxic substances, literally polluted in the extreme. Think about the known adverse effects and dare to imagine the even more subtle changes in the function of the brains of each child, brains forever chemically altered.

These children will never know what evolution or God really intended them to become before these toxic intrusions.

Do not be misled that the medical and scientific authorities, and the weight of the universities and government, wholly support this rampant abuse of children. From the systematic abuse of women, children and minorities throughout the ages to the institution of slavery and the Holocaust, those in authority have condoned and benefited from these abuses. Authority at the top of society always justifies these widespread abuses, otherwise the abuses would never get started, nor would they persist.

Reject the authorities. Rely on common sense, sound ethics and real science. Allow yourself to become empathic toward these abused children. Then become angry, energized, motivated and engaged. Educate yourself. My books and those of many others will introduce you to a new world of science, education and philosophy about childhood and children. Find your own way to protest and to make a difference. Join us at empathictherapy.com in our efforts to protect our nation’s children from psychiatric abuse and to offer them genuine love, inspiration, service and education.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/the-new-child-abuse-psych_b_788900.html

Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the author of dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books. His two most recent books are  Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime and Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition: Drugs, Electroshock and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex. Dr. Breggin’s professional website is www.breggin.com. Dr. Breggin and his wife Ginger have founded a new organization, The Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, Education and Living (www.empathictherapy.com). It will hold an international conference in Syracuse, New York, April 8-10, 2011.

« Return to news items


Share

New Study Links ADHD Drugs, Antidepressants, Hypnotics & Anti-Smoking Drug to 1,527 Acts of Violence

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

Pharmalot, December 16, 2010

by Ed Silverman

For years, there were contentious debates about links between certain prescription meds, notably antidepressants, and suicidal behavior. Now, the focus is turning to violent behavior directed toward others. And a new study is linking 31 widely prescribed drugs – most notably, the Chantix anti-smoking pill – with 1,527 serious acts of violence, such as physical abuse, physical assault and homicide.

The study, which was published in PLoS One, identified 484 drugs that accounted for 780,169 serious adverse event reports of all kinds, including 1,937 cases meeting the violence criteria determined by the researchers. There were 387 reports of homicide, 404 physical assaults, 27 cases indicating physical abuse, 896 homicidal ideation reports and 223 cases described as violence-related symptoms.

Besides Pfizer’s Chantix, 11 antidepressants, three ADHD meds and five hypnotics or sedatives were linked to 79 percent of the violence cases. Looked at another way, no cases of violence were reported for 324 of the 484 drugs evaluated. And so an association with violence appeared “highly unlikely” for nearly 85 percent of all evaluated drugs in widespread clinical use.

This is not, by the way, the first time that Chantix has been linked to violent behavior. The same authors published a study last summer in The Annals of Pharmacotherapy that found Chantix is not only associated with violent and aggressive thoughts and acts, but they also identified some of the common characteristics among people using the pill and their subsequent behavior (see this).

“Acts of violence towards others are a genuine and serious adverse drug event associated with a relatively small group of drugs. (Chantix), which increases the availability of dopamine, and antidepressants with serotonergic effects were the most strongly and consistently implicated drugs,” the researchers write. Interestingly, this finding appears just after the infamous Zoloft defense case drew to a close. That involved a 12-year-old boy who killed his grandparents and his lawyers blamed the antidepressant (read here).

The authors do, however, cite some limitations. The submission of an individual adverse event report does not itself establish causality,” the note, “only that a reporting individual suspected a relationship existed.” And they add that the quality and detail in each report varies. On the other hand, they also say that, “given that violent thoughts or actions are not typically attributed to drug therapy or recorded in medical records, the reporting rate for violence cases could be very low. The selected violence cases do not provide a reliable estimate of how often they might occur.”

In the end, they recommend prospective studies to “establish the incidence, confirm differences among drugs and identify additional common features.”

http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/12/chantix-prescription-drugs-and-violent-acts/

Note from CCHR:  As far back as 1991, the FDA held hearings into antidepressants causing suicidal ideation and violence, largely prompted by CCHR’s demands for an investigation. CCHR testified along with dozens of victims and medical experts.   The FDA panel, largely Pharma funded, refused to issue warnings despite the evidence presented. It would take the FDA another 13 years to finally admit antidepressants cause suicidal ideation and issue black  box warnings on the drugs.  The FDA has still never fully investigated the overwhelming evidence linking antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs to acts of violence and homicide.

Watch this video, produced by CCHR, of the 1991 FDA hearings into antidepressants causing suicide and violence http://www.youtube.com/cchrint#p/c/B9EA75455D155D89/6/FxJomeak4V4

Also Watch This Fox National News Special Report’s from Douglas Kennedy Deadly Drugs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A

« Return to news items


Share