Archive for March, 2011

The Daily Mail— Nazi soldiers given highly addictive crystal meth to help them fight harder & longer

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

Note from CCHR: The drug cited in this article, Pertivin, was Methamphetamine, what the Daily Mail is referring to as crystal meth.  Methamphetamine is FDA approved for  use in children under the trade name Desoxyn for the ‘treatment’ of ADHD.  So today,  children are basically being given the same ‘highly addictive’ crystal meth that the Nazi soldiers were given…

Daily Mail
Alan Hall
March 31, 2011

  • 200 million pills were given to soldiers during the War

Hitler’s propaganda stressed the importance of keeping fit and abstaining from drink and tobacco to keep the Aryan race strong and pure.

But in reality his soldiers were taking addictive and damaging chemicals to make them fight longer and more fiercely.

A study of medicines used by the Third Reich exposes how Nazi doctors and officers issued recruits with pills to help them fight longer and without rest.

The German army’s drug of choice as it overran Poland, Holland, Belgium and France was Pervitin – pills made from methamphetamine, commonly known today as crystal meth.

Drugged up: German army records show millions of Pervitin amphetamines were doled out to Nazi troops in WWII

Second World War speed: Nazi troops were given pervitin to boost their performance

By the time the invasion of the Soviet Union was launched in 1941, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were doped up on it. Records of the Wehrmacht, the German army, show that some 200 million Pervitin pills were doled out to the troops between 1939 and 1945.

Research by the German Doctors’ Association also showed the Nazis developed a cocaine-based stimulant for its front-line fighters that was tested on concentration camp inmates.

‘It was Hitler’s last secret weapon to win a war he had already lost long ago,’ said criminologist Wolf Kemper, author of a German language book on the Third Reich’s use of drugs called Nazis On Speed.

Cruelty: Inmates at the Dachau camp were victims of horrific Nazi experiments aimed at helping troops' injuries

Experiments: Inmates at the Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria, where 100,000 people died, suffered chemical burns as Nazi doctors tested the impact of phosphorous shells

The drug, codenamed D-IX, was tested at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp north of Berlin, where prisoners loaded with 45lb packs were reported to have marched 70 miles without rest.

The plan was to give all soldiers in the crumbling Reich the wonder drug – but the invasion of Normandy in June 1944, coupled with crippling Allied bombing, scotched the scheme.

‘The Blitzkrieg was fuelled by speed,’ said a pharmacologist. ‘The idea was to turn ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen into automatons capable of superhuman performance.’

Medical authorities say the downside of the plan was that many soldiers became helplessly addicted to drugs and were of no use in any theatre of war.

Otto Ranke, a military doctor and director of the Institute for General and Defence Physiology at Berlin’s Academy of Military Medicine, was behind the Pervitin scheme.

He found that the drug gave users heightened self-confidence and self-awareness.

On the eastern front, where the fighting was the most savage of the war, soldiers used it in massive quantities against an enemy that showed no mercy.

In January 1942, one group of 500 troops surrounded by the Red Army were attempting to escape in temperatures of minus 30 Degrees C.

‘I decided to give them Pervitin as they began to lie down in the snow wanting to die,’ wrote the medical officer for the unit.

‘After half an hour the men began spontaneously reporting that they felt better.

‘They began marching in orderly fashion again, their spirits improved, and they became more alert.’

Concentration camp prisoners were also the victims of terrible experiments overseen by German doctors aimed at making the war less risky for their own troops.

At Dachau hundreds died in vats of ice water as physicians sought to find a way to better insulate the flying suits of Luftwaffe pilots brought down in the sea.

And at Mauthausen in Austria inmates suffered horrific chemical burns as the doctors sought cures for phosphorous shell injuries.

Physician’s group president Jörg-Dietrich Hoppe said: ‘I will be the last president of this group who lived through this time.

‘It is intolerable to think that so many physicians were silent or complicit in what was done in the name of medicine at this time.’

Read article here:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371512/Nazis-fed-speed-infantrymen-tested-cocaine-like-stimulant-concentration-camps.html

« Return to news items


Share

Mom in Detroit standoff incident released—Says she was protecting daughter from unnecessary drugging—

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

* See note at end of this post from CCHR

UPI.com
March. 31, 2011

Click video to watch

DETROIT, March 31 (UPI) — A Detroit woman accused of using a gun in a standoff with police when child welfare workers came to take her 13-year-old daughter was released, officials said.

Maryanne Godboldo, 56, had been in custody since surrendering to police Friday after a 10-hour standoff at her home during which she allegedly fired a shot at officers, The Detroit News reported.   Godboldo, released Wednesday, has said she was protecting the girl from unnecessary medication welfare workers insisted she be given.

Maryann Godboldo

“I feel wonderful and I’m very excited to see my daughter,” Godboldo said after leaving the Wayne County Jail. “The support of the community has been unbelievable.”

Godboldo has said her daughter’s physical and mental problems were caused by a bad reaction to immunizations the formerly home-schooled teen was given so she could be enrolled last year in a regular middle school.

Lawyers and family say Godboldo’s dispute with authorities is over a subsequent treatment plan that called for psychotropic drugs the mother believed were doing more harm than good.

Police said Godboldo locked the doors of her home when child welfare workers showed up with a warrant to take her daughter and allegedly fired on officers when they broke open her door.

She has been charged with assault, resisting and opposing police and using a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Read article here:  http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/31/Mom-in-Detroit-standoff-incidnt-released

/UPI-41791301590762/

*Note from CCHR: In 2004,  following nationwide reports of parents being coerced, pressured and forced to drug their children as a condition of attending school, including Child Protective Services threatening parents to have their children removed from their custody,  CCHR worked for the introduction and passage of the Prohibition on Mandatory Medication Amendment which passed into federal law in 2004 and states

Prohibition on mandatory medication.

“(a) IN GENERAL. – The State educational agency shall prohibit State and local educational personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for substances covered by the Controlled Substances Act as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation under section 614 (a) and (c) or receiving services.

There are three things we want to point out related to this incident in Detroit :

1)   Was the mother charged with medical neglect by Child Protective Services and was it under this guise that they attempted to have her child removed from her custody?  (See point 3 regarding ‘medical neglect’ in cases of parents refusing to administer a psychiatric drug to a child)

2)  The law above [unfortunately] only states that it is illegal for schools to require parents to administer any drug covered under “The Controlled Substances Act” which are drugs classifed by the US DEA as Schedule ll drugs (highly addictive – including Ritalin, Concerta,  Cocaine, Morphine, Opium etc).   This needs to be changed to all psychotropic drugs particularly considering antipsychotics and antidepressants are documented by the FDA to cause suicidal ideation as well as death. No parent should ever be required to give their child a potentially lethal drug, or face losing their child to “Child Protective Services”. The language change was something that CCHR opposed as the original language of the bill included prohibiting schools from requiring a parent to give their child ANY psychotropic drug as a condition of attending school.

3) There needs to be a new federal law which prohibits any parent from being pressured, coerced and/or required by government agencies (especially Child Protective Services which has the power to have a child removed from a parent’s custody) to administer any type of psychiatric drug to their child,  considering there is no medical or scientific test to prove any child has a ‘mental illness.’  Therefore the bogus charges being levied at these parents of  “medical neglect” are completely unjustified—in fact, fraudulent.  Without evidence of a “medical condition”  (meaning something that can be medically proven by x-ray, lab test or brain scan) it is impossible to cite  “medical neglect” should a parent refuse to administer a potentially lethal drug to their child.   Psychiatric drugs given to children including stimulants, antidepressants and antipsychotics, are documented by international drug regulatory agencies to cause; heart attack, stroke, mania, psychosis, worsening depression, fatal blood clots, diabetes, death,  violence, suicidal ideation and more.

See CCHR International’s Psychiatric Drug Database for all international studies and warnings on psychiatric drugs: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/



« Return to news items


Share

Mother Forced Into Stand Off With Police for Refusing to Adminster Antipsychotic Drug to Daughter

Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

Note from CCHR:  So its come to this… A Detroit mother is forced into a stand off with police,  because she refused to administer Risperdal—a powerful and potentially lethal antipsychotic drug to her daughter.   Child Protective Services were going to take her child away from her, for refusing to administer a drug that could potentially kill her.  And while the newscast below describes side effects of Risperdal as anxiety, fatigue and restlessness, they omit the fact that international drug regulatory agencies warn Risperdal can cause  seizures,  cancer, tumors, stroke, abnormal bleeding, blood clots, diabetes and sudden death ( http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php – Search both Risperdal in the search box and Newer Antipsychotics in the drop down menu). So ask yourself,   what would you do if the authorities came to your home to take your child away, stripping you of all parental rights, and forcing your child to take a drug that could kill them.   And while the mother now faces felony charges,  we have a question we’d like answered—what charges are the psychiatrists/doctors and Child Protective Services agencies going to face if  her child dies as a result of taking the antipsychotic drug being forced on her?  Will police show up at their door to arrest them?  Will they be charged with murder?  Why are the doctors/psychiatrists and “child protective” agencies that prescribe these drugs,  knowing the risks,  never held accountable?  That is the real crime in all of this.  Watch the video.

UPI.com
March 28, 2011

Click the video to watch

DETROIT, March 28 (UPI) — A woman arrested after a 10-hour standoff with Detroit police says she was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication.

Maryanne Godboldo, 56, is accused of barricading herself inside her home with her daughter and a gun after Child Protective Services workers tried to serve a warrant last week to remove the girl because the Godboldo had withheld her medication, The Detroit News reported Monday.

Godboldo faces charges of firing a weapon in a dwelling, felonious assault, resisting and obstructing an officer, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, the newspaper said.

Godboldo’s family and supporters said she has the right to make medical decisions for her daughter and that child welfare workers exceeded their authority.

Originally schooled at home, the daughter wanted to attend middle but needed to catch up on required immunizations.

“We believe she had an adverse reaction to her immunizations,” Maryanne’s sister Penny Godboldo said.

Godboldo sought help from The Children’s Center, an organization that helps families with at-risk children, where a medical and mental health treatment plan was prescribed.

Godboldo told relatives medications ordered by a doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems.

“Maryanne’s decision to wean her from that was making a difference, making her better, helping her to be a happy kid again,” Mubuarak Hakim, the girl’s father, said.

A preliminary hearing has been set for April 8.

« Return to news items


Share

Pediatrics Journal Gets it Wrong About “Facebook Depression”

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

PsychCentral
By John M Grohol PsyD
Founder & Editor-in-Chief

You know it’s not good when one of the most prestigious pediatric journals, Pediatrics, can’t differentiate between correlation and causation.

And yet this is exactly what the authors of a “clinical report” did in reporting on the impact of social media on children and teens. Especially in their discussion of “Facebook depression,” a term that the authors simply made up to describe the phenomenon observed when depressed people use social media.

Shoddy research? You bet. That’s why Pediatrics calls it a “clinical report” — because it’s at the level of a bad blog post written by people with a clear agenda. In this case, the report was written by Gwenn Schurgin O’Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson and the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media (2011).

What makes this bad a report? Let’s just look at the issue of “Facebook depression,” their made-up term for a phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

The authors of the Pediatrics report use six citations to support their claim that social media sites like Facebook actually cause depression in children and teens. Four of the six citations are third-party news reports on research in this area. In other words, the authors couldn’t even bother with reading the actual research to see if the research actually said what the news outlet reported it said.

I expect to see this sort of lack of quality and laziness on blogs. Hey, a lot of time we’re busy and we just want to make a point — that I can understand.

When you go to the trouble not only of writing a report but also publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal, you’d think you’d go to the trouble of reading the research — not other people’s reporting on research.

Here’s what the researchers in Pediatrics had to say about “Facebook depression:”

Researchers have proposed a new phenomenon called “Facebook depression,” defined as depression that develops when preteens and teens spend a great deal of time on social media sites, such as Facebook, and then begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression.

Acceptance by and contact with peers is an important element of adolescent life. The intensity of the online world is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents. As with offline depression, preadolescents and adolescents who suffer from Facebook depression are at risk for social isolation and sometimes turn to risky Internet sites and blogs for “help” that may promote substance abuse, unsafe sexual practices, or aggressive or self-destructive behaviors.

Time and time again researchers are finding much more nuanced relationships between social networking sites and depression. In the Selfhout et al. (2009) study they cite, for instance, the researchers only found the correlation between the two factors in people with low quality friendships. Teens with what the researchers characterized as high quality friendships showed no increase in depression with increased social networking time.

The Pediatrics authors also do what a lot of researchers do when promoting a specific bias or point of view — they simply ignore research that disagrees with their bias. Worse, they cite the supposed depression-social networking link as though it were a forgone conclusion — that researchers are all in agreement that this actually exists, and exists in a causative manner.

There are a multitude of studies that disagree with their point of view, however. One longitudinal study (Kraut et al., 1998) found that, over a period of 8–12 months, both loneliness and depression increased with time spent online among adolescent and adult first-time Internet users. In a one-year follow-up study (Kraut et al., 2002), however, the observed negative effects of Internet use had disappeared. In other words, this may not be a robust relationship (if it even exists) and may simply be something related to greater familiarity with the Internet.

Other research has shown that college students’ — who are often older teens — Internet use was directly and indirectly related to less depression (Morgan & Cotten, 2003; LaRose, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001).

Furthermore, studies have revealed that Internet use can lead to online relationship formation, and thereby to more social support ([Nie and Erbring, 2000], [Wellman et al., 2001] and [Wolak et al., 2003]) — which may subsequently lead to less internalizing problems.

In another study cited by the Pediatrics authors, simply reading the news report should’ve raised a red flag for them. Because the news report on the study quoted the study’s author who specifically noted her study could not determine causation:

According to Morrison, pornography, online gaming and social networking site users had a higher incidence of moderate to severe depression than other users. “Our research indicates that excessive Internet use is associated with depression, but what we don’t know is which comes first – are depressed people drawn to the Internet or does the Internet cause depression? What is clear is that for a small subset of people, excessive use of the Internet could be a warning signal for depressive tendencies,” she added.

The other citations in the Pediatrics report are equally problematic (and one citation has nothing to do with social networking and depression [Davila, 2009]). None mention the phrase “Facebook depression” (as far as I could determine), and none could demonstrate a causative relationship between use of Facebook making a teenager or child feel more depressed. Zero.

I’m certain depressed people use Facebook, Twitter and other social networking websites. I’m certain people who are already feeling down or depressed might go online to talk to their friends, and try and be cheered up. This in no way suggests that by using more and more of Facebook, a person is going to get more depressed. That’s just a silly conclusion to draw from the data to date, and we’ve previously discussed how use of the Internet has not been shown to cause depression, only that there’s an association between the two.

If this is the level of “research” done to come to these conclusions about “Facebook depression,” the entire report is suspect and should be questioned. This is not an objective clinical report; this is a piece of propaganda spouting a particular agenda and bias.

The problem now is that news outlets everywhere are picking up on “Facebook depression” and suggesting not only that it exists, but that researchers have found the online world somehow “triggers” depression in teens. Pediatrics and the American Academy of Pediatrics should be ashamed of this shoddy clinical report, and retract the entire section about “Facebook depression.”

Read article here:  http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/28/pediatrics-gets-it-wrong-about-facebook-depression/

« Return to news items


Share

The Illegitimacy of the “Psychiatric Bible” by Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

The Moral Liberal – March 29, 2011

by Thomas Szasz

Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, Dr. Thomas Szasz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Settled by Political Power

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

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

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

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

When psychiatry was in its infancy the belief that all human “dysfunctions” are manifestations of brain diseases was a naive error. In its maturity the mistake was treated as a valid scientific theory and the justification for a powerful ideology and the powerful institutions based on it.

Today, in its senescence, psychiatry is deceit and self-deceit—coercion concealed as objective science (“medical diagnosis”) and benevolent help (“medical treatment”). As a result, paraphrasing Orwell, telling the truth becomes “a revolutionary act.”

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/12/20/the-illegitimacy-of-the-%E2%80%9Cpsychiatric-bible%E2%80%9D/

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

« Return to news items


Share

Doctors’ Conflicting Interests Can Cost Money and Lives, and Hinder Medical Discoveries

Monday, March 28th, 2011

ABC News – March 28, 2011

by Dr. Stefan P. Kruszewski, Psychiatrist

Psychiatrists who pimp for drug companies

The fact that doctors take money from pharmaceutical companies happens to be old news. But this time around, the docs in question come from Stanford University. Previous news stories reported that doctors receiving pharmaceutical funding hailed from Harvard, the University of Miami, the Medical College of Georgia and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

More than a few of these doctors are psychiatrists who have received tax-supported, public National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Mental Health funding for clinical research, have participated in U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panels or have appeared on, or on behalf of, various not-for-profit psychiatric advocacy boards — some of which are heavily supported by the manufacturers of psychiatric medications.

In 2006, my colleagues and I wrote a brief letter to the editor to the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of America’s premier peer-reviewed medical journals. Our letter expressed concern about the lack of honest disclosure of conflicts by certain psychiatric authors in a previously published article.

Multiple authors had recommended specific antidepressant therapy but failed to reveal that they were being paid by multiple antidepressant manufacturers to speak, advocate and do research for the companies that sold the drugs.

During the review process, an associate editor at the journal asked the question (and inadvertently copied me on an email that had been sent to another associate editor), “What’s the big deal? What’s all this [expletive deleted] about conflicts of interest?”

Academic journals, heavily supported by advertising money, are biased and complicit in the conflict of interest fiasco.

Sometimes I wonder why I — or anyone else for that matter — should care about psychiatrists who pimp for drug companies. After all, physician spokespeople and drug manufacturers are capitalists, and capitalism is our economic cornerstone. Every day, any financial news consumer hears the refrain invoking the social advantages of free market capitalism. It is the mantra of a major financial television network. And even though I’m a psychiatrist, I’m also a capitalist, so why should I worry?

But I do worry, because drug promotion and clinical decision-making that are brokered on the backs of dollar bills have a greater chance of causing serious adverse outcomes, including illnesses and death. If a physician embellishes the effectiveness of a drug or minimizes its risk, that directly hurts you and me.

Physicians who are heavily supported by pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers are not forming independent, unbiased decisions. Instead, their brains have been lined with gifts, perks and money, which influences their rose-colored opinions.

My psychiatric colleagues are especially vulnerable here. The result is that your mother, your husband or my child can’t make a reliable decision about the risks and benefits of particular drugs. How could they? The prescribing doctors often don’t know the risks and benefits, so how could we be expected to learn what they don’t know?

Conflicts of interest promoted by pharmaceutical manufacturers negatively affect decisions about current and future medical care. That is tragic, because those half-baked recommendations come with a price that no amount of capitalism can justify. It’s simple and ugly: If you or your mom suddenly succumbs to an arrhythmia whose side effects were not appreciated by your doctor because your doctor was misinformed by another doctor serving as the manufacturer’s spokesperson, that is tragic.

I see it virtually every day in my clinical practice: in young men who have breast lesions and abnormal breast development from atypical antipsychotics; in sudden unexpected deaths, or “suds,” from psychiatric drugs in individuals who had no risk factors for sudden death; in tic and dyskinetic movement disorders in kids arbitrarily prescribed stimulants, and the huge weight gain and symptoms of type 2 diabetes in children and young adults who receive a sedative, such as quetiapine, for sleep.

The bad news doesn’t stop with current care. Conflicted clinical research — often done especially by and for a particular psychiatric pharmaceutical manufacturer — whose design and analysis are biased and whose summary and conclusions are misleadingly positive, fracture the backbone of scientific research.

The legacy of fraudulent research lingers for years before it is recognized and repudiated. That effort impedes real progress, wastes time, money and human resources that could be focused on finding real cures to help all of us. And that’s not good for anybody.

Dr. Stefan Kruszewski is an addiction psychiatrist and CEO of Kruszewski & Associates, a Harrisburg, Pa., company that focuses on health care and financial fraud.

Read the article and watch the ABC News video here:  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-conflicts-interest-disaster-patients/story?id=13060973

« Return to news items


Share

FDA’s Continual Responsibility for Making Our Children Into a Nation of Drug Addicts

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Salem-News.com
By Marianne Skolek
March 28, 2011

Dexedrine

In 1997, 5 million children were listed as using psychotropic drugs, Ritalin being among the most common.  Ritalin use has increased by 700% since 1990. By the year 2000, it was prescribed for approximately 7 million children.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed eight times more often in boys than in girls.

Of these diagnosed children, 90% use a stimulant to help control the disorder. 70% of children with ADHD are prescribed Ritalin. 20% use its counterpart, the generic form known as methylphenidate and an amphetamine known as Dexedrine.

Beginning in the 1960s, it was used to treat children with ADHD, or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), known at the time as hyperactivity or minimal brain dysfunction (MBD).

Production and prescription of methylphenidate rose significantly in the 1990s, especially in the United States, as the ADHD diagnosis came to be better understood and more generally accepted within the medical and mental health communities.

The benefits and cost effectiveness of methylphenidate, i.e. Ritalin long term are unknown due to a lack of research.

There is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness in the long term of beneficial effects of methylphenidate (Ritalin) with regard to learning and academic performance.

An analysis of the literature concluded that methylphenidate quickly and effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of ADHD in children under the age of 18 in the short term but found that this conclusion may be biased due to the high number of low quality clinical trials in the literature.

Some adverse effects of stimulant therapy may emerge during long-term therapy, but there is very little research of the long-term effects of stimulants.

The United States produces 90% of the world’s Ritalin. It produces, sells and distributes more methylphenidate than any other country worldwide. In addition to the United States, methylphenidate is frequently used in the United Kingdom and Germany.

It is used in many European countries, but in much smaller percentages than in the United States. Some countries don’t use the drug at all, such as Sweden, which has banned its use.

Intuniv

The FDA approved ”Intuniv” – the first non-stimulant extended release medication for the treatment of ADHD in children.  This means it can be administered in one daily dose and given in the morning or at night as a stand-alone medication or in conjunction with another ADHD drug to boost overall effectiveness. Because Intuniv is not a stimulant, parents can feel better knowing that their child is being treated with a medication that does not have addictive properties and is less likely to be abused since it is not a controlled substance.

In clinical trials, Intuniv has been shown to boost the effectiveness of treatment when combined with a stimulant, resulting in greater attention span and reduced levels of impulsivity and hyperactivity.  One possible drawback, however, is that it has not been tested for extended use, beyond  that of 8 to 10 weeks.  For this reason, physicians who prescribe Intuniv must closely monitor patients to determine whether it continues to be a successful protocol for longer term management of ADHD symptoms.

At the present time, Intuniv’s longer term efficacy is unknown and will be determined by physicians who carefully monitor patients being treated and report associated outcomes.  Shire, Intuniv’s biopharmaceutical developer, continues to focus their research on this drug’s long term use potential for maintenance of children with ADHD who need drug treatment in order to succeed academically — as well as socially.

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness and author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare is an expert consultant in cases like Columbine in which anti-depressant medications are involved.

Tracy says the Columbine killers’ brains were awash in serotonin, the chemical which causes violence and aggression and triggers a sleep-walking disorder in which a person literally acts out their worst nightmare.

Columbine shooter Eric Harris

Shortly before the Columbine shooting, Eric Harris (one of the shooters) had been rejected by Marine Corps recruiters because he was under a doctor’s care and had been prescribed an anti-depressant medication.  Harris was taking Luvox, an anti-depressant commonly used to treat patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Luvox is in a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI).  Other SSRIs include Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft.  An estimated 10 million Americans take anti-depressant medications.

Harris was taking Luvox

Mark Taylor, the first student shot at Columbine, brought a lawsuit against Solvay, the international pharmaceutical company that produces Luvox.  Taylor’s 2001 lawsuit said Luvox had caused Harris to become manic, psychotic, and homicidal/suicidal and had brought about “emotional blunting,” or a lack of inhibition.

Tayor’s lawsuit also faulted Solvay for failing to warn of the “risks and dangers” associated with the drug. *

Columbine victim Mark Taylor

(*Taylor told American Free Press two years after the Columbine shooting, as a 17-year old recovering victim, he had been taken alone, without counsel, into a room with lawyers representing Solvay and threatened with court costs and counter suits.  The fear of financial ruin led Taylor and others to withdraw the lawsuit.  Solvay Pharmaceuticals was able to silence disclosure of exactly what had happened at Columbine — and why — even after its product had played ab obvious role in slaughtering 13 people).

Solvay Pharmaceuticals

In early 1998, according to Taylor’s lawsuit, Harris had taken Zoloft for two months, but soon became “obsessional.”  Harris became obsessed with homicidal and suicidal thoughts “within weeks” after he began taking Zoloft, according to Dr. Tracy.  Due to his obsession with killing, Harris was switched to Luvox, which was in his system at the time of the shooting, according to his autopsy.  The change from Zoloft to Luvox is like switching from Pepsi to Coke, Dr. Tracy said.

Read entire article here:  http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march282011/child-addicts-ms.php

« Return to news items


Share

All Classes of Psychiatric Drugs Found Equally Dangerous for Nursing Home Residents

Monday, March 28th, 2011

MedicalNews Today March 28, 2011

Conventional antipsychotics, antidepressants and benzodiazepines often administered to nursing home residents are no safer than atypical antipsychotics and may carry increased risks, according to an article in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

Psychotropic medications are often used to manage behavioral symptoms in seniors, particularly people with dementing illnesses, with up to two-thirds of dementia patients in nursing homes prescribed these medications. However, the effectiveness of these drugs in this indication is unclear and important safety concerns exist, especially related to antipsychotics.

Psychotropic or psychoactive medications act upon the central nervous system and are prescribed for the management of mental and emotional disorders. They include, amongst others, first and second generation antipsychotics (also known as conventional and atypical antipsychotics), antidepressants, benzodiazepines and other sedatives. Despite their widespread use, none of these treatments has been approved by the FDA or Health Canada for the management of behavioral symptoms associated with dementia.

A team of researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, undertook the study to evaluate the comparative safety of various psychotropic medication classes, focusing on patients in nursing homes because of the extensive use of these drugs in this setting and the complexity of these patients’ illnesses. The study cohort included all BC residents admitted to a nursing home between Jan. 1, 1996 and March 31, 2006 and who received a psychotropic drug within 90 days of admission.

Of the 10 900 patients in the study, 1942 received an atypical antipsychotic, 1902 a conventional antipsychotic, 2169 an antidepressant and 4887 a benzodiazepine. Rigorous methodological approaches were applied to ensure this non-randomized study was not affected by the selective prescribing that tends to occur in routine care.

“In 10 900 older adults newly admitted to nursing homes in BC who began taking psychotropic medications, we observed risks of death that were higher among those who initiated conventional antipsychotics, antidepressants and benzodiazepines. We also observed risks of femur fracture that were higher with conventional antipsychotics, antidepressants and benzodiazepines used for anxiety, all compared with atypical antipsychotics. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for risk of pneumonia or heart failure, except possibly a lower risk of pneumonia and a higher risk of heart failure with benzodiazepines,” state the authors.

They conclude that a large randomized trial is required to confirm their findings but that clinicians should weigh the increased risks against potential benefits when considering prescribing these medications for their patients in nursing homes.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/220129.php

« Return to news items


Share

The verdict is in: Johnson & Johnson misled physicians in Risperdal marketing campaign

Friday, March 25th, 2011

McKnights – March 25, 2011

A jury in South Carolina on Tuesday found Johnson & Johnson’s pharmaceutical unit, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, guilty of misleading doctors about the safety and effectiveness of the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal.

Janssen violated South Carolina’s consumer protection laws in 2003 when it sent a letter to roughly 7,200 doctors in the state touting the safety and effectiveness of Risperdal, the jury decided. Civil penalties could total more than $35 million, or $5,000 for each letter Janssen sent, according to a Bureau of National Affairs report. That hearing will take place April 18-19.

Johnson & Johnson has been embroiled in numerous legal battles surrounding its marketing of Risperdal. The company is alleged to have paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to pharmaceutical giant Omnicare to influence Risperdal sales to nursing home residents. The South Carolina case is one of 12 state-led cases against the company, according to BNA.

http://www.mcknights.com/the-verdict-is-in-johnson-johnson-misled-physicians-in-risperdal-marketing-campaign/article/199127/

« Return to news items


Share

Use of chemical restraints in nursing homes called an epidemic

Friday, March 25th, 2011

Ventura County Star, March 24, 2011
by Tom Kisken

Antipsychotics are given in nursing homes or other facilities without the informed consent of residents or surrogates and are used as chemical restraints

Nearly 25 percent of the residents in California’s nursing homes are placed on antipsychotic drugs, often used as sort of a chemical leash to control behavior in a trend a watchdog called an epidemic Thursday at a symposium.

The drugs can double the risk of death for seniors with dementia and cause side effects ranging from stroke to delirium, according to speakers at an Oxnard conference called “Toxic Medicine.” Often the drugs are given in nursing homes or other facilities for dementia without the informed consent of residents or surrogates and are used as a restraint rather than to treat psychiatric conditions.

Over the past decade the use of the drugs has evolved from a sniffle to a flu to something much worse, said Sylvia Taylor Stein, of the Long Term Care Services of Ventura County ombudsman program.

“By 2010 we had an epidemic,” she said in a symposium organized by her group and the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. It was attended by a packed house of nursing home leaders, assisted-living administrators, elder abuse lawyers and state licensing agencies.

Some at the conference linked the use of antipsychotics to staff shortages that make it impossible for employees to properly care for patients, state cuts in mental health programs that have brought more patients with psychiatric problems to long-term care facilities and doctors who have a drug-first mentality when it comes to long-term care residents.

Read the rest of the article here:  http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/mar/24/use-of-chemical-restraints-in-nursing-homes-an/#ixzz1Hd9VUKAg

For More on Antipsychotic Drug Side Effects :

To read summaries of international studies and warnings on antipsychotic drugs, simply type in Antipsychotic in the Search box or use the drop down menus here: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

To read side effects reported to the US FDA on antipsychotics,  visit CCHR’s FDA Medwatch reports and choose Antipsychotics at the very bottom of the Drug Name/Drug Class drop down menu and choose age  65 to 99 in the Age Range menu here http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/medwatch_psych_drug_adverse_reactions.php

« Return to news items


Share