Archive for June, 2011

“How do I get off all the depression drugs?” We asked an expert

Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Foodconsumer.org
By Martha Rosenberg

Phillip Sinaikin, MD, is a Florida psychiatrist who has been in practice for 25 years. Author of “Get Smart About Weight Control” and co-author of “Fat Madness: How to Stop the Diet Cycle and Achieve Permanent Well-Being,” his new book focuses on excesses and industry influence in the field of psychiatry.

Rosenberg: Your new book, Psychiatryland, traces how deception, conflicts of interest, medical enabling and direct-to-consumer advertising have resulted in millions being on psychiatric drugs they don’t need. One patient you describe has legitimate mourning and grief work to do after his wife leaves him for his own cousin. But his grief is pathologized into “bipolar disorder” by the system, including his own mother.

Sinaikin: By the time I saw this patient, he was on Wellbutrin and another antidepressant, the mood stabilizers Eskaltih and Keppra, the antipyschotic Abilify, the tranquilizer Klonopin and Adderall for ADD. Calling grief a psychiatric disorder deflates and dishonors the spiritual dimension of loss and grief and the sadness which is a marker of the lost love. By the time this patient came under my care (three years after the loss of his wife) his “case” had become such a jumbled, incomprehensible and irrational mess of overdiagnosis and overmedication that the only word I can use to describe it is CRIMINAL.

Rosenberg: Can you explain the popularity of such drug cocktails? The drugs haven’t been tested together so the patient is a guinea pig. And their total cost can exceed $1000 per month, often shuttled onto taxpayers because the people are considered disabled under federal entitlement programs.

Sinaikin: Psychiatry mimics science but is not a real science. The symptoms it treats are subjective and have not been demonstrated and cannot be demonstrated at the cellular level. That gives psychiatrists free reign to just experiment and symptom chase, often insanely chasing the side effects and negative interactions of the current drug regimen with more and more drugs. Polypharmacy is also a way psychiatrists can distinguish themselves in an increasingly competitive market. No one believes you need a specialist for one drug — any primary care physician can give you Zoloft — but for multi-drug therapy you do. If you don’t write a prescription as a psychiatrist, you won’t work these days. It is like being a pacifist and having no choice but working in a bullet factory.

Rosenberg: A lot of this trial-and error polypharmacy is buttressed by the concept of “treatment resistance” and “Prozac poop-out.”

Sinaikin: I write in the book that an antidepressant not working anymore is no different than getting used to anything that used to thrill us. We buy our dream house with two bedrooms and a garage and after a while it doesn’t make us happy anymore and we are eyeing the house with three bedrooms and a pool. Another example, of course, is falling in and out of love.

Rosenberg: You document in Psychiatryland the creation of new diseases to sell drugs including adults now diagnosed with childhood disorders like ADD and children with adult disorders like bipolar and depression.

Sinaikin: One scientific article I read about the new childhood disorders sounds like a satire. Two well-respected “thought leaders” in psychiatry were debating the underlying pathology of a three-year-old girl who ran out in traffic. The first doctor believed her dangerous behavior was indicative of an Oppositional-Defiant disorder. The other doctor argued her impulsive act represented grandiose delusions where this girl believed she was special and cars could not harm her. She was, therefore, bipolar.

Rosenberg: Another shocker in your book is how everyday drug and alcohol addicts were recast as having psychiatric conditions for money.

Sinaikin: The insurance companies told the rehabs they would no longer pay for inpatient rehab for heroin, cocaine or alcohol unless there was also another Axis 1 psychiatric disorder like bipolar disorder or major depression. I was working in a drug treatment facility when the change happened. Since addicts typically complain of anxiety and depression, a completely understandable emotional response to their toxic lifestyles, it was “no problem” to add a new label and throw a few psychiatric drugs at their now relabeled “dual diagnosis.”  Of course the central tenet of recovery, taking personal responsibility, was buried by the new victim narrative of self-medicating a previously undiagnosed mental illness.

Rosenberg: Treating addiction with psychiatric drugs before or instead of seeking a higher power is antithetical to the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Sinaikin: As I say throughout my book, human beings are indescribably complex. There are times when the dual-diagnosis concept is necessary and helpful but clearly not applicable to 100% of the cases of addiction as it is now applied. I believe that the 12 Step model is an ideal model of recovery. Patients can have the help whenever they are truly ready, not just when someone decides to foist it on them. Most importantly, the addicts helping other addicts are doing it to facilitate their own recovery and not for ulterior motives such as money. Amazingly, in a world gone profit crazy 12 Step recovery programs are still free. I conceptualize the 12 Steps as a distillation of the spiritual principles world’s great religions but no one is forced to believe in anything including God.

Rosenberg: Given conflicts of interest at the American Psychiatric Association, which drives psychiatric diagnoses, in the FDA drug approval process itself and the legions of doctors willing to huckster for pharma as thought leaders or Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), do you see any hope of rescuing people from Psychiatryland?

Sinaikin: The system is unbelievably bad and even worse than it looks. But, I think a goal that could be achieved would be a repeal of direct-to-consumer advertising. Patients now come into my office asking me if they have ADD or bipolar disorder or if they can have Cymbalta. When I began practicing psychiatry, long before direct-to-consumer advertising, this would never have happened.

Psychiatryland

Author: Phillip Sinaikin, MD
978-1-4502-5290-4 (pbk),
978-1-4502-5289-8 (cloth)
978-1-4502-5288-1 (ebk)

Publisher: I Universe
Published Year: 2010
available online at
Amazon and Barnes & Noble

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Shopping/Books/depression_drugs_0629110547.html

« Return to news items


Share

Bad Side-Effects Ahead For Pharma?

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

Forbes – June 30, 2011

by Martin Fridson

In 2006, The New York Review of Books reported that four-year-old Rebecca Riley died of the effects of two prescription drugs—Clonidine and Depakote.

These medications, along with Seroquel, were prescribed for Rebecca after she was diagnosed, at the age of two, with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder.  The three drugs are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of ADHD or long-term treatment of bipolar disorder, nor are they approved for children as young as Rebecca.

The New York Review of Books‘ recent two-part article (1)  by Marcia Angell on the treatment of mental illness with psychoactive drugs (those that affect the mental state) addresses an issue that may one day prove very important to investors in pharmaceutical stocks.  (All statistics and quotations herein are drawn from Dr. Angell’s article.)

It is not illegal for a doctor to prescribe a drug off-label, that is, for a non-FDA-approved use, but a drug marketer cannot lawfully encourage a doctor to do so.  The profits in psychoactive drugs, however, make it tempting to flout the law.  In the past four years, AstraZeneca (AZN), Pfizer (PFE), Eli Lilly (LLY), Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) and Forest Labs (FRX) have all settled federal charges of marketing psychoactive drugs off-label, at a cost running into hundreds of millions.

Seeing that pharmaceutical marketing executives are evidently undeterred by the law, Dr. Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School and former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, advocates a prohibition on prescribing psychoactive drugs off-label.

A ban would cut into a major growth area for pharmaceutical companies.

This growth is not a function of a few blockbuster drug discoveries. It parallels an extraordinary rise in the portion of the population, particularly children, diagnosed with mental illness.  For example, if diagnoses mirror the actual incidence of juvenile polar disorder, that affliction grew forty-fold between 1993 and 2004.

Have mental disorders genuinely proliferated that dramatically?  Dr. Angell suggests instead that the surge in certain diagnoses reflects a long-run shift in emphasis from “talk therapy” to medication.  This change just so happens to enable psychiatrists to see more patients and earn higher fees.  Not incidentally, with drugs now regarded as the preferred mode of treatment, the increase in diagnoses is a boon to pharmaceutical manufacturers.  The new generation of psychoactives has displaced cholesterol-reducing medications as the biggest-selling class of drugs in the U.S.

Also benefiting from the present arrangement are low-income families that receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments on the basis of mental disabilities.  To qualify, applicants (children included) generally must be taking psychoactive drugs.  Getting into the program usually also ensures that the family will qualify for Medicaid.  The disbursements can be so substantial that MIT economics professor David Autor describes SSI as “the new welfare.”

The parents and two siblings of Rebecca Riley, the four-year-old who died from the effects of off-label drugs, were all on psychoactive drugs and were receiving about $30,000 a year from SSI.  Dr. Angell links the astonishing rise in diagnoses of certain mental disorders to the huge financial stakes of physicians, pharmaceutical companies and SSI recipients.

I do not want to portray this issue as an imminent or mortal threat to pharmaceutical stocks. If a ban on off-label prescription of psychoactive drugs were proposed in Congress, the companies’ lobbyists probably could stave it off for a long time.  Furthermore, the major pharmaceutical companies have widely diversified product lines, so a setback in the psychoactive category, even though it is a major growth area, would not be a body blow.

Still, this topic is one to keep an eye on for investors who hope to gain an edge by seeing beyond the quarterly EPS data.  Psychoactive drugs have been around since the 1950s, but parents can readily observe that their use with children is far more widespread than it was a generation ago.  If advocates such as Marcia Angell can make a persuasive case that the change is not fully justified on medical grounds, yet poses significant health hazards, is it unrealistic to expect a public opinion backlash some day?

[1] Marcia Angell, “The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?” The New York Review of Books (June 23, 2011), pp. 20-22 and “The Illusions of Psychiatry” (July 14, 2011), pp. 20-22.  The article is a review of three books on the contemporary practice of psychiatry by Irving Kirsch, Robert Whitaker, and Daniel Carlat.

http://blogs.forbes.com/investor/2011/06/30/bad-side-effects-ahead-for-pharma/

« Return to news items


Share

In Australia— 200 Psych Patients Died Suddenly

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

The Age – July 1, 2011

by Kate Hagen

Photo: Tamara Voninski

MORE than 200 psychiatric patients died in ”unexpected, unnatural or violent” circumstances last year, a report by Victoria’s chief psychiatrist reveals.

Six patients died by committing suicide in hospital but most of the 237 deaths occurred in the community.

Chief psychiatrist Ruth Vine could not provide a breakdown of the number of deaths that occurred inside hospitals but said it was ”very small, and when it does occur it is followed by a very thorough review”.

Dr Vine said deaths in the community could include those due to car accidents or house fires, but it was the role of the coroner to determine their cause.

The Age reported in February that a coroner was investigating the deaths of two psychiatric patients thought to have suffocated while being restrained in separate incidents at Frankston and Dandenong hospitals in 2007.

Dr Vine said she was ”of course” concerned about the suicides of psychiatric patients but believed they were impossible to completely prevent.

”If you compare a mental health inpatient unit with a coronary care unit, in terms of the severity of mental illness we’re treating it is equally severe,” she said.

”It is impossible to prevent completely because suicide is a choice and to completely prevent suicide would be to impose an incredible level of restriction on care that would be anti-therapeutic.”

Dr Vine’s annual report for 2009-10 shows that 14 per cent of inpatients were secluded, or confined in a room locked from the outside, in what guidelines say should be used only when a patient poses an immediate risk to himself or others.

A total of 1828 patients were secluded and there were 6059 episodes of seclusion, up slightly from the previous year. More than 1100 were for longer than 12 hours.

A total of 1750 patients received electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), including 83 children, the youngest of whom was 13.

« Return to news items


Share

The problem with the DSM

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

The Commons – June 29, 2011

Do you have a shopping addiction disorder? Perhaps an addiction to food? Maybe one of your kids has Internet addiction disorder, or video-game attachment syndrome.

Well, not quite yet, because these kinds of new mental diagnoses are only proposed, not final, for the new revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

And there is a terrible problem with this.

The DSM was first created in the 1920s. Based on psychoanalytic theory, it enumerated fewer than 100 mental problems that a psychiatrist could diagnose, all of them attributable to environmental conditions, generally the role of parenting.

We know now that this theoretical stance was limited and, in many cases, wrong. In 1980, the second revision of the DSM took place. Freud was discarded, and the revised bible now included several hundred disorders, all delineated by a list of observable symptoms and a framework for limiting and differentiating diagnoses.

Three versions later, the current DSM lists more than 1,000 disorders. No theories are espoused for their origins, though implicit in it is that there is a mix of genetic and environmental causes that shape neurological development.

During this period of about three decades, the incidence of attention disorders in the general population has increased from 2 percent to 10 percent.

In the 1980s, people diagnosed with bipolar disorder represented less than 1 percent of the population; now the number has increased to 5 percent.

New diagnoses, like oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, now cover as many as 5 percent of children.

Autism, which afflicted a tiny percentage of the population in the 1990s, now accounts for 1 out of every 100 children.

What is wrong with this picture? Do we have an epidemic on our hands? Something in the water we drink, or the air we breathe?

The standard APA explanation is that we now recognize and treat disorders that in the past were overlooked, often judged in moral terms, and left untreated.

In this view, a reasonable estimate of the current percentage of adults with undiagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder would be about 1 out of 20, since we were born too early for the new diagnostic scheme. Maybe you. Certainly me.

There is another way to tell the story, however.

In this story, one could argue that each change in the DSM has essentially recruited a new batch of subjects for identification and treatment.

Instead of seeing difference as a natural outcome of personal characteristics, all of which have their place in the wonderful diversity of humankind, we have come to see individuals as made up of symptoms.

In this view, these symptoms are all treatable, usually by medication, within an implicit vision of normality arising from a dominant culture that is mainly driven by economic considerations.

And that’s the problem. The psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries essentially depend on a tautological logic, a kind of nightmarish Field of Dreams approach in which, if you define it, they will come and take their meds.

But it is not the only problem. The reality is that there are real mental disorders that carry a terrible cost, and that many of these can be treated effectively through a combination of medication, psychotherapy, and environmental support.

That our current approach mixes apples and oranges, the relatively small population that is truly in need of medical help with the much larger group that does not, risks discrediting the field in general, in ways that might ultimately mean that individuals who truly require medical intervention might choose not to get it.

It also adds costs to our yearly health-care budget which are largely unnecessary, though I have yet to hear this discussed in the Sturm und Drang that has attended President Obama’s attempt to make sense out of our broken health-care system.

Perhaps the greatest problem is that children who, in another age, were simply different — odd, quirky, restless, bored, sad, angry — are now disordered, and often drugged to make them more “normal.”

Adults, too. Between 2006 and 2010, the number of prescriptions for antidepressants increased by 43 percent. More than 23 million prescriptions were filled last year.

All of this while the world we have shaped seems to be spinning rapidly out of control, whether in the loss of contact with nature caused by urbanization and suburbanization, the terrible dislocations of a post-industrial society in which 1 percent of the population controls almost all the wealth, or in the simple reality that the climate we live in will change over the next decades in ways that will take a horrific human toll.

Who wouldn’t feel sad, or angry?

* * *

The new DSM is coming, probably in 2013 or 2014 — a lot later than its original projected deadline of 2011, in part because debates over what it should include have been so fierce.

One of the main external critiques of the process is that so many of the shrinks working on the bible are affiliated with pharmaceutical companies. It’s an important point, one that the public has barely seen in the popular press.

To my mind, the more important critique is that the fundamental underpinnings of the DSM are flawed, and that the lack of a theoretical basis means that any quirk or problem a person might express can be categorized as illness. Even expert tautological logic is still tautological.

There are reasons why people shop when they are sad, or why children stay up all night playing video games. There are reasons that a lot of preadolescent boys find it hard to sit still in class and cause problems for their teachers. There are reasons why children with overstressed parents, children who spend a lot of time living in an internal world of television, music, Facebook, instant messaging, and texting, have difficulty developing the skill of social interaction. There are reasons why children get sad, or angry, in the world they live in.

You won’t find these in the DSM.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site04/story.php?articleno=3712&page=3

For more information see this video featuring CCHR Co-founder, Dr. Thomas Szasz

http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/thomas-szasz/

« Return to news items


Share

In Soviet Relapse, Critics Sent to Psychiatric Hospitals

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

The Moscow Times – June 28, 2011

By Natalya Krainova

Editor’s note: This is the first article in a series on punitive psychiatry.

In the Soviet Union, dissidents were labeled schizophrenics, thrown into psychiatric hospitals and drugged just for questioning the government. It wasn’t until the Soviet demise that officials grasped the difference between criticism and mental illness.

But old habits die hard.

Galina Yartseva, 47, editor of a small opposition newspaper in Veliky Novgorod, learned this the hard way after she took on the city establishment, accusing local officials of corruption and a local plant of air pollution damaging to children’s health.

She was slammed with dubious charges of showing disrespect to a judge in 2010, but cleared by a jury. A few weeks later, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittal at the request of regional prosecutors and sent the case back to the regional court.

In the new trial, regional prosecutors asked the court to order a psychiatric examination of Yartseva. Local psychiatrists found that she showed “signs of a personality disorder” but was “criminally sane,” meaning she could be tried in court, her lawyer Yegor Mylnikov said.

In mid-June, a jury acquitted Yartseva of the charges again.

“It was clear beforehand that the examination was ordered to discredit me,” Yartseva said by telephone on June 24 from Veliky Novgorod, located 550 kilometers northwest of Moscow.

“This is not just an offense but an obstruction of my journalistic activities, because who will listen to me if I am declared insane?” she said.

Yartseva was distraught but appeared otherwise normal during a separate interview in April in Moscow, where she came for an independent psychiatric examination intended to clear her name. The Moscow psychiatrist confirmed her mental health to be sound.

Yartseva’s ordeal places her in the company of at least a dozen activists across the country whose sanity has been questioned over the past decade after they crossed local authorities.

The people are a ragtag bunch, ranging from liberal activists and neo-Nazis to poets and college professors. All those located by The Moscow Times were eventually declared sane and released, but they insist that their plight was persecution for political or anti-corruption activism. If true, this would imply a dangerous precedent for a country still mired in its Soviet legacy.

Regional authorities use psychiatric examinations as part of intimidation campaigns against people who “file lots of complaints in courts and other state bodies trying to instate justice,” said Tatyana Malchikova, president of the Civil Commission for Human Rights in Moscow, which has been tracking abuse in psychiatry since 2000.

The centralized Soviet system of prosecution by mental treatment is now dismantled, and authorities “are afraid to use psychiatry for political goals,” said Yury Savenko, president of the Independent Psychiatric Association.

But while that may be true for the federal government, officials on the ground are not above declaring critics insane, said lawyer Yury Yershov, who defends victims of psychiatric abuse.

Criminal cases do not require the psychiatric examination of suspects, but a check can be ordered during the trial if any party appeals to the court with doubts about the defendant’s sanity, said Mylnikov, Yartseva’s lawyer.

There are no set rules on what mandates a check. The decision on whether to order it rests with the judge — many of whom are known to be on amiable terms with local authorities and prosecutors and willing to lend an ear to their pleas regardless of how justified they are.

The Veliky Novgorod regional court said in its order for Yartseva to undergo a psychiatric examination that she had showed “unusual emotionality.”

Savenko, the psychiatrist, said suspicions are not always unfounded, because some people who pester the authorities with complaints suffer from ”querulent and litigious syndrome.”

Lawyer Yershov retorted that the syndrome is only a ”very convenient” pretext to get rid of people “who sue too much.”

Actual mental health treatment is less severe than in Soviet times, when dissidents were kept in psychiatric hospitals for months or even years on forced treatment. Among those who faced the ordeal were human rights champions Vladimir Bukovsky, Valeria Novodvorskaya, Zhores Medvedev and Andrei Almarik. None have had their sanity questioned since 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. These days a stay in a psychiatric facility is generally limited to weeks and usually includes no mandatory medication.

Still, even a short time spent in a psychiatric hospital for an examination qualifies as punitive psychiatry simply because it is “always a stress to be among people with grave mental disorders,” said Roman Chorny, president of the Civil Commission for Human Rights in St. Petersburg.

The medical community offers little resistance, because state clinics — where court-ordered psychiatric examinations must be held — depend on the very authorities who request checks of their critics, Chorny said. “Psychiatrists often opt to admit a person even when a court order for an examination is flawed for fear that if they refuse too often, the authorities might close their clinics,” he said.

Between 2001 and 2010, at least 12 people at odds with the authorities were prosecuted with the help of psychiatrists, according to people interviewed by The Moscow Times and media reports. A 13th person, a university professor, had his sanity questioned amid a business dispute. Malchikova, Chorny and Yershov said additional cases might have gone unnoticed.

Among the group are political activists Roman Nikolaichik, Artyom Basyrov and Larisa Arap, all members of the Other Russia opposition group, and Vadim Charushev, founder of an Internet community for supporters of State Duma Deputy Galina Starovoitova, who was murdered in 1998.

On the other side of the political spectrum are two members of the banned National-Socialist Society: Dmitry Ufimtsev, suspected of killing judge Eduard Chuvashov last year; and Vasilisa Kovalyova, accused of involvement in several ethnic hate killings.

Two reporters who contributed for media outlets run by Chechen separatists — Andrei Novikov, who wrote for the Chechenpress news agency, and Sergei Kryukov, a reporter with Ichkeria.info — also received psychiatric treatment.

Local lawmakers and opposition candidates in elections have also complained of psychiatric abuse. Among them were Rifkhat Khakimov, who ran for office in the Urals town of Pervouralsk; Albert Imendayev, a candidate for the Cheboksary city legislature; and Igor Molyakov, an opposition deputy who served four terms in Cheboksary’s regional parliament.

Rounding out the list are a senior member of the human rights watchdog Memorial in Novosibirsk, Alexei Manannikov, and the poet Yulia Privedyonnaya, who was accused of creating a militant group and abusing minors.

The revival of the practice of requesting psychiatric examinations emerged in the late 1990s, when two successful but low-profile rights activists were confined to psychiatric hospitals, historian Anatoly Prokopenko wrote in a 2005 book on psychiatric abuse.

Yartseva’s story is a case study into the problem, although she got off more easily than some. State psychiatrists said after the first check that they lacked data to determine whether Yartseva was sane, and the court ordered an additional examination — by the same doctors — in February. The psychiatrists then questioned Yartseva’s acquaintances.

Incidentally, Yartseva had repeatedly criticized local psychiatrists in her articles and accused them in court of cooperating with “swindlers protected by the authorities” who defraud pensioners, the disabled and emancipated orphans of their apartments.

While Yartseva was waging her battle in Novgorod, Left Front activist Vladislav Ryazantsev was sent for a sanity check by the Rostov-on-Don police two days ahead of a March 31 opposition rally that he was to lead.

He was eventually found sane, but only an hour before the rally, one of many held nationwide on the last day of every month with 31 days to draw attention to Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of assembly.

A Rostov-on-Don police spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment about Ryazantsev’s detention.

“A senior doctor at the facility told me that unidentified authorities called several hours before I was detained and asked that I be diagnosed as insane,” Ryazantsev said by telephone.

To the doctors’ credit, they never did.

« Return to news items


Share

Paxil and Prozac Linked to Risk of Heart Birth Defects

Monday, June 27th, 2011

AboutLawSuits.com – June 27, 2011

According to Finnish researchers, doctors should avoid prescribing Paxil or Prozac to pregnant women, due to the potential risk of heart birth defects.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology medical journal, researchers found that side effects of Prozac and Paxil use during pregnancy may increase the risk of women giving birth to children with congenital heart defects. Both drugs belong to a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Researchers looked at national data from Finland on 635,583 births occurring between 1996 and 2006, and found that 31 out of every 10,000 women who took Paxil during pregnancy gave birth to children with right ventricular outflow tract defects that affect blood flow from the right chambers of the heart to the rest of the body, more than four times the frequency of births among women who did not take Paxil. For those who took Prozac, 105 babies born out of every 10,000 had isolated ventrical septal defects; a hole between the left and right sides of the heart, which was more than double the rate of babies born to women who did not take the drug.

The researchers also found that women who took any SSRI antidepressant during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to give birth to a child with a neural tube defect; 22 out of every 10,000 newborns, as compared to 9 out of every 10,000 newborns born to women who did not take any SSRI during pregnancy.

SSRIs are a relatively new class of antidepressants, which help reduce symptoms of depression by preventing certain nerve cells in the brain from re-absorbing the chemical serotonin. These drugs are commonly used by millions of Americans with depression.

Although the drugs have been found to cause fewer side effects than older anti-depressants, research has shown that users of the drugs could also face an increased risk of suicides, and use during pregnancy has been linked to a risk of birth defects, especially among users of Paxil.

Prozac (fluoxetine) is marketed by Eli Lilly and is approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other psychiatric problems. In 2007 there were more than 22 million Prozac prescriptions in the United States.

Paxil (paroxetine) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribed to treat depression. Approved in 1992, it has become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with sales of just under $1 billion in 2008.

In December 2005, the FDA issued an alert about the risk of birth defects from Paxil after studies showed the drug could increase the risk of the heart defects when taken during the first three months of pregnancy. At that time, the agency also required GlaxoSmithKline to update the warning label to include information about the risk of birth defects from Paxil side effects.

The company reportedly agreed to settle hundreds of Paxil heart birth defect lawsuits last year. The Paxil lawsuits were filed by parents who say that the use of the antidepressant during pregnancy caused persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns (PPHN) and other birth defects. The lawsuits claimed that the company failed to warn consumers and doctors that use of Paxil during pregnancy could lead to congenital heart defects in newborns. The lawsuits also claimed that the company purposefully hid test results that would have revealed the side effects of Paxil and misled doctors.

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/paxil-prozac-birth-defect-study-19139/

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatrists with corrupt pasts found working in juvenile justice facilities and doping children

Saturday, June 25th, 2011

NaturalNews- June 27, 2011

by Monica G Young

Investigations found doctors labeling & drugging kids had taken huge speaker fees or gifts from drug companies that make antipsychotics.

An investigation into the massive drugging of kids in Florida juvenile jails has uncovered psychiatric doctors with deplorable records working for the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Their histories include not only grand theft and medical malpractice, but overmedicating patients to the point of death.

In a series of outstanding articles in the Palm Beach Post, reporter Michael Laforgia lays out the heinous trail of a still unfolding investigation. It began with an expose that children in state custody were receiving heavy dosages of powerful antipsychotics; in two years, Florida bought hundreds of thousands of these tablets with no DJJ tracking system in place to detect practitioner abuse. This led to a finding that doctors giving the diagnoses had taken huge speaker fees or gifts from drug companies that make antipsychotics.

The Post’s newest article reveals psychiatrists working in the juvenile justice system whose records should have barred them. “Some psychiatrists took DJJ jobs after they were cited for breaking the law, making grave medical missteps or violating state rules,” writes Laforgia. “Others were hired after they were accused of overmedicating patients, sometimes fatally. All were empowered to prescribe drugs to jailed kids as powerful antipsychotic pills flowed freely into Florida’s homes for wayward children.”

The full details should be seen at (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/s…)

To summarize examples cited:

Dr. Gold Smith Dorval pleaded no contest in 2004 to a grand theft charge after a probe found he billed Medicaid for more than $350,000 in fraudulent claims – under the pretense of providing therapy to juvenile delinquents and foster children. No one screened Dorval’s background in 2007 before a state-contracted agency, Compass Health Systems, sent him to work at a juvenile detention center that year. He states he was “not aware of any wrongdoing” in accepting the job.

Dr. Charles D. Jack prescribed such powerful cocktails of antidepressants and painkillers to a patient over a two and a half year period that she died in 2002, at age 42. Facing charges, Dack denied wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $7000 fine and take a course on misprescribing. None of this prevented him from working until April of this year at three privately-run juvenile treatment  facilities used by the DJJ.

Dr. Samuel McClure diagnosed an 11-year-old with ADD and although the boy was quite small for his age, he gave him high concentrations of antidepressants which had never been approved for children. The mother woke one morning to find her son dead on the floor. Despite being sued in 2004 for medical malpractice – a case settled for $500,000 – McClure worked in juvenile treatment homes from January 2006 until June 2009.

Dr. Sohail Punjwani, another psychiatrist, conducted a drug trial on seven children in 2006, six of whom overdosed. One slashed her wrists while hallucinating, per a later FDA warning letter to Punjwani. He went on to work at a juvenile detention center and then for the foster care system. In 2009 he prescribed a very potent combo of psychoactive drugs to a 7-year old who subsequently locked himself in the bathroom of his foster home and hanged himself. Punjwani blames his medication errors with the boy on the nurse.

Per the Palm Beach Post, records show “roughly one in eight of the psychiatrists who have worked for DJJ in the past five years has settled a malpractice lawsuit in Florida.”

Florida’s DJJ Secretary now has a probe underway into this matter and the abuse of antipsychotics by the department. No long term studies have ever proven these drugs safe for kids. But plenty of evidence shows they can create heavy weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, involuntary facial and body movements, suicidal thoughts and a life of drug dependency.

Prominent California psychiatrist under trial for molesting boys in juvenile justice system

Another example of exploiting the most vulnerable is the once highly regarded child psychiatrist, Dr. William Ayres.

Ayres is undergoing legal proceedings in San Mateo California for accusations of molesting boys in state care, under the guise of giving medical exams. Prosecutors say he knew these youths would hesitate to come forward and probably wouldn’t be believed if they did.

During his forty years in practice, Ayres saw hundreds of adolescents referred by the juvenile justice system, court-appointed attorneys and social workers. Several of these victims have testified against him.

Ayres was a former president of the American Academy of Adolescent and Child Psychiatry, the leading professional medical association for child psychiatrists. In 2002 he was honored with a lifetime achievement award for “his tireless effort to improve the lives of children and adolescents.”

Now 79, Ayres says he has no memory of the victims who have accused him.

State Mental Hospital Director sentenced to 248 years in prison for molesting foster kids

Yet another high profile figure in the mental health world – Claude Edward Foulk – was sentenced in February 2011 to 248 years in prison for molesting foster sons and other boys over a period of four decades. Reportedly, he would threaten to return them to foster care if they didn’t comply. But some of those victims, now grown men, went to the police.

Prior to his arrest in 2010, Foulk was the executive director of the Napa State Hospital, California’s largest mental health facility which includes sex offenders in its patient population. Faulk was selected to run the hospital by the Director of the Department of Mental Health in California.

“Hey, I didn’t do anything wrong”

What’s disturbing is the diabolical lack of accountability reflected in these psychiatrists’ statements and actions. Denying accusations, shifting blame, justifying atrocities. Equally disturbing is how many government agencies, schools and parents blindly place children in the hands of these pseudo-doctors. Yet they do not use blood tests, brain scans or any other medical tests in diagnosing mental disorders and putting millions of kids worldwide on powerful drugs.

The sordid history of psychiatry’s vigorous and deceptive campaign to medicalize itself and put it on stature with other MDs is covered in Robert Whitaker’s book released in 2010: “Anatomy of an Epidemic.”

Sources include:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/s…

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/d…

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/s…

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-04-…

http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/law…

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl…

« Return to news items


Share

In Australia – Electric shock therapy on the rise for young

Saturday, June 25th, 2011

Note from CCHR:  More than 1 million people are electroshocked every year, including children, the elderly and pregnant women.   This is simply a brutal, invasive and damaging ‘treatment’ where up to 450 volts of electricity are sent through the skull.  Psychiatrists admit they don’t know how electroshock ‘works’ and the reason behind this is simple:  it doesn’t work.  Not unless you consider cognitive impairment, brain seizures, permament memory loss and death ‘workable.’ Now in Australia, the use of electroshock for the young is on the rise.   Mentioned in this article are the atrocities that were committed in Chelmsford psychiatric hospital where patients were put into drugged induced coma’s and electroshocked, killing dozens.  That lethal and inhumane practice was exposed and then banned due  to the efforts of CCHR.   No organization has done more to expose the deadly practice of electroshock, or helped enact more international laws restricting or prohibiting its use, than CCHR.    To get the facts about electroshock ‘treatment’ read this article by psychologist John Breeding, “Think They Don’t Electroshock People Anymore? Think Again” http://qr.net/edoh

Sydney Morning Herald – June 26, 2011

by Natalie O’Brien

Revelations about the practises at Chelmsford and the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest led to a major drop in treatments.

ELECTRIC shock treatments for mental health patients have increased by almost 30 per cent in the past five years in NSW, particularly among young women, Medicare figures show.Female patients – all aged under 24 – received almost 600 procedures last year, more than twice the rate of young women in Victoria.

The trend has sparked concern among some psychiatrists about the ”start of a slippery slope”.

An investigation by The Sun-Herald into the resurgence of the treatment, also known as electro-convulsive therapy, or ECT, reveals that the number of voluntary sessions received by young women rose from 184 in 2000 to 575 last year.

The figures do not specify how many women were involved in the procedures, as one patient can often undergo more than one session.

Electric shock treatment still carries the stigma from its brutal portrayal in the film One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and from the Sydney experience of the horrific practices at the Chelmsford Hospital in the 1960s and ’70s, where dozens of patients died after being given deep sleep therapy and ECT. But doctors say they are working with new treatments and patients no longer suffer a physical convulsion.

The Medicare figures show that last year, NSW men aged under 24 were given the therapy at three times the rate of men in that age group in Victoria.

Across Australia, 24,714 ECT sessions were administered to patients of all ages. In NSW, 5733 treatments were carried out – slightly fewer than in Victoria.

A former president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Dr Jonathan Phillips, who works as a private clinician, said he was worried by the number of sessions younger people had undertaken.

”In a way it is very easy to order ECT treatment,” he said. ”I would not like to think that it is being used just because it’s easy.”

He was especially surprised by the rate of young women receiving the treatment and said he would find it hard to explain.

”I don’t know why there is a such a difference in statistics. I do hope it is not the start of the slippery slope. Are we going back to an era where we resort to ECT rather than talking to people and using the art of psychiatry?

Read the rest of the article here -  http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/electric-shock-therapy-on-the-rise-for-young-20110625-1gklc.html#ixzz1QIdHnpE0

To get the FACTS about electroshock, watch this video:

Electroshock — It’s Not Treatment, It’s Torture


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDR3cD8_kck&feature=channel_video_title

« Return to news items


Share

U.S. Troops Reportedly Taking More Medication Than Ever

Friday, June 24th, 2011

“Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Salem News

by Marianne Skolek

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.) – Fox News reports that U.S. military troops are taking more prescription medication than ever. US troops Heavily Medicated on Prescription Drugs, the report warns.

The bottom line is that the men and women of the US armed forces are taking more addictive medication than they ever have in the past.

The Daily reported Wednesday, that the US Department of Defense doesn’t keep track of those medical prescriptions doled out to service members in combat. This, despite ongoing pleas from federal officials to record the data. The military’s 2012 budget report from the House Appropriations Committee, cited how the prescription of pain management drugs is not handled consistently, particularly in battle. According to The Daily, the report includes an ultimatum. The committee expects concrete information within two months of the budget’s approval, detailing “the required steps and potential obstacles toward electronic transmission of prescription drug data.”

In 2010 a US Army study revealed how 14 percent of soldiers have been prescribed an opiate painkiller. 95 percent of those prescriptions were for oxycodone, a notoriously-addictive pharmaceutical best known by the brand name OxyContin. And since 2001, military spending on prescription medication has skyrocketed. Orders for antipsychotics like Seroquel are up 200 percent, and demand for anti-anxiety drugs like Valium has increased by 170 percent, according to Defense Logistics Agency records. Many of the antidepressants, antipsychotic drugs and anti-anxiety drugs prescribed are highly addictive. Potential side effects include dulled reaction times, irritability and a heightened risk of suicide. “The medications they use shouldn’t be so heavily prescribed in combat,” said Dr. Judith Broder, a psychiatrist and founder of the Soldiers Project, a nonprofit counseling service.

“But they can’t afford to send anyone home. They need the bodies — health and welfare are secondary,” she said.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232011/drugged-soldiers-ms.php


« Return to news items


Share

52% of foster kids are prescribed psych drugs—One of them is fighting back

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

By CCHR Int
June 23, 2011

At just 6 years of age, still grieving over the death of the only mother he’d ever known, his foster mother, Giovan Bazan received the first of many psychiatric “diagnoses” and drugs that would plague him for the next twelve years of his life. Moved from foster home to  foster home, orphanages and other modes of state care, Giovan was stigmatized with a plethora of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs until the age of 18, when he could finally make his own medical decisions and quit. Now a child advocate working part time at the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) in Georgia, Giovan is on a mission: To get a full-time job with DFCS and help enact laws to combat the wholesale labeling and drugging of foster children. In the video below, Giovan tells his story and why he decided to fight back against the abuse of kids in foster care.

(Story continues below)

Foster kids—often removed from family homes because of abuse—are further abused when they are prescribed psychotropic drugs under state care. Many of these children are on cocktails of prescribed drugs, including antipsychotics and antidepressants with documented side effects of diabetes, stroke, mania, psychosis, tumors, coma, suicide and death.

Yet, the rates with which these children are being given drugs has been increasing. The antipsychotic use rate among foster kids increased by 5.6% between 2004 and 2007 (from 11.7 percent to 12.4 percent). Another study in Pediatrics, revealed that youth in foster care covered by Medicaid insurance receive psychotropic medication at a rate more than 3 times that of Medicaid-insured youth who qualify by low family income.

Only half of state child welfare systems have a policy to review usage of these drugs, and those are weak policies at that.

The psychiatric drugging of foster kids has caused so much concern nationally that in July 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) started an investigation into the use of these drugs in foster care, as they are widely used in dangerous combinations, and for so-called “off-label” uses to treat symptoms for which they have not been medically approved. The GAO is looking into the estimated hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud arising from this and is collecting and analyzing data from Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas.

For more information on the psychiatric drugging of children, watch these videos:

Psychiatry—Labeling Kids with Bogus ‘Mental Disorders’


Drugging Our Children—Side Effects

« Return to news items


Share