Posts Tagged ‘antidepressants’

SSRI Antidepressants Increase Surgical Risks Of Bleeding And Death

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

To read all international drug regulatory warnings, studies and FDA Medwatch reports on SSRI’s (Newer antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, etc) Click here

Medical Daily—April 29, 2013
by Cindy del Rosario |

Patients taking SSRIs were more likely to have obesity, chronic pulmonary disease, and hypothyroidism, which are conditions that could complicate surgery.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — a popular class of antidepressants which includes Zoloft, Paxil, and Prozac — could increase the risk of bleeding, readmission to the hospital, and even death. Among the most commonly prescribed drugs in the U.S., antidepressants are used to treat a range of disorders, such as depression, anxiety disorders, and even pain.

While a handful of studies have linked SSRIs to increased risk of hemorrhaging in both surgical patients and ambulatory patients, the study, led by Dr. Andrew Auerbach, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, is the largest of its kind to date.

As detailed in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed data that included 530,416 patients ages 18 and older across 375 U.S. hospitals, who underwent major surgery from 2006-2008. They compared rates of adverse outcomes in patients who took SSRIs before or after surgery (13.7 percent of total sample), as well as outcomes in those diagnosed with depression.

Patients taking SSRIs were more likely to have obesity, chronic pulmonary disease, and hypothyroidism, which are conditions that could complicate surgery. However, after adjusting for these factors, patients taking SSRIs were more likely to die in the hospital, more likely to experience bleeding, and more likely to be readmitted at 30 days.

However, doctors caution against patients deciding to withhold SSRI therapy before or after surgery, because doing so also has negative consequences of its own.

Abrupt withdrawal of SSRI treatment could result in “discontinuation syndrome,” which may lead to imbalance, dizziness, nausea, or fatigue. For those using SSRIs as an analgesic, withdrawing treatment could cause pain.   Read the rest of the article here

Watch video: Karen Barth Menzies speaking about antidepressant addiction and withdrawal. Menzies has been on the forefront of the SSRI antidepressant litigation for more than a decade.

« Return to news items


Share

Be Skeptical of Pharmaceutical Company Claims

Monday, April 8th, 2013

Huffington Post
By Peter Breggin
April 7, 2013

Click here to read an original op-ed from the TED speaker who inspired this post and watch the TEDTalk below.

Ben Goldacre’s TEDTalk describes the selective bias in research and publishing which strongly favors articles with positive outcomes. In my field of psychiatry, this bias is only the tip of the iceberg. In many cases, the articles are not even written by the scientists whose names appear on them. They are “ghostwritten” by drug company minions.

In my role as a medical expert in product liability lawsuits against drug companies, judges have empowered me to dig into the otherwise secret interiors of drug company data vaults. The following observations have been generated during my forensic investigations and have been documented in my books and scientific articles.

Published articles about psychiatric drugs frequently fail to reflect the actual results of the study. After the FDA rejected an antidepressant clinical trial for failing to demonstrate effectiveness, the pharmaceutical company authored a paper based on the same study that was manipulated to show a positive outcome. In another example, a major journal editor was complicit with a drug company in publishing an article about a benzodiazepine tranquilizer that emphasized its supposed effectiveness at six weeks. But the study had lasted an additional two weeks, at which time many of the patients had become addicted to the drug and were suffering from greater than before starting the medication.

In the 1980s, a drug company conducted an in-house review showing that its soon-to-be approved antidepressant increased the suicide attempt rate in adults 6-12 times compared to placebo. The report remained secret until I unearthed it several years later in a legal case. When I informed the FDA, the agency showed no interest in it.

When pharmaceutical corporations have received reports of suicide related to their drugs, more than one has changed the identifying description of the report from “suicide” to “no drug effect,” “depression,” or “emotional liability.” This sleight of hand made the reports invisible to the drug company and the FDA when looking for cases of suicide. In one drug company file, I found an internal memorandum from an employee to his bosses expressing shame about this self-serving misreporting. The employee asked rhetorically how he could explain these actions to “a judge, to a reporter or even to my family… ” Nothing changed.

Akathisia (agitation accompanied by a compulsion to move) is a drug effect that can lead to violence, suicide, and psychosis. Some drug companies have successfully avoided receiving reports of akathisia when testing their drugs. They simply remove akathisia from the list of possible adverse effects that are given to their clinical investigators. The researchers end up reporting akathisia as something much less ominous such as “hyperactivity” or “jitteriness.”

Too many patients were dropping out of the clinical trials for an antidepressant due to insomnia and agitation. So a top executive sent out a secret memo illegally allowing patients in the study to be given tranquilizers. When the FDA found out, it nonetheless allowed the company to use the fraudulent studies to gain approval for the drug. Doctors and patients had no idea that the drug was so over-stimulating it could only be approved in combination with dangerous addictive tranquilizers.

There is no simple remedy for drug-company falsification of data and scientific reports. We can exert political pressure to strengthen the FDA; but to strengthen the FDA we must go up against… the FDA itself. Unlike medical experts in product liability suits, the FDA does not examine the company’s data-gathering and culling process. More like a lapdog than a watchdog, it rarely challenges the validity of drug company data. To strengthen the FDA, we must also go up against NIMH, the AMA, the American Psychiatric Association and multiple other interests groups closely tied to the drug companies.

Product liability suits have helped to control and publicize drug company malfeasance, but too often cases are settled and incriminating facts are sealed. In recent years the U.S. Department of Justice has forced drug companies to accept billion-dollar settlements in criminal and civil cases, often based on the false marketing of psychiatric drugs. But drug companies are able to sacrifice a few billions of dollars as a part of conducting “business as usual.”

At present, most drug company records are treated as proprietary secrets. As a public health measure, drug companies should be required to make public all of their internal documentation concerning any drugs that begin the FDA approval process.

In the meanwhile, as individuals we need to be skeptical about pharmaceutical claims for the safety and efficacy of their products. Be aware and be wary, especially in the arena of psychiatric medications, and seek non-drug approaches to healthcare whenever possible.

Warning: Do not abruptly stop psychiatric drugs. Especially after months of treatment, withdrawal can be dangerous, and should be done cautiously with experienced clinical supervision and family or peer support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/be-skeptical-of_b_3020841.html

« Return to news items


Share

APA’s ‘Major Depressive Disorder’ Guideline Developers Have Numerous Ties to Drug Companies

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

UMass Boston Researcher Raises Questions on Validity and Trustworthiness of APA Clinical Guidelines—study finds that conflicts of interest high among APA’s Clinical Guideline Development Committee.

PR Web – March 21, 2013

All of the panel members that produced the American Psychiatric Association (APA)’s Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder had numerous financial ties to drug companies that manufacture antidepressants, raising questions about the trustworthiness of the guideline, a UMass Boston researcher says.

Lead investigator Lisa Cosgrove and her research team evaluated the quality of the evidence to support antidepressant medication. The APA recommends pharmacotherapy as a first-line of intervention for all levels of depression, but Cosgrove’s new study published in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice found that 34.2 percent of the cited research did not study outpatients with major depressive disorder, and 17.2 percent did not measure clinically relevant results.

“The recommendation for antidepressants for mild depression is not congruent with the evidence. Other guidelines such as those produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence explicitly state antidepressants should not be first-line intervention for mild depression,” she said. “Recent Dutch guidelines recommend antidepressants as first-line treatment only in cases of severe depression. People may be exposed to unnecessary harm.”

Cosgrove, associate professor of counseling and school psychology at UMass Boston and a research lab fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, and her fellow researchers found that all of the committee members reported ties to the financial industry. The number of relationships ranged from 9 to 33; the mean was 20.5. Cosgrove said that number should be zero.

Researchers also found that the majority of the committee participated on pharmaceutical companies’ speakers’ bureaus and the independent panel had undeclared financial relationships. Doctors serving on a speakers bureau are referred to as a “Key Opinion Leaders” or “KoLs” because they are so important to the marketing of a drug.

Cosgrove and her colleagues say it is critical that the groups developing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) pay attention to the quality of cited studies as well as the bias resulting from conflicts of interest so as to not put patients at risk.

About UMass Boston
With a growing reputation for innovative research addressing complex issues, the University of Massachusetts Boston, metropolitan Boston’s only public university, offers its diverse student population both an intimate learning environment and the rich experience of a great American city. UMass Boston’s nine colleges and graduate schools serve nearly 16,000 students while engaging local, national, and international constituents through academic programs, research centers, and public service activities.

To learn more about UMass Boston, visit http://www.umb.edu.

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatry’s Weapon of Mental Destruction (WMD)—The Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Monday, March 11th, 2013

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
March 11, 2013

Photo: Garry Mcleod; Origami: Robert Lang – from Wired Magazine, “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness”

In 1952, the first hydrogen bomb was detonated and the American Psychiatric Association, APA, published its first book of mental illnesses: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM.

No one, then, could have imagined that this seemingly innocuous manual would be more destructive, and result in producing more victims, than a nuclear weapon.

Since then the DSM has mushroomed and with each revised DSM untold millions carry the scars from its devastating effects.

Oddly enough, governments seem oblivious to the fallout of psychiatry’s arbitrary and devastating mental illness labels. Why? Could the answer lie in the extraordinarily profitable relationship between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industrial complex?

The fact is pharmaceutical companies can’t push their latest mind-altering chemical concoctions until the deep-thinkers of psychiatry first vote the mental illness into existence. Then, unfortunately, the unsuspecting public becomes ground zero for these pharmaceutical Weapons of Mental Destruction (WMD).

How lucky, then, for the pharmaceutical industry. Very soon the APA will introduce its updated book of mental illnesses, the DSM-V.  The APA’s latest book of behaviors it believes are abnormal actually may read longer than Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace.

More importantly, though, according to recent reports, the newest book of mental disorders is not only horribly flawed but also is more dangerous than its previous version – the whopping 886-page DSM-IV-TR.

In fact, Allen J. Frances, M.D., former chairman of the APA’s DSM-IV Task Force and long-time cheerleader of the APA’s apparent philosophy of “we-can-find-a-mental illness-for-every-human-emotion,” now oddly has become an outspoken critic of the upcoming release of the DSM-V.

Last year Frances published an op-ed in Psychology Today in which he slams the APA for approving “a deeply flawed DSM5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound.”

The DSM-V is “unsafe and scientifically unsound?” Wow, Frances is just now figuring that out?! That cat long has been out of the bag and, no matter how the APA tries to spin it, psychiatric diagnosing is not now, nor has it ever been, based in science.

It is an important step, however, that the former chairman of the DSM Task Force is openly admitting that psychiatry’s diagnosing bible is “scientifically unsound.” But, Frances doesn’t stop there.

According to the psychiatrist, “the history of psychiatry is littered with fad diagnoses that in retrospect did far more harm than good.” Wow, there’s a confession!

One can only assume that it was only due to lack of space that Frances refrained from disclosing which “fad diagnoses” were more “harmful.” However, given that none of the diagnoses are based in science, Frances inadvertently raises a stunning point that lawmakers may want to explore.

For instance, since none of the alleged mental disorders are based in science, how does one determine which are “fads?”

Nevertheless, it is Frances’ comments about the relationship between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry that finally reveal what the nation’s mental illness epidemic is all about.

“New diagnoses in psychiatry,” says Frances, “are more dangerous than new drugs because they influence whether or not millions of people are placed on drugs…” Bada bing, bada boom! No diagnosis, no drugs. Yep, the APA first has to pull a disorder out of its…ear before the drugs can be prescribed.

Despite this glaring admission, the DSM-V will hit the streets in the Spring and, along with the old invented mental illness stand-bys, like depression, bipolar, ADD, ADHD and such, the APA will add many new mental disorders.

For instance, infant temper tantrums now are labeled as Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder, normal grief becomes Major Depressive Disorder, forgetfulness in old age morphs into Minor Neurocognitive Disorder and excessive eating will now be diagnosed as Binge Eating Disorder.

Does anyone with a drug-free mind doubt that the pharmaceutical companies aren’t already preparing the newest line of mind-altering drugs to “treat” the newly invented mental disorders? And, for that matter, that the top drug pushers aren’t splitting their sides over the temper tantrum diagnosis?

Clearly the APA has yet to find a normal human emotion it can’t twist into a mental illness, and there’s little doubt that the pharmaceutical companies are biting at the bit to cash in on these newly invented labels. After all, peddling psychiatric mind-altering drugs is a booming business.

For example, between 2001 and 2010, the use of psychotropic drugs by adult Americans increased 22 percent, with one in five adults taking at least one mind-altering drug.

In 2010, alone, more than $16 billion dollars was spent on antipsychotics, $11 billion on antidepressants and $7 billion on ADHD drug “treatments.”

There is no doubt that with every revised edition of the DSM, always increasing the number of invented and utterly ridiculous mental illnesses, the pharmaceutical companies kept pace in creating magic mind-altering drugs for “treatment.”

In 2009, total U.S. prescription sales were $300 billion, with psychiatric mind-altering drugs accounting for half of those sales. And these data are based on drugs prescribed for the old stale diagnoses.

If the enormous sales from drugging kids diagnosed with the invented ADD/ADHD is any indication, one can only imagine the profits for the pharmaceutical companies from drugging toddlers whose temper tantrums are now labeled mental illness.

And in order to reap these enormous profits the pharmaceutical companies have to convince the public they’re needed as “treatment.” Between 1996-2005, the pharmaceutical industry tripled its direct-to-consumer advertising, making it easy to understand why today more than one in 10 Americans take antidepressants. Not surprising, antidepressants also happen to be the second most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

To add insult to injury the federal government, rather than question the lack of science behind the invented mental illnesses, actually contributes millions of dollars in grants to help develop psychiatry’s DSM—the very vehicle that allows the pharmaceutical companies to reap their enormous profits. In today’s debt-ridden economy, this is one government subsidy in desperate need of a furlough.

Worse still, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for protecting the public against dangerous mind-altering drugs, is dominated by psychiatrists who shuttle between the drug industry, academia, private practice and government service—a virtual revolving door.

With an estimated 3,000 people dying from psychiatric drugs every month, a serious and immediate retaliatory response from lawmakers is required. The threat to the mental health of the nation can’t get any clearer than Frances’ conclusion that the “DSM 5 violates the most sacred (and most frequently ignored) tenet in medicine – First Do No Harm!”

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award winning investigative reporter for the Washington Times, Insight Magazine, penning dozens of articles exposing the fraud of psychiatric diagnosis and the dangers of the psychiatric drugs – including her ground-breaking 1999 cover story, Guns & Doses, exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.  She is also the author of the highly acclaimed book, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill.  Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer to four Members of Congress. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

« Return to news items


Share

Criminal Psychiatric Diagnosing: A Side Effect of Soderbergh’s Latest Film (SPOILER ALERT)

Wednesday, March 6th, 2013

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
March 6, 2013

Steven Soderbergh’s “psychological thriller,” Side Effects, very clearly demonstrates two things: the fraud and criminality of psychiatric diagnosing.

The “cat’s out of the bag” about the numerous convoluted twists and turns that make up what Rex Reed called “a tank of twaddle called Side Effects.” And, rather than guess, much to his credit, Reed was honest enough to admit, “I have seen it twice, and I still don’t know what it’s about.” Fair enough. It’s easy to see how anyone could be confused about the underlying story line.

Aside from the razzle-dazzle of yammering on about every antidepressant known to man (including a new and fictitious antidepressant called Ablixa), some very brief blather about the adverse side effects of the new psychiatric drug, psychiatrist/patient sexual abuse and, oh yeah, a bloody murder scene, there really isn’t anything new to get excited about.

That is until one considers that psychiatric diagnosing is behind every element of the story. And it is with this element that issues need to be considered if one is to truly appreciate the gift that Soderbergh has given his audience.

Interestingly enough, the day the filmed opened, Time.com published an interview with Dr. Sasha Bardey, a forensic psychiatrist who also happened to be a co-producer of the film. Bardey had worked in the prison ward of Bellevue Hospital in New York City and it was there that he met Scott Burns, the writer of Side Effects.

Bardey was asked in his interview with Time.com if the events in the movie were based on real cases. “Yes,” says Bardey, “they were either based on – or inspired by – actual cases. But most of the action you see in the movie is derived from real incidents that occurred.” Wow, this is some admission. The action you see in the movie is based on real incidents?

Let’s review just two of the “real incidents.” First, Mara Rooney’s character, a frail and pale Emily, goes to a psychiatrist (Jude Law) telling him “every afternoon at three, there’s this poisonous fog bank, rolling in on my mind.”

Naturally, the psychiatrist (Law), by simply listening to pathetic Emily, determines she is suffering from depression and decides to “treat” her with antidepressants.

Okay, this is reality. Soderbergh, with the help of his real-life forensic psychiatrist, Bardey, has made it abundantly clear that a psychiatric diagnosis is nothing more than an opinion formed by the doctor listening to a patient.

What apparently was lost on the reviewers of this film and probably the viewing audience, is that every single psychiatric diagnosis is determined in the same manner. There is no science…no blood tests, no X-rays, no CAT scans or MRI’s to determine whether there’s an actual abnormality in the brain.

In other words, whether someone is diagnosed with depression, bipolar, ADHD, schizophrenia or any of the other 400 alleged mental illnesses, the psychiatrist merely has to briefly listen to the patient’s life complaints and, voila, the psychiatrist is able to determine the exact alleged mental disorder.

On the surface it is ridiculous and Soderbergh/Bardey have provided a very good example of the fraud that is psychiatric diagnosing, and the psychiatric fraud gets worse as the movie progresses.

Emily is prescribed several antidepressants. Her psychiatrist (Law) tells her that the drugs that regulate Serotonin “stop the brain from telling you to feel sad.” Really? Sounds like typical psychobabble on par with the never-proven “chemical imbalance,” theory and certainly there is no science to support such a claim.

For example, Eli Lilly, the maker of the first Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor, Prozac, wrote:  “Depression is not fully understood, but a growing amount of evidence supports the view that people with depression may have an imbalance of the brain’s neurotransmitters, the chemicals that allow nerve cells in the brain to communicate with each other. Many scientists believe that an imbalance in serotonin, one of these neurotransmitters, may be an important factor in the development and severity of depression. Prozac may help correct this imbalance by increasing the brain’s own supply of serotonin.”

Sounds scientific, right? But no part of Lilly’s explanation provides a definitive explanation of depression or how Prozac effects depression. It does say that the pharmaceutical giant doesn’t understand depression, people may have a chemical imbalance, scientists believe and Prozac may help. In other words, there is no science to support the drug’s marketing claims.

Lilly wrote this nonsense thirty years ago. Since then scientists have not come any closer to figuring out what effect an increase in the brain’s serotonin levels has on depression or any other alleged mental illness.

In fact, it is becoming more clear, based on recent studies of clinical trial data for all of the antidepressants on the market, that the drugs are only marginally better than a placebo (sugar pill).

By all accounts, no scientist has yet to prove that there is any chemical imbalance in the brain of any person, least of all depressed people. Worse, yet, there isn’t even a test available to determine chemical levels in the brain, making it impossible for anyone to know if there is an imbalance.

Anyway, back to Emily. The first antidepressants she is prescribed don’t “work” and her psychiatrist (Law) takes advice from Emily’s previous psychiatrist (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who also happens to be Emily’s lesbian lover, and decides to prescribe the newest antidepressant, Ablixa.

Ablixa apparently has “side effects” which can cause people to sleepwalk and, in this drug induced state, become unaware of their behavior and actions. Depressed and drugged Emily kills her husband, claiming she has no memory of the event and she is the victim of the drug.

The audience then is fast-forwarded to the courtroom where Emily’s psychiatrist (Law) is Emily’s psychiatric expert who argues the drug made his client kill. Ultimately, Law convinces Emily to take an insanity plea, do a brief stint in a mental ward and, as he will determine when she is “better,” he will have her out in no time.

Again, it is the psychiatrist who not only diagnosed Emily as depressed and prescribed the mind-altering drugs, but it’s the same psychiatrist who now rescues her from criminal charges that surely would have her spending life in prison. The psychiatrist’s “expertise” will convince the court that Emily is innocent of murder.

But like the original depression diagnosis, the psychiatrist has no scientific tools, nothing other than his opinion, to come to his new conclusions of the patient’s behavior. And, based on an opinion, a psychiatrist could just as easily convince a court that the patient is not insane.

What is most troubling, though, is that Emily’s psychiatrist (Law) figures out that Emily faked her depression, never took the prescribed drugs and premeditated her husband’s murder.

To exact revenge for the personal and professional trouble Emily caused to psychiatrist Law, he arranges to have her committed to a mental institution where only he will decide when she is “better.” And, the movie leaves the audience with a view of a pathetic and drugged Emily apparently spending the rest of her life behind the walls of the mental institution.

So here’s the question, if Bardey is being honest when he says the events in this movie are based on real cases, then one has to wonder who is the real-life patient that has been committed to a mental institution because the psychiatrist wanted revenge?

Equally important, who is the real-life psychiatrist who is keeping someone in a mental institution with the full knowledge that the patient does not suffer from any alleged mental illness?

The point, which this movie abundantly demonstrates, is that psychiatric diagnosing is a fraud and, because of that fraud…because there is no science to back up a single mental illness diagnosis, a psychiatrist can literally get away with criminal behavior.

This is not Hollywood. This is real-life as there are nearly 2 million involuntary commitments occurring in the U.S. every year.  Bardey apparently is aware of one such involuntary and seemingly criminal commitment that most would agree is in desperate need of review.

Arguably, there may be others who are wondering how many other commitments Bardey is aware of that are the result of a psychiatrist’s personal agenda?

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award winning investigative reporter for the Washington Times, Insight Magazine, penning dozens of articles exposing the fraud of psychiatric diagnosis and the dangers of the psychiatric drugs – including her ground-breaking 1999 cover story, Guns & Doses, exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.  She is also the author of the highly acclaimed book, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill.  Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer to four Members of Congress. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

« Return to news items


Share

Protect Your Children from Psychiatric Medication

Monday, February 25th, 2013

Political Outcast
by Stephen F. Hotze, M.D.
February 22, 2013

The pharmaceutical companies have broadened their horizon. It is not enough that they have 30% of middle and upper income white women addicted to antidepressants and that 20% of adults take some form of psychiatric medication. They now want to hook as many children as possible on psychiatric medication as well.

Big Pharma has one goal: Make profits no matter what it takes. This can only be accomplished by convincing lay people and physicians that the solution to health problems is drugs. Common sense tells you that this view cannot be true. Nobody is sick because they have low levels of pharmaceutical drugs in their bodies. In fact people that are taking multiple prescribed drugs suffer from a host of side effects which can be simply annoying, sometimes debilitating and even life threatening. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of Americans and physicians have swallowed the pharmaceutical companies’ drug bait, hook, line and sinker.

Americans make up just 5% of the world’s population, yet they consume over 40% of the drugs that are produced. Do you think that the billions and billions of dollars that the drug companies spend on television and other advertising have influenced this outcome? When your children went off to high school, you probably told them “Just say ‘No!’ to drugs!” Yet when you watch television, the drugs companies are selling you on the proposition to “Just say ‘Yes!’ to drugs.”

Only two countries, New Zealand and the United States allow drug commercials on television. The FDA approved drug commercials in the U.S. in 1999. Pharmaceutical companies spend nearly $5 billion annually on direct to consumer advertising on television. The average American watches nearly 16 hours of drug commercials every year. That works out to 1920 drug commercials every year. Over 20 years that will amount to 320 hours (8 – 40 work weeks) watching 38,400 drug commercials. Americans are being brainwashed into believing that drugs are the panacea for all problems, physical and emotional.

Were you aware that the federal and state governments are working in concert with the pharmaceutical companies to promote the use of psychiatric drugs in children? Pharmaceutical drug companies have developed so-called mental health care screenings for children. When a child is screened at school and found to have symptoms of a mental disorder, then the child is referred to a psychiatrist and given psychiatric drugs. These drugs are amphetamines for the treatment of so-called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs for other symptoms.

Guess who devises these mental health screening tests and promotes their use? The drug companies and their in-house psychiatrists do. Guess who funds these school screening programs? Of course, it’s the drug companies.

Nearly 9 million children in America are taking prescribed psychiatric medication and the drug companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Antidepressants have been demonstrated to provide no more long term benefits than do placebos. The difference is that placebos will not cause you or your children to have suicidal or homicidal ideas and actions like the antidepressants do. By the way, antidepressants are prohibited in England and the U.K. for children 18 and under.

Antidepressants can create a host of symptoms in children and adults: depression, crying spells, fatigue, insomnia, suicidal ideas, homicidal thoughts, anxiety, panic attacks, jitteriness and trembling, irritability, impulsive actions, agitation, confusion, manic behavior, hallucinations, nightmares, detachment and loss of feelings. These symptoms develop after the antidepressant treatment is initiated. Of course this leads the psychiatrist or local doctor to add other psychiatric medications to the regimen. The patient often becomes a basket case, unable to function. Antidepressants are addictive. They mimic the action of cocaine. The above symptoms are magnified when the antidepressants are discontinued abruptly. No one should stop antidepressants or any psychiatric drug without the guidance from a physician. A patient must be weaned off them very slowly, over several months.

« Return to news items


Share

CCHR Exposes Psychiatry’s Military Spending to Create Drugged-Out Super-Soldiers

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

Drugs, Wired Warriors and “Virtual” Insanity

The mental health watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights announces the last in a four-part series by award-winning investigative journalist Kelly Patricia O’Meara exploring how the nation’s military forces have been used as guinea pigs for psychological and pharmaceutical experiments. This last installment looks at the long standing relationship between the military and psychiatry that has been in place since WWII and the psychiatric research being conducted on U.S. soldiers.

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
January 23, 2013

The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have spent over $4.5 billion on antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs over the past decade despite more than 170 warnings issued by international drug regulatory agencies warning of drug induced suicide, violence, mania, psychosis, aggression, hallucinations, death and much more.

In an effort to create the “Super Soldier,” the U.S. military spends hundreds of millions of dollars on psychiatric research programs that can only be described as science fiction-esque experimentation. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a mental health watchdog group, is dedicated to exposing these mental health abuses.

It’s no secret that the nation’s military forces long have been used as guinea pigs for psychological and pharmaceutical experiments. Recent history is littered with examples of the botched experiments brought to light in the form of lawsuits and congressional investigations. As for the troops, well, it appears they truly are expendable.

The military is spending billions of dollars on psychiatric drugs; a Nextgov investigation published on May 17, 2012 uncovered the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs having spent nearly $2 billion on antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs over the past decade, and the Dec. 29. 2012 Austin American-Statesman article, “Soaring cost of military drugs could hurt budget,” quoted Department of Defense spending of $2.7 billion on antidepressants, totaling more than $4.5 billion in the last decade, despite more than 170 warnings issued by international drug regulatory agencies warning of drug induced suicide, violence, mania, psychosis, aggression, hallucinations, death and much more.  The U.S. Military’s Central Command policy even allows a 90-180 day supply of highly addictive psychiatric drugs before deployment.

There is also Seroquel, or “Serokill,” as it now is referred to, which is not permitted for treatment of deploying troops with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but, rather, is prescribed off-label to treat insomnia. The fact that “Serokill” is still in the military’s formulary becomes more bizarre when one considers that the antipsychotic has been suspected of being linked to hundreds of “sudden cardiac deaths” among returning soldiers.

Yet, in desperation, top brass are continuing to turn to psychiatrists and psychologists who apparently have seen way too many sci-fi movies and seem ready “to go where no man has gone before,” when it comes to altering the human mind.  But when one becomes fully aware of the planned and on-going experiments, the famous line from The Fly comes to mind: “Heeeeelp meeeee!”

In a 2012 assessment, the Institute of Medicine found that the majority of patients in the VA diagnosed with PTSD receive more than one psychotropic drug, and that 80 percent of them receive an antidepressant.

The cozy relationship between the military and psychiatry has been in place since WWII. The pharmaceutical companies are the Yin to psychiatry’s Yang and the military has acquiesced to pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, (the maker of the antidepressant Zoloft) which has funded development of a screening questionnaire that addresses Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  And millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical industry has funded other military mental health screening programs, such as Signs of Suicide, a sub organization of Screening For Mental Health, Inc. According to Screening for Mental Health, Inc.’s 990 reports for 2001-2004, they received over $3.2 million in pharmaceutical funding from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Wyeth, Forest Labs, Abbott Labs and Solvay. On 5 Nov. 2009, The New American reported in “The Healthcare Bill’s Sops to the Mental-health Industry,” that up to 2008, they received nearly $5 million from pharmaceutical companies. It is not surprising then that the Institute of Medicine reported in their 2012 assessment titled, “Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Military and Veteran Populations,” that the majority of patients in the VA diagnosed with PTSD receive more than one psychotropic drug, and that 80 percent of them receive an antidepressant.

The U.S. military isn’t the first to turn to these psychiatric drugs in an effort to boost stamina and morale within the ranks, as both the British and German commands during WWII also issued millions of amphetamines to try to make pilots, sailors and infantry capable of superhuman performance.

According to the Los Angeles Times article, “VA testing drugs on war veterans,” Senate testimony given by the Vietnam Veterans of America during a 2002 hearing exposed the U.S. for experimenting on troops – using mustard gas during WWII, radiation during the Cold War, LSD and herbicides during Vietnam and chemical and biological warfare drugs during the Gulf War, yet soldiers were not made aware of possible adverse reactions.

With each new and improved experiment, no matter how it’s sold, it seems clear that the well-being of the troops is not at the top of the list of major concerns. For example, according to the 2008 Human Performance Study conducted by the Mitre Corporation and sponsored by the Department of Defense, Research and Engineering Enterprise, researchers considered the current state of “pharmaceutical intervention in cognition and in brain-computer interfaces,” and how the enemy might use future developments in this area.

Under the heading “Evaluation of Military Effectiveness” the report explains, “the most immediate human performance factor in military effectiveness is degradation of performance under stressful conditions, particularly sleep deprivation.” Researchers recommend to “monitor enemy activities in sleep research…. Use in-house military research on the safety and effectiveness of newly developing drugs for ameliorating the effects of sleep deprivation.” [emphasis added]

Given the increasing number of soldiers already being given sleep medications, such as Ambien, with the reported hallucination episodes associated with the drug’s use, one can only conclude that the research is well on its way.

The report further explains that “when approved for use, these new drugs will certainly have extensive off-label use for improvement of memory and cognitive performance.” Further, Depending on the ultimate performance of these drugs, adversaries might use them in training programs or field operations.” It calls on the U.S. to closely monitor the “prevalence and effectiveness of these drugs in off-label uses in the U.S.” [emphasis added]

First, one has to wonder about the enemy monitoring of off-label psychiatric drug use in the U.S. that Command is so concerned could be used against us, while hundreds of thousands of troops and millions more American adults and children are being prescribed these same drugs. Secondly, given that many of the largest pharmaceutical companies are being sued, and fined, for marketing their drugs for off-label purposes, one can only wonder what really is going on with the military monitoring of off-label uses.

But drugs aren’t the only focus of military researchers. Columbia University Medical Center’s Division of Brain Stimulation & Therapeutic Modulation stated on it’s website that they have ongoing projects, grants and an active collaboration with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the research wing of the Department of Defense, for messing with the mind through the use of electricity, including Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) research.

This procedure is straight out of a Hollywood Sci-Fi script. TMS involves placing a large electromagnetic coil near the head, generating a strong magnetic field and inducing electric currents to “stimulate” nerve cells. This procedure is reported to either “excite or inhibit brain function.” Of course, being certain of the outcome would be important in a combat situation. But, one assumes that’s a kink researchers will correct before being used on the field of battle.

Psychiatrist Sarah Lisanby, former Columbia, now Duke University professor of psychiatry with familial ties to the military, has received DARPA funds to experiment using TMS and plans to administer it to 75 sleep-deprived soldiers to judge how well they perform in memory tests and military tasks. Lisanby is a co-owner on a patent application filed by Columbia University for TMS technology. Columbia’s dark history includes LSD and mescaline research funded by the CIA and U.S. Army.

The downside to this futuristic TMS madness is the soldier may experience fainting, altered endocrine, immune or neurotransmitter systems and loss of consciousness and, if the soldier is depressed, the “treatment” may induce or exacerbate suicidal feelings.

As reported in the Popular Science article, “DARPA Wants to Install Transcranial Ultrasonic Mind Control Devices in Soldiers’ Helmets,” on Sept. 9, 2010, Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is another possible tool. It involves surgically implanting electrodes into the brain, then attached to wires that run inside the body from the head to the chest, where a pair of battery-operated generators are implanted. Psychiatrists wait three weeks for the bruised brain to heal and the holes in the skin to seal before programming the device to activate the electrodes. Apparently, a voila moment occurs and you’re the bionic soldier, fulfilling every desire the man behind the curtain chooses.

There are risks associated with DBS including, bleeding in the brain, which can lead to stroke, infection, disorientation or confusion, unwanted mood changes, movement disorders and suicidal thoughts and behavior. Call me crazy, but I’m thinking this isn’t such an optimal tool in a combat situation.

Then there’s the strange research where taxpayers recently handed a multi-million dollar contract to Dr. Michael Kubek, an Indiana University of Medicine professor to research whether an antidepressant nasal spray could be safe and effective to calm soldiers’ thoughts. Of course, these are the same antidepressants that, despite being prescribed in record numbers, haven’t done much to ameliorate the epidemic of suicides in the military.

There are even more on-going experiments that seem just as, if not more, strange, including computerized “virtual humans” used for diagnostic purposes that apparently can be programmed to appear empathetic to the soldier’s particular problem. While many would argue that replacing psychiatrists with “virtual humans” wouldn’t be such a bad idea, one must remember that we are dealing with men and not machines.

It seems clear that psychiatric research for the military is aiming to create the invincible, insensitive and indifferent fighting machine. In the end, if the results of these experiments even remotely resemble the failure of the military’s current mental health psychiatric drug program, it is truly frightening to consider what will be left of the individual American fighting man willing to put his life on the line.

Kelly Patricia O’Meara is an award winning investigative reporter for the Washington Times, Insight Magazine, penning dozens of articles exposing the fraud of psychiatric diagnosis and the dangers of the psychiatric drugs – including her ground-breaking 1999 cover story, Guns & Doses, exposing the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.  She is also the author of the highly acclaimed book, Psyched Out: How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness and Pushes Pills that Kill.  Prior to working as an investigative journalist, O’Meara spent sixteen years on Capitol Hill as a congressional staffer to four Members of Congress. She holds a B.S. in Political Science from the University of Maryland.

Read the first 3 parts of this series here:

Part One:  Psychiatric Drugs and War: A Suicide Mission

Part Two:  Two Soldiers Prescribed 54 Drugs: Military Mental Health “Treatment” Becomes Frankenpharmacy

Part Three:  Out of the Asylums and Into the Army: Psychiatry Creates Multi-Billion Dollar Market for Military Psychiatrists and Big Pharma

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


Share

World Net Daily News—Top Psychiatrist: Meds Are Behind School Massacres

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013

World Net Daily News – January 23, 2013
by Jerome R Corsi, Harvard Ph.D.,  WND senior staff reporter.

Society conducting ‘vast social experiment’ without knowing its end

NEW YORK – If lawmakers and authorities are truly concerned about stopping gun violence in schools, they need to take a close look at the prescription of psychotropic drugs for children and young people, says a leading psychiatrist.

In an exclusive in-person interview in New York City with WND, London-based Dr. David Healy criticized pharmaceutical companies that have made billions of dollars marketing Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, known as SSRIs. Psychotropic drugs “prescribed for school children cause violent behavior,” Healy stated.

The drugs are widely used in the U.S. as antidepressants by doctors working in the mental health field and increasingly by primary care doctors, he noted.

Healey insisted the problem today is that doctors working with schools to control the behavior of children are inclined to prescribe SSRI drugs without serious consideration of adverse consequences.

“The pharmaceutical companies made these drugs with the idea of making money,” he said. “There’s a wide range of problems when it comes to looking at these drugs for children. Very few children have serious problems that warrant treatment with pills that have the risks SSRI drugs have.”

The drugs can make children “aggressive and hostile,” he noted.

“Children taking SSRI drugs are more likely to harm or to injure other children at school,” said Healy. “The child may be made suicidal.

“We are giving drugs to children who are passing through critical development stages, and as a society we are really conducting a vast experiment and no one really knows what the outcome of that will be.”

Healey cautioned that there is a very high correlation between mass shootings and use of the drugs.

“When roughly nine out of every 10 cases in these school shootings and mass shootings involve these drugs being prescribed, then at least a significant proportion of these cases were either caused by the drugs or the drugs made a significant contribution to the problem,” he said.

President Obama, in a series of 23 presidential memoranda and proclamations signed last week, called for the Centers for Disease control to undertake research to examine gun violence and to explore medical means to control the problem.

WND contended that putting more mental illness screening into schools would actually increase the incidence of school shootings, not reduce the violence.

“You can draw a line between the number of child psychiatrists in the United States and the number of school shootings, and you will find that both have gone up in the same direction at the same time,” he said.

He sees a “propaganda campaign” being conducted in the U.S. in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., cinema shooting and the Newtown, Conn., school shooting asserting gun violence is being caused by mental illness and could be stopped by additional school programs that screen for it.

“If school children are screened for mental illness problems, this presumably will lead more medical doctors to put more students on more pills,” he said. “I would predict then the outcome of more school screenings for mental illness will be more mass killings, even if the guns are taken away and the mass killings are not done with guns.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/top-psychiatrist-meds-behind-school-massacres/#HrMcygtgSTdkUlfE.99

To read documented drug regulatory warnings, studies and adverse reactions reported to the US FDA on psychiatric drugs causing violence – read Psychiatric Drugs and Violence, Federal Investigation Long Overdue

For a list of school shootings and school related violence linked to psychiatric drug use read School Shooters on Drugs

 

« Return to news items


Share

Paxil Class Action Moves on in Canada as Lawsuits Still Filed in U.S.

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

The Legal Examiner
By Steve Thomas
January 2, 2013

Click image to read all drug warnings, studies and side effects reported to the FDA on the antidepressant drug Paxil

GlaxoSmithKline, maker of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor Paxil, is mired in a class action lawsuit in Canada that alleges the antidepressant caused birth defects in children whose expectant mothers took the drug without the corporation’s adequate warning of the heightened risks. A British Columbia judge permitted the class action.

This is the sort of thing that cost the manufacturer legal and financial setbacks in the U.S. The corporation spent millions on legal defense and paid millions in compensation awarded in Paxil lawsuits based on similar causes of action. The pharmaceutical litigation team at Reich & Binstock represents Paxil victims. The damage to children and to families frankly defies description, but the recovery of damages, including exorbitant medical costs, is welcome relief. Reich & Binstock’s personal injury attorneys are proud and fulfilled to help victims receive the justice they deserve.

Apparently, the Canadian mothers took the drug before warnings existed about the heightened risks of Paxil birth defects, such as a rare heart and lung condition known as persistent pulmonary hypertension — risks that the manufacturer should have known and had a duty to provide. Certainly bewildered women of childbearing age, who were taking either Paxil or another SSRI for that matter, wish they had known.

Imagine how they felt when their newborns were diagnosed with serious heart and lung conditions and then they learned that they and their babies were unwitting Paxil casualties. Put yourself upon careful reflection in such a mother’s shoes for a moment, as best you can.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2006 updated its prescribing information for Paxil and for other SSRIs, including, Celexa, Fluvoxamine, Lexapro, Prozac, Symbyax and Zoloft. Those medications are in the same boat, and thank goodness there is a judicial process to redress the injuries associated with taking those drugs.

The FDA’s safety alert was based on a study that showed “infants born to mothers who took selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors after the 20th week of pregnancy were 6 times more likely to have persistent pulmonary hypertension than infants born to mothers who did not take antidepressants during pregnancy. The background risk of a woman giving birth to an infant affected by PPHN in the general population is estimated to be about 1 to 2 infants per 1,000 live births. Neonatal PPHN is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.”

Read full article here:  http://houston.legalexaminer.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/paxil-class-action-moves-on-in-canada-as-lawsuits-still-filed-in-us.aspx?googleid=306286

« Return to news items


Share

TeenScreen—Controversial Mental Health Screening Program Closes Down

Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

Watch: Whistleblower Allen Jones describes TeenScreen as a recruitment tool for the pharmaceutical industry (article below)

British Medical Journal – November 27, 2012

By Jeanne Lenzer

A “model” program that was part of a controversial plan to screen all US citizens for mental illness has announced that it is closing down.

On 15 November, TeenScreen, a program to detect depression in young people, announced on its website: “The National Center will be winding down its program at the end of this year.”

TeenScreen was endorsed by the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which was established by the former US president George W Bush in 2002.

The commission recommended that “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children, should have comprehensive mental health screening. The commission said: “Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders.”

Schools, wrote the commission, are in a “key position” to screen the 52 million students and six million adults who work at the schools.

The center did not give a reason for the closure of its multimillion dollar project, nor did anyone from TeenScreen respond to inquiries by the BMJ.

Critics of the program said that the test had not been proven to reduce suicides and that an analysis by its inventor, David Shaffer, showed that the computer based screening test had a positive predictive value of only 16%. Shaffer is professor of child psychiatry and chief of the division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center.

(See Congressman Ron Paul’s proposed bill against mental health screening of children, including TeenScreen here)

They also cited a finding from the US Food and Drug Administration that depressed adolescents treated with antidepressants were twice as likely to be suicidal as depressed adolescents treated with placebo.

Professor Shaffer did not respond to several inquiries by the BMJ for comment.

Direct and indirect ties between the drug industry and TeenScreen fueled the concern of critics that the program would  inevitably cause more children, including preschoolers, to be treated with antidepressant drugs.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (previously the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill), supported both the New Freedom Commission on Mental Illness plan for universal screening and TeenScreen. After a Congressional investigation, the alliance acknowledged that it received most of its funding from drug companies.

Laurie Flynn, who served as director of the alliance for 16 years, left the organization in December 2000, and became the director of TeenScreen. The alliance lobbied Congress for passage of the Commission’s plan and supported TeenScreen.

In January, TeenScreen claimed over 2800 active sites in 47 US states and 10 nations, including 50 sites in the United Kingdom, three each in India and Canada, and one each in Columbia, Scotland, the United Arab Emirates, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Germany, and Brazil. It is not known at this time whether TeenScreen in nations outside the US will also shut down.

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8100

Critics of mandatory and federally funded mental health screening of children with programs such as TeenScreen have also been strongly opposed by Congressman Ron Paul – read Ron Paul and the Parental Consent Act here

« Return to news items


Share