Posts Tagged ‘bipolar’

Pharma Funding & Shrinks for Sale—The Creation of Pre-school Age Bipolar Epidemic

Monday, March 25th, 2013

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
March 25, 2013

Psychiatrist Joseph Biederman is credited with the explosion of young children diagnosed with “bipolar” disorder and prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs. He was paid 1.6 million from the pharmaceutical companies for his “research.”

It is difficult to absorb the recent data released by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ, on the skyrocketing numbers of children diagnosed  with “bipolar disorder” and not come to the conclusion that this startling information represents the never-ending harm initiated by the idiotic psychiatric theories of Harvard child psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Biederman.

In order to fully grasp just how outrageous the data are, one first must remember that the now disgraced and marginalized Biederman is credited with being the ring leader for diagnosing the alleged bipolar disorder in very young children.

To add insult to injury, not only was Biederman the chief advocate of the now controversial diagnosis, but he is also credited with prescribing the most powerful antipsychotic drugs as treatment.

It was only due to a Congressional inquiry by Senator Charles E. Grassley that the apparent motive behind Biederman’s childhood bipolar diagnosis was uncovered…money.

$1.6 million dollars was Biederman’s take from the pharmaceutical companies for his “research.”  Most revealing, however, were court documents released in March of 2009, which disclose that Biederman reportedly had promised drug maker Johnson & Johnson in advance that his studies on the antipsychotic drug Risperdone (Risperdal) would prove the drug to be effective when used on preschool age children.

Biederman could never be accused of discrimination. The Harvard psychiatrist, who literally placed himself just one rung below God, was so drug money-friendly that his list of paymasters reads like a who’s who of pharmaceutical giants, including Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Shire to name a few.

Remarkably, Biederman was not held responsible for the epidemic of preschool children being diagnosed with the alleged bipolar disorder. Rather, the psychiatrist received a slap on the wrist for failing to report all but $200,000 of his pharmaceutical booty to University officials.

And while Biederman remains at his Harvard ivy tower, the devastating scope of his pharmaceutical-bought psychiatric theories on childhood bipolar disorder finally are coming to light.

The AHRQ data reveal the breakdown of the number of children diagnosed as bipolar has skyrocketed.  The data below represents hospitalization rates for children diagnosed as bipolar between 1997-2010.

*            5-9 year olds increased 696%.
*            10-14 year olds increased 475%.
*            15-17 year olds increased 345%.
*            Hospital stays for bipolar disorder for all children
aged 1-17 increased 434%.

While the increased numbers alone are mind-boggling, there are several issues to look at when considering this information. The least of which is that there is no discussion about what psychiatric drugs had been prescribed to these children as “treatment” prior to the hospitalization.

Given Biederman’s pharmaceutical-driven influence on the diagnosing of the alleged bipolar disorder in children, and his recommended treatment, one can assume that antipsychotic drugs were involved in many, if not most, of the hospitalizations.

That antipsychotic drugs may adversely affect children isn’t in question. The reported adverse side effects include excessive weight gain, head pain, dizziness, drowsiness, abnormally low blood pressure, trouble breathing, suicidal ideation, depression, disease of the muscle of the heart with enlargement, kidney failure and diabetes, to name a few of the three pages listed.

Perhaps it is because of psychiatrists, like Biederman, who literally get away with pharmaceutical bought-and-paid-for psychiatric diagnosing, that others in the profession are embolden to join the Biederman million-dollar push-a-drug club.

For example, last week a study by Lisa Cosgrove, a University of Massachusetts researcher, reported that “All of the panel members that produced the American Psychiatric Association (APA)’s Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder [a precursor to bipolar] had numerous financial ties to drug companies that manufacture antidepressants.”

Biederman is the poster boy for no personal accountability. Despite his obvious lapse in ethical behavior, not only was he not run out of the profession but he got to keep every penny of his $1.6 million in pharmaceutical largesse.

So it continues. One can only guess what the hospitalization data will reveal ten years from now for the astronomical increases in the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder.  If Biederman’s “research” and pharmaceutical pay-off is any indication of what’s to come, it doesn’t take much imagination.

Biederman is the poster boy for no personal accountability. Despite his obvious lapse in ethical behavior, not only was he not run out of the profession but he got to keep every penny of his $1.6 million in pharmaceutical largesse.

Unfortunately, based on the data, it seems the recipients of Biederman’s pharmaceutical-bought psychiatric theories—the children—didn’t make out so well.

And despite the harm caused by such a flagrant abuse of position, Cosgrove’s research reveals that nothing has changed… it’s psychiatric diagnosing as usual. For the right price, there appears to be no shortage of psychiatric diagnosis wannabes eager to pick up where Biederman left off.

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

Selling Sickness—How Big Pharma “Sells” Diseases to Move Drugs

Monday, March 4th, 2013

Do You Have Back Pain? Hot Flashes? Big Pharma Hopes So!

OpEd News
By Martha Rosenberg
March 4, 2013

Recently some of the nation’s top researchers, clinicians and scientists convened in Washington D.C. for the first annual Selling Sickness conference–examining how Pharma “sells” diseases to move the medications intended to treat them.

Examples of Pharma’s disease-mongering business model abound, especially since direct-to-consumer advertising began in the late 1990′s. Depression, bipolar disorder, seasonal allergies, insomnia and gastro reflux disease (GERD) are just some of the “diseases” that tripled and quadrupled in the population thanks to TV advertising, sometimes accompanied by self-administered “quizzes.” Even more lucrative have been childhood and adult ADHD, assorted behavioral, mood and “spectrum” disorders, excessive sleepiness and “wakefulness” disorders and of course restless legs syndrome. Ka-ching.

Proof of Pharma’s disease-selling model is as close as investment reports which unabashedly gush about growing “markets” for fibromyalgia or depression. And 2013 reveals that a “market” for ankylosing spondylitis is unfolding now that Abbott has dedicated an entire company to sell its extreme drug Humira.

Do you have back pain? Are you dismissing it as resulting from “lifting too much” at the gym or “bad posture” ask Abbott radio ads. Instead of spending five dollars a month on aspirin or acetaminophen, you could be spending $20,000 a year on Humira and exposing yourself to tuberculosis (TB) and serious viruses, fungi, or bacterial infection!

Why would people voluntarily take a drug that “may increase the chance of getting lymphoma, including a rare kind, or other cancers” hepatitis B infection in carriers of the virus, allergic reactions, nervous system problems, blood problems, heart failure, certain immune reactions including a lupus-like syndrome, liver problems, and new or worsening psoriasis”?   Side effects that are worse than the conditions being treated?   (“Some people have died from these infections,” says the label) Because advertising works!

ADHD has been another lucrative disease for Pharma, though marketers worry about the five million kids at risk of going off their ADHD meds when they leave home. “I remember being the kid with ADHD. Truth is, I still have it,” said an ad from stimulant maker Shire with a photo of Adam Levine, the lead singer of Maroon 5, in the Northwestern University student newspaper, the Daily Northwestern. “It’s Your ADHD. Own It,” is the tagline. (Was “Stay Sick” the second choice?)

This week, a widely disseminated press release furthers the ADHD financial damage control by announcing research that reveals that “ADHD Can Often Persist Into Adulthood.” News outlets obediently headlined their articles “ADHD Doesn’t Go Away,” and “ADHD Can Often Persist Into Adulthood” (gee, thanks!) without even noting the financial partnership between Shire and the study’s lead organization, Boston Children’s Hospital, penned just four months ago. Oops.

Read full article here:  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Do-You-Have-Back-Pain-Hot-by-Martha-Rosenberg-130304-211.html

« Return to news items


Share

Unseen wounds

Monday, February 11th, 2013

Leaving the war is half the battle. Leaving the war behind is the other. How everyday efforts can help veterans be civilians again.

Philly.com
By David Sutherland & Paula Caplan
February 10, 2013

There’s no mystery, but people talk as though there is. Some leaders in the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as some psychotherapists and other citizens, express puzzlement about why, in the last 11 years, the rates of suicides, family breakdown, substance abuse, and homelessness among war veterans have steadily risen.VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki spoke recently about suicide without offering explanations beyond “some increased level of stress,” scant improvement over a Defense Department press release titled “Uncertainty About Military Suicides Frustrates Services.”

Is there really a mystery? Do we really not know why 22 veterans take their own lives every day – 70 percent among vets over age 50? Or why veterans are 50 percent more likely to end up without a home than other Americans? Why the divorce rate among military couples has increased 42 percent during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? How it is that nearly two million veterans from all wars are substance abusers?

Based on our years of on-the-ground and clinical experiences, respectively, working with veterans, we believe there is no mystery. Four primary factors cause the emotional devastation and moral anguish that plague so many who have been to war.

First, war is vile. Imagine holding in your arms a 5-year-old girl shot in the face by an insurgent because her father served in the Iraqi police force. Or driving in a convoy, with children running playfully beside you, when a terrorist drives his pickup into the children, killing them all. The horror and barbarism are chilling: comrades die, innocents are maimed, local “friendly” forces betray you.

Contributing to veterans’ suffering is the soul-crushing isolation most experience when they return home. Friends and family rarely know what these men and women have experienced, and many veterans hesitate to talk openly for fear of upsetting loved ones, facing harsh judgment, or simply not being understood. For many, the silence and isolation continue for decades.

Increasing the isolation is the fact that people traumatized by war are often mislabeled as mentally ill. The “disorder” labels most often used – post-traumatic stress, major depressive, generalized anxiety, bipolar – further distance veterans from their communities. Civilians assume that they are unqualified to help, believing that only therapists have the needed tools. Nothing we propose precludes veterans from seeking help from a therapist. Anyone who is suffering deserves attention and care, and for some, that might include traditional approaches used by therapists. However, not all suffering constitutes a mental disorder, and our nation’s knee-jerk reaction to call all war trauma “mental illness” ends up hurting veterans.

Finally, psychotropic drugs often intensify the veterans’ suffering and isolation. Once labeled with a mental illness, veterans are routinely prescribed cocktails of psychiatric drugs that alter in troubling ways their emotions and cognition. Tragically, the kinds of harm the drugs can cause include precisely those that are increasing among service members and veterans: suicide, family breakdown, substance abuse, and homelessness. Many senior Defense officials have voiced their concern about the dangerous effects of these drugs.

There are many effective and nonpathologizing solutions to the epidemic problems destroying our war veterans. All of us – including the military, the VA, and mental-health professionals – must stop automatically labeling war veterans “mentally ill.” Being shaken to the core by war is a deeply human reaction. Calling it mental disorder alienates veterans from themselves and their communities and causes moral anguish. It blinds civilians to veterans’ pain and cuts civilians off from their common humanity with those who have gone to war.

There are low-risk ways that community leaders or any citizen can help veterans heal, primarily helping them create or connect, which in turn will help their communities. Unlike drugs, these do not have dangerous side effects, and they could not differ more from the isolation intensified by labeling and drugging. These options include involving veterans in mentoring, volunteering, meditation, promoting the arts, sports and recreation, nonprofit leadership, and political action, and providing them service animals for connection and comfort. The recent “A Better Welcome Home” conference at Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation featured several examples. (Visit http://bit.ly/OToAwc for more information.)

Even something as simple as listening can make a difference. Veterans taking part in the Welcome Johnny and Jane Home project reported that having the chance to tell their stories was helpful and healing, according to a study conducted at the Harvard Kennedy School.

And citizens can speak up. Our military and political leadership need to hear that Americans care about our veterans and are willing to do their part to help. As our military men and women continue to return, scarred and battered, American communities must not isolate veterans. Avoid the misplaced labels of mental illness. Listen. Help veterans heal on their own terms and at their own speed. With the right community support, with deep connections, our veterans will truly come home.

David Sutherland is a retired U.S. Army colonel and director of the Center for Military and Veterans Community Services (Dixon Center)

Paula J. Caplan is a Harvard University psychologist and author of “When Johnny and Jane Come Marching Home: How All of Us Can Help Veterans”

Read the article here: http://articles.philly.com/2013-02-10/news/37022089_1_department-of-veterans-affairs-million-veterans-war

« Return to news items


Share

The Black Cloud in Silver Linings Playbook: Pharma Product Placement in Film

Monday, January 28th, 2013

Antipsychotic drug Seroquel makes its feature film debut

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara – January 28, 2013

Has the motion picture industry become the newest outlet for pharmaceutical product advertising? And as part of that promotion will the viewing audience understand that Seroquel, one of the most powerful mind-altering drugs in psychiatry’s arsenal, has been dubbed the pharmaceutical equivalent of a chemical lobotomy?

The recently released Silver Linings Playbook, for example, in an apparent attempt to legitimize the alleged mental illness bipolar disorder as a medical condition, and also convince the audience that psychiatric medication is the necessary treatment, not only specifically mentions Seroquel but also provides a close up of the actual pill, right before the lead character decides to take it.

While the brief shot of the antipsychotic, Seroquel, is almost subliminal, the fact that the pill is given a close up, clearly revealing the name of the drug, is unmistakably purposeful. In the context of this film, the intent of the shot, of course, is to reinforce that the antipsychotic drug will “treat” the alleged mental disorder and the main character will be “better.”

The problem with being seen as promoting specific psychiatric drugs like Seroquel is that the information about a particular drug is cherry-picked and, depending on the films intended message, important life and death information is withheld.

While all of the psychiatric mind-altering drugs mentioned in the film, such as Lithium, Abilify, Xanax, Effexor, Klonopin and Trazodone carry serious adverse effects, the antipsychotic Seroquel is of particular interest due to the utterly devastating adverse reactions that now are associated with it. And it is these important facts that make up the back-story, but did not make the final cut.

For example, Astra Zeneca, the makers of Seroquel have paid $1.25 billion in criminal settlements, judgments and civil penalties as a result of federal and state investigations and consumer fraud lawsuits for the company’s “off-label” promotion of the drug and serious medical injury caused by the drug.  And the problems surrounding Seroquel have a long sordid history.

Between 1997 and 2012, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, received nearly 50,000 Adverse Event Reports, AER’s, regarding Seroquel, with 30,000 of them identifying the drug as the primary suspect causing the event. During the same time period, the FDA AER’s reveal that 5,974 or 12% of the events ended in death and 2,583 or 9% of the deaths targeted Seroquel as the primary suspect. While these numbers should be of concern to anyone considering taking the drug, the FDA further acknowledges that the AER’s represent only 1 to 10 percent of the actual adverse events.

Among the adverse effects associated with Seroquel are: diabetes mellitus, excessive weight gain, a number of coronary problems including heart failure or sudden death, hallucinations, psychosis, paranoid reactions, delusions, manic reaction, depersonalization, catatonic reaction , abnormal thinking and dreams and delirium.

Furthermore, seven countries have issued nearly sixty warnings for antipsychotic drugs causing death, heart problems, convulsions, diabetes, birth defects, agitation, mania and psychosis. These warnings are based on nearly eighty studies from a dozen countries showing the harm caused by antipsychotic drugs. Among these is a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry which found that antipsychotic drugs are linked to shrinkage in the brains (brain volume loss) of those who take antipsychotics.

However, as evidenced by the positive portrayal of the drug in the movie, this important consumer information was left on the cutting room floor. The audience does not get the benefit of knowing if the main character was warned by his psychiatrist about the possible serious side effects, or whether, after taking Seroquel, he, like tens of thousands others in the real world, experienced any of the above adverse side effects or brain shrinkage. This is the danger of promoting psychiatric drugs through film.

Unlike pharmaceutical advertising through print or television, drug warnings and adverse event information is not yet required for film. Certainly one may call it artistic license, but the power of film should not be understated when dealing with controversial mental health issues and seriously dangerous psychiatric mind-altering drugs.

Furthermore, the audience does not get the benefit of knowing that diagnosing of the alleged childhood bipolar disorder has increased 4,000 percent in just a 10 year time span, nor are they informed that four times as many children covered by Medicaid (government funded) receive antipsychotics, compared to children whose parents have private insurance.

Additionally, the audience is not made aware of the financial relationships between psychiatrists, who conduct drug studies, and the pharmaceutical industry.  A 4,000 percent increase in a psychiatric diagnosis like bipolar disorder does not happen by accident and there is ample evidence to support a very cozy psycho/pharma collusion.

Psychiatrist Joseph Biederman was funded millions by Pharma while promoting child “bipolar” disorder.

Take for instance Joseph Biederman, M.D., a Harvard University professor, a leading child psychiatrist and the most prominent advocate of the alleged childhood bipolar disorder. Biederman was a key witness in a multi-state lawsuit where, among other things, more than 2,000 patients claimed to have been harmed by the prescribed antipsychotics. Biederman and two colleagues were found to have violated conflict of interest policies at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital.

Between 2000 and 2007, Biederman received $1.6 million dollars from pharmaceutical companies, yet had only reported earning $200,000. But it is Biederman’s “research” that really is at issue. While Biederman was pushing the prescribing of antipsychotics to “treat” the alleged childhood bipolar disorder, he also was receiving payments from the pharmaceutical companies that market the antipsychotic “treatments.”

A decade ago bipolar was relatively non-existent but, thanks to Biederman’s advocating its use to even children under the age of six, the scientifically unverifiable bipolar disorder has gone mainstream with more than three million prescriptions written for Americans in 2011 alone – a hefty $18 billion profit for the pharmaceutical companies.

Because Biederman was paid by pharmaceutical companies to cheerlead the use of their antipsychotic drugs at the same time he is promoting the bipolar diagnosis, it makes his “research” utterly invalid. But none of this information makes it to the silver screen and the myth of bipolar disorder and antipsychotic drug “treatment” is neatly packaged as a love story. Unfortunately the real world isn’t so neat and for an ever-increasing number of people, their real-life screenplays read more like mental health horror stories.

But happy endings sell tickets so Silver Linings Playbook  skips the real-life Seroquel horror stories happening all around us and replaces them with a Hollywood happy ending.   As we approach the final scenes of the film,  the lead character credits his recovery to taking the drug saying “I have a positive attitude. I’m on medication, I’m in therapy.”

You just can’t buy this kind of advertising…or can you? If advocating psychiatric drug use through film becomes a new form of advertising for the pharmaceutical industry, one has to ask if it isn’t time to add a new code to the motion picture rating system…something along the lines of “PD” for “Strong Prescription Drug Content.”

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

Therapists revolt against psychiatry’s bible

Wednesday, December 28th, 2011

Mental health professionals say new diagnoses will lead to overmedication

Salon Magazine, December 27, 2011

by Rob Waters

“epidemics of over-diagnosis in child psychiatry” have caused "huge numbers of children to be unnecessarily labeled with attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder and treated with medications."

Anyone who’s ever tried to get reimbursed by a health insurance company after seeing a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, or taking a child or teenager to one, has no doubt noticed the incomprehensible numbers that appear on the clinician’s statement, perhaps preceding some slightly less imponderable phrase.

Maybe you are a 296.22 (major depressive disorder, single episode, mild) or a 300.00 (anxiety disorder NOS–not otherwise specified). Hopefully, you are not a 301.83 (borderline personality disorder). Your kid might be a 313.81 (oppositional defiant disorder) or, more likely, a 314.01 (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type).

Since 1952, a tome called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as the DSM, has been reducing to a few digits the psychological malady said to afflict a patient. This bible of mental health treatment, published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), provides a list and description of every mental health condition known to—or invented by—psychiatry, from histrionic personality disorder (301.50) to transvestic fetishism (302.3).

Over the decades, the manual, adapted from a guide for mental diseases developed by Army and Navy psychiatrists, has ballooned. The number of listed disorders tripled to nearly 300. A few have been discredited and dumped along the way. Most famous were battles over the inclusion of homosexuality. Successive iterations of the manual listed homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance,” then modified that to describe a more limited “sexual orientation disturbance” among people who were “in conflict with” their attraction to people of the same sex. That was later replaced by a disorder called “ego-dystonic homosexuality,” applied to those whose homosexual arousal was a source of distress. That item was dropped in the DSM-III-R, published in 1987.

The great book’s coming edition, the DSM-5, is slated for publication in May 2013. As the task force producing it has posted drafts on its website, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction has exploded into a full-scale revolt by members of U.S. and British psychological and counseling organizations. The chief complaint is that the newest version will lower the criteria needed to diagnose some conditions, creating “subthreshold” disorders, and generally making it easier for healthcare professionals to label a person with a psychiatric disorder and medicate him or her.

The latest rebellion against the DSM-5 began with a salvo from across the Atlantic. In June, a special committee of the British Psychological Society complained in a letter to the APA that “clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences.” The committee criticized the proposed creation of an “attenuated psychosis syndrome”—a sort of poor-man’s psychosis with less severe symptoms—“as an opportunity to stigmatize eccentric people.” They also objected to a proposed reduction in the number of symptoms needed to diagnose adolescents with attention deficit disorder (ADD) because it might increase diagnoses and the use of meds.

Then David Elkins, professor emeritus at Pepperdine University and president of the Society for Humanistic Psychology, a division of the American Psychological Association, formed a committee to discuss similar objections and draft a petition enumerating them. In October, he posted the petition online. “I figured we’d get a couple hundred signatures,’’ Elkins said.

The response stunned him and his colleagues. The petition attracted more than 6,000 signatures in three weeks; as of mid-December it had topped 9,300 signatories and garnered the endorsement of 35 organizations. On Nov. 8, American Counseling Association president Don Locke jumped in with a letter to the APA objecting to the “incomplete or insufficient empirical evidence” underlying the proposed revisions and expressing “uncertainty about the quality and credibility” of the DSM-5.

“This has become a grassroots movement among mental health professionals, who are saying we already have a national problem with overmedication of children and the elderly, and we don’t want to exacerbate that,” says Elkins.

For many critics, Exhibit A is childhood ADD. As the disorder describing fidgety, easily distracted kids morphed from “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood” to the current “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” the number of children given the diagnosis exploded, fueling, by one account, a 700 percent increase in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants in the 1990s. Diagnosis requires checking six of nine boxes from a list of symptoms that include “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly” and “often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.” Sound familiar, parents?

Two other newly proposed disorders singled out as problematic in the petition are “mild neurocognitive disorder” in the elderly and “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder” in children and adolescents. Both lack a solid basis in research and may fuel the use of powerful antipsychotic medications, which cause weight gain, diabetes and a host of other metabolic problems, the petition says.

“We are gravely concerned that if this is published as is in 2013, it will create false epidemics where hundreds of thousands of children and the elderly who really are normal will be diagnosed with a mental disorder and given powerful psychiatric medications that have dangerous side effects,” Elkins says. “That is not tolerable.”

David Kupfer, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist who chairs the task force overseeing the manual’s preparation, says he expects the final number of disorders included in the DSM-5 to be about the same as in the current book. He says he welcomes the criticism and that nothing is final. The task force has been testing proposed new diagnoses in 2,300 patients at seven adult treatment centers and four adolescent centers that are acting as field-test sites, he says.

“There’s a myth that all the decisions have been made, when in fact, all the decisions haven’t been made,” he says. “Just because [things have] been proposed doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll end up in the DSM-5. If they don’t achieve a level of reliability, clinician acceptability, and utility, it’s unlikely they’ll go forward.”

The most surprising critic of the DSM is a one-time pillar of the psychiatric establishment. Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University, chaired the task force that created the DSM-4. Now he’s railing against both the process and proposed content of the new DSM in blogs on the website for Psychology Today that blast the new revision as “untested” and “unscientific.”

Psychiatric diagnoses are loose enough already, Frances  told me, and that laxity has led to “epidemics of over-diagnosis in child psychiatry” causing huge numbers of children to be unnecessarily labeled with attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder and treated with medications.

“DSM has to be a safe, reliable and credible guide to current clinical practice,” he says. “It can’t be an untested program for future research.’’

The user revolt against the DSM-5 has emerged as a major challenge to the document, Frances says, and its future is looking unclear. He and Elkins are proposing that an independent committee of experts review the proposed draft and make recommendations.

The fight over the DSM-5 pits some of the greatest minds and biggest egos in the world of psychiatry, but it’s more than a battle among 301.81s (narcissistic personality disorder). For people seeking help for life’s problems who don’t want to be labeled mentally ill or have their treatment limited to medication, and for clinicians who want to help people without reducing them to a category, the stakes are high.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/therapists_revolt_against_psychiatrys_bible/singleton/

« Return to news items


Share

If I have mental illness, I want doctors to prove it

Wednesday, October 12th, 2011

The Irish Times, October 11, 2011
by John McCarthy

Click on image to read the Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights

I AM MAD, a proud member of the mad community. Of course, madness exists – it’s normal, it’s as old as mankind, and it’s in every family. But if I have a disease in my brain called “mental illness”, I want the doctors to prove it. The brain is the most complicated organ in the body, yet doctors diagnose mental illness just by looking at you, and then you are labelled for life.

I’ve been diagnosed with unipolar depression, bipolar or manic depression, dysphoric elation – whatever that’s supposed to be – and paranoia. I’ve been told that I have a chemical imbalance in my brain that shows I have a mental illness. Yet not one of these fellows even took my pulse. They did it by sitting looking at me and talking to me.

I had a breakdown as a consequence of my dysfunctional childhood and because my business was collapsing – the banks were hounding me and I owed thousands. I was locked up for a year. I attempted suicide when I was on my heaviest dose of medication – a mixture of 10 different drugs a day.

There’s no such thing as a sudden breakdown: the madness was like the San Andreas Fault within me, lying dormant and buried. It was like an emotional stroke, a stroke of the spirit rather than the brain. But stroke victims can recover and they aren’t permanently labelled as disabled.

Our mental health laws allow two psychiatrists to sign a piece of paper and lock you up for the rest of your life because you’ve been diagnosed with a mental health problem. It’s based on nothing more than opinion, and that’s part of the cruelty of the mental health system in this country. You can be incarcerated and force treated against your will.

Why try to define madness? We should stop defining. We are all individuals with individual lives, and people react differently to different life situations. But the pharmaceutical industry, working with psychiatrists, tries to mass treat the individual, putting everyone in the same box.

Of course, madness has a downside. I hated it, but my hate was for myself really. I lost the ability to receive love. I was a complete pain in the arse, but my wife and family never stopped loving me. Yet you can learn from being mad. In fact, it was one of the most constructive learning experiences of my life.

I learned how to receive love with confidence. I have learned how to be at peace with who I am.

How do you learn to receive love? Well, if someone says you look well today, you say thank you. That’s the first step, but when I was in my negative side, that felt as hard as climbing Everest.

The Murphy and Ryan reports quite clearly showed that when you give power and authority to one section of the community over another abuse is bound to follow.

Mad Pride Ireland brings out the stories of people who have been abused under this system.

Society has bought into this idea that the mad community is dangerous and to be feared. The nuns got away with the same kind of thing for years with “loose women”; they took the problem part of the community away and buried them.

But we need to be free to ask awkward questions, to challenge the ethos of power and control. There is an aura of fear around psychiatric units. If you’re hopeless and helpless, you’ll be embraced and looked after. If you start asking questions, if you speak out with strength, they don’t want to know. When I started questioning things, I was offered more medication and told I was developing paranoia.

With every Mad Pride event we open up a public playground; there are no protests, no speeches. We scan everyone for normality – clowns use rubber chicken “normality detectors” to check people for signs of normality – and no-one has passed that test yet. We had 17,000 people at our event in Cork, all rocking to the music on a beautiful summer’s day.

It’s all about showing that madness is an everyday occurrence that affects everyone, and it can be dealt with in an open, loving way, with no fear. Now key people are beginning to listen to us. It shows what you can do with no money but a bit of goodwill.

Today I am lying here with motor neurone disease. I prefer the old name for it – creeping paralysis. You lose the use of your limbs, the ability to swallow, you end up incontinent. It’s a relentless disease. But there’s an honesty about the way neurology approaches it. Neurologists admit they don’t know the cause or cure for it.

They have done every test under the sun, I’ve undergone the deepest brain scan imaging in the country. But they admit they don’t know where it comes from and there is no fix, no treatment. Yet a psychiatrist can diagnose you just by looking at you.

I am happy for the psychiatric diagnoses I have had to be scientifically tested. I have a suggestion: I will put myself forward for psychiatrists to carry out any test they wish to do, in public, and I will publish the results. I’m dying, so I have nothing to lose.

click image to read more

But no-one is ever going to get a diagnosis of mental illness out of science: you will only ever get a diagnosis based on an assessment of behaviour. There is no science behind this disease, yet we have given the power of law to this guesswork. How are they getting away with this?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/1011/1224305573629.html

« Return to news items


Share

DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble

Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011

Psychology Today
by Allen Frances, Former Chairman, DSM Task Force

Video: ADHD Labeling Normal Kids "Mentally Ill"

The Child Work Group Fails Again To Learn From Its Experience

Martin Whiteley is an MP who represents Perth in the Australian parliament. He has been actively involved in mental health issues and succeeded in a crusade to curb what had been Perth’s alarming overdiagnosis and overmedication of  Attention Deficit Disorder Disorder (ADD). Mr Whiteley has become expert in the intricacies of ADD and is alarmed that the changes suggested for DSM 5 will greatly exacerbate the ADD fad he worked so hard to tame. Read Mr Whiteley’s careful item by item review and you will be alarmed too:

http://speedupsitstill.com/dsm-5-proposal-adhd-%e2%80%93-making-l…

We are already in the midst of a false epidemic of ADD. Rates in kids that were 3-5% when DSM IV was published in 1994 have now jumped to 10%. In part this came from changes in DSM IV, but most of the inflation was caused by a marketing blitz to practitioners that accompanied new on-patent drugs amplified by new regulations that also allowed direct to consumer advertising to parents and teachers. In a sensible world, DSM 5 would now offer much tighter criteria for ADD and much clearer advice on the steps needed in its differential diagnosis. This would push back ,however feebly, against the skilled and well financed drug company sell. DSM 5 should work hard to improve its text, not play carelessly with the ADD criteria in a way that may unleash a whole set of dreadful unintended consequences- unneeded medication, stigma, lowered expectations, misallocation of resources, and contribution to the illegal secondary market peddling stimulants for recreation or performance enhancement.

The DSM 5 child and adolescent work group has perversely gone just the other way. It proposes to make an already far too easy diagnosis much looser.

How puzzling and troubling. Child mental health has already promoted no fewer than three false epidemics in just 15 years- ADD, childhood bipolar, and autism. Any reasonable group would now be learning from this past experience. For the future, it would be chastened, cautious, and eager to correct the damage it has done- rather than embarking on any reckless new adventures. A prudent DSM 5 would tighten its criteria for ADD and put in a black box warning against the blatant current off-the-DSM-label diagnosis of childhood bipolar. DSM 5 instead does everything wrong it possibly could with ADD and then remarkably takes the mischievous further step of adding yet another new candidate for diagnostic fad (Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder) likely that will increase the already scandalous overprescription of dangerous antipsychotic medication to children. Go figure.

In many circles, the accepted wisdom is that DSM 5 workers are making such unaccountably bad decisions because they want to promote drug sales to kids. To support this accusation, cynics raise the Biederman affair and also APA’s previous excessive financial support from Pharma.

This is one time when the cynics are dead wrong. The DSM 5 work group is making simply disastrous decisions for the purist of reasons. These are not people with close industry ties and their conflict of interest is intellectual, not financial. Experts in child psychiatry are dangerously naïve about the likely misuses of their well meaning suggestions. They are blind, not corrupt.

What is needed is outside supervision to curb child psychiatry’s seemingly endless taste for diagnostic excess. And APA should also realize the grave harm done to its credibility by the appearance that DSM 5 is far too Pharma friendly even if this has not been the real motivation behind the bad DSM 5 proposals.

To make matters worse, the DSM 5 field trial will be completely worthless- providing no information at all about the magnitude of the rate increase in ADD that will occur once DSM 5 opens the floodgates even wider. We did careful field trials before DSM IV to compare the impact on rates of the different possible definitions and predicted a 15% increase for the one finally chosen. Instead, the rates more than doubled- courtesy of pressure from the drug companies. For obscure reasons, DSM 5 is conducting extraordinarily expensive field trials that (again perversely) avoid the only question that really counts- just how high will the rates skyrocket under the even easier to meet new DSM 5 definition.

DSM 5 will be flying completely blind into dangerous territory, unimpeded by adult supervision. The leaders of child psychiatry (who already have the unfortunate track record of producing fads) will now be given a free pass to further feed their blossoming ADD fad. Will they never learn from past mistakes?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201108/dsm-5-will-further-inflate-the-add-bubble

« Return to news items


Share

Interview with “Psychiatryland” Author, Phillip Sinaikin, MD

Monday, July 25th, 2011

Scoop News – July 25, 20011

By Martha Rosenberg

"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."

Phillip Sinaikin, MD, is a Florida psychiatrist who has been in practice for 25 years. 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

« Return to news items


Share

Psychopharmaceutical industry seeks world of dispassionate sheeple

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

Natural News, May 10,2011
by Monica G. Young

People who obediently follow the herd, never markedly sad, angry or excited; children who play quietly and never annoy or talk out of turn – this is the object of the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industries. And when anyone steps out of line, the answer is simple: stamp them “abnormal” and give them a pill.

Human sorrow could soon be more easily diagnosed and medicated as a mental disorder. Psychiatrists creating the next edition of the psychiatric bible – the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5, due out in 2013) – are recommending to eliminate the time clause for major depressive disorder. So instead of grieving for two months to qualify, if you mourn the loss of a loved one for only two weeks doctors could label you mentally ill and prescribe a drug.

The first DSM published in 1952 was a 132-page volume listing 128 mental disorders. With nearly 900 pages, the current edition (DSM-IV, published in 1994) lists 357 disorders – an over 300% increase. Since its release, DSM-IV has generated a 256% increase in psychiatric drug sales and billions of dollars in government funding.

Drug companies are notorious for downplaying disabling effects of psychotropic drugs. Additionally, medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker reports that many psychiatric drug users acquire a more severe form of mental illness than they started with. For instance, antidepressant users tend to spiral down into long-term depression – yielding even greater profit for psychiatrists and drugmakers.

Creating drugged and docile youth

Psychiatry’s worst social meltdown concerns our youngest. The threat of ADHD, bipolar, autism and other alleged childhood diseases – which duped teachers, counselors and parents are on constant lookout for – presses children into a “socially acceptable” mold.

Several ADHD websites even boast that medication benefits include: “the child is no longer distinguishable from classmates” – their words!

A Medco Health Solutions Report in 2009 revealed children to be the pharmaceutical industry’s most expanding market. Child prescriptions have increased at four times the rate of the general population.

Every new disorder equals more prescriptions and more profit. With changes planned for DSM-5, toddlers with recurring tantrums could be drugged for “temper dysregulation disorder”, upset six-year-olds could be drugged for “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” and kids with “overly familiar behavior (verbal or physical violation of culturally sanctioned social boundaries)” could be drugged for “Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder.”

Social totalitarians

DSM officials admit that everyone has instances of sadness and anger, and assert that diagnoses depend on the severity and frequency of symptoms.

And who decides when a child or adult has crossed from normality into abnormality? Psychiatrists – a field financially joined at the hip with Big Pharma.

Per the current DSM, social no-nos deserving an abnormal imprint (and likely to lead to a prescription drug) include:

* Heightened self-esteem (“manic episode”)
* Very sensitive to criticism (“avoidant personality disorder”)
* Defying and disobeying authority figures (“oppositional defiant disorder”)
* Behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture (“personality disorder”)

The Soviet Union also used psychiatric labels for social control. People who defied communism were diagnosed as mentally ill, isolated and forcefully medicated.

Ahead of his time, Aldous Huxley anticipated psychiatric totalitarianism in his classic novel, Brave New World: “And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma* to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are.” [*In this fictional novel, soma is a hallucinogenic drug used by those in power to subdue the citizens.]

Sources include:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/heal…

http://communities.washingtontimes….

http://www.cchrint.org/cchr-issues/…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOcJ…

About the author:
Monica G. Young is a human rights investigator and educational writer with a purpose to expose the truth about the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries and safeguard human liberty. She encourages non-drug alternative approaches based on healthy lifestyles and human decency. She supports the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and like-minded groups.

« Return to news items


Share

Seroquel Marketing Undeterred by Deceptive-Marketing Settlement

Monday, April 11th, 2011

The Epoch Times – April 11, 2011

by Martha Rosenberg

AstraZeneca has already settled nearly 25,000 personal-injury lawsuits pertaining to its antipsychotic drug Seroquel

Google the word “depression” and the first search result you’ll get will be for the antipsychotic drug Seroquel XR.

Visit WebMD and you’ll find the home page hosts similar ads for Seroquel XR, above and adjacent to the lead news story.

Who would know that AstraZeneca inked the largest multi-state consumer-protection settlement on record relating to deceptive Seroquel marketing on March 14 for $68.5 million? And only a year after inking a similar settlement related to burying side effect and safety information for $520 million with the government!

Who would know AstraZeneca has already settled nearly 25,000 personal-injury lawsuits pertaining to Seroquel, with more to come, says ABC News?

First approved in 1997, Seroquel has enjoyed the camel-nose-under-the-tent phenomenon known as indications creep. First approved for schizophrenia, it was later approved for bipolar disorder and psychiatric conditions in children.

But it was Seroquel’s 2009 approval as a drug for depression that helped it reach its spectacular sales of $5.3 billion in 2010 thanks to the United States’ walloping depression “market” of 20 million depression sufferers.

Seroquel’s blood sugar, weight gain, and heart side effects are well-known. That’s why FDA regulators opposed its use as a first-choice, stand-alone treatment for the 10 percent of the U.S. population with depression when safer drugs exist.

“I saw no clear advantage demonstrated in efficacy,” said Dr. Wayne Goodman, who chaired the FDA panel considering the depression indication. “There were side effects, and I would expect unintended consequences associated with wide-scale use of the drug.”

The drug also can cause increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis, suicide, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, cataracts, seizures, increase in blood pressure, and movement disorders in neonates when their mothers take it.

Seroquel’s fraud trail is also well-known, with more than six conflict-of-interest scandals swirling around Seroquel researchers and promoters. Psychiatrist Richard Borison was sentenced to a 15-year prison sentence in 1998 for a pay-to-play Seroquel research scheme, which helped establish Seroquel’s original perception as being safe.

But how many realize Seroquel’s cost to the individual taxpayer and health insurance consumers at a red-book price of almost $500 per month per person?

Auditors with the Michigan Corrections Department say the state could save $350,000 a month by switching just half of its Seroquel prescriptions to another pill. North Carolina spends $29.4 million per year on Seroquel prescriptions. Who knows how much more states and taxpayers are paying to control the metabolic side effects that emerge from taking Seroquel?

Reports are also starting to surface about the effects $6,000-a-year Seroquel prescriptions are having on rising insurance premiums for private insurance holders.

In fact, the public is really paying twice for irrepressible Seroquel marketing: first, for drug purchases by state and private plans, and, second, in suffering the drug’s side effects.

Martha Rosenberg is a freelance writer who lives in Chicago.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/seroquel-marketing-undeterred-by-deceptive-marketing-settlement-54506.html

« Return to news items


Share