Posts Tagged ‘CCHR’

How Vested Interests Created the Perfect Marketing/Lobbying Machine: Mental Health “Advocacy” Groups—Funded by Pharma

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

by CCHR International

An ongoing U.S. Senate investigation headed by Senator Charles Grassley has  sought disclosure of pharmaceutical funding paid to researchers, physicians,  medical schools and medical journals.  Some of the nation’s most prominent psychiatrists have now been exposed for extensive conflicts of interest amounting to millions in undisclosed pharmaceutical funding, including Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Dr. Joseph Biederman, Dr. Melissa DelBello, Dr. Timothy Wilens, Dr. Thomas Spencer, Dr. Alan Schatzberg, Dr. Martin Keller, Dr. A. John Rush, Dr. Karen Wagner, Dr. Jeffrey Bostic and Dr. Frederick Goodwin — many of which serve as advisory board members to mental illness “advocacy groups” which are now also the subject of the Senate investigation for their undisclosed pharmaceutical funding.

The majority of the public may or may not be familiar with these so-called mental health advocacy organizations, such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) or the myriad of bipolar, depression or ADHD “support groups” that are inundating the internet.

But they need to be.

These are groups operating under the guise of advocates for the “mentally ill,” which in reality are heavily funded pharmaceutical front groups – lobbying and working on state and federal laws which effect the entire nation — from our elderly in nursing homes to our military, pregnant women, nursing mothers and school children. Presenting themselves as patient advocacy groups is highly disingenuous not only to their membership, many of which may have a sincere desire to help a loved one or a family member with mental problems, but to legislators, the press and the American public — for they have consistently lobbied for legislation that benefits the mental health and pharmaceutical industries which fund them, and not patients they claim to represent.

Certainly any organization claiming to be for the rights of patients diagnosed mentally ill would have as their primary goal, full informed consent in the field of mental health – including full and complete disclosure of all drug risks, the right to refuse treatment, the right to know that psychiatric diagnoses are not medical conditions (evident by the fact there is not one confirmatory medical/scientific test). Above all such groups would provide patients with an abundance of information on non-harmful, non- drug, medical solutions and options considering the dangerous and well documented risks of psychiatric drugs by international drug regulatory agencies.

These groups do not.

A patients rights group for the mentally ill would never endorse something as absurd and obviously dangerous as giving electroshock to pregnant women, nor condone schools being able to require children to take a psychiatric drug as a condition of attending school. Furthermore, they would never be opposed to the FDA actually doing its job and finally issuing long overdue warnings that antidepressants can cause children to commit suicide, or issue warnings that ADHD drugs have serious and even deadly side effects. Yet these are just some of the actions condoned and promoted by these so-called patients rights groups.

As another example take the federally proposed bill, The Mothers Act; a previous version of this bill called on using a method of “screening” pregnant women and new mothers called EPDS, a screening method documented to triple the number of women diagnosed with Postpartum depression, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health stated that EPDS screening was unethical and should not be used. None of the so called advocacy groups for the mentally ill had any objections to this bill whatsoever, or endorsing such an unethical screening tool. They supported it. The bill would have passed with no objections from them whatsoever, if not for the dedication of real advocacy groups with no vested interests (ties to Pharma) opposing language in this bill that would have led to women being falsely diagnosed and put on dangerous psychiatric drugs to “treat” them, unnecessarily placing new mothers and their infants at great risk.

To put it simply, these groups are not what they appear to be. Yet their influence over legislation, lobbying, drug regulation (or lack thereof), and public relations campaigns is substantial and effects the entire nation. For they claim to be the voice of the “mentally ill.” But are they? Or are they the result of a brilliant marketing/lobbying campaign designed to benefit the industry that funds them—the Psycho/Pharmaceutical industry.

To find out how it all started click here: http://www.cchrint.org/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Drugged to Death; Our Kids and Our Troops

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

By Jim Marrs
Investigative Journalist
New York Times bestselling author

Today, one of the biggest problems we have, and one of the things that shocks so many Americans, is the rise of teen suicides and the rise of school shootings. Yet all we hear from the corporate mass media on the shootings is “Well, we need to take the guns away.” Let me tell you something, I went to school in Texas. We took guns to school. Nobody shot anybody. So what’s changed? Drugs. Kids on psychiatric drugs. Nearly every school shooter in this country can be shown to have been involved with psychotropic drugs—either taking them at the time of the shootings, or what can be even worse, coming off of them. And teen suicides? Read the FDA black box warnings, these drugs can cause suicidal ideation. So logically, if kids are being drugged up with antidepressants, and if in fact teen suicides are rising, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that we better stop drugging our kids to death.

Psychiatric drugs cause major changes in brain chemistry and in behavior. International drug regulators warn that the drugs we are doling out to kids can cause mania, psychosis, depersonalization, suicidal and even homicidal ideation. If we take a look at the school shooters that were under the influence of these drugs, you have to wonder why there hasn’t been a federal investigation into the correlation between drugs documented to cause violence and suicide and kids taking them who then became violent and suicidal. If even a handful of these school shooters were found to be taking PCP or smoking crack we would have headline news announcing a causal relationship between illicit drug use and acts of violence. But because these kids are taking legal drugs, prescribed by a psychiatrist for an alleged mental disorder, something we use to refer to as “childhood,” the powers that be don’t think it merits an investigation. Well we are all aware of how much Pharma spends on lobbying efforts. Regarding corporate media I would venture a guess that the reason they haven’t taken on the issue is simple: Big Pharma is now one of, if not the largest, advertisers in the United States, with $5 billion a year spent on direct to consumer advertising.

The rise of drug-induced acts of violence and suicide isn’t limited to our schools. In January 2009 it was reported that more of our military died of suicide than of combat deaths. Why is that? Could it be because our military are getting pumped full of psychiatric drugs? What Time Magazine referred to as “America’s Medicated Army?” Well if we are “medicating” our troops with antidepressants and antipsychotics, drugs documented to cause suicidal reactions, let’s put 2 and 2 together and state the obvious—these drugs are minimally a contributing factor.

Many people don’t realize that psychiatry’s love affair with the military dates back more than 90 years; During World War I the biggest problem the German military had was desertions—people leaving the front lines of the War. So the Germans turned to psychiatrists who came up with a solution: Electroshock. Psychiatrists theorized that if the shock soldiers experienced due to the brutalities of war made them desert the front lines, then another kind of shock—electroshock—could get them to be good little soldiers and willingly return to combat. Maybe because electroshock wiped out their memory, or maybe because soldiers chose to face the front lines rather than have another 450 volts of current tear through their brain, it worked. Psychiatry had come up with a winning strategy for the military to deal with reluctant soldiers and since that time the love affair between the two entities has never waned.

Today there are mobile psychiatric units that travel with the troops to ensure they’re drugged up as needed. And though they are not yet employing electroshock, as more Americans are made aware that these psychotropic drugs are killing our troops, don’t be surprised if sometime soon you pick up a newspaper and find psychiatrists promoting a new cure for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; Electroshock.

Jim Marrs is an award-winning journalist and author. After graduating from the University of North Texas with a degree in journalism, Marrs worked for and owned several Texas newspapers before becoming an independent journalist/author. Marrs is the author of the New York Times bestsellers, Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, the basis for the Oliver Stone film JFK, and Rule by Secrecy.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


  • Share/Bookmark

The Prozac Calamity by award winning Scientist Shane Ellison

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

By Shane Ellison, Award winning Scientist, Masters Degree in Organic Chemistry

I love Big Pharma. After getting a masters degree in drug design, I was fortunate enough to work within their stinky labs and learn the inner workings of corporate drug making (and dealing). My most important lesson: Not all drugs are bad. Some are really bad. Take the so-called antidepressant Prozac as an example.

In 1990, Prozac appeared on the cover of the pharmaceutically compliant, Newsweek magazine with the headline “Prozac: A Breakthrough Drug for Depression.” It was designed almost twenty years prior. And during that time, some ghastly findings were made which proved the drug to be the antithesis of what popular media touted it as. Such findings were kept hidden. Patients are learning the hard way.

Thirteen days after taking the SSRI Prozac, on April 28, 2003, Jordan’s wife of 56 years, Kathy, found his lifeless body hanging from a beam in a back room of their shop. Not depressed at the time of his appointment, Jordan was given a free sample of Prozac for “chest pains!” Apparently, a pretty drug rep convinced Jordan’s doctor that Prozac could be used for these types of “off-label” purposes. By FDA standards, this is totally illegal. But those standards are never enforced by the consumer watch dog turned Big Pharma lap dog. Regardless of what they are prescribed for, Prozac is a real and present danger to SSRI users.

SSRI’s strive to increase the levels of a “coping” molecule known as serotonin in the brain. It helps us FIND happiness when it’s covered in an avalanche of nastiness. SSRI’s attempt to boost serotonin by “selectively” stopping the “reuptake” of it among brain cells. This is where the whole SSRI acronym came from – “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.” It’s a slick name that seems to hypnotize medical doctors into prescribing submission, but it’s a really stupid idea.

Nothing is selective in the body. While trying to block the reuptake of serotonin, SSRI’s can also prevent its release. The areas of the brain responsible for release and reuptake are so damn similar (after all, they work on the same molecule) that an SSRI isn’t smart enough to understand which one it is supposed to work on. So it does what any dumb drug would do, it blocks both. The end result: no coping molecules in the brain. Deep sadness, fear or anger can set in. Early studies proved this.

The first testing of Prozac was performed on dogs and cats. Every trial showed that Prozac use caused aggression amongst these normally calm and friendly animals, as could be seen by increased hissing and growling. When the animals were taken off of the drug, they returned to their usual friendly behavior. Researchers concluded that Prozac use causes aggressive behavior.

By mid 1978, Prozac testing moved to humans in controlled clinical trials involving more than 4000 patients. In an attempt to hide its aggressive tendencies, the study allowed for voluntary dropout of those who experienced the most severe side effects. Additionally, clinical investigators were allowed to administer concurrent sedatives to patients to further mask Prozac’s side effects that would most likely lead to violence/suicide. This is a common loophole used by drug company-funded drug trials and is known as “checkbook science.” Despite the lack of scientific methodology, this study concluded that Prozac works well to a “statistically significant” degree in a population of depressed patients.

Since its approval, the potential for Prozac calamity has become frighteningly clear amongst both professionals and the public. Reports of Prozac-associated suicide, written by James D. Hagerty and distributed by the Drugs and Devices Information Line at the Harvard School of Public Health, dominated the “Letters to the Editor” section of the American Journal of Psychiatry during the fall of 1990.

Under the FDA’s own analysis, there have been more than 20,000 Prozac-related suicides since 1987.

Clinical studies performed on Prozac show 191 negative side effects per 100 people. This equates to almost two negative side effects for every user of the drug.

The FDA continues to ignore the Prozac body count (they approved Prozac’s use for children in 2003). To make matters worse, the FDA granted its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, extended patent protection. In order to procure thirty additional months of earning power, Eli Lilly changed the name of Prozac to Sarafem, while at the same time labeling common personality and biological shifts as a disease among women; this “disease” being premenstrual irritability. As a result, thousands of unsuspecting women were given Prozac for premenstrual irritability while at the same time increasing their chances of suffering from the aforementioned negative side effects such as aggression, and suicide.

Such lessons got me out of corporate drug making. Thankfully, they taught me how not to be healthy: Take prescription drugs. You can do the same, just say no to Prozac.

About the Author

Ellison’s entire career has been dedicated to the study of molecules; how they give life and how they take from it. He was a two-time recipient of the prestigious Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Grant for his research in biochemistry and physiology. He is a best selling author, holds a master’s degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand experience in drug design. Use his knowledge and insight to look and feel your best with his Secret Cures monthly report. Get it free at www.thepeopleschemist.com

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


  • Share/Bookmark

PR Web: CCHRInt Announces FDA Reported Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Search Engine

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

Citizens Commission on Human Rights International Announces FDA Reported Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Search Engine: Decrypted FDA reports reveal 4,260 suicides, 2,452 additional deaths, 195 homicides from 2004-2006 alone

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) August 4, 2009 — For the first time the side effects of psychiatric drugs that have been reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by doctors, pharmacists, other health care providers and consumers have been decrypted from the FDA’s MedWatch reporting system and been made available to the public in an easy to search psychiatric drug side effects database and search engine.  The database is provided as a free public service by the mental health watchdog, Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR).

The report totals reveal that between 2004-2008 the FDA’s MedWatch system received pregnancy-related psychiatric drug adverse reaction reports which included 2,442 babies born with heart disease, 3,372 other birth defects, as well as 1,072 miscarriages, abortions and other deaths.

The database also reveals that, between 2004-2008 there were reports submitted to MedWatch including 4,895 suicides, 3,908 cases of aggression, 309 homicides and 6,945 cases of diabetes from people taking psychiatric drugs. These numbers reflect only a small percentage of the actual side effects occurring in the consumer market, as the FDA has admitted that only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA.

The database is searchable by individual reports (for the 2004-2006 period), type of drug, age of patient, the side effect reported (suicide, homicide, heart attack, stroke, mania, etc.), and whether the drug in question carries a black box warning (the agency’s strongest warning–short of banning a drug).

It is searchable by drug name and age group and includes who reported the psychiatric drug reaction (doctor, pharmacist, consumer, etc.). It also includes the top 20 reported adverse reactions to all psychiatric drugs to the FDA and combined summaries of all psychiatric drug reactions for the years 2004-2006 and 2004-2008.

Read entire article: http://www.prweb.com/releases/CCHR-Psychiatric-Drug/Effects-Search-Engine/prweb2714464.htm

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

INFORMED CONSENT: How to make sure you’re getting quality medical care

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Informed ConsentBy Moira Dolan, M.D.

Quality of health care is a big topic these days; with the majority of news stories covering how we are all going to get our hospital bills paid and our prescriptions filled. But there is a conspicuous absence of any discussion of over-treatment and the over-selling of false diagnoses and dangerous prescription drugs.

It is the responsibility of you, the consumer, to find out about the diagnosis, tests and treatments that are offered. Once you have full information, you can make decisions about accepting it, or not. This is called Informed Consent.

When you are given a diagnosis you need to know the actual physical evidence for it. You don’t want someone’s opinion if you have cancer, do you? You want to know what the biopsy showed under the microscope.

In the case of medications, the minimum your doctor should tell you is based on the information made generally available by the drug manufacturers. However, you should expect that your doctor is aware of any pertinent medical issues beyond what the pharmaceutical companies tend to provide.

This is the minimum your doctor should explain:

What is the evidence for the diagnosis?
How does the treatment affect the body?
How does the treatment affect the mind?
What unwanted effects may occur?
Is it approved by the FDA for your condition?
What is known and not known about how safe it is and how well it works?
What are the alternatives, including the option of no treatment?
Does your doctor or the clinic have a financial interest in pushing the diagnosis or treatment?

You can make your doctor work for you. Demand information and get key questions answered. Doctors are supposed to give every bit of this full information to each patient they diagnose, test, operate on or prescribe for. In fact, they are required to do so by federal guidelines, state statutes and medical society ethics codes.

Your role in the process is to get any questions answered. Then you can carefully consider the information you have been given. You may feel more comfortable taking the information home before making a decision about agreeing to the proposed treatment.

Be a part of the decision-making process when your doctor offers a drug:

Get a thorough understanding of what he or she is prescribing and why.

Ask exactly what the drug is and why it has been chosen for your condition. How does it work?

Find out if it is new on the market. If so, why was it chosen over older drugs?

Find out if the drug is safe to take:

How will this drug interact with your other medications or over-the-counter drugs or natural remedies you are taking?

What does your doctor personally know about the safety of the drug? How long was it tested? How long were patients followed after taking it to determine if they developed bad effects? Has the FDA published any reports of adverse effects?

Why is a new drug being prescribed instead of an older similar drug with a proven safety record?

Ask about how well it works:

Has the proposed drug been proven to be effective for your particular condition?

What is the drug effectiveness in comparison to no treatment; in comparison to older drugs; in comparison to alternate drugs; in comparison to non-drug treatments such as diet, rest, and vitamins; in comparison to herbal or natural remedies?

If your doctor provides any of the following answers, it should give you strong reservations about accepting the diagnosis or taking the drug:

There is only a checklist of symptoms or other peoples’ opinions to make the diagnosis. There is no abnormality of blood, tissue or biochemistry that can be shown to you.

Your doctor is unclear about the mechanism of action of a drug (what it is doing inside the body). Either the mechanism is not known and only guessed at, or your doctor doesn’t understand it.

The drug was approved within the last two years. Thus it lacks an extensive safety record in the general population.

Your doctor doesn’t know of any adverse effects aside from what he reads along with you in the package insert. Since your doctor has not looked at the FDA website of adverse drug events he or she knows of no warnings to give you. This is something you will have to question carefully to see if your doctor is saying, “I know there are no special warnings to give you” or if your doctor is actually expressing, “I don’t know of any special precautions (because I haven’t bothered to look, all my data comes from the manufacturer’s glossy brochures).”

Your doctor is writing with a drug-maker emblazoned pen, jotting on a note pad sporting the logo of the drug manufacturer or carrying a coffee mug advertising the latest. These are indications of a heavily drug salesman-infiltrated office, and may well reflect an inordinate reliance on sales talk in the absence of careful review of the scientific pharmacologic information.

The drug is a look-alike version of an older drug. This is offered to you at much greater expense without obvious medical advantage.

On occasion your doctor may have to honestly say, “I don’t know, I’ll go find out some answers for myself and for you.” However, be alert if your doctor is offended or becomes patronizing. In that case you can expect that you have tread into some areas in which he or she feels challenged or uncomfortable, and may not be ready to be thoroughly frank with you. Then again, sometimes the answer to these questions remains some version of, “I don’t know about the details of safety and effectiveness,” but he or she still feels you should take the drug. In this case you will have to carefully consider the unknowns and make your decision.

You can only really be in charge of the quality of your health care when you have the opportunity for full informed consent.

©Moira Dolan, M.D.

Reproduced by permission of the author.

Moira Dolan, M.D. is an internal medicine physician and executive director of Medical Accountability Network, LLC, dedicated to establishing integrity in medicine.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


  • Share/Bookmark

The Chemical Imbalance Scam

Monday, May 18th, 2009

Chemical Imbalance, depressionDavid B. Stein, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Criminal Justice
Virginia State University

www.drdavestein.com

One of the subjects that I have taught for over twenty-five years is psychopharmacology.  It might be helpful to challenge one of the great myths about mental disorders, namely that they are caused by chemical imbalances.  This myth is founded on some of the tricks that are pulled in so-called scientific research in psychology and psychiatry.  First, there is a large volume of research claiming to discover all kinds of chemical imbalances in a wide variety of psychiatric disorders.  The manipulation of research has become one of the most powerful and most unethical marketing tools ever devised.  Not one study can be replicated at the testing labs of hospitals or by laboratories involved in clinical patient care.  All that one needs to do is ask his or her doctor to order a blood or urine test to confirm any psychiatric disorder, and the response will be, “I’m sorry, but no such test exists.”  Replication is a basic step for all sciences. (more…)

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


  • Share/Bookmark

A FAN, AN ACTIVIST OR A STALKER? Psychiatry blurring the lines

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

handcuffsWe live in a culture filled with celebrity news and sightings. We can’t get away from it – it’s on television 24-7, in magazines, newspapers, online, everywhere and, of course, we all have our favorites. Imagine that your favorite celebrity is coming to town, performing a concert and doing a book signing. Now imagine that you decide to attend the concert, buy a t-shirt with her on it, buy her book and then decide you’ll go down to the bookstore to get her to sign it.

And, you should be able to do this and not think twice about it. After all, you’re just acting like any normal fan might. Right?

Now imagine that after you see your favorite celebrity, wear your t-shirt proudly and find out the latest news about her life, you get a loud knock on your door. You answer. It’s the police and a psychiatrist trained in recognizing potential killers and stalkers, those fixated on public figures. You are accused of being a stalker for doing the above actions and taken into custody for further investigation. No evidence. No trial.

Sound far-fetched? It shouldn’t because it is already starting to happen. The lines between what constitutes a fan and a stalker are being increasingly erased. Many governments around the globe have already established specialized units to target individuals who may be deemed “stalkers” and pose a direct threat to VIP’s, including celebrities, Royal Families and government officials. These teams are made up of police, as well as psychiatrists and psychologists who have been given the authority to evaluate, accuse and detain you against your will. This is all done under the guise of “anti-terrorism.”

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, specialized units that have been cropping up around the globe, like the Fixated Threat Assessment Center (FTAC) there and the countless Counter-Terrorism Bureaus set up around the United States, have been created to identify and track individuals who are involved with terrorist activity. However, more and more, the definition of what terrorism is and what constitutes an act of terrorism has broadened to include those arenas which may not have applied in the past. For example, when did stalking begin to be classified as a terrorist activity? How might a psychologist accurately determine if one were a stalker or just merely an adoring fan?

Don’t get me wrong – I realize that there is a need for protective security services and measures. In fact, a very good friend of mine owns an agency that does just that for some of the most famous celebrities in the world. He works very hard to make sure that his clients are safe wherever they go in the U.S. or abroad. However, I fear that because the medical evaluations of these special units can lead to the “legal” detainment of individuals without criminal charges or even a trial, then our civil liberties are in grave jeopardy. When the lines between government and medical evaluation get crossed, something is very wrong in society.

Personally, as a producer and writer myself, I like keeping abreast of the things that other celebrities are doing artistically. That certainly doesn’t classify me as a stalker, but if these lines get increasingly more blurred, it just might.

About the Author:

Cerise Fukuji is a writer and producer with over eighteen years of experience in the entertainment industry. She has produced and written over 100 hours of television for various networks including: Discovery Channel, Lifetime, Animal Planet, MTV, Turner Broadcasting Systems and Fox and has also worked in various consulting, development and production capacities at several major production companies and film studios.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


  • Share/Bookmark