Note from CCHR:

(see videos at the bottom of this post from film maker Michael Moore and Fox National News reporter Douglas Kennedy)

It is well documented that psychiatric drugs, particularly antidepressants, can cause a host of violent side effects including mania, psychosis, aggression, violence and in the case of the antidepressant Effexor, homicidal ideation.   As far back as 1991, CCHR helped organize dozens of individuals and experts testifying before the US FDA that people with no prior history of violence (or suicide) became homicidal and suicidal under the influence of antidepressants (see CCHR’s exclusive footage of the 1991 hearings here).  It would take the FDA another 13 years to admit antidepressants could cause suicide and black box warnings were finally issued in 2004.  However, despite all the documented violence-inducing side effects of these drugs, the FDA has never issued black box warnings on antidepressants causing violence or homicide despite the fact that at least 11 recent school shootings were committed by kids documented to be on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs (see Fox News special report on school shootings here).   Therefore, the case cited below, where a Canadian judge ruled that a teenage boy murdered his friend due to being on the antidepressant Prozac, and the fact that the case will not be appealed, is a major turning point in exposing the violence inducing effects of antidepressant drugs.  

National Post
By Tom Blackwell
December 7, 2011

JB Reed/Bloomberg News

A Winnipeg judge’s ruling that a teenage boy murdered his friend because of the effects of Prozac will not be appealed, confirming an apparent North American first and reviving debate around the widespread prescription of anti-depressants to young people.

Justice Robert Heinrichs concluded the 15-year-old boy was under the influence of the medication when he thrust a nine-inch kitchen knife into the chest of Seth Ottenbreit, a close friend.

Although the killer pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, the judge cited the drug’s alleged side effects as a reason not to raise the case to adult court, and to mete out a sentence last month of just 10 months – on top of two years already spent in jail.

A spokeswoman for the Manitoba Justice Department said this week prosecutors have decided not to appeal the provincial-court decisions, which were earlier met with outrage from Mr. Ottenbreit’s family and friends.

Both the boy’s lawyer and the psychiatrist who testified on his behalf say it is the first time a criminal-court judge in North America has made such a finding.

Prozac is meant to curb the effects of depression, but Justice Heinrich concluded it set off a steady deterioration in the young murderer’s behaviour.

“He had become irritable, restless, agitated, aggressive and unclear in his thinking,” the judge said. “It was while in that state he overreacted in an impulsive, explosive and violent way. Now that his body and mind are free and clear of any effects of Prozac, he is simply not the same youth in behaviour or character.”

Yet the empirical underpinning of his conclusion, and the pros and cons of young people taking Prozac and other “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)” anti-depressants, seem less clear-cut.

Justice Heinrichs relied largely on the expert testimony of Dr. Peter Breggin, a controversial American physician known for his outspoken opposition to the use of virtually any psychiatric drug. Some other experts say scientific evidence of a link between the latest anti-depressants and homicide is thin.

“I think it got pulled out of a hat, frankly,” said Dr. Umesh Jain, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental health. “You could construct a weak and biologically plausible effect, but you’d have to be pretty convincing in court.”

Studies have established such drugs can increase the risk of young patients having suicidal thoughts. Their tendency to lift inhibition could also release some hostility or violence lurking in a person’s character, said Dr. Jain. Small studies like one he co-authored in 1992 have also suggested that the drugs can trigger short-term mania, especially in bi-polar disorder patients.

There is little or no scientific evidence directly linking the anti-depressants and serious violence or homicide, though, he said.

Still, the official “product monograph” approved by Health Canada for Prozac says the drugs are not recommended for use on adolescents, and warns that agitation, hostility and aggression might ensue. Doctors are allowed to prescribe medications “off label” to patients even when the approval does not expressly permit it.

Specialists in Winnipeg responded to concerns voiced by the accused’s parents by actually increasing the dose, said Greg Brodsky, the teenager’s lawyer.

“On Prozac he was becoming more irrational and aggressive,” Mr. Brodsky said. “That should have been a warning. That warning wasn’t heeded.”

SSRI drugs have a contentious track record. They were hailed originally as a safe alternative to older anti-depressants, then clinical-trial results came to light in 2004 that suggested they increased the risk of children and adolescents having suicidal thoughts.

Other studies have indicated they are effective in patients with major depression, but little better than a placebo for mild to moderate cases.

The Winnipeg murderer had a history of smoking marijuana, had abused prescription drugs and “experimented” with cocaine, but was trying to break free of that background when a family doctor prescribed Prozac for depression in July, 2009.

On Sept. 20, the accused met with Mr. Ottenbreit and another friend at his house, after the two friends had earlier stormed into his home, allegedly damaging the floor. The killer and Mr. Ottenbreit shared a cigarette, before the accused pulled aside a sweater on the floor of his garage, revealing the knife. He picked it up, “got this weird look on his face,” then abruptly stabbed his friend, the other boy told police.

“They were in my house, they dented the floor, I had nothing else to do but to stab him,” he told police later.

Dr. Keith Hildahl, clinical head of Winnipeg’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health program, testified that the Prozac might have played a role, but concluded on balance that his behaviour that summer was largely a result of the tense relationship he had with his parents.

Dr. Breggin, who has testified in a number of U.S. cases where anti-depressants allegedly led to murder or other violence and reviewed the Winnipeg case, pointed the finger of blame at the medication.

“These drugs produce a stimulant or activation continuum,” he said in an interview. “That continuum includes aggression, hostility, loss of impulse control … all of which are a prescription for violence.”

Dr. Breggin’s long-standing criticism of psychiatric drugs and opposition to the view that psychiatric problems have biochemical roots have prompted some supporters to call him the “conscience” of the speciality, and some psychiatrists and patient advocates to condemn him as a harmful influence.

Read article here:  http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/07/prozac-defence-stands-in-manitoba-teens-murder-case/

See Michael Moore discuss the need for an investigation into psychiatric drugs causing violence:

See Fox National News on School Shootings and Psychiatric Drugs:

To read international warnings and studies on psychiatric drugs causing violence – visit CCHRInt’s Psychiatric Drug database and simply type in keywords such as violence, mania, psychosis, aggression in the red search box

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• Prozac is now a defense for murder, writes Australian Member of Parliament Martin Whitely (0)
• Psychiatric Meds 101: A Surprising Discovery – Your Own Personal Hell (15)
• Carrollton Mother In Murders-Suicide Took Depression Meds (0)
• The Huffington Post: “Pilots Taking Antidepressants? The FAA Is Risking Our Lives” (1)

Note from CCHR Int:  We’re happy to see more and more press running stories containing the facts about psychiatric diagnoses, that mental disorders are not diseases on par with real medical diseases as the psychiatric/pharmaceutical marketing teams would have you believe, but lists of behaviors and emotions repackaged as disease in order to sell billions of dollars worth of pharmaceutical ‘solutions.’   CCHR was the first organization to point out that psychiatric disorders were not medical conditions discovered in labs, but disorders invented in committee by pharmaceutically funded psychiatrists.  We’re very pleased we’re no longer the only ones reporting the facts about psychiatry and its marketing campaigns.  Get the facts here

Do we really need more mental disorder diagnoses creating the need for more drugs in a society that some would say is already over-medicated?

The Fog City Journal – 11/29/2011
by Ralph E. Stone

“The critics — and the public too — have a stake in the proposed DSM-V. More mental disorders may mean just more drugs in our over-medicated society.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders, which is used in the United States and to some extent internationally, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and policy makers. The DSM is produced by a panel of psychiatrists, many of whom have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. It is considered the “bible” of American psychiatry. The latest edition — DSM-IV — was published in 1994.

In 1952, the DSM was a small, spiral-bound handbook (DSM-I), but the latest edition (DSM-IV), is a 943-page magnum opus. Over time, psychiatric diagnoses have increased in the American population and in turn, drugs that affect mental states are then used to treat them. The theory that psychiatric conditions are caused by a biochemical imbalance is often used as a justification for their widespread use, even though the theory in unproven. Since there are no objective tests for mental illness and what is normal and abnormal is often unclear, psychiatry is a particularly fertile field for creating new diagnoses or broadening old ones.

Medications are widely used to treat the symptoms of mental disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, and attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Sometimes medications are used with other treatments such as psychotherapy.

While I am sure research in mental disorders account for some of this increase, I cannot help but believe that there is a certain amount of disease-peddling going on. That is, instead of promoting drugs to treat diseases, diseases are promoted to fit the drugs. For example, shyness as a psychiatric illness made its debut as “social phobia” in DSM-III in 1980, but was said to be rare. By 1994, when DSM-IV was published, it had become “social anxiety disorder,” now said to be extremely common, thus, boosting sales of antidepressants. Now, social anxiety disorder is “a severe medical condition.” In 1999, the FDA approved a drug for social anxiety disorder. After a successful marketing campaign, the sales of Paxil soared.

Presently, a revised version of the DSM is set for publication in 2013. The proposed revision has proven quite controversial. A group of psychologists with the Society for Humanistic Psychology, for examle, has filed a petition objecting to many of the revisions, arguing that they broaden the definition of mental health disorders, which, in turn, could lead to over treatment with drugs. Some, but not all, of the objections of the Society — along with the British Psychological Society and the American Counseling Association — to the proposed DSM-V include:

- The proposed DSM “fails to explicitly state that deviant behavior and primary conflicts between the individual and society are not mental disorders. Given lack of consensus as to the ‘primary’ causes of mental distress, this proposed change may result in the labeling of sociopolitical deviance as mental disorder.”

- “Several new proposals with little empirical basis also warrant hesitation: For example, ‘Apathy Syndrome,’ ‘Internet Addiction Disorder,’ and ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ have virtually no basis in the empirical literature.”

- “…clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalization of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation.”

Do we really need more mental disorder diagnoses creating the need for more drugs in a society that some would say is already over-medicated? Let’s look at some statistics. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the percentage of Americans who took at least one prescription drug in the past month increased from 44 percent to 48 percent over the past ten years. The use of two or more drugs increased from 25 percent to 31 percent. The use of five or more drugs increased from 6 percent to 11 percent. And in 2007-2008, 1 out of every 5 children and 9 out of 10 older Americans reported using at least one prescription drug in the past month.

And Americans are spending more on drugs. According to the CDC, spending for prescription drugs in the U.S. was $234.1 billion in 2008, which was more than double what was spent in 1999.

And the pharmaceutical industry is profiting. According to Fortune 500 (May 3, 2010 issue date), the profits for the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies was almost $64 billion in 2010. Clearly, Pharma has a financial interest in a DSM with more mental disorders because it will mean a demand for more drugs to treat them.

The critics — and the public too — have a stake in the proposed DSM-V. More mental disorders may mean just more drugs in our over-medicated society.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once quipped, “If all the drugs were thrown in the ocean, everyone would be better-off . . . except for the fish.” While this is a an overstatement, it does contain a grain of truth.

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/3217/is-the-american-psychiatric-association-in-bed-with-big-pharma/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Depression? Don’t believe it —Big Pharma has gained an ever greater hold over our mental & emotional lives (0)
• Are you shy? Then you have a mental disorder (0)
• ADHD drugs linked to heart disease and death (1)
• Psychiatric disease labeling of children exposed as scam by non-profit group (0)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)

Natural News – 11/20/2011

Australian government is actually considering mandating parents of diagnosed children accept the prescribed drug treatments or else face the wrath of child protective services.

The typical treatment recommendation for children diagnosed with psychiatric or mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) includes a combination of behavior and drug therapies. Such treatments are legally optional, but the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is actually considering mandating that parents of diagnosed children accept the prescribed drug treatments or else face the wrath of child protective services.

Australia’s Sky News reports that authorities originally crafted the proposed measure as a guidance for doctors in how to treat children with such conditions, writing in a draft paper that “combined behavoural-pharmacological treatment is most effective” for normalizing child behavior. In the process, these authorities are essentially pushing a draconian form of medical tyranny that will eliminate health freedom of choice, and force parents to take the drug route with their children.

The entire field of psychiatry and its mental health screening process is questionable to begin with, as ADHD, bipolar disorder, and depression are not verifiable medical conditions like heart disease or cancer. There are no legitimate scientific tests to determine without a doubt the presence of these ambiguous “conditions” — and yet the entire psychiatric industry is built on pushing $84 billion worth of pharmaceutical drugs every year as treatment for them (http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-…).

Psychiatric drugs cause drastic changes in the cognitive and behavioral profiles of children. Drugs are not necessarily for the better. Most of these drugs also cause severe side effects, including mind-altering hallucinations, and they are typically far more addictive than illicit drugs like marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, all of which are illegal.

But certain government officials, likely influenced by Big Pharma, are continuing to propagate the lie that psychiatric drugs are the only option for these often-fictitious mental disorders. West Australian Labor MP, author, and anti-ADHD medication campaigner Martin Whitely is quoted in News Tonight as saying that ADHD drugs are “the only possible medical interventions” and that parents who refuse to use them “may see their child put in care.”

Earlier this year, a SWAT team raided the Detroit home of Maryanne Godboldo for refusing to medicate her daughter with dangerous psychiatric drugs. These thugs actually kidnapped the young girl, who was eventually released after it was determined that Maryanne had every right to choose her own daughter’s medical care (http://www.naturalnews.com/032089_a…).

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Congressman Ron Paul’s Parental Consent Act (15)
• Instead of drugs, children need a good dose of parenting (1)
• Ron Paul Reintroduces The Parental Consent Act 2011- Prohibits Federal Funding For Psychiatric ‘Screening’ of Kids (1)
• The hidden tyranny: children diagnosed and drugged for profit (4)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)

September 20, 2011

New Study published in American Journal of Family Therapy confirms millions of normal kids misdiagnosed with ADHD & drugged.

by CCHR Int—A new study published today in the American Journal of Family Therapy has found that millions of children have been misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and wrongly prescribed amphetamine-like drugs categorized by  the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the same class of highly addictive drugs as cocaine, opium and morphine.

The study conducted by researchers at the New England Center for Pediatric Psychology and the Rhode Island College Department of Special Education found that of the “over 5 million children who are now being treated with ADHD medication, a majority may be suffering from Faux-ADHD, a disorder linked to irregular bedtimes” and that a majority of the children diagnosed ADHD may be unnecessarily medicated.    Now while we at CCHR applaud any study on the issue of “ADHD” which is not  ghost written by Big Pharma or those with a vested interest in drugging kids, we would like to pose two simple questions regarding this latest study:

1)  If there is such as thing as  “Faux-ADHD” what exactly is “real” ADHD?    There are no blood tests, brain scans, x-rays or genetic abnormalities that can prove any child has a “real” condition of ADHD.   Therefore any diagnoses of ADHD is “Faux.”   The criteria for an ADHD diagnoses  rests entirely on a checklist of behaviors,  including such “abnormal” child behavior as:

• “runs about or climbs excessively in situations when it is not appropriate”
• ” is often “on the go”
• “acts as if driven by a motor”
•  ”blurts out answers”
•  ”is easily distracted”
• ” loses pencils or toys”
• “often doesn’t seem to listen”

2)  Given the diagnoses itself is not a medical condition, what child being prescribed drugs isn’t being “unnecessarily medicated?”   ADHD drugs are classified by the DEA as schedule ll drugs because they are as highly addictive as cocaine, morphine and opium.  ADHD drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta and Adderall are documented by the FDA and international drug regulatory agencies to cause hallucinations, mania, psychosis, drug dependence,  stunted growth, insomnia,  heart attack, suicidal ideation and sudden death.  Normal children are simply being drugged.  Not medicated.  Drugged.

The fact is that any child diagnosed with ADHD has been misdiagnosed.  Any child placed on cocaine–like ADHD drugs is being unnecessarily drugged.  The diagnoses of ADHD in any circumstances is a Faux-diagnoses, serving only the psychiatric pharmaceutical industries and fueling their $4.8 billion a year ADHD drug empire.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• ADHD’s Rapid Rise: 5 Theories [And One Answer] (3)
• ADHD drugs linked to heart disease and death (1)
• The United States of Adderall (0)
• Psychiatric disease labeling of children exposed as scam by non-profit group (0)
• Study Claims “ADHD Boys” Get in More Car Accidents—Fails to Mention ADHD Drug Side Effects & Recommends…More Drugging (0)

The Daily Telegraph – September 15, 2011

by Emily Allen

Common problems among children such as shyness could be regarded as a mental illness

Children who are shy or considered moody run the risk of being diagnosed with mental illnesses and given powerful drugs like Prozac, psychologists have warned.

• Experts fear widespread use of powerful medications
• Hyperactive children already being treated with drugs

Psychologists in the UK fear school-age children could be diagnosed with mental illnesses like ‘social anxiety disorder’ if they are quieter among their peers, or depression if a child is temporarily sad or is battling bereavement.

Meanwhile, youngsters who appear to lose their temper easily or answer back to adults could be classed as having ‘oppositional defiant disorder’.

Once diagnosed, psychologists say children are likely to be treated with powerful drugs like Prozac or Ritalin to curb their behaviour – without fully understanding the long-term impacts.

Ritalin is already used to help control attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in youngsters under six and about 650,000 children aged between eight and 13 have also been prescribed the drug or an equivalent.

Kate Fallon, general secretary of the Association of Educational Psychologists, told The Daily Telegraph: ‘Behaviours develop over a long period of time, often with a range of complex causes; we can’t “cure” the behaviours we don’t like with a quick fix of medicine.

‘They usually require careful management by all the adults around the child.’

She said parents need to take time and energy to help their children deal with their problems and warned it was tempting to opt for a drug which would be quick to change their behaviour.

The British Psychological Society is also concerned about the new guidelines and said pigeon-holing problems as ‘illnesses’ ignores the wider causes.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2037610/Children-pumped-powerful-drugs-combat-shyness-psychologists-warn.html#ixzz1Y3ZbweW8

For more information – Watch this:

Click to watch video, Psychiatry Labeling Kids with Bogus Mental Disorders

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Can Prozac Cause Kids to Kill? A Canadian Judge Has Ruled it Can (2)
• New Study Confirms: Millions of kids misdiagnosed with ADHD and drugged (0)
• ADHD drugs linked to heart disease and death (1)
• Is the American Psychiatric Association in Bed with Big Pharma? Answer: Yes (1)
• Israel Health Ministry: Use of ADHD drugs soars by 76% in 2010 (0)

NaturalNews – August 2, 2011

by Ethan A. Huff

Click image to watch 1 minute video: ADHD—Labeling Normal Kids 'Mentally Ill'

A major study recently published in the journal Pediatrics — and republished by countless other medical and mass media sources — made the bold claim that stimulant drugs like those used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children are not linked to cardiovascular events and death. But a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Tozzi writing for FOX News explains that the study was flawed, and that the drugs will cause cardiovascular events or death, especially in individuals with certain conditions.

Like most studies that allege the safety of pharmaceutical drugs, the Pediatrics study was at least partially, if not completely, funded by the drug industry. It was also deliberately constructed in such a way as to artificially minimize the risks associated with stimulant drugs. As a result, its findings ended up mirroring claims long made by the drug industry that stimulant drugs are safe, and that children do not need to be tested for certain conditions prior to being prescribed them.

The study included two groups of children, one taking stimulant drugs, and the other not taking stimulant drugs. The idea was to simply compare the number of heart events between the two groups, and determine whether or not stimulant drugs are associated with an increased risk of heart events and sudden death.

Well, according to Dr. Tozzi, few, if any, of the high-risk children with conditions that would react negatively in the presence of stimulants were placed in the stimulant group. Most parents of children with such conditions, as well as their doctors, would not normally opt for giving stimulants to their high-risk children, and thus the vast majority of these children were placed in the non-stimulant group.

This inherent and obvious flaw completely debunks the credibility of the study. After all, the whole point of it was supposedly to identify whether or not children need to be pre-screened for certain conditions before being prescribed stimulant drugs. With this in mind, it makes sense to actually identify how children with existing conditions respond to stimulant drugs, otherwise the data is meaningless.

It is difficult to say which is worse — testing dangerous drugs on high-risk children, or not testing dangerous drugs on high-risk children and simply declaring that they are  safe (which is what the drug industry basically did in a recent study). One thing is for sure, though. The propositions made in the study that stimulant drugs are safe and do not raise the risk of heart disease and sudden death are patently false. And many children will likely suffer and die as a result of these lies.

To read all international drug regulatory warnings and studies on Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta and other ADHD drugs visit CCHR’s Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Search Engine”

http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

http://www.naturalnews.com/033204_ADHD_drugs_death.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• New Study Confirms: Millions of kids misdiagnosed with ADHD and drugged (0)
• The United States of Adderall (0)
• ADHD’s Rapid Rise: 5 Theories [And One Answer] (3)
• No More ADHD (15)
• Is the American Psychiatric Association in Bed with Big Pharma? Answer: Yes (1)

NaturalNews – July 26, 2011

by Bella Muse

Child drugging has been a huge profitable market for Big Pharma, earning them $4.8 billion dollars a year. They have done everything in their power to convince the press, legislators and especially parents why children need to be put on drugs.

They claim that ADD/ADHD, depression, bipolar disorder, etc., are medical conditions, and consider them on par with cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. But in reality there is no actual evidence that proves that psychiatric disorders are indeed medical conditions. They simply diagnose a child by using a behavioral checklist.

There are 20 million children in the United States who have been diagnosed with some kind of psychiatric disorder and drugged for it. It’s practically an epidemic. Innocent children are being turned into patients for simply acting like kids.

Not to mention that all those who are licensed by the government who can “legally” prescribe drugs are paid huge amounts of money by the pharmaceutical industry to write prescriptions of their drugs. But has anyone considered the side effects that these drugs have on children?

In 2001, Matthew Smith, 14, was skateboarding with his cousins when he collapsed and started turning blue. By the time the paramedics arrived Matthew couldn’t be revived and suffered a heart attack.

According to Dr. Ljubisa Dragovic, the cause was Ritalin. Matthew Smith was only six years old when his parents followed the school social worker’s advice and placed him on Ritalin. She claimed Matthew had “ants in his pants” and wouldn’t sit still. After the autopsy, Matthew’s heart showed the same signs of vessel damage that are caused by amphetamines and cocaine.

Ritalin is a methylphenidate, and classified as a Schedule II drug. The DEA reserves it as one of the most dangerous and addictive drugs allowed to be legally prescribed. Some of the serious known side effects are heart palpitations, heart attacks, and cardiac arrhythmia. Why in the world would they prescribe this to children?

What is being done to these kids is truly child abuse. If children are not running around, being loud and constantly playing, then I’d be concerned. Forcing them to sit still and act like adults is unrealistic and cruel.

There’s so much that we can learn from our children if we stop and observe them. They are always in the moment. All they require is patience, understanding, and love. Not drugs.

Online resources:

The Fraudulent Nature of Psychiatric Labels Exposed by Human Rights Group

www.cchrint.org/2011/04/25/the-frau…

www.feingold.org/Research/ritalin.html

www.myhealthtoday.com

www.ritalindeath.com

www.chaada.com

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• New Study Confirms: Millions of kids misdiagnosed with ADHD and drugged (0)
• “Drugging Pre-School Children: A crime against childhood—children as young as 2 prescribed powerful anti-psychotics” (0)
• Is the American Psychiatric Association in Bed with Big Pharma? Answer: Yes (1)
• The Portland Press Herald: Psychiatric Drugging of American Children is Cause for Alarm (4)
• Can Prozac Cause Kids to Kill? A Canadian Judge Has Ruled it Can (2)

Comment from CCHR Int:
A few months ago, the FAA changed its rules and now allows pilots to fly planes under the influence of antidepressants (drugs documented to cause mania, psychosis, worsening depression, hallucinations, suicidal and even homicidal ideation—see this link for international studies and warnings http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/ ). Now a new report has just been released on the 2008 Mount Airy plane crash, and toxicology tests reveal the pilot had the antidepressant Zoloft in his system. Now pay attention to this particular line of the report, “Officials say the pilot ‘displayed non-professional behavior’ and that a cockpit voice recording showed that he began singing, [yes singing] “Save my life, I’m going down for the last time.”

And this, “The NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] says the pilot failed to maintain control of the plane during instrument flying and deliberately went below the minimum descent altitude.” Deliberately. Now look again at the documented side effects of these drugs cited above or see for yourself in the link to the psychiatric drug database. The FAA needs to reverse its ruling.

News 14 Carolina
June 30, 2010

The National Transportation Safety Board issued a report on the probably cause of a 2008 plane crash in Mount Airy that killed everyone on board. The plane stalled and crashed while circling after an aborted landing.

The NTSB says the pilot failed to maintain control of the plane during instrument flying conditions and deliberately went below the minimum descent altitude.

Officials say the pilot “displayed non-professional behavior” and that a cockpit voice recording showed that he began singing, “Save my life, I’m going down for the last time” after being cleared for approach.

Toxicology tests revealed that the pilot had the drug Zoloft in his system, and medical records revealed he had been treated for anxiety and depression. The report also said it’s not clear whether the medical conditions could account for the behavior or whether they contributed to the accident.

Read entire article:  http://charlotte.news14.com/content/local_news/triad/627644/ntsb-releases-report-on-2008-mount-airy-plane-crash

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• Hundreds of U.S. Pilots Treated for Drug Abuse and Psychiatric Disorders, Review Finds (0)
• The FAA will Allow Antidepressant Popping Pilots and their Lethal Side Effects in an Unfriendly Sky (2)
• Online database lets you research the side effects of common psychiatric drugs (0)
• New Dawn Magazine—The Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids:Patrick McGorry & Psychosis Risk Syndrome by Jan Eastgate (0)

Jan Eastgate, President CCHR International, arrived in Australia this week from CCHR’s international headquarters in Los Angeles following calls by psychiatrist Patrick McGorry for the federal government to hand over $200 million to fund programs that could lead to hundreds of thousands more children and youths being drugged. She said Australian psychiatrists are pushing a biological drug model in her home country that drug regulatory agencies have warned could place children at risk of suicide, heart irregularities, hallucinations, psychosis and death. Read more from CCHR Int on Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry and what he promotes.

Eastgate, an Australian, spent 10 years helping investigate the lethal psychiatric drug practice known as deep sleep treatment, which resulted in the NSW government banning the practice after 48 deaths. She says Australia hasn’t learned from the $15 million inquiry into this psychiatric practice 20 years ago. Today, psychiatrists, backed by the pharmaceutical industry, advise governments that clearly want to see better healthcare for Australians without breaking the bank. However, Eastgate said governments are being misled as Big Pharma and psychiatrists with vested interests puts profit before patient care. Eastgate’s investigations in the U.S. and globally during the past 16 years have found that government goodwill can be unwittingly compromised by psychiatric-pharmaceutical interests. She is investigating this further and expects a series of exposes to be featured on CCHR’s National site during the next few weeks. A report will also be provided the government on CCHR’s findings.

CCHR’s accomplishments in worldwide mental health reform are well documented, and the organization has helped to enact more than 150 laws protecting individuals from abusive or coercive psychiatric practices.  In the United States, CCHR was instrumental in the passage of the Prohibition of Mandatory Medication Act, which prohibits school personnel from forcing children onto psychotropic drugs as a requisite for their education. The Act was a positive response to the harmful influence the psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry had had on education and Eastgate says there is every indication the same influence is happening in Australia.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Pharma Backed Australian of the Year Psychiatrist Wants Millions in Government Funding for Brave New World of “Pre-Drugging” Kids (18)
• New Dawn Magazine—The Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids:Patrick McGorry & Psychosis Risk Syndrome by Jan Eastgate (0)
• Australian of the Year, psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s pre drugging agenda comes under fire from fellow psychiatrist (1)
• US expert slams Patrick McGorry’s psychosis model (1)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s Pre Diagnosing Kids Agenda: Voodoo Science & Snake Oil (0)

By CCHR Int
March 15, 2010

Who is Patrick McGorry and what does he promote?  He’s a psychiatrist just named Australian of the Year for his work in “youth mental health reform.”  What does that reform consist of?  What he calls a “new form of climate change.” It sure is.

[See TIME Magazine Article "Drugs Before Diagnosis?"]

He not only promotes youths being put on antipsychotics and antidepressants, cited by international drug regulatory agencies as causing hallucinations, hostility, personality change, life-threatening diabetes, strokes, suicide and death, McGorry goes a giant step further—drug them before they’ve even developed a “psychiatric” disorder.

The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AHRPP) likens such concepts to “performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of—but do not have—breast cancer.”[i]

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed “serious concerns” about child drugging and Senate investigations in the United States have found high profile psychiatrists who were pharmaceutically funded and using fraudulent research being among the heaviest promoters of psychiatric drug use on children. While the rest of the world is experiencing serious alarm at the rampant use of deadly psychiatric drugs on children, McGorry pushes full steam ahead to increase the amount of children being needlessly subjected to psychiatry’s most powerful drugs—antidepressants and antipsychotics.

His theory and practices are so controversial that even his colleagues in the United States have backed away from it.  And a parallel study done in the United States based on the same theory that McGorry uses was considered an abject failure—even by the investigators themselves.  Other psychiatrists have criticized McGorry’s pre-drugging practice as unethical and harmful to adolescents.  More on that later.

This is especially so as the “symptoms” McGorry and cohorts invented to “pre-label” youths as potential candidates for psychosis and “schizophrenia” (to start with) are, according to one U.S. psychiatrist, “remarkably common…adolescence is a period of life that is normally marked by tumultuous changes in personality.”

And what was the first thing he did to capitalize on his winning his “Australian of the Year” award?  He demanded the Australian government hand over another $200 million to fund more of his centers where he can drug more children.  Worse, the government is entertaining the idea.

Yet, for who ever nominated him—apparently an “anonymous supporter”—due diligence wasn’t done on what McGorry advocates.

A cursory look at his research shows that while behavioral symptoms are evaluated and, on a hunch, drugged to see if they “prevent” the onset of a “mental” disorder, there’s no mention of the teens being given full and searching physical exams to first rule out undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions that may be causing it.  Yet dozens of physical conditions can manifest as behavioral problems.

• Australia, like the U.S., has recently seen major media and legislative exposure of the conflicts of interest between psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry.  McGorry has received unrestricted research grant support from Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myer Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.

• He is also a paid consultant for, and has received speaker’s fees from all or most of these companies.[ii] His recent report on “early intervention” for young people acknowledges AstraZeneca, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer.[iii] [Since 2001, the U.S. Federal and state governments have recovered more than $4 billion from many of these companies that settled criminal or civil charges of fraud and misleading advertising filed against them.]

• Even Big Pharma is bowing out of psychiatric drug research. In February, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline said it was dumping antidepressant research because it is too hard to prove that antidepressants work because “patient improvement is measured by subjective mood surveys” and not by any blood or biological test used to confirm medical diseases. AstraZeneca followed with the head of development, Anders Ekblom, announcing it would no longer research and develop drugs for depression, bipolar, anxiety and schizophrenia, saying the decision reflects the unpredictable and risky nature of clinical trials to assess medicine working on the brain. [emphasis added]

• Yet, despite the unpredictability and risk of these drugs, McGorry wants to go full steam ahead, increasing the funding to increase the number of children being placed on them.

A Closer Look at McGorry’s Brave New World

• In 1996, Patrick McGorry and fellow pharmaceutical company-funded researcher Alison Yung set up a clinic in Australia to monitor young people considered at a “high risk” for developing psychosis.  They invented a subjective method for assessing symptoms that, while not based on science—claimed to predict early onset of psychosis or schizophrenia called prodromal (early symptoms), and drugged the teens and young adults.  In other words, gave them toxic chemicals for a mental disorder they did not have.[iv]

• The theory wasn’t McGorry’s alone, but he decided to test it in a world-first trial that had psychiatry’s skeptics and even psychiatrists themselves aghast.  The Australian program inspired the development of similar programs worldwide.[v]

• A follow up study was conducted in 2002, funded with an unrestricted grant from Janssen-Cilag pharmaceuticals, and supported by psychiatric-pharmaceutical front groups NARSAD and Stanley Foundation, as well as several Australian agencies.  McGorry and colleagues said that risperidone (Risperdal)—made by Janssen—reduced the risk of “transition to psychosis” in young people.[vi]

• Risperdal has been linked to diabetes and, more specifically, Type 2 diabetes. Other serious side effects include Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS), a potentially fatal syndrome involving muscle rigidity, and irregular blood pressure and pulse.[vii]

• McGorry’s friend and colleague, Yale University professor of Psychiatry, Dr. Thomas McGlashan, conducted a parallel study (1997-2003), the results of which were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry.   Eli Lilly funded the experiment.  Sixty adolescents, who did not meet any criteria for a diagnosis of mental illness, were prescribed Lilly’s antipsychotic Zyprexa (olanzapine).[viii]

• The experiment failed to demonstrate any significant benefit of Zyprexa, and 54.8% of adolescents prescribed the drug compared to 34.5% on placebo refused to complete the study (the 20% difference indicating substantial intolerable safety problems with the drug).[ix]

• Even McGlashan later admitted to The New York Times in May 2006 that, “the drugs were more likely to induce weight gain than to produce a significant, measurable benefit….” Those on medication gained an average of about 20 pounds. The entire process changed Dr. McGlashan’s thinking.[x]

• In fact he distanced himself from McGorry in a TIME Magazine article the same year on McGorry titled, “Drug Before Disorder?”  “There may be gold in the early-intervention hills,” McGlashan conceded, “but the data are not plentiful enough and the findings not replicated enough for us to recommend anything more than further research at this point.”[xi]

• Undeterred, and buoyed by an Australian government $A54 million funding of a National Youth Mental Health Foundation, McGorry plowed on to expand his unproven and potentially risky methods to the early diagnosis and treatment for “a range of mental health problems in young people: substance abuse, personality disorders, bipolar—the whole lot, really.”[xii]

• Richard Warner, MB, DPM, director of Colorado Recovery in Boulder, Colorado, and professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado, completely debunks McGorry’s theory, writing: “Medicating at the earliest appearance of symptoms, without thought for the natural history of the condition, may lock the person experiencing a brief psychosis into a long-term career as a psychiatric patient.”[xiii]

• Further refuting McGorry’s theory, Honorary Professor Anthony Pelosi from the Department of Psychiatry, Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride, wrote, “So far, evidence from randomized trials does not support the use of psychological therapies or drugs as preventive interventions.”[xiv]

No Science to “Pre-Disorder” Screening

• Dr. Warner counters any idea that science drives McGorry’s pre-disorder assessment: “As for the claim that we can prevent psychosis by intervening before the illness has become fully evident, this effort requires effective screening to detect those at risk.”  Something that McGorry clearly doesn’t have.

• “Patrick McGorry and colleagues at the PACE clinic in Melbourne…report that their screening instrument is capable of 80 per cent accuracy in their clinic.  But the instrument is not that accurate in routine use.  In the PACE sample, 35 per cent developed psychosis within one year.  Probability theory tells us that if the same instrument were used to screen a general population sample…it would be correct only seven per cent of the time.”

• “In fact, in another Australian clinic, the PACE instrument only achieved nine per cent accuracy. False-positive rates of the order of 70 to 90 per cent are clearly unrealistic for intervening with medication or other forms of treatment.”

Harmful Drug Outcomes

• Further, the antipsychotic drug interventions McGorry suggests as one intervention approach are dangerous. “Given the expected number of false positives, the potential for harm is significant,” Dr. Warner stated.[xv]

• Dr. Pelosi concurs: “[M]ost patients who enter these specialist programs will unnecessarily receive potentially dangerous treatments.  Data are emerging from the clinics of early intervention enthusiasts that illustrate nicely what they have been warned about for years.  When psychiatrists referred selected patients to a schizophrenia prodrome clinic, about half went on to develop a psychosis.  After teachers, college counselors, and families were encouraged to refer young people with possibly prodromal symptoms directly to the same clinic for the same care plans…almost 90% were receiving unnecessary ‘preventive’ interventions.”[xvi]

• Dr. Jerald J. Block, a U.S. psychiatrist, writing in Bioethics Forum, says that “preventive pharmacology” (what McGorry is practicing) is “ethically questionable territory” because the treatments given “frequently have side effects and complications” and you are potentially harming people.  Further, the symptoms used to identify them as at risk of schizophrenia are “also remarkably common…adolescence is a period of life that is normally marked by tumultuous changes in personality.”[xvii]

• He says, “[I]t is unclear how the quality of one’s life will be affected during and after one year of getting daily neuroleptic,” especially for a condition you haven’t even developed. “Forming and solidifying new relationships occupies much of the time in adolescence and young adulthood.  As neuroleptics affect cognition and emotionality, we might expect [an antipsychotic] to influence one’s ability to build relationships, for better or worse.”[xviii]

• Moreover, Dr. Warner points out, if left untreated, the person exhibiting so-called “prodromal” symptoms is likely to recover without drug treatment. “The Soteria projects in California and Berne, Switzerland, and a multi-center study in Finland demonstrated that medication is not essential for good outcome.”[xix]

Despite the Failure, Keep Lobbying for the $

• Dr. Pelosi points out that when the leaders of the early intervention movement are pinned down, while they accept the criticisms against them, “this has not stopped their skilful lobbying of politicians, journalists, patients, and carers with upbeat messages about the prevention and attenuation of schizophrenia.”

• Which is precisely what McGorry is doing now—using his award and unquestionably unscientific theories to advocate for more funds.[xx]

Australia’s Joseph Biederman?

• McGorry has been equated with America’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, the psychiatrist who came under U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigation for failing to disclose more than $1.6 million he’d earned in consulting fees from drug makers while conducting research for universities.  Biederman was on the Advisory Board of Eli Lilly, which manufactures antipsychotics and antidepressants. The New York Times said that Biederman helped to fuel a 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric “bipolar disorder” and corresponding increase in children taking antipsychotics.

• How much McGorry may have impacted on pediatric and youth prescriptions of antipsychotics and antidepressants in Australia is unknown, but certainly warrants a closer look. As do the outcomes of his studies and what, if any, influence the drug companies that funded him may have had.

• Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has received reports of 26,506 adverse reactions linked to antipsychotics, including 477 deaths.  That’s since they were introduced over many years.  By January 2009 there were 36,804 adverse reactions reported to the TGA linked to antidepressants, including 217 deaths, of which 4 were from the 10 to 19 age group.

• But add to that the Food and Drug Administration’s adverse drug reaction reports (ADRs) during a five-year period alone (2004-2008) and the magnitude of where the potential risk of this “Drugs before Disorder” practice is heading.  For antipsychotics, there were 91 deaths for those under 18.  For antidepressants, there were 321 deaths, of which 251 were suicides. As these reports represent between one and ten percent of the ADRs, that figure could be as high as 3,210 deaths, and for antipsychotics, nearly 1,000.

Australia’s health care system ranks well internationally, and preventative measures may seem the way to enhancing it; however, the last thing the country needs, then, is a psychiatrist banner heading the idea that children and youths should be gotten to early and drugged on the precept that they might become mentally ill.  Rather, they need proper medical—not psychiatric—care and educational solutions.  The last thing they need is $200 million of taxpayers’ dollars funding what could be a lifetime sentence to taking mind-altering drugs.

Someone needs to care for Australia’s children and youth, but it’s definitely not Patrick McGorry.

[i] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf

[ii] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695

[iii] http://www.mhanet.ca/documents/2008/Research-Colloquium/0920%20-%20Keynote%20MCGORRY.pdf

[iv] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632176/

[v] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632176/

[vi] Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol 59, Oct. 2002, http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/psychiatrie/zebb/literatur/mcgorry.pdf

[vii] http://www.coreynahman.com/atypical-antipsychotic-lawsuits.html

[viii] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf

[ix] http://www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf

[x] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/health/psychology/23prof.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

[xi] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205408,00.html#ixzz0i0DykBNV

[xii] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205408,00.html#ixzz0i0NMJQyd

[xiii] http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html

[xiv] Anthony Pelosi, “Head to Head, Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? No,” BMJ 2008;337:a710, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710

[xv] http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html

[xvi] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710

[xvii] http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=386 http://www.bioethicsforum.org/ethics-of-preventive-psychopharmacologic-treatments.asp

[xviii] http://www.ahrp.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=386 http://www.bioethicsforum.org/ethics-of-preventive-psychopharmacologic-treatments.asp

[xix] http://www.camh.net/Publications/Cross_Currents/Winter_2007-08/futureorfad_crcuwinter0708.html

[xx] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a710

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Meet the Psychiatrist Pushing For A Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids—Patrick McGorry (4)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Wants His Pre-Drugging Agenda to Go Global (7)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s Pre Diagnosing Kids Agenda: Voodoo Science & Snake Oil (0)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s push for psychiatric “early intervention” called “a prescription for disaster” (3)
• Australian of the Year, psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s pre drugging agenda comes under fire from fellow psychiatrist (1)