Big Pharma uses ads that sow hypochondria, raise health fears and sell diseases to adults and their children.

Alternet
By Martha Rosenberg
January 9, 2012

It’s no secret that advertising works. Big Pharma wouldn’t spend over $4 billion a year on direct-to-consumer advertising if it didn’t mean massive profits.

What is more unknown is why drug ads that sow hypochondria, raise health fears and “sell” diseases are often the most common–and effective–even when the drugs themselves are of questionable safety.

The nation’s fourth most frequent drug ads in 2009 for were Cymbalta, making Eli Lilly $3.1 billion in one year, despite the antidepressant’s links to liver problems and suicide. Pfizer spent $157 million advertising Lyrica for fibromyalgia in 2009, despite the seizure pill’s links to life-threatening allergic reactions. The same year, it spent $107 million advertising the antidepressant Pristiq, even though it also had links to liver problems.

So, how does Pharma dupe us into using unsafe drugs? Today’s drug ads, targeted directly to consumers since 1999, seem like they sell diseases and often cast women, children, the elderly and mentally ill in a bad light. But a quick look at ads before direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) in medical journals shows that drug ads have always done so. It’s just that patients didn’t used to see them.

Here are some of Pharma’s most offensive ad campaigns, then and now.

1. You’re Sicker Than You Think

When psychiatric drugs first became popular for use in the general population, in the late 1960s, everyday personality problems became imbued with psychiatric labels. “Lady, your anxiety is showing (over a coexisting depression),” says a 1970 ad, showing an older, wrinkly woman in a bouffant wig with gigantic sunglasses and garish jewelry. “On the visible level, this middle-aged patient dresses to look too young, exhibits a tense, continuous smile and may have bitten nails or overplucked eyebrows,” says the ad copy. “What doesn’t show as clearly is the coexisting depression.”

The ad, both sexist and ageist, suggests the woman needs the antidepressant and tranquillizer Triavil.

Another ad from 1968 shows a bored, upper-middle-class couple whose hauteur is also said to really be depression. “Do you have patients who try to hide frustration behind conformity?” says the ad for the antidepressant Aventyl HCl.

You’d think such demeaning ads would vanish with DTC advertising because people would be offended. But You’re Sicker-Than-You-Think ads are alive and well since DTC advertising and even flowering.

A three-page consumer ad in the late 2000s similarly conveys that everyday psychological traits could actually be dire mental problems that require medication. If you are “talking too fast,” “spending out of control,” “sleeping less,” “flying off the handle” and “buying things you don’t need,” you could be suffering from bipolar disorder said the ads, which appeared in magazines like People. And here you thought it was the coffee. Accompanying photos of a woman screaming into a phone and contorting her face are so extreme they could come out of the movie Halloween Part II, if the woman were holding a knife.

Click to enlarge image

Psychiatric drugs are not just advertised for everyday personality problems. Pharma is pushing them for everyday pain conditions. Eli Lilly’s original depression campaign for the antidepressant Cymbalta, “Depression Hurts,” seems to anticipate its subsequent approval for pain conditions including back problems. Now ads tout Cymbalta as a “non-narcotic, once daily analgesic FDA approved for three indications across four different chronic pain conditions,” as if it does not have severe controversial psychiatric risks including the suicide of volunteers who tested it.

And seizure and epilepsy drugs, known for major allergic and psychiatric reactions, are also becoming pain franchises. “What’s causing your chronic widespread muscle pain?” asks an ad for the seizure and epilepsy drug Lyrica. “The answer may be overactive nerves,” says the ad, even though “widespread muscle pain” and “over-active nerves,” are not mentioned in the approved labeling for Lyrica, says pharmaceutical reporter John Mack. The military spent $35 million on seizure and epilepsy drugs in 2009 alone, including for migraines, headaches and pain.

And speaking of overkill, ads for genetically engineered injected drugs like Humira, approved to treat serious diseases like Crohn’s disease, psoriatic arthritis and chronic plaque psoriasis look like they are designed to sell beer or beauty treatments, not immune suppressing drugs that invite cancers and lethal infections.

DTC ads don’t just escalate everyday problems into psychiatric problems, they also escalate real psychiatric problems into irresponsible, sensationalistic stereotypes. Ads for the best-selling antipsychotic Risperdal, widely used in children, and in soldiers with PTSD, suggest that people with mental illness have hallucinatory fears about “boiling rain” and “dog women.” The “dog woman” ad, showing a half-dog, half-woman crouched on her elbows, her eyes blackened, furthers the sensationalizing of mental illness with the tagline, “Because relapses are a living nightmare.”

2. Your Kid Is Sick 

DTC ads don’t just convince people they’re in need of new drugs, but also that their kids may be, too. And it’s been going on for decades.

Long before Pharma convinced parents, teachers and clinicians that millions of US kids had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), kids were said to suffer from “minimal brain dysfunction” (MBD) and “hyperkinesis,” two conditions that were essentially the same as ADHD. In fact, so many kids had MBD by 1976 that an ad for the drug Cylert hailed the “Importance of single daily dose to the child, the parents and the teacher,” because kids wouldn’t have to be singled out anymore at pill time at school. (ADHD has been so huckstered, a YMCA ad spoofs it with the headline, “Before video games, before Facebook, before Ritalin, there was basketball.”)

Yet neither Cylert–whose approval the FDA withdrew in 2005 because of liver failure and deaths–or the current ADHD drugs are safe. In 2009, researchers reported that kids are more likely to die sudden deaths while taking them and the American Heart Association recommends electrocardiograms (ECGs) before kids take them. And yet, combined sales of ADHD drugs continue to grow from $4.05 billion to $7.42 billion in 2010.

Thirty years ago, it certainly looked like kids were being overmedicated. They were given the antipsychotic Thorazine for their “hyperactivity,” “hostility,” sleep problems and even for vomiting. Picky eaters and kids who wet the bed were given tranquillizers. Kids with tics, stuttering and school phobia were given the tranquillizer Miltown.

Click to enlarge image

But today, ads promoting drugs for kids continue, and now they are aimed at parents. Sometimes, it’s hard to tell the difference between ads for drugs or ads for sugary cereals! Pharma tells moms to give their kids the bubble gum-flavored ADHD med, LiquADD and the grape-flavored ADHD med, Methylin. The latter campaign, to parents, is “Give ‘em the GRAPE!”

DTC advertising has also convinced parents their kids suffer from GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) otherwise known as acid reflux disease, which was barely a disease in adults much less kids, before consumer advertising. “GERD Can Be a Big Problem for Little Kids,” say award-winning ads for Prevacid, which won a “RX Club” Silver award in 2004. In Europe, kids are treated for another “adult disease” and given chewable Liptitor to lower their cholesterol.

Some of Pharma’s most aggressive advertising has been designed to convince parents their children’s minor sniffles or wheezing are imminent asthma and require immediate and expensive drugs. To make the asthma drug Singulair (which also comes in a yummy chewable), the seventh most popular drug in 2010, Merck inked partnerships with the American Academy of Pediatrics and Scholastic, both of which parents consider neutral organizations and not Pharma mouthpieces. Merck also partnered with Olympic gold-medalist swimmer Peter Vanderkaay and NBA kid clubs to sell the asthma drug.

“A kid who’s got what your kid’s got is out doing what your kid’s not,” says one Singulair ad campaign. “Find out how you can help your child breathe a little easier.”

If Singulair were not harmful, the huckstering would simply be a case of wasting money and overmedicating kids. But Singulair has been linked to both pediatric suicide and to emotional, behavioral and ADHD-like symptoms in kids, the latter likely inspiring parents to give their kids “the grape.”

Of course, another kid-targeted campaign is for the vaccine against the sexually transmitted Papillomavirus or HPV, immortalized by Gov. Rick Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann in hot exchanges this fall. Many object to the sexualizing of 9-year-olds, to government lining Pharma’s pockets by promoting the vaccine (including overseas) and to the risks of the vaccines themselves. But the ads for Gardasil and Cervarix are also offensive.

Last spring, poster-sized ads for Gardasil on Chicago’s commuter trains pretended to sell real estate in sought-after neighborhoods. A closer look revealed descriptions of women in those neighborhoods who thought they didn’t need the HPV vaccine but did, positioning HPV not only as a general risk to the population, like flu, rather than an STD but as “hip.”

HPV vaccine ads got even cooler when GSK rolled out Cervarix extravaganza TV ads and its “armed against cervical cancer” campaign with an Angelina Jolie-like model displaying a skinny arm with a Cervarix tattoo.

3. Be Like Me, and Can Your Beer Do This?

Click to enlarge image

Prescription drugs may affect health, but they are still consumer products sold with the same marketing principles as toothpaste or beer. In fact, the wacky, “Can Your Beer Do This?” Miller Lite campaign of the 1990s, came back to life to sell the antidepressant Wellbutrin XR. In a glossy, color magazine ad, a young man rows his girlfriend on a scenic lake and lists the benefits of his Wellbutrin XR. “Can your medicine do all that?” he asks.

What does it say about the success of DTC advertising that people are assumed to have an antidepressant?

Experiential ads also sell prescription drugs like vintage ads for the “Kodak Moment,” “Maalox Moment” and the old cigarette ads for the “L&M Moment” did. “Lunesta Sleep. Have You Tried it?” asks a 2007 ad in Parade magazine, elevating the experience to something akin to “designer sleep.”

Click to enlarge image

And just as celebrities move other consumer products, they have been deployed to sell prescription drugs. TV personality Joan Lunden and former baseball star Mike Piazza stumped for the allergy pill Claritin, ice skater Dorothy Hamill and track star Bruce Jenner for the pain pill Vioxx, and Sen. Bob Dole for Viagra. NASCAR figure Bobby Labonte also endorsed the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL in 2004. Yes, his medicine could “do all that.”

But there has been a problem with celebrity drug endorsements, unlike product endorsements in which a celebrity like Tiger Woods or Martha Stewart could taint a product, a prescription drug can taint a celebrity! Did Dorothy Hamill know that Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks in users when she stumped for it? Did the model Lauren Hutton know that hormone replacement therapy causes a 26 percent higher incidence of breast cancer, a 29 percent increase in heart attacks, a 41 percent increase in strokes, and a doubling of the rate of blood clots when she shilled for it? Does actress Sally Field know that bone drugs like Boniva are linked to esophageal cancer, jaw bone death and the very fractures they are supposed to prevent as she pushes them?

Of course, good product marketing includes public relations. When Pharma sells a disease with no mention of the drug it is really selling, it’s called “unbranded” advertising. Since DTC advertising, Pharma has invaded public service announcements (PSAs) that TV and radio stations confer for free, pretending their take-a-drug messages serve the public good, like messages to change smoke detector batteries or put kids in car seats.

One such “educational” “awareness” campaign called “Depression Is Real” saturated the radio air waves in 2011, funded by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, which was investigated by Congress for its Pharma funding from Wyeth, part of Pfizer, and other groups. The high-budget ads, running for free, compare depression to diabetes because it doesn’t go away and to cancer because it can be fatal.

4. One Kind of Ad You Won’t See Anymore

Animal research at drug companies and the National Institutes of Health is a great scientific iceberg of which people only see a tip. In drug development, millions of animals die to prove a drug’s “safety.” At academic and medical centers, animal study grants from NIH provide millions to researchers and labs.

As sentiment grows against animal experiments and the government’s gigantic National Primate Research Centers (new rules will limit the use of chimpanzees), the research is downplayed and even hidden. But there was a time when Pharma actually flaunted animal research.

Click to enlarge image

“More than a decade of animal research on various animal species has suggested that Librium (chlordiazepozxide HCI) exerts its principal effects on certain key areas of the limbic system,” says an ad from the 1970s, showing three monkeys crouching and dangling in cages as assorted experiments are conducted.

An ad for the diet pill Pre-Sate is even worse. It says, “one of the most sophisticated comparative animal studies ever conducted demonstrates direct action on the satiety centers,” and shows five photos of cats in experiments. One shows a life-size white cat looking at the camera with a chain around its neck and invasive instrumentation embedded in its skull.

Today’s consumers, it seems, wouldn’t tolerate ads like these. (Or the experiments behind them.) Why do they tolerate derisive ads about “dog women” and ploys to market pharmaceuticals to kids as if it were candy?

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/153677/4_creepy_ways_big_pharma_peddles_its_drugs?page=entire

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System (0)
• Antipschotic Drugs—Side Effects May Include Lawsuits (0)
• Meet the Psychiatrist Pushing For A Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids—Patrick McGorry (4)
• Pharmageddon: America’s bitter pill — U.S. is world’s biggest user of psychotropic drugs (0)
• Time Magazine: Why Are So Many Foster Care Children Taking Antipsychotics? (1)

By Daily Mail Reporter
December 2, 2011

A 12-year-old boy has bravely told how he was medicated into a near-stupor as he was passed between foster care homes.

The seventh grader, known only as Ke’onte, told Congress that being given the mind-altering drugs was ‘the worst thing anyone could do to foster kids’.

He revealed that he could barely eat while on the medication and was so exhausted ‘it felt like I would collapse wherever I was in the house’.

Ke'onte, 12, tells Congress that he was wrongly diagnosed with bipolar disorder and ADHD and given four different medications that left him in a 'stupor'

‘I think putting me on all these stupid meds was the stupidest thing I’ve ever experienced in foster care,’ he said.

Ke’onte’s plight came to light as a Government Accountability Office report was released that found the federal government had not done enough to oversee the treatment of foster children with powerful drugs.

The study found cared-for children were up to 13 times more likely to be prescribed anti-psychotics and anti-depressants than other children.

Ke’onte, who was adopted in 2009, said he had tantrums as a foster child and was inaccurately diagnosed as bipolar and having ADHD.

‘I’ve been in the mental hospital three times during foster care, and every time I had to get on more meds or new meds to add to the ones I was already taking,’ he said.

Medicated: The Government study found children in foster care were 13 times more likely to be on anti-pyschotics and anti-depressants than other children

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• 52% of foster kids are prescribed psych drugs—One of them is fighting back (1)
• The New Child Abuse: The Psychiatric Diagnosing and Drugging of Our Children (0)
• Psychiatric Drug Abuse of Foster Care Kids Costs Government Billions; Feds now investigating potentially massive fraud (3)
• The Portland Press Herald: Psychiatric Drugging of American Children is Cause for Alarm (4)
• Huffington Post – “Foster Teen: I Was Put In A Psych Ward. I Wasn’t Crazy” (0)

NaturalNews
By Elizabeth Walling
October 5, 2011

(NaturalNews) New guidelines for mental illness turn shyness in children from a personality trait into a mental disorder that warrants drug treatment. Drug companies already target children, who fidget too much in class or have trouble concentrating on their homework, with stimulant drugs for treating attention deficit disorder. Now children who sit too quietly or are more withdrawn than their peers will also be targeted with medication for social anxiety disorder or depression.

These new guidelines increase the likelihood that children, who tend to be quiet or sad, will be diagnosed with depression. And children who talk back to adults or lose their temper frequently may be diagnosed with what is called oppositional defiant disorder. A diagnose in either case will likely lead to treatment with powerful psychotropic drugs.

Serious Risks for Children who take Psychiatric Drugs

The idea of turning every spectrum of human emotion into some kind of mental disorder is not only absurd, but it also threatens the long-term mental and physical health of our children.

Millions of children are currently taking one or more behavior-altering medications, despite the fact that these drugs carry the risk of serious side effects. Some of these side effects include suicidal thinking, loss of appetite, nausea, insomnia, sedation, seizures, insulin resistance, acne, tremors, muscle stiffness and more.

Some psychologists also point out that simply drugging children for behaving out of the norm could actually be masking very serious underlying problems. Children, who are the victims of mental, physical or sexual abuse, will often exhibit behaviors such as shyness, sadness or being more withdrawn. These experts warn that trying to seek a quick-fix for negative emotions denies children what they truly need: long-term care and guidance.

Who stands to profit from expanding the guidelines for diagnosable mental disorders? The answer is quite simple: the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the drugs for treating these conditions. However, when we start labeling children as disordered for simply being quieter than their peers or having an occasional angry outburst, we are stepping into dangerous territory that threatens the future of an entire generation and beyond.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h…

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release…

http://www.aboutourkids.org/article…

About the author:

Elizabeth Walling is a freelance writer specializing in health and family nutrition. She is a strong believer in natural living as a way to improve health and prevent modern disease. She enjoys thinking outside of the box and challenging common myths about health and wellness. You can visit her blog to learn more:
www.livingthenourishedlife.com/2009…

Read the article here:  http://www.naturalnews.com/033778_shy_children_psychiatric_drugs.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Pharmaceutical companies deceive public—case in point; Antidepressants (0)
• Hidden Facts About Ritalin; Side Effects include brain damage, psychosis, severe dependence, paranoia (2)
• Georgia Advocate Speaks Out Against Psychiatric Medication Use in Nation’s Foster Care System (0)
• Ritalin for children is “quick fix” and should be reviewed, demand educational psychologists (0)
• Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals—How Female Sexual Dysfunction (a “mental disorder”) was invented by the drug industry (0)

Freedom Watch with Charles Payne
Fox Business Channel
August 30, 2011

Transcript:

Charles Payne:  Charges for allegedly shooting at policemen when they came to take way her daughter. The department of human services issued an order because she took her daughter off an antipsychotic medication. Godbolbo denied ever firing a weapon.  A judge dismissed the criminal charge yesterday saying there was no evidence to support them and agreeing with Godboldo’s lawyers that child services order was invalid.

Here to discuss this case from is the President of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jacob Hornberger.

Jacob, I almost don’t know where to begin on this. You know first and foremost this kid is on an antipsychotic medication the mother obviously doesn’t want that to happen. Secondly the police come and try to forcibly take away the child. Help us understand this case.

Jacob Hornberger: Yeah, it’s an act… it’s a remarkable model of of how a parent will react when the state is trying to do something that the parent thinks is harmful to the children. This woman refused to defer to authority.  It’s something that a lot of parents would never think about doing. The cops show up, they’ve got a court order commanding the woman to relinquish her 13-year-old little girl for the purpose of injecting mind-altering drugs into this child. The mother says “no I’m taking her of this junk, she’s not going to go on it and you’re not going to take her away,” and she barricades herself in her house and she says the cops aren’t going to do this. Well the cops ultimately charge this woman with resisting arrest, firing a weapon at them, barricading in her house, and refusing to obey this court order.  The thing goes to court and it turns out the cops where there with an invalid court order, they didn’t even have the Judges signature on the court order. They’d gotten the clerk to just stamp the Judge’s signature on it. The Judge throws the charges out, he dismisses the gun charges, says she never fired a weapon at the police. But really it’s a model of how parents should not defer to authority under any circumstance. But especially when your child’s welfare is at stake.

Charles: Jacob it could also be a model of just how arrogant government at all levels has become and many case the police are just following a lock step with this, just thinking, “hey, I can get someone to just stamp this, this women probably doesn’t know her rights, she’ll probably hand over the kid and we’ll have, you know, all in a days work.”

Jacob: Absolutely. This is what goes on in totalitarian countries, this is what went on in the form soviet union, this is what went on in fascist Italy, this is what goes on in Burma. The police operate effectively as thugs and they are in there saying, “we don’t need to follow the law, we don’t need to follow the procedures that are established by the law, we’re gonna just come over here and seize this child because we’ve got the guns,” and this mother said “oh no you’re not gonna do that.” And the other thing, you notice Charles you know, that the Government has been waging this 30-year-old fail war on drugs and they won’t let it go, yet here they are the purveyors of drugs. They’re trying to inject these mind-altering substances in this little girl just like they do in many of the public schools, where they, where they, a kid resists authority [Charles: right] he’s bored with schools they put him on Adderall, Ritalin, they screw up his life for the rest of his life, because he did not defer to their authority in these government schools.

Charles: Jacob I say amen to that. We have over-medicated our kids and taken away all kinds of parental responsibilities. We’ve got a couple of seconds left. The ultimate message here for parents watching this show, is stand your ground, defend yourself, even when its against a big, big government that looks like you can’t beat, you know the old saying, you can’t beat city hall.

Jacob: Absolutely, and especially when they welfare of your children are concerned, that’s the for most importance not deferring to what you think the state knows about what’s best for your child or your family.

Charles: Jacob thanks very much, we appreciate it. That’s a message we needed to hear tonight. Appreciate it.

Jacob: Thank you.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Judge dismisses charges against Detroit mom accused of firing at officers coming to take her daughter (0)
• Psychiatric Drug Abuse of Foster Care Kids Costs Government Billions; Feds now investigating potentially massive fraud (3)
• “No Mandatory Mental Health Screening For Children!” by Ron Paul (0)
• Vindicated—Detroit Mom gets daughter back & all charges dropped following police stand off over refusing to drug daughter (0)
• Twisted web of lies in Maryanne Godboldo Case: Big Pharma, multiple agencies, judge, DHS all profit from child abduction (2)

The Bottom Line -- ADHD is bogus. An invention of the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical industries, and a $4 billion dollar a year industry.

Note from CCHR: A new study shows nearly 1 out of every 10 kids in the US is diagnosed with ADHD and there is speculation as to what’s behind the increase. OK. We’re going to make this real simple. The reason so many kids are labeled with ADHD is simple.  ADHD drugging in the United States alone is a $4 billion dollar a year industry. Millions of kids are labeled “ADHD” despite the fact there are no lab tests, brain scans or chemical imbalance tests to prove there is anything medically wrong with these kids, yet they are placed on ADHD drugs that can cause drug dependence, mania, psychosis, hallucinations, heart attack, stroke and sudden death. Why? $4 billion a year, like we said.

Health Day – August 19, 2011

Over the last decade, an increasing number of American children have been diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a new government survey reveals.

Researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 2007 and 2009, an average of 9 percent of children between the ages of 5 and 17 were diagnosed with the disorder. This compared with just under 7 percent between 1998 and 2000.

The survey also indicated that previously notable racial differences in ADHD incidence rates have narrowed considerably since the turn of the millennium, with prevalence now comparable among whites, blacks and some Hispanic groups.

“We don’t have the data to say for certain what explains these patterns, but I would caution against concluding that what we have here is a real increase in the occurrence of this condition,” stressed study author Dr. Lara J. Akinbami, a medical officer with the National Center for Health Statistics. The findings appear in an Aug. 18 report from the agency.

“In fact, it would be hard for me to argue that what we see here is a true change in prevalence,” Akinbami added. “Instead, I would say that most probably what we found has a lot to do with better access to health care among a broader group of children, and doctors who have become more and more familiar with this condition and now have better tools to screen for it. So, this is probably about better screening, rather than a real increase, and that means we may continue to see this pattern unfold.”

According to the National Institute of Health,  ADHD is the most common behavioral disorder among children.

Children with ADHD are apt to have problems staying focused, and often suffer learning and behavioral problems as a result of a tendency to engage in hyperactive and/or impulsive behaviors.

The new survey was conducted by interviewers from the U.S. Census Bureau through face-to-face and telephone interviews involving a nationally representative group of parents. Basic family demographic information was collected, along with the ADHD status of each household’s children.

Although rates rose among both boys and girls, a greater percentage of boys were diagnosed with ADHD overall, rising from roughly 10 percent in 1998-2000 to more than 12 percent between 2007 and 2009. Across the same time frame, the prevalence rate among girls rose from just below 4 percent to between 5 percent and 6 percent.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/special-needs/story/2011/08/Study-Nearly-1-in-10-US-kids-diagnosed-with-ADHD/50057050/1

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Hidden Facts About Ritalin; Side Effects include brain damage, psychosis, severe dependence, paranoia (2)
• The Portland Press Herald: Psychiatric Drugging of American Children is Cause for Alarm (4)
• No More ADHD (15)
• 12-Year-Old Boy Testifies Before Congress On Being Forcibly Drugged in Foster Care (0)
• Instead of drugs, children need a good dose of parenting (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)

Psychminded.co.uk
By Angela Hussain
June 15, 2011

Ritalin and other psychotropic medication for children are a “quick fix” and the government should urgently review their use, psychologists have urged.

The Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) fears there is insufficient data on the effects such drugs have on child development. Further research is urgently needed, it says.

The AEP’s demand is despite the fact that a European Medicines Agency (EMA) investigation into methylphenidate drugs, which include psychotropics Ritalin, Concerta, Equasym, Medikinet and Rubifen – had previously stated that the benefits of such drugs outweigh any negative effects for children diagnosed with ADHD and other conduct disorders..

Plus, UK doctors have been advised by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence not to prescribe methylphenidate as a first-line treatment for children diagnosed with ADHD.

But the AEP – which represents UK educational psychologists – fears there will be an increase of methylphenidate prescribing because the number of official psychological disorders for children is set to increase.

The American Psychiatric Association is working on its 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSMV) in which additional psychological disorders for children are due to be added. These include Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Preschool Children, Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria, Callous and Unemotional Specifier for Conduct Disorder, Non-Suicidal Self Injury, and Non-Suicidal Self Injury Not Otherwise Specified.

“These could lead to more young people being referred for treatment with these [psychotropic] medications,” said Kate Fallon, AEP’s general secretary.

She said: “There is a danger that we rely on the ‘quick fix’ for children with conditions such as ADHD, which frequently means the prescription of medication such as Ritalin instead of a number of other possible interventions.”

Medicine regulators in European member states had in 2007 requested EMA’s mediation because of concerns over cardiovascular and cerebrovascular effects of methylphenidate – such as heart rate and blood pressure increases and heart attack.

A review was carried out by the EMA’s committee for medicinal products for human use. It was based on reported side effects and all studies on methylphenidate since the fifties.

The committee also investigated any link between methylphenidate and psychiatric problems, reduced growth and sexual maturation.

An urgent restriction to methylphenidate prescribing was not needed, the committee concluded.

http://psychminded.co.uk/news/news2011/june11/Ritalin-for-children-is-quick-fix-and-should-be-reviewed-demand-educational-psychologists001.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Child victims of the chemical cosh: Boy who killed himself after taking Ritalin (0)
• Hidden Facts About Ritalin; Side Effects include brain damage, psychosis, severe dependence, paranoia (2)
• The Daily Mail: What does it say about our school system when teachers try to control unruly pupils with drugs? (0)
• Confidential report reveals: Big Pharma trying to stop long-term safety studies of ADHD drugs (1)
• FDA’s Continual Responsibility for Making Our Children Into a Nation of Drug Addicts (0)

Mother Jones
By Jen Phillips
May 27, 2011

GreenColander/Flickr

Instead of the usual Eco-News Roundup of stories from our other blogs, we’re experimenting with a new format. This week, I’m shining a light on a news article from the past 5 days that covered an underreported environmental topic or illuminated a new side of an existing issue. Hopefully this format will be more relevant, and more interesting, than the old Eco-News Roundup.

This week’s gem for reporting on science, health, and the environment goes to… the Palm Beach Post in Florida, for revealing ties between psychiatrists in juvenile halls and manufacturers of antipsychotic drugs. The Post‘s investigation found that a handful of psychiatrists working for Florida’s Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) were paid high speaking fees or given gifts by pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca. “In at least one case, the number of Medicaid prescriptions a psychiatrist wrote for children rose sharply around the time he was paid, The Post found.” Even worse, the antipsychotics were prescribed by the DJJ doctors were not approved for safe use in children.

Since the Post‘s investigation, the DJJ has launched an internal investigation about the use of antipsychotics in its system. However, as the Post found while reporting, the DJJ’s record-keeping system is in bad shape, making it hard for even DJJ employees to find the information they’re looking for. In addition, not all juvie programs are run directly by the DJJ. “No information was available,” the Post noted, “on the amounts of antipsychotic drugs dispensed in the more than 100 remaining programs for juveniles… run by private contractors.”

Read the Post‘s entire, in-depth investigation at their site, here.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/05/big-pharma-juvie-kids-drugs

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Psychiatrists with corrupt pasts found working in juvenile justice facilities and doping children (0)
• Dosed in juvie jail: Troubled doctors hired to treat kids in state custody (0)
• People & Power—Drug Money (0)
• NY Times—Payments to Doctors by Pharma Raise Issues of Conflicts, CCHR warns of tainted mental health policies (0)
• Cause for alarm: Antipsychotic drugs for nursing home patients (0)

By Bob Fiddaman and Shelia Matthews
March 10, 2011

For some time now, Sheila Matthews has been suspicious about her home state of Connecticut’s treatment of its most vulnerable children. As a mother of two children and co-founder of Ablechild, her instincts led her to scrutinize the dubious relationships among Connecticut’s Department of Children and Family Services [DCF], the pharmaceutical industry and a billion dollar law firm who has defended the likes of Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co., among others.

Sheila’s investigation has led her on a journey that links a non-profit children’s advocacy group, with assets over $15 million [2009] with nationally-renowned mass tort and class action defense law firms, to the Connecticut DCF – an $865 million bureaucracy, as described by the Connecticut Mirror.

The Connecticut DCF serves approximately 36,000 children and 16,000 families across its four Mandate Areas:

1. Child welfare;
2. Children’s behavioral health;
3. Juvenile Services; and
4. Prevention.

Sheila’s Ablechild has been questioning the Connecticut DCF since 2003, when Ablechild demanded that the Connecticut DCF immediately ban the use of the antidepressant Paxil in its treatment of mental disorders after multiple studies confirmed Paxil increased the risk of suicide in children and adolescents. This was more than a year prior to America’s Food & Drug Association (FDA) announcement that all antidepressants, including Paxil, should bear a black box warning regarding this suicide risk. Ablechild was disturbed that children in state custody were being prescribed this dangerous psychotropic medication. Ablechild’s public pressure paid off, and the Connecticut DCF deemed Paxil unsafe for children and adolescents, and according to the DCF drug approval list, Paxil has not been approved for use in over eight (8) years.

In August 2003, less than one month later, Ablechild reported that the commissioner of the Connecticut DCF held a ‘behind closed doors‘ meeting with Glaxo officials. This meeting was reported by the Associated Press, who wrote:

The maker of the anti-depressant Paxil plans to meet this week with Connecticut officials, weeks after the State stopped using the drug to treat young people in its care.

GlaxoSmithKline, a British pharmaceutical company, is sending its regional medical director and a medical team to meet with officials from the Department of Children and Families. [Source]

Despite repeated requests from Ablechild, the Connecticut DCF refused to inform the public what was discussed at this secret meeting.

Eight years later, Sheila and Ablechild continue to raise concerns and investigate potential wrongdoings and conflicts within the Connecticut DCF. Last month, in February 2011, Sheila attended a meeting sponsored by the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership [CBHP], where its medical director, Dr Steven Kant, presented the Husky Behavioral Pharmacy Data. The CBHP is a state vendor that provides mental health services to DCF children. These services are paid, in part, by the State-run insurance program, HUSKY. Incredibly the pharmacy data presentation showed that dangerous psychotropic drugs, like Paxil, are still being prescribed to thousands of children and adolescents. In fact, the Pharmacy Data presentation showed that the HUSKY program, financed by taxpayer dollars, paid drug companies over $60 million for psychotropic drugs for Connecticut’s children and adolescents in 2009 alone – many of which are not approved by the FDA for use in the pediatric population and all of which carry the most serious warning possible regarding the risk of suicide.

According to the pharmacy data presentation: [Which can be downloaded as a Powerpoint presentation HERE]

More than 50% of HUSKY Youth Behavioral med utilizers are on stimulants.
Close to 30% of HUSKY Youth Behavioral med utilizers are on antipsychotics.

The pharmacy data also revealed the following:

Most Frequently Used Behavioral Meds for DCF-Involved Youth

Medications for ADHD

Ritalin (10%)
Adderall (5%)
Vyvanse (4%)
Strattera (3%)

Atypical Antipsychotics

Abilify (11%)
Risperdol (10%)
Seroquel (8%)

Anti-anxiety

Hydroxyzine (2.5%)

Antidepressants

Prozac (4.5%)
Zoloft (4%)
Zyban (3%)
Desyrel (2.5%)
Celexa (2%)

Mood Stabilizers

Lithum (3%)
Depakote (3%)
Lamictal (2.5%)

Curiously, none of the above medications are on the Connecticut DCF list of approved/unapproved drugs listed in its DCF PMAC document.

With this in mind, Sheila Matthews contacted Dr Steven Kant and inquired as to whether any of the above drugs were approved by the Connecticut DCF for use in children.

Dr Kant replied:

… the answer to your question is not that straight forward.. . . Medications may be indicated by age and/or by specific treatment needs so it is not either a simply “yes” or “no”. Also, some medications may have the age indication but for a totally different condition, such as anti epileptic condition. . .Also FDA indications are static, they do not change over time though medical practice is constantly evolving…

Contradicting the very document that lists Connecticut’s approved and unapproved drugs, a “check-off” list that verifies the status of medications, Dr Kant replied, “I don’t think a “check off” for each medication would work in terms of verifying their status.”

With such an ambiguous response from Dr. Kant, we found the DCF Approved Medication List on the Internet. This particular version was revised in 2009.

It appears that the DCF has approved drugs in children that have not been approved for children by the FDA. In fact, the FDA has issued multiple advisories and alerts since 2004 about the increased risk of suicide in children, adolescents and young adults up to age 25 who are treated with psychotropic medications.

And while Fluoxetine (Prozac) is the only medication approved by the FDA for use in treating depression in children ages 8 and older, it still carries a black box warning regarding the risk of suicide.

In contrast, the DCF seems to be ignoring the conclusions of the FDA. Its list of approved medication in children and adolescents include every single antidepressant except paroxetine [Paxil] and venlafaxine [Effexor].

Forest Lab’s citalopram [Celexa] – APPROVED

Forest Lab’s escitalopram [Lexapro] – APPROVED

Solvay Pharmaceuticals’ fluvoxamine [Luvox] – APPROVED

Pfizer’s sertraline [Zoloft] – APPROVED

GlaxoSmithKline’s bupropion [Wellbutrin -also marketed as an anti-smoking cessation drug under the name of Zyban] – APPROVED [1]

Alarmingly, the DCF has produced a guide entitled, “MEDICATIONS USED FOR BEHAVIORAL & EMOTIONAL DISORDERS – A GUIDE FOR PARENTS, FOSTER PARENTS, FAMILIES, YOUTH, CAREGIVERS, GUARDIANS, AND SOCIAL WORKERS” where it writes, “Most of the side effects from the medications are mild and will lessen or go away after the first few weeks of treatment.” The guide also points out possible side effects of SSRI’s/SNRI’s:

SSRIs and SNRIs:

Headache
Nervousness
Nausea
Insomnia
Weight Loss

One of the most dangerous side effects of these medications, suicidal thoughts/ideation, doesn’t even make the 5 bullet-pointed list. The Guide does, however, add the following: “Watch for worsening of depression and thoughts about suicide.”

The DCF Approved Medication List writes:

“The DCF Approved Medication List is a list of psychotropic medications that has been carefully established by the Psychotropic Medication Advisory Committee, a group of DCF and community professionals.”

Sheila has since investigated other advocacy groups that were concerned about the off-label prescribing of psychiatric medications to youths in state custody. This is where she stumbled upon Children’s Rights, a non-profit charity based in New York City.

In 2005, Children’s Rights employed ten (10) attorneys and a staff of 31. It claims to use its expertise to change child welfare red tape and scrutinize failing systems. If the child welfare system fails to respond, Children’s Rights files a lawsuit. If successful, it enforces reform and then monitors its implementation.

In 1989, Children’s Rights had in fact filed a suit against William O’Neill and the Connecticut state Department of Children and Youth Services [DCYS].

The suit charged that an overworked and underfunded DCYS failed to provide services including abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, foster care, mental health care, caseloads and staffing. The case has been pending for over twenty (20) years, and while there have been numerous arguments that DCYS should be more inclusive or has failed to provide certain services, the issue of massive off-label prescription of psychotropic medications has never been brought to the court’s attention.

Children’s Rights is chaired by Alan C Myers, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, a billion dollar law firm which represents the pharmaceutical industry in mass torts and class actions. Myers is also co-head of the firm’s REIT Group [Real Estate Investment Trust].

Also, listed on the Children’s Rights website are individuals and law firms that have served as co-counsel on Children’s Rights’ legal campaigns to reform America’s failing child welfare systems, including:

Missouri - Shook Hardy & Bacon – Eli Lilly Co. and Forest Labs, defended the original Wesbeker Prozac trial in Kentucky and still defend Prozac, Celexa and Lexapro.

New Jersey – Drinker Biddle & Reath – GlaxoSmithKline attorneys – defended Paxil as local counsel in Philadelphia cases.

Oklahoma – Kaye Scholer LLP – provides work in Pharmaceutical Products Liability defense and employs an attorney who was former General Counsel of Pfizer, Inc.

A particular success for Skadden Arps occurred in 2010 when it secured a summary judgement ruling for Pfizer Inc. in a suit filed by two insurance companies who sought $200 million in damages for Pfizer’s predecessors alleged “off-label” marketing of its epilepsy drug, Neurontin.

Furthermore, in February 2011, Skadden Arps secured the dismissal of over 200 cases in a multi-district litigation pending against their client, Pfizer Inc. The plaintiffs had alleged injuries related to the use of Pfizer’s anti-epilepsy drug, Neurontin.

Neurontin, the generic version is called gabapentin, is prescribed by psychiatrists for a variety of “off-label” indications. It is often tried as an alternative treatment, when patients are unable to tolerate the side effect of more proven mood stabilizers such as lithium. [2]

Gabapentin has also been associated with an increased risk of suicidal acts or violent deaths.

This is a drug that has been known to cause behavioral problems, which include unstable emotions, hostility, aggression, hyperactivity or lack of concentration.

Children dependent on child welfare systems have rights and, according to its web page, Children’s Rights is dedicated to protecting them.

It should come as no surprise that the site fails to discuss the off-label prescription of non-approved psychotropic medications to children and adolescents, unless this falls under the ‘abuse and neglect’ category?

If Children’s Rights’ motive was to accomplish fixing the child welfare system then why hasn’t it investigated why thousands of children under state care are prescribed “off-label” psychiatric drugs? With a partner in a billion dollar pro-pharmaceutical law firm as its Chair, and supporters who also defend pharmaceutical products, is it safe to assume that its stance on the drugging of children is one that is being ignored?

Children’s Rights push to remove abused and neglected children into safety.

The basic question always comes down to trust. When power, money and a good cause is mixed, it is imperative to check motives. We would be less of a society if we didn’t check out all the facts. Abuse and neglect exist, always has and always will, but society is obligated to ensure those victims are not transformed into “good cause victims” and expensed out. There is no doubt we have a right to question the system and those who claim to promote change for the good of the children within it.

Children’s Rights Chairman, Alan C. Myers, Medical Director of Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership, Steven Kant and the Connecticut Department of Children and Families may get their knickers in a twist with regard to an advocate of Ablechild and a blogger from Birmingham, UK questioning their motives but hey, what’s the downside of shinning a light on all these players, be they good or bad players?

Sheila’s concern is that Children’s Rights with its multi-million dollar budget and with the help of its billion dollar law firms, will continue to ignore the risks of these unapproved and dangerous medications, under the guise of helping our nation’s most vulnerable children. The question remains: how can the lawyers who defend psychotropic drugs also be the same lawyers who advocate for abused and neglected children to get into state welfare programs which place these children on the same drugs? The conflict is clear and obvious – and it poses an unmistakable danger to children who truly need our help.

[1] Bupropion [also known as Wellbutrin, Zyban] is a non-tricyclic antidepressant.
[2] Gabapentin

Bob Fiddaman is the author of the Seroxat Sufferers blog and the book, “The evidence, however, is clear… the Seroxat scandal.” Chipmunka Publishing.

Sheila Matthews is the co-founder of Ablechild and a mother of two children.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

Blog Feed

Related Posts

• Nation of Pill Poppers: 19 Potentially Dangerous Drugs Pushed By Big Pharma (0)
• Prescription Pill-Popping By Far a Leading Killer as Florida’s Drug Deaths Spike 20% (1)
• Child/Teen Suicide Rate 5 Times Higher for Kids on Antidepressants; Researchers Say findings support FDA Black Box Warnings (5)
• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• The Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Has Been Drugged (0)

Examiner.com
By Deborah Dupre
October 30, 2010

Two new studies published suggest something wrong with the way ADHD is diagnosed in young children in the US, confirming the need for the public to utilize Citizens Commission on Human Rights International resources for injury prevention.

One or the new studies found nearly 1 million children potentially misdiagnosed just because of being youngest in their kindergarten year, with the class youngest twice likely to be medicated with stimulant medication. The other study confirmed that whether children were born just before or just after the kindergarten cutoff date significantly affected chances of being diagnosed ADHD.

20 million children are taking psychiatric drugs according to the mental health watchdog, Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI).

CCHR works shoulder-to-shoulder with like-minded groups and individuals who share a common purpose to restore basic inalienable human rights to the field of mental health. These rights include, but are not limited to, full informed consent regarding risks of treatments and all available medical alternatives, and the right to refuse any treatment considered harmful.

Psychiatric disorders fuels an 80 billion dollar industry, highlighted CCHTI’s new documentary online, THE STAMP: Psychiatric Disorders Fuel $80 Billion Drug Industry.

Most authors of the “official” Diagnostic Manual that sets criteria for mental “diseases” have ties to the drug industries.”

“The psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars a year to convince the public, legislators and the press that psychiatric disorders such as Bi-Polar Disorder, Depression, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, etc., are medical diseases on par with verifiable medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Yet unlike real medical disease, there are no scientific tests to verify the medical existence of any psychiatric disorder. To counter this obvious flaw in their push to medicalize behaviors, the psychiatric industry will claim that there are certain medical conditions that do not have a verifiable test so this is why there isn’t one for “mental illness.” This is frankly a lame argument; Whereas there may be rare medical conditions that do not have a verifiable medical test, there are virtually no psychiatric disorders that can be verified medically as a physical abnormality/disease. Not one.” (CCHR)

Parents, legislators and the general public are not being given documented risks of drugs prescribed to children. CCHRI provides an easy to use search engine with complete information including warnings, studies, and adverse reactions to psychiatric drugs at www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/.

No More ADHD

Dr. Mary Ann Block, Medical director of the Block Center and associated with CCHRI is an outspoken critic of children being diagnosed ADHD and put on drugs documented to cause tics, stunted growth, heart attack, stroke and sudden death.

Dr. Block describes how parents are being misinformed about the medical legitimacy of ADHD and the dangers of the drugs being prescribed to treat children. She encourages parents to have their child given a full medical examination to find underlying medical problems that are being misdiagnosed as a mental disorder.

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is a mental health watchdog and non-profit organization. It has been responsible for more than 150 laws protecting individuals from abusive or coercive practices committed under the guise of mental health.

CCHR’s Board of Advisers, called Commissioners, include doctors, scientists, psychologists, lawyers, legislators, educators, business professionals, artists and civil and human rights representatives.

Co-founder of CCHR, Dr. Thomas Szasz is a Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus at the State University of New York, Adjunct Scholar at Cato Institute and Lifetime Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. Considered by many scholars and academics to be psychiatry’s most authoritative critic, Szasz has authored over 35 books on the subject, the first being The Myth of Mental Illness, a book that rocked the foundations of psychiatry upon its release more than 50 years ago.

Photo: CCHR International

Watch the full CCHR documentary, THE STAMP: Psychiatric Disorders Fuel $80 Billion Drug Industry, here.

Read the entire article here:  http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/1m-misdiagnosed-adhd-children-for-80b-drug-industry

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• The National Post: “Message to disease industry — That’s why they call it ‘acting like a child’” (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• “ADHD is a total 100% fraud. The millions of schoolchildren around the world being drugged have no disease” – Neurologist (4)
• No More ADHD (15)
• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)