depression

Posts Tagged ‘depression’

Can Prozac Cause Kids to Kill? A Canadian Judge Has Ruled it Can

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

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

Tags: aggression, agitation, antidepressants, CCHR, CCHRInt, database, depression, homicide, hostility, irritable, Justice Robert Heinrichs, mania, Michael Moore, murder, Peter Breggin, prozac, Psychiatric Drug Search Engine, psychiatric drugs, restless, School Shooters, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, side effects, ssri, suicidal thoughts, unclear thinking, violence, Winnipeg
Posted in News | 2 Comments »

Is the American Psychiatric Association in Bed with Big Pharma? Answer: Yes

Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

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

Tags: anxiety disorder, attention deficit disorder, bipolar disorder, CCHR, CCHRInt, chemical imbalance, creating disease, depression, dsm, mental disorders, psychiatric, psychiatric illness, psychiatry, schizophrenia, theory
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

ONE DRUG TO MAKE YOU HAPPY

Monday, November 28th, 2011

NewsWithViews.com – 11/28/2011
by Jonathan Emord, Constitutional Attorney and Author

Psychiatric drugs are big sellers. They are among the best selling drugs made. In 2010, Americans or their insurers doled out some $16.1 billion for anti-psychotics; $11.6 billion for anti-depressants; and $7.2 billion for ADHD treatments.

Within the last two decades the field of psychiatry has mushroomed from a fringe body of Sigmund Freud admirers to a mainstream player in the field of medical pharmacology, largely because of an unseemly union between that profession and the drug industry, leading to the creation of many never before known disease states and profitable ways to exploit those alleged diseases with psychiatric services and drugs.

The field of psychiatry has persistent and well-informed critics who point to the excessive drugging of institutionalized patients, of children commonly misdiagnosed as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and of the elderly misdiagnosed with treatable dementia, among others. The drugs given these patients have their own side-effects, including increased risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, birth defects, and even death. Because of the movement of psychiatry from the fringe of medicine to its heart, a majority of Americans are likely to come into contact with psychiatric drugs, either recommended for use by their children or for use by them at some point in their lives. Indeed, presently some 1 in 5 adults take anti-depressants, anti-psychotic, or anti-anxiety drugs.

The next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5), the profession’s so-called diagnostic bible, will soon be published in 2013. It comntinues the trend of identifying as “diseases” conditions that have previously been considered within the normal range. It adds to the list of “disease” states “apathy syndrome” (i.e., not caring enough); “internet addiction disorder” (i.e., liking the web too much); “parental alienation syndrome” (i.e., not liking your parents enough); “mild neurocognitive disorder” (i.e., age-related decline in mental function); “absexual” disorder (i.e., disliking sex); and “sluggish cognitive tempo” (i.e., daydreaming too much). Characteristics that we all used to think within the realm of normal brain function (such as teenage angst at parental rules; parental angst at teenage rebellion; a loss of quick wittedness in the elderly; youthful exuberance or youthful preoccupation with daydreams beyond the confines of academia) are all fast becoming “diseases.” The APA’s overall movement has been one of calling into question characteristics of eccentricity, leading to an unscientific conclusion that anything different may be rightly called a disease and rightly prescribed a treatment.

Every newly identified psychiatric disorder begets a new slate of psychiatric drugs for their treatment, giving leading pharmaceutical companies new opportunities to profit from the expansion of psychiatric diagnoses.

Psychiatric drugs are big sellers. They are among the best selling drugs made.

In 2010, Americans or their insurers doled out some $16.1 billion for anti-psychotics;

$11.6 billion for anti-depressants;

and $7.2 billion for ADHD treatments.

Profit lies in designing drugs for the treatment of these conditions. As the drug industry continues to pump out new elixirs that, in turn, leads to more reliance on psychologists and psychiatrists, which leads them in turn to prefer identifying more conditions as disease. The perverse incentives abound, and the FDA is pleased to approve the drugs at the behest of the drug company sponsors.
Everyone standing to profit from the sale of these agents wins at the expense of patients.

The drugging of America is an enormous problem, having spill-over effects that include drug addiction and destruction of the family, productivity, even national security. With an ever rising population taking these drugs which alter cognitive function, it becomes ever more apparent that the very fabric of our society, its common commitment to stable family life, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and adherence to laws that protect life, liberty, and property are all imperiled. As the drug industry and psychiatric profession profits enormously with each new declared disease state, there is a loss of free agency in the population, a movement that saps self-control from the individual in favor of control by the medical community over basic life-affecting decisions. Patients become dependent, event addicted, to drugs, and ever more dependent on their medical counselors to cope with life.

Whatever may be said for use of psychiatric drugs in those who cannot function in society, the expansion of those drugs to embrace those who can, including those with virtually any characteristic that exceeds the norm, represents a horrific sacrifice of the very promise of life that lies in those eccentricities. It is particularly horrific to watch beautiful, energetic children with all their great promise become addicted to drugs that alter brain chemistry in ways that yield drug dependency and lessen their perception of and enthusiasm for life and their ability to achieve. A majority of children prescribed anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs are wrongly prescribed those drugs, even by accepted psychiatric standards. That misguided course is itself a form of deviant behavior by this profession, calling into question the mental stability of those who would profit off of misdiagnosis and mistreatment.

The psychiatric drugging of America is bearing and will continue to bear for generations to come toxic consequences, whether in the form of the destruction of the family, increases in crime, or decreases in productivity and inventiveness. It’s high time for a rebellion against this drugging for the sake of sanity.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan220.htm

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, six on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, and Global Censorship of Health Information. He is also the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine. For more info visit Emord.com.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Tags: anti anxiety, antidepressants, antipsychotics, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, birth defects, children, death, depression, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, diagnostic bible, disease, drug industry, dsm, psychiatric drug, psychiatric drugs, sales, side effects, Sigmund Freud, suicidal thoughts
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

Shy children now candidates for dangerous psychiatric drugs

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011

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

Tags: acne, attention deficit disorder, child drugging, depression, Drug companies, drug treatment, insomnia, insulin resistance, labeling children, loss of appetite, mental disorder, muscle stiffness, nausea, oppositional defiant disorder, psychotropic drugs, quiet, sad, sedation, Seizures, shyness, side effects, social anxiety disorder, stimulant drugs, suicidal thinking, tremors
Posted in News | No Comments »

The Drugging of America

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

The Journal – September 29, 2011

by Barry Evans

The theory that psychological problems are mainly caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain can be traced back 60 years, when French researchers accidentally discovered that Thorazine (chlorpromazine) dramatically improved the emotional behavior of institutionalized mental patients. Within a few years, the anti-psychotic properties of Thorazine and related drugs led to the trend in this country to reintegrate into society people who had previously been confined to mental hospitals (“deinstitutionalization”).

Prozac advertisement

Today, the “chemical imbalance” revolution is almost complete, as one in 10 Americans over the age of 6 take antidepressants. As Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, wrote in a controversial two-part essay in The New York Review of Books (June 23 and June 30, 2011), the pharmaceutical solution to psychological disorders has now become the norm, as more and more health professionals accept the theory that mental illness, including depression and anxiety, is essentially caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.

The wholesale acceptance of this theory, by both the medical profession and the public, came with the introduction of Prozac (fluoxetine) in 1987. While Thorazine was thought to correct a deficiency of dopamine, Prozac was marketed as an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor), designed to compensate for a presumed deficit of the neurotransmitter serotonin. (SSRIs block neurons from re-absorbing serotonin, leaving more of it available to activate adjacent neurons.) Because SSRIs alleviate depression, researchers speculated that depression was caused by too little serotonin in the brain.

Maybe. Or maybe not. Angell argues that by the same logic “one could argue that fevers are caused by too little aspirin.” Perhaps SSRIs do something quite unrelated to neurotransmitters, and depression is unrelated to serotonin levels.

Whether the “chemical imbalance” theory is true or not, the real question is, Do antidepressants work better than placebos? Psychologist Irving Kirsch, one of the authors reviewed by Angell, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain drug companies’ records of their negative studies from the FDA. Unlike the positive results, negative results are normally not published. (Incredibly to this writer, negative results are considered proprietary and therefore confidential.) Taking both positive and negative results into consideration, Kirsch discovered that six popular drugs — Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Serzone, and Effexor — scored unimpressively when compared with placebos. Yet, as Angell writes, “because the positive studies were extensively publicized, while the negative ones were hidden, the public and the medical profession came to believe that these drugs were highly effective antidepressants.” It gets more surreal. When depressed patients were prescribed drugs such as opiates, sedatives, stimulants and even herbal remedies, Kirsch and others found their symptoms were relieved to about the same degree as with SSRI-type antidepressants.

Angell’s essay was, as I say, controversial. One of the more curious responses, published as an opinion piece in the New York Times on July 9, came from Dr. Peter Kramer, author of the 1993 best-seller Listening to Prozac. This book-length endorsement of the drug (which predicted a Brave New World-style “cosmetic psychopharmacology” future for us all) probably did more than anything else to turn Americans on to SSRIs. In his Times piece, Kramer largely sidestepped the alarming questions posed by Angell and the three books she reviewed. Instead, he focused on the difficulties of distinguishing the effects of placebos from those of real drugs. And as he had done in his book, he relied largely on unconvincing anecdotal evidence to make his case.

What we do know about placebos is that they’re not dangerous. However, even as increasing numbers of adults and children take powerful psychoactive drugs (because more of us are suffering?), researchers still have no clear handle on their potentially damaging long-term effects.

Barry Evans gets depressed just thinking about antidepressants.

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/outdoors/2011/09/29/drugging-america/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Tags: antidepressants, chemical imbalance, chemical imbalance theory, depression, Marcia Angell, New England Journal of Medicine, New York Review of Books, phamarceutical, placebo, prozac, ssri
Posted in News | No Comments »

JAMA: Spotty results with off-label antipsychotic use

Wednesday, September 28th, 2011

FiercePharma
By Tracy Staton
September 27, 2011

Off-label use of powerful antipsychotic drugs has come in for plenty of debate in recent years. The expensive, newer-generation “atypicals” have been used to treat dementia, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, dementia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder…the list goes on. And all this while the Justice Department was investigating Big Pharma for off-label promotion of the drugs.

An updated analysis now finds that antipsychotic drugs’ utility in off-label uses is minimal, but the risks are significant, Medscape reports. Several illnesses didn’t respond at all to antipsychotic therapy, the data showed, including eating disorders and addiction problems. The evidence for treatment of personality disorders was a toss-up. Meanwhile, side effects were sometimes severe, including weight gain, metabolic problems, fatigue, urinary tract symptoms and even an increased risk of death, the researchers said.

A few off-label uses won support from the new data. Anxiety patients got moderate benefit from AstraZeneca’s ($AZN) Seroquel, and OCD sufferers were helped by treatment with Johnson & Johnson’s ($JNJ) Risperdal. Elderly patients with dementia saw a small benefit with antipsychotic use.

“We need to use this information and be wary of prescribing when it isn’t warranted,” said Dr. Alicia Ruelaz Maher, lead author of the JAMA-published study. “I think the biggest takeaway is that instead of just prescribing blindly, we now have evidence to guide us.” And, as Maher told Reuters, “Each individual patient needs to be considered as opposed to, ‘This is good for this condition.’”

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/jama-spotty-results-label-antipsychotic-use/2011-09-28

« Return to news items

News Feed

Tags: antipsychotic drugs, anxiety, atypicals, big pharma, dementia, depression, fatigue, increased risk of death, Justice Department, metabolic problems, off-label, post-traumatic stress disorder, risks, urinary tract symptoms, weight gain
Posted in News | No Comments »

Depression Screenings Not Recommended!

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

Whistleblower Allen Jones gained international press coverage after uncovering pharmaceutical industry payments to government officials for the purpose of implementing a national mental health screening/psychotropic drug treatment plan.

Click image to watch video of whistleblower Allen Jones

Ivanhoe Newswire – September 21, 2011

If you’re feeling down, don’t rush to your doctor just yet. Many instances of mild depression resolve without intervention. In fact, a new analysis published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) concludes that routine screening for depression isn’t beneficial or efficient.

The United States and Canada recommend screening for depression by primary care providers, but the United Kingdom says no way! The UK does not recommend screening because of a lack of evidence and ineffective use of scarce health care resources.

In addition, The UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, cite concerns about high rates of false-positive results (in some cases more than 50 percent), lack of evidence, high costs and resources, and the diversion of resources away from people with serious depression.

“The prevalence of depression and the availability of easy-to-use screening instruments make it tempting to endorse widespread screening for the disease,” writes Dr. Brett Thombs, Senior Investigator, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, with coauthors.

Screening for depression involves the use of questionnaires, concerning the symptoms of depression, to identify patients who may have depression but have not sought treatment

“However, screening in primary care is a resource-intensive endeavor, does not yet show evidence of benefit, and would have unintended negative effects for some patients,” Dr. Brett writes.

One of the effects can be seen in the high prescription rates for antidepressant medication. In a 2005 study from Canada, seven percent of a sample from the general public reported current use of anti-depressant medication, a figure well above the estimated four percent who actually suffer major depression.

Another negative effect is the potential “nocebo effect”. The opposite of a placebo effect, this occurs when patients, who are not concerned about their mental health, are told they have depression. This can lead to the development or worsening of symptoms.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=28073

« Return to news items

News Feed

Tags: Allen Jones, depression, depression screening, false positives, mental health, whistleblower
Posted in News | No Comments »

Depression? Don’t believe it —Big Pharma has gained an ever greater hold over our mental & emotional lives

Friday, September 9th, 2011

The Brisbane Times, Australia – Spetember 9, 2011
by Lisa Appignanesi

"Over the last 40 years the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - the bible of the psychiatric professions - has spawned more and more diagnostic categories, "inventing" disorders along the way and radically reducing the range of what can be construed as normal or sane. Meanwhile Big Pharma, feeding its appetite for profits and ours for drugs, has gained an ever greater hold over our mental and emotional lives, medicalising normality."

In 2000 the World Health Organisation named depression as the fourth leading contributor to the global burden of disease and predicted that by 2020 it would rise to second place. I suppose WHO didn’t mean it to sound like a target to be aimed for, but we seem to be rising to the challenge in any case.

A new survey from the European College of Psychopharmacology, a meta-analysis of a mass of research, reports that a staggering 164.8 million Europeans – 38.2 per cent of the population – suffer from a mental disorder in any year.

As well as depression, this includes neural disorders such as dementia and Parkinson’s; childhood problems from ADHD to “conduct disorder”; and the leading anxiety disorders – everything from panic attacks to obsessive-compulsive disorder to shyness. The latest figures for Australia, from 2007, indicate that more than one in five people – 3.2 million – had suffered from anxiety, a mood disorder or substance abuse in the preceding 12 months; 2-3 per cent more were estimated to have been affected by other mental illnesses.

Depression and anxiety, they tell us, are disproportionately women’s ailments. Men, it seems, become alcoholics (another illness category) rather than depressives, particularly in eastern Europe.

Such reports are worrying. They may draw attention to a rising toll of human suffering, but they pinpoint the imperialising tendency of the mental health sector. Our ills and unhappiness are squeezed into a package labelled “disorder” and an ever-proliferating assortment of supposedly objective diagnostic categories. A cure is somehow promised, though it rarely seems to come, certainly not for everyone or for ever. In talking to the press or drafting press releases, researchers often extrapolate from their material in order to create good copy.

The notion that women are somehow more prone to mental illness often emerges. According to Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, one of the report’s authors, the reason women suffer nearly twice as much depression and anxiety disorders as men lies in the changing social pattern in which women take on work on top of marriage and children.

So stay home, ladies, and you’ll be as happy as apple pie; though in the 50s when we stayed home to bake it, the doctors gave us Miltown and Valium to help us take pain-free care of hubby and the young ones.

On the subject of women’s greater susceptibility, it’s just as well to remember that women go to doctors far more than men, for all kinds of ills: indeed, women’s greater incidence of mental ills just about equals their greater number of visits to the doctors. If men went to doctors as often as they go to the pub, it’s a fair guess that their unhappiness would be represented as depression or anxiety as well.

One of the many things that became clear to me as I was working on my book on the rise and rise of the mind-doctoring professions over the last 200 years, is that classifications of mental disorder are hardly absolutes. They are far more often constructs that mirror their time’s aspirations and ways of understanding. They may reflect subjective experience, but only insofar as we can prod and organise our inchoate inner lives to fit pre-existing psychiatric tick lists.

Useful tools for statisticians, the classifications are also useful to public health administrators, insurance companies, lobbying bodies, or pharmaceutical companies who need “homogeneous populations” on whom to carry out drug trials. But I remain to be convinced that these proliferating classifications help individuals find relief – except, of course, that momentary relief from giving an expert name to what may feel like an intractable set of problems.

Over the last 40 years the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – the bible of the psychiatric professions – has spawned more and more diagnostic categories, “inventing” disorders along the way and radically reducing the range of what can be construed as normal or sane. Meanwhile Big Pharma, feeding its appetite for profits and ours for drugs, has gained an ever greater hold over our mental and emotional lives, medicalising normality.

The more studies that come along to tell us about the rise in mental illness, the more we fit our problems and unhappiness into a category of mental disorder, developing symptoms to take to the doctor in search of a cure. Humans are suggestible creatures. And doctors like to help: they provide the pills Big Pharma recommends, though many must now know that research has shown placebos can work just as well and with fewer side effects.

If doctors – rather than politicians or teachers or priests or friends and family – are to be the guardians of our wellbeing, then doctors really should be provided with new kinds of “treatments”. Psycho- and group therapy could, of course, be rolled out, and not just of the 10-week variety: anything that builds up the individual’s inner resources and allows emotions to be reflected on can’t be bad.

But doctors could recommend group running for depression, proved to have far better effects than SSRIs. Reading groups, too, offer a definite lift. As for women, more free childcare, after-school clubs and husbands who take days off to go to the doctor with the kids (or sort out that drinking problem) would lift a depressed mood wonderfully. Then there’s poverty, terrible schools … could health systems take those on as well?

« Return to news items

News Feed

Tags: antidepressants, big pharma, depression, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, dsm, mental disorders, mental illness, psychiatric bible, psychiatry, SSRIs, WHO, women, World Health Organization
Posted in News | No Comments »

Popping Ritalin Won’t Improve Grades, Warns Medical Journal—Its a Myth

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

Note from CCHR: Several years ago, NBC interviewed a group of high school kids that were recreationally using drugs like Ritalin, Adderall and Concerta. They asked the kids why they would risk using drugs that the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classifies as a schedule ll drug, in the same highly addictive category as cocaine, morphine and opium. Drugs that have severe side effects including death. The high school kids answer? ‘We figured since they’re given out to 6-year-olds, how bad can they be?’

Enough said.

Popping pills won’t improve grades, warns Canadian medical journal

Toronto Star – September 6, 2011

by Theresa Boyle

Universities and colleges must crack down on illicit use of Ritalin and other stimulants, which are not the grade boosters many assume, an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal urges

“Students who think simply popping a pill will improve their grades or give them new-found academic abilities are sorely mistaken,” says the editorial released online on Tuesday.

Students use stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall because they are perceived to boost to academic performance through enhanced attention and alertness. But these supposed benefits are not reality based, but are part of a “pervasive myth,” the CMAJ charges.

The vast majority of evidence shows that stimulants offer no cognitive improvements over placebos in healthy individuals.

Those who abuse these drugs seem unaware of the potential dangers. While data on the impact of these drugs on healthy individuals is sparse, studies show that inappropriate use by those diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can lead to death, life-threatening hypertension, irregular heartbeat, overdose, addiction and depression.

An overdose can result in symptoms seen in abuse of amphetamines and cocaine, including severe hypertension, abnormally high fever, rapid heartbeat, severe agitation and psychosis.

Effects can be more pronounced in those who snort or inject stimulants, the editorial warns.

The CMAJ calls on universities and colleges to create education campaigns that debunk myths and expose risks.

Post-secondary institutions should also try to identify and address the root cause of stimulant abuse, the journal says. It’s plausible that unhealthy competition or “play-hard-work-hard” attitudes prevail, the opinion piece says. Clear expectations, peer mentorship, additional resources and a more structured environment may encourage proper study habits. Programs that help integrate students living away from home for the first time would also be helpful.

“We must remember that the majority of students who inappropriately use these medications have good intentions but may simply need reliable information or resource to make good choices.”

Universities should have a self interest in addressing the problem because they could be held legally liable for the consequences of stimulant abuse, the editorial cautions.

It also calls on campus health clinics to look out for students may have undiagnosed ADHD. It’s possible they may be self medicating. The clinics should warn students who are prescribed these drugs about repercussions of selling any “excess” supply.

“Like doping in sports, abuse of stimulants by our best and brightest students should be denormalized by being viewed as cheating or substance abuse, pure and simple,” the editorial says.

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/mindmood/mentalhealth/article/1049813–popping-pills-won-t-improve-grades-warns-canadian-medical-journal

« Return to news items

News Feed

Tags: academic performance, addiction, dangers, death, depression, irregular heartbeat, overdose, popping pills, Ritalin, stimulants, students
Posted in News | No Comments »

Psychiatric disease labeling of children exposed as scam by non-profit group

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

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