Posts Tagged ‘depression’

The New Yorker — “Head Case: Can psychiatry be a science?”

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

The New Yorker
By Louis Menand
March 3, 2010

You arrive for work and someone informs you that you have until five o’clock to clean out your office. You have been laid off. At first, your family is brave and supportive, and although you’re in shock, you convince yourself that you were ready for something new. Then you start waking up at 3 A.M., apparently in order to stare at the ceiling. You can’t stop picturing the face of the employee who was deputized to give you the bad news. He does not look like George Clooney. You have fantasies of terrible things happening to him, to your boss, to George Clooney. You find—a novel recognition—not only that you have no sex drive but that you don’t care. You react irritably when friends advise you to let go and move on. After a week, you have a hard time getting out of bed in the morning. After two weeks, you have a hard time getting out of the house. You go see a doctor. The doctor hears your story and prescribes an antidepressant. Do you take it?

However you go about making this decision, do not read the psychiatric literature. Everything in it, from the science (do the meds really work?) to the metaphysics (is depression really a disease?), will confuse you. There is little agreement about what causes depression and no consensus about what cures it. Virtually no scientist subscribes to the man-in-the-waiting-room theory, which is that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, but many people report that they feel better when they take drugs that affect serotonin and other brain chemicals.

There is suspicion that the pharmaceutical industry is cooking the studies that prove that antidepressant drugs are safe and effective, and that the industry’s direct-to-consumer advertising is encouraging people to demand pills to cure conditions that are not diseases (like shyness) or to get through ordinary life problems (like being laid off). The Food and Drug Administration has been accused of setting the bar too low for the approval of brand-name drugs. Critics claim that health-care organizations are corrupted by industry largesse, and that conflict-of-interest rules are lax or nonexistent. Within the profession, the manual that prescribes the criteria for official diagnoses, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the D.S.M., has been under criticism for decades. And doctors prescribe antidepressants for patients who are not suffering from depression. People take antidepressants for eating disorders, panic attacks, premature ejaculation, and alcoholism.

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Manufacturing Depression—Are Docs Over Prescribing Antidepressants to a Tune of $10 Billion a Year for Drug Companies?

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

AlterNet
By Amy Goodman
March 3, 2010

A psychotherapist says depression can be debilitating — but that it’s also been largely created by doctors and drug companies as a medical condition.

Is depression manufactured? Two decades after the introduction of antidepressants, it’s become commonplace to assume that our sadness can be explained in terms of a disease called depression. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates more than 14 million Americans suffer from major depression every year and more than three million suffer from minor depression. Some 30 million Americans take antidepressants at a cost of over $10 billion a year.

My next guest argues while depression can be debilitating, it’s also been largely manufactured by doctors and drug companies as a medical condition with a biological cause that can be treated with prescription medication. Psychotherapist and writer Gary Greenberg participated in a clinical trial for antidepressant medication and found that more often than not the drugs failed to outperform placebos. His latest book is a scientific, medical, historical and cultural exploration of the antidepressant revolution here in the United States. It’s called Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Modern Disease.

Read entire article:  http://www.alternet.org/health/145850/%27manufacturing_depression%27:_are_doctors_over-prescribing_antidepressants_to_a_tune_of_$10_billion_a_year_for_drug_companies/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Drug Giant AstraZeneca to drop psychiatric drug research for schizophrenia, bipolar, depression & anxiety drugs

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Reuters
By Ben Hirschler
March 2, 2010

AstraZeneca (AZN.L) is to stop researching some disease areas that form the backbone of its current business — including schizophrenia and acid reflux — in a drive to focus R&D efforts and cut costs.

The Anglo-Swedish drugmaker, which faces one of the sector’s worst “cliffs” of expiring drug patents, told its staff on Tuesday it would cease discovery in 10 of its current disease areas, or around one quarter of the total.

A wide-ranging overhaul had been expected since the group said in January it was cutting a further 8,000 staff, or some 12 percent of the workforce, including a net 1,800 in research. But it is only now that staff know where the axe will fall.

AstraZeneca is not alone in taking the knife to previously sacrosanct R&D, though its cuts are particularly deep. Pfizer (PFE.N) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) are also ditching drug discovery work that does not pay its way. [ID:nLDE61408I]

Read entire article:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62019Q20100302?type=marketsNews

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Wake Up FDA—Even Drug Giants Are Admitting No Lab Tests Exist To Prove If Antidepressants Work

Friday, February 5th, 2010

By CCHR
February 5, 2010

With drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) now stating it will abandon future antidepressant research, one can only wonder if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noted GSK’s CEO Andrew Witty’s admission that it is “hard to prove that a depression drug is working” because “patient improvement is measured by subjective mood surveys, and not by the clear-cut blood tests and biological measures used in other diseases.”

To put this in perspective, the head of GSK is pointing out an obvious flaw in the psycho/pharmaceutical cash cow of psychiatric drugs.  There is no way to prove if a drug is working because there are no lab tests to prove anyone has a mental disorder in the first place—unlike medical diseases where blood and lab tests can show the effect of any drug upon the disease.

Given this statement, the next logical question is how did the FDA ever approve any psychiatric drug as safe and effective when the drug makers admit there is no proof of efficacy, only “subjective mood surveys.”

It seems the drug companies are catching on while the FDA is still promoting junk science in order to grant drug approval.

And that’s on top of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) landmark study published last month that found antidepressants no more effective than placebo. Add to that, 40% of antidepressant clinical trials have not been published because of negative results—they failed to show any significant benefit.  So, even with a “subjective mood survey,” they can’t get the drug to make the mark.  And the studies that did “prove” it did so, as Newsweek put it, for “the same reason why Disney’s Dumbo could initially fly only with a feather clutched in his trunk—believing makes it so.”

The FDA says: “Drugs must undergo a rigorous evaluation of safety, quality, and effectiveness before they can be sold.” Clearly, there is nothing rigorous about testing efficacy in antidepressants.  GSK’s confession is on par with former American Psychiatric Association president, Steven Sharfstein admitting that there is no lab test to confirm a chemical imbalance in the brain.  Reiterating this was his APA cohort Mark Graff, who told CBS Studio 2 that this theory was “probably drug industry derived”—in other words, a marketing ploy in the same vein as antidepressants are “effective.”

John Swann, Ph.D., historian at the FDA, once said: “To establish fraud, the bureau had to show that the manufacturer knew the product was worthless, and this proved difficult in many cases.”[i]

Well, FDA, if a drug company can admit what the FDA has known all along—that the efficacy of an antidepressant or any psychiatric drug is entirely subjective and, therefore, not based on science, how can the FDA continue to approve and condone the use of these drugs as “safe and effective?”

Instead of the potential fraud of a manufacturer, a more pertinent question we should be asking is this:
What if the government agency in charge of approving drugs, the FDA, knew a product was worthless and approved its use anyway? What happens then?


[i] http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/PromotingSafeandEffectiveDrugsfor100Years/default.htm

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Manufacturing Depression: The secret history of science run amok, a lust for money & the manufacturing of a disease

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

The Brooklyn Rail
By Kaitlin Bell
February 2010

Gary Greenberg opens his new history of depression with a riveting tale of scientific ingenuity. A young, unknown marine biologist with an interest in mussels happens to discover the neurotransmitter serotonin and helps spur the antidepressant revolution. Lest we get too excited, though, Greenberg deflates our hopes just a few pages in.  Great science stories involve chance discoveries that change our everyday lives, he says—but this is not the kind of story he is going to tell.

Instead, the story that dominates Manufacturing Depression: The Secret History of a Disease is of scientific exuberance run amok, of coincidences and hasty conclusions, of a lust for money and for control over what Greenberg aptly describes as the landscape of mental suffering. Greenberg is outraged that “the depression doctors,” as he ominously terms them, have cornered the market on Americans’ internal anguish and have managed to convince millions of people that their unhappiness is actually a disease with a simple cause—a chemical imbalance—and a magic-bullet cure. It’s especially infuriating because this notion isn’t based in fact; it’s just a story we have allowed the medical establishment to tell us. There is no biochemical marker for depression, no good way to tell who is and who isn’t depressed. The tools doctors use to diagnose depression, as well as the other varieties of mental illness, are based on symptoms alone—whether someone is eating or sleeping more or less than usual, for example, or suffering from excessive guilt, or engaging in too much self-criticism.  Most of what’s diagnosed as depression is, in other words, nothing more than the name our society gives to a particular kind of emotional and mental suffering considered worthy of fixing.

In one sense, Greenberg has reclaimed the narrative very effectively. He has produced a tightly woven history showing that the medical establishment, despite claims to the contrary, knows almost nothing about the causes of depression from a scientific, biochemical, or neurological perspective.

Read entire article:  http://www.brooklynrail.org/2010/02/express/a-frustrating-mess

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

In Ireland protests heat up over psychiatrists ability to force unwilling patients to undergo electroshock

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Irish Times
By Carl O’Brien
February 2, 2010

A major debate is unfolding over the use of forced ECTon psychiatric patients

SHOULD A mentally ill patient in distress be forced to undergo electric shock treatment against his or her will?

It’s a question which goes to the heart of a growing debate over one of the most controversial and invasive procedures used in psychiatric care.

Rightly or wrongly, no other treatment arouses as much fear as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Depending on who you talk to, ECT is an effective and fast-acting treatment for severe depressive disorders, or it is a potentially dangerous procedure unsupported by research and whose side effects include long-term memory loss.

The growing recognition of patients’ human rights, as well as lobbying by organised advocacy groups, means the issue is now on the political agenda. But the debate is wider than just use of this procedure; it also touches on the key question of just how much power and responsibility should we place in the hands of consultant psychiatrists?

Read entire article:  http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/0202/1224263563057.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Antidepressants: The Emperor’s New Drugs? “Depression is not a brain disease, and chemicals don’t cure it.”

Monday, February 1st, 2010

The Huffington Post
By Irving Kirsch, Ph.D.
January 29, 2010

Antidepressants are supposed to be the magic bullet for curing depression. But are they? I used to think so. As a clinical psychologist, I used to refer depressed clients to psychiatric colleagues to have them prescribed. But over the past decade, researchers have uncovered mounting evidence that they are not. It seems that we have been misled. Depression is not a brain disease, and chemicals don’t cure it.

My awareness that the chemical cure of depression is a myth began in 1998, when Guy Sapirstein and I set out to assess the placebo effect in the treatment of depression. Instead of doing a brand new study, we decided to pool the results of previous studies in which placebos had been used to treat depression and analyze them together. What we did is called a meta-analysis, and it is a common technique for making sense of the data when a large number of studies have been done to answer a particular question.

It is rare for a study to focus on the placebo effect–or on the effect of the simple passage of time, for that matter. So where were we to find our placebo data and no-treatment data? We found our placebo data in clinical studies of antidepressants. All told, we analyzed 38 published clinical trials involving more than 3,000 depressed patients. What we found came as a big surprise. It turned out that 75 percent of the antidepressant effect was also produced by placebos – sugar pills with no active ingredients that are used to control the effects of hope and expectation in clinical trials. In other words, most of the improvement seen in patients given antidepressants was a placebo effect.

Read entire article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/irving-kirsch-phd/antidepressants-the-emper_b_442205.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

In addition to causing birth defects & preterm labor—new study says antidepressants cause breastfeeding problems

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

AttorneyAtLaw.com
January 27, 2010

Taking Prozac, Paxil, or other antidepressants from the class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can cause delays in lactation in new mothers and difficulty in breast-feeding newborns, a new study says.

Researchers from the University of Cincinnati found SSRIs can result in delayed secretory activation after giving birth. SSRIs regulate the hormone serotonin in the body to stave off depression, but the hormone also is crucial to the breasts’ ability to deliver milk when it is needed, the study’s authors said.

A delay in breast milk production caused by taking SSRIs can “impact serotonin regulation in the breast, placing new mothers at greater risk of a delay in the establishment of a full milk supply,” the study found.

The study’s findings are troubling because millions of people take Prozac, Paxil, and other brands of SSRIs to treat a variety of depression-related disorders. Paxil and other SSRI drugs have been linked before to other serious health complications, including heart-related birth defects and pre-term labor.

Read entire article:  http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2010/01/prozac-and-paxil-can-cause-breast-feeding-problems-new-study-says/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Op Ed: New Year’s Resolutions for the Drug Industry for 2010

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Martha Rosenberg
OpEdNews.com
December 23, 2009

There was only one thing worse than being unemployed in 2009: working for the drug sector.

Not only did the two biggest drug settlements in US history occur in 2009–Eli Lilly’s $1.42 billion for mismarketing Zyprexa and Pfizer’s $2.3 billion for Bextra, Geodon, Lyrica and Zyvox fraud–the Supreme Court ruled people can sue if they’re harmed by a prescription drug even if it had FDA approval.

No wonder Wyeth and Pfizer and then Merck and Schering-Plough formed defensive mergers in 2009, the former timed to knock out headlines about the Bextra settlement.

High profile suicides also occurred in 2009 prompting the FDA to add black box warnings to the asthma drugs Singulair, Accolate and Zyflo, the antismoking drugs Chantix and Zyban and authorities to question the antidepressants given to 80 percent of Iraq war veterans with post traumatic stress disorder.

The open secret of industry subsidized journal articles and Continuing Marketing, sorry Medical Education courses (CMEs) also came under Congressional investigation in 2009–as did the drug industry ties of faux grassroots groups like the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and high flying researchers like Harvard’s Joseph Biederman, MD.

Read entire article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Year-s-Resolutions-for-by-Martha-Rosenberg-091223-751.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Number of Prescriptions Written in UK for Antidepressants Nearly Equals Entire Population

Friday, December 4th, 2009

David Gutierrez
NaturalNews.com
December 4, 2009

There were 36 million prescriptions issued for antidepressant drugs in the United Kingdom in 2008, nearly one for every adult in the population, according to numbers obtained by the Liberal Democrat party.

The number is 2.1 million higher than in 2007.

Writing in the Guardian, Ed Halliwell examines the reason for this trend, noting that antidepressant prescriptions have increased more than threefold since the beginning of the 1990s, far outstripping the increase in the percentage of the population classified with a “common mental disorder.” From 1993 to 2007, this number increased by only one million, going from 15.5 percent of the population to 17.6 percent.

Halliwell notes that while national guidelines recommend that psychological therapies are the preferred treatment for mental illness or distress, 75 percent of doctors report having prescribed drugs in cases where they thought that therapy or other non-pharmaceutical treatments would have been more effective. In part, this is because despite government recommendations, psychotherapy treatment remains difficult to find in the United Kingdom, with long waiting lists.

Read entire artilcle: http://www.naturalnews.com/027651_antidepressants_prescriptions.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark