Posts Tagged ‘depression’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Are You Taking Pills You Don’t Need? Here Are Some Reasons Why

Thursday, July 21st, 2011

OpEdNews – July 21, 2011
by Martha Rosenberg

Most people blame direct-to-consumer advertising, especially on TV, for elevating everyday anxiety to depression, depression to bipolar disorder, childhood behavior problems to psychiatric illnesses, lack of sleep to excessive sleepiness, migraines to epilepsy drug deficiencies and old age to hormone deficiencya.

But ghostwriting also helps the national malaise of people suffering from and treating diseases that didn’t even exist before and ballooning government and private health plans costs.

There are 200 US medical education and communication companies (MECCs) who ghostwrite medical journal articles for pharma for $20,000 to $40,000 per article. Companies like Complete Healthcare Communications (CHC) whose phalanx of 50 medical writers, editors and medical directors promise a “84.5 percent acceptance rate for first-time manuscript submissions.”

Ghostwriting was behind the blockbuster Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004 for doubling the risk of heart attacks. “Merck designed the trial, paid for the trial, ran the trial,” Dr. Jeffrey R. Lisse told the New York Times about a Vioxx study he authored in the Annals of Internal Medicine that left out three cardiac deaths. Oops. “Merck came to me after the study was completed and said, ‘We want your help to work on the paper.’ The initial paper was written at Merck, and then it was sent to me for editing.”

Medical journals themselves can make $450,000 off one such ghostwritten article, because pharma orders reprints which reps disseminate as sales pieces (“look, Doc, it says RIGHT HERE”).

Click image to watch Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Video

In 2006, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Dr. Catherine DeAngelis had to apologize for a pharma-tainted article that defended the use of antidepressants during pregnancy and an article linking migraines to coronary risks in women. The doctor authors, it turned out, were getting money from antidepressant and heart medication manufacturers.

But ten months later, JAMA ran a study “designed jointly by the non-Merck investigators and Merck employees” and “supported by contracts with Merck and Co” that extolled the virtues of Fosamax, a Merck bone drug. Three Merck authors on the study disclosed they potentially owned Merck “stock and/or stock options” and the article’s 11 other authors disclosed 40 research grants, consultancies and other financial relationships with drug companies including Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, SmithGlaxoKline, Wyeth (now Pfizer) Novartis, Procter & Gamble and Merck. Since then, the FDA has issued several warnings about Fosamax and other bone drugs.

In 2007, the AMA itself was criticized for playing both sides of the enterprise street and making $50 million a year selling the names, office addresses and practice types of its members to data miners. The AMA’s defense? Doctors could “opt out” of the privacy-invading program if they wanted to.

And then there are pharma’s “unbranded” campaigns designed to look like real public health messages or communications from grassroots groups. Who can forget PR firm Cohn and Wolfe’s faux grassroots group Freedom From Fear to sell Paxil, a pill now linked to birth defects? And the Wyeth (Pfizer) campaign, The Change You Deserve which said, whoever you are, you have depression and need Effexor?   Now, a new unbranded pharma campaign, Depression Is Real, running on radio stations, compares depression to cancer because it kills and diabetes because it doesn’t go away. Kind of like pharma’s huckstering.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-You-Taking-Pills-You-D-by-Martha-Rosenberg-110721-870.html?show=votes

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Antidepressant Nation

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

Truthdig – July 14, 2011

10 percent of Americans over age six now take antidepressants

A serious conversation is under way in the United States on the subject of psychiatric drugs. The debate consists of three fundamental issues: first, whether antidepressants actually treat depression; second, the vast, growing body of evidence that psychotropic medications alter the brain permanently; and third, the pharmaceutical industry’s continuing, decades-old corruption of American psychiatrists, many of whom have been made by drug companies’ shenanigans into little more than handsomely paid industry shills.

A careful questioning of these issues written by the spectacularly decorated Harvard Medical School lecturer Dr. Marcia Angell appeared as a two-part essay published earlier this summer in The New York Review of Books. In addition to holding a medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine and undergraduate diplomas in both chemistry and mathematics, Angell is a Fulbright Scholar, a board-certified pathologist, author of two books, a member of numerous professional health care associations and a retired 20-year staffer at the New England Journal of Medicine, which she ultimately left as editor-in-chief.

The recent publication of three books, each of which takes up one of the issues raised above, provided the occasion for Angell’s essay. In it, she argues convincingly that antidepressants are not known to do what drug companies and many psychiatrists say they do. It is this claim that drew the attention of practicing psychiatrist and Brown University professor Dr. Peter D. Kramer, who in a New York Times commentary published last Sunday questioned some but not all of what Dr. Angell wrote.

Both articles deserve to be read, but there is a crucial difference between them. While Kramer points to much data that must be taken seriously, his wandering defense of the utility of antidepressants does not undo the diligent, methodical inquiry one would expect from someone with Angell’s credentials—and which she delivers. Otherwise, he too is a critic of Big Pharma’s shady dealings. Kramer nods with genuine concern toward the dangers associated with the prolonged use of psychotropics and, in his conclusion, expresses support for treatment via effective alternatives. Both professionals agree that serious research needs to be done to understand exactly what these drugs are doing. —ARK

Marcia Angell in The New York Review of Books:

Nowadays treatment by medical doctors nearly always means psychoactive drugs, that is, drugs that affect the mental state. In fact, most psychiatrists treat only with drugs, and refer patients to psychologists or social workers if they believe psychotherapy is also warranted. The shift from “talk therapy” to drugs as the dominant mode of treatment coincides with the emergence over the past four decades of the theory that mental illness is caused primarily by chemical imbalances in the brain that can be corrected by specific drugs. That theory became broadly accepted, by the media and the public as well as by the medical profession, after Prozac came to market in 1987 and was intensively promoted as a corrective for a deficiency of serotonin in the brain. The number of people treated for depression tripled in the following ten years, and about 10 percent of Americans over age six now take antidepressants. The increased use of drugs to treat psychosis is even more dramatic. The new generation of antipsychotics, such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, and Seroquel, has replaced cholesterol-lowering agents as the top-selling class of drugs in the US.

Read Part 1: The Epidemic of Mental Illness: Why?

Read Part 2: The Illusions of Psychiatry

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Big lies from Big Insurance drown out the proper cure

Sunday, July 10th, 2011

Anchorage Daily News – July 9, 2011

By John Havelock

In Saturday’s column on public health and the pharmaceutical industry, the case was made that a public health policy driven by the profit motive leads to bad health policy and expanded federal budget deficits. Profit is a great driver of the free enterprise system but is a bad match with core public policies.

Reviews published in the two most recent issues of the New York Review of Books (NYRB), taking the psychiatric profession to task for the shameful influence of the pharmaceutical industry, demonstrate the potentially destructive impulse of the profit motive.

Psychiatry has almost dropped its original reliance on therapy in favor of pills, despite evidence that therapy or, surprisingly, exercise are usually just as effective for depression as the new prescription drugs. There is more money in prescribing pills. Diagnosis of mental illness has expanded dramatically so that, as the review author ironically reports, “It looks though it will be harder and harder to be normal.”

Particularly damaging is her report that diagnoses of children’s disorders have doubled multiple times in the last decade, so that half a million children now take antipsychotic drugs with potentially dangerous and sometimes lethal side effects.

As the author points out, the problem with “troubled children” is often troubled families in troubled circumstances. Careful exploration of their environment makes more sense as a starter. Many psychiatrists are also prescribing drugs “off-label” which allows them to speculate (with industry encouragement) in the prescription of drugs not approved by the FDA for the diagnoses being treated.

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Put away the Prozac: Feeling sad ISN’T an illness

Thursday, July 7th, 2011

The Daily Mail – July 7 2011

by Bel Mooney

Back in 1966, the Rolling Stones recorded Mother’s Little Helper — a bitter satire on the barbiturates women had taken to popping just like sweeties.

‘Mother needs something today to calm her down.
And though she’s not really ill, there’s a little yellow pill.
She goes running for the shelter of a mother’s little helper.
And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day.’

It’s 45 years since those lyrics were written and the situation today is even worse.

A new study reveals one in three women has taken anti-depressants at some point in her life (compared to one in ten men) and nearly half of women using the drugs have been on them for at least five years.

But are all those women taking drugs for depression actually depressed? Those who genuinely suffer the crippling condition Churchill called the Black Dog would probably shake their heads.

That is not to diminish the real pain of those who feel permanently anxious, exhausted or gloomy – all common mental disorders.

But such people (men as well as women) may not need drugs. The trouble is that Platform 51′s research found 57 per cent of those prescribed anti-depressants were not offered any alternatives.

Many women write to my Saturday advice column in the Mail telling me life is just not delivering the happiness they want. Of course, they don’t put it that way.

Discontentment and boredom in marriage, the stress of juggling home and work, caring for children/sick relatives/elderly parents, feeling lonely and left out, nursing a broken heart, worrying about teenage children . . . and also suffering from the dread expressed by the Rolling Stones as ‘what a drag it is getting old’.

All these (often ill-defined) woes pour into letters I file under the single word ‘angst’.

That German word means fear or anxiety and is used to describe an intense feeling of apprehension, anxiety or inner turmoil. My point is that to feel that way — for any of the reasons above or others — does not mean you should necessarily describe yourself as depressed.

It could just mean you are experiencing the troughs that are part of the human condition. You do not need to be treated as ill and medicated.

Let me be personal. At the end of 1975, I was deeply unhappy after the stillbirth of my second son after a long and complicated labour. My doctor prescribed a tricyclic anti-depressant that made me stumble about like a zombie, even though I had to care for a two-year-old.

One day a man came to the door offering to clean the windows and, in my spaced-out state, I thought nothing of the fact he insisted on tackling the inside first.

I left him to it, was surprised when he made a quick exit — and then discovered he had taken the valuable antique ring my mother-in-law had given me as a wedding present.

Oddly enough, that little disaster acted as a wake-up call. I looked in the mirror and said: ‘You’re not depressed, you’re grieving.’

I can still vividly recall the moment of release when I tipped the contents of the brown bottle of pills into the loo and pulled the chain.

Have hope: Yes, we all get miserable - but it will pass (picture posed by model)

Twenty-two years later, I had another small crisis. My daughter was leaving home and my son (absorbed in his new relationship and living in London) was emotionally distant.

Their father seemed permanently away working, so not only was I suffering empty-nest syndrome, I was terribly lonely, too.

So off I went to the GP, said I felt down, explained why — and was immediately prescribed Lustral, one of a group of anti-depressants that includes Prozac.

A couple of weeks later, I felt fine. Was that due to the Lustral or because I was working through my feelings? Were things just getting better for me because (unless you are clinically depressed) that is the natural order of things?

Whatever the answer, I have no doubt drugs were not the answer to my problems and should never have been prescribed.

Mind you, despite the lessons I learned, when my marriage broke down in 2003, I took amitriptyline (another anti-depressant) for a short time to help me sleep.

‘We spend billions trying to get happy, but if we stopped expecting it as a right, we might be pleasantly surprised by an unexpected acceptance of how things are’

Unlike the previous occasions, it felt like the right decisions. Nevertheless, I would say to a woman in a similar situation: ‘Expect to be miserable, understand that it will pass — and don’t run the risk of getting hooked on a drug.’

What I really needed in each of those three situations (all of which will be recognised by many women) was someone qualified to talk me through it all and restore my self-esteem and hope.

I often cheerfully warn younger women friends who are mothers to expect bad times.

Yes, you will worry about your children, be hurt when they turn into dreadful teenagers, feel sad and old when they leave home, and then worry about their love lives, their families . . . and so on.

It’s all a part of motherhood — the downside to the joy.

Children aside, life can seem tough and overwhelming at times for all women. You get so tired, work is demanding, friends let you down, there are so many things to worry about — and the wrinkles on your face will do nothing to cheer you.

When the menopause arrives, you feel grim. Next up, you start dreading the old age that is snapping at your heels.

But these are the normal stages of life that you can arm yourself against by being aware and prepared. It helps to realise that your worries, fears and longings are universal.

Sometimes we all need extra help from outside, which is why I would like to see qualified therapists in every NHS surgery to offer an alternative to the happy pills that may seem to relieve a problem, but do nothing to tackle what caused it in the first place.

The cost would fall far short of our current spending on unhappiness. After all, the huge drug companies are all too pleased we have commercialised depression, medicalised sadness and turned normal melancholy into an illness.

We spend billions trying to get happy, but if we stopped expecting it as a right, we might be pleasantly surprised by an unexpected acceptance of how things are.

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

“How do I get off all the depression drugs?” We asked an expert

Thursday, June 30th, 2011
Foodconsumer.org
By Martha Rosenberg

Phillip Sinaikin, MD, is a Florida psychiatrist who has been in practice for 25 years. Author of “Get Smart About Weight Control” and co-author of “Fat Madness: How to Stop the Diet Cycle and Achieve Permanent Well-Being,” his new book focuses on excesses and industry influence in the field of psychiatry.

Rosenberg: Your new book, Psychiatryland, traces how deception, conflicts of interest, medical enabling and direct-to-consumer advertising have resulted in millions being on psychiatric drugs they don’t need. One patient you describe has legitimate mourning and grief work to do after his wife leaves him for his own cousin. But his grief is pathologized into “bipolar disorder” by the system, including his own mother.

Sinaikin: By the time I saw this patient, he was on Wellbutrin and another antidepressant, the mood stabilizers Eskaltih and Keppra, the antipyschotic Abilify, the tranquilizer Klonopin and Adderall for ADD. Calling grief a psychiatric disorder deflates and dishonors the spiritual dimension of loss and grief and the sadness which is a marker of the lost love. By the time this patient came under my care (three years after the loss of his wife) his “case” had become such a jumbled, incomprehensible and irrational mess of overdiagnosis and overmedication that the only word I can use to describe it is CRIMINAL.

Rosenberg: Can you explain the popularity of such drug cocktails? The drugs haven’t been tested together so the patient is a guinea pig. And their total cost can exceed $1000 per month, often shuttled onto taxpayers because the people are considered disabled under federal entitlement programs.

Sinaikin: Psychiatry mimics science but is not a real science. The symptoms it treats are subjective and have not been demonstrated and cannot be demonstrated at the cellular level. That gives psychiatrists free reign to just experiment and symptom chase, often insanely chasing the side effects and negative interactions of the current drug regimen with more and more drugs. Polypharmacy is also a way psychiatrists can distinguish themselves in an increasingly competitive market. No one believes you need a specialist for one drug — any primary care physician can give you Zoloft — but for multi-drug therapy you do. If you don’t write a prescription as a psychiatrist, you won’t work these days. It is like being a pacifist and having no choice but working in a bullet factory.

Rosenberg: A lot of this trial-and error polypharmacy is buttressed by the concept of “treatment resistance” and “Prozac poop-out.”

Sinaikin: I write in the book that an antidepressant not working anymore is no different than getting used to anything that used to thrill us. We buy our dream house with two bedrooms and a garage and after a while it doesn’t make us happy anymore and we are eyeing the house with three bedrooms and a pool. Another example, of course, is falling in and out of love.

Rosenberg: You document in Psychiatryland the creation of new diseases to sell drugs including adults now diagnosed with childhood disorders like ADD and children with adult disorders like bipolar and depression.

Sinaikin: One scientific article I read about the new childhood disorders sounds like a satire. Two well-respected “thought leaders” in psychiatry were debating the underlying pathology of a three-year-old girl who ran out in traffic. The first doctor believed her dangerous behavior was indicative of an Oppositional-Defiant disorder. The other doctor argued her impulsive act represented grandiose delusions where this girl believed she was special and cars could not harm her. She was, therefore, bipolar.

Rosenberg: Another shocker in your book is how everyday drug and alcohol addicts were recast as having psychiatric conditions for money.

Sinaikin: The insurance companies told the rehabs they would no longer pay for inpatient rehab for heroin, cocaine or alcohol unless there was also another Axis 1 psychiatric disorder like bipolar disorder or major depression. I was working in a drug treatment facility when the change happened. Since addicts typically complain of anxiety and depression, a completely understandable emotional response to their toxic lifestyles, it was “no problem” to add a new label and throw a few psychiatric drugs at their now relabeled “dual diagnosis.”  Of course the central tenet of recovery, taking personal responsibility, was buried by the new victim narrative of self-medicating a previously undiagnosed mental illness.

Rosenberg: Treating addiction with psychiatric drugs before or instead of seeking a higher power is antithetical to the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Sinaikin: As I say throughout my book, human beings are indescribably complex. There are times when the dual-diagnosis concept is necessary and helpful but clearly not applicable to 100% of the cases of addiction as it is now applied. I believe that the 12 Step model is an ideal model of recovery. Patients can have the help whenever they are truly ready, not just when someone decides to foist it on them. Most importantly, the addicts helping other addicts are doing it to facilitate their own recovery and not for ulterior motives such as money. Amazingly, in a world gone profit crazy 12 Step recovery programs are still free. I conceptualize the 12 Steps as a distillation of the spiritual principles world’s great religions but no one is forced to believe in anything including God.

Rosenberg: Given conflicts of interest at the American Psychiatric Association, which drives psychiatric diagnoses, in the FDA drug approval process itself and the legions of doctors willing to huckster for pharma as thought leaders or Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), do you see any hope of rescuing people from Psychiatryland?

Sinaikin: The system is unbelievably bad and even worse than it looks. But, I think a goal that could be achieved would be a repeal of direct-to-consumer advertising. Patients now come into my office asking me if they have ADD or bipolar disorder or if they can have Cymbalta. When I began practicing psychiatry, long before direct-to-consumer advertising, this would never have happened.

Psychiatryland

Author: Phillip Sinaikin, MD
978-1-4502-5290-4 (pbk),
978-1-4502-5289-8 (cloth)
978-1-4502-5288-1 (ebk)

Publisher: I Universe
Published Year: 2010
available online at
Amazon and Barnes & Noble

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Shopping/Books/depression_drugs_0629110547.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Selling Depression—Adding New Spin and Urgency to Depression Drug Sales

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011

CounterPunch – June 19 Edition

by Martha Rosenberg

The discovery that many people with life problem or occasional bad moods would willingly dose themselves with antidepressants sailed the drug industry through the 2000s. A good chunk of the $4.5 billion a year direct-to-consumer advertising has been devoted to convincing people they don’t have problems with their job, the economy and their family, they have depression. Especially because depression can’t be diagnosed from a blood test.

Unfortunately, three things dried up the depression gravy train for the drug industry. Blockbusters went off patent and generics took off, antidepressants were linked with gory and unpredictable violence, especially in young users and — they didn’t even work, according to medical articles!

That’s when the drug industry began debuting the concept of “treatment resistant depression.” It wasn’t that their drugs didn’t work (or you didn’t have depression in the first place), you had “treatment resistant depression.” Your first expensive and dangerous drug needed to be coupled with more expensive and dangerous drugs because monotherapy, one drug alone, wasn’t doing the trick!

You’ve got to admire the drug industry’s audacity with this upsell strategy. Adding drugs to your treatment resistant depression triples its take, patients don’t know which drug is working so they’ll take all of them and the defective drugs are exonerated! (Because the problem is you.)

Now the drug industry has a new whisper campaign to keep the antidepressant boat afloat. Your depression is “progressive.”

Once upon a time, when depression was neither seasonal, atypical, bipolar or treatment resistant, it was considered to be a self-limiting disease. In fact, just about the only good thing you could say about depression was it wouldn’t last forever.

But now, the drug industry is giving depression the don’t-wait scare treatment like coronary events (statins), asthma attacks (“controller” drugs) and thinning bones (Sally Field). If you don’t hurry and take medication, your depression will get worse!

“Depressive episodes become more easily triggered over time,” floats an article on the physician Web site Medscape (flanked by ads for the antidepressant Pristiq.) “As the number of major depressive episodes increase, the risk for subsequent episodes is predicted more from the number of prior episodes and less from the occurrence of a recent life stress.” The article, unabashedly titled “Neurobiology of Depression: Major Depressive Disorder as a Progressive Illness,” is written by Vladimir Maletic who happens to have served on Eli Lilly’s Speaker’s Bureau, says the disclosure information, and whose co-authors are each employees and/or Lilly shareholders.

On WebMD, a sister site to Medscape, the depression sell is even less subtle. An article called Recognizing the Symptoms of Depression, smothered with five ads for the Eli Lilly antidepressant, Cymbalta, submits, “Most of us know about the emotional symptoms of depression. But you may not know that depression can be associated with many physical symptoms, too.”

Depression may masquerade as headaches, insomnia, fatigue, backache, dizziness, lightheadedness or appetite problems mongers the article. “You might feel queasy or nauseous. You might have diarrhea or become chronically constipated.” And here, you thought it was something you ate!

The danger with these symptoms says the article is that you would fail to diagnose yourself as suffering from a psychiatric problem and buy an over-the-counter drug like a normal person. “Because these symptoms occur with many conditions, many depressed people never get help, because they don’t know that their physical symptoms might be caused by depression. A lot of doctors miss the symptoms, too.”

But when head and backaches aren’t labeled as depression, the drug industry make no money and insurance rates could stop climbing from over-treatment with unnecessary, expensive and dangerous psychoactive drugs!

To prevent such goring of marketshare, the article (whose content was “selected and controlled by WebMD’s editorial staff and is funded by Lilly USA,” an original WebMD financial partner according to the Washington Post) counsels worry about physical symptoms. “Don’t assume they’ll go away on their own.” Symptoms may “need additional treatment” and “some antidepressants, such as Cymbalta and Effexor, may help with chronic pain, too.”

Before direct-to-consumer advertising, the health care system was devoted to preventing over-treatment and assuring patients they were probably okay. Who remembers “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning”? Now patients are assured they probably aren’t okay but probably have a progressive disease. Luckily their disease can be treated with progressive prescriptions from pharma.

http://www.counterpunch.org/rosenberg06172011.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

The Depression Drug Gravy Train – Marketing Life’s Problems as a ‘Disease’

Monday, June 6th, 2011
Op-Ed News – June 5, 2011
by Martha Rosenberg
The discovery that many people with life problems or occasional bad moods would willingly dose themselves with antidepressants sailed pharma through the 2000s. A good chunk of pharma’s $4.5 billion direct-to-consumer advertising has been devoted to convincing people they don’t have problems with their job, the economy and their family, they have depression. Especially because depression can’t be diagnosed from a blood test.

Unfortunately, three things dried up the depression gravy train for pharma. Blockbusters went off patent and generics took off, antidepressants were linked with gory and unpredictable violence, especially in young users and…they didn’t even work, according to medical articles!

That’s when pharma began debuting the concept of “treatment resistant depression.” It wasn’t that their drugs didn’t work (or you didn’t have depression in the first place), you had “treatment resistant depression.” Your first expensive and dangerous drug needed to be coupled with more expensive and dangerous drugs because monotherapy, one drug alone, wasn’t doing the trick!

You’ve got to admire pharma’s audacity with this upsell strategy. Adding drugs to your treatment resistant depression triples its take, patients don’t know which drug is working so they’ll take all of them and the defective drugs are exonerated!   (Because the problem is you.)

Now pharma has a new whisper campaign to keep the antidepressant boat afloat. Your depression is “progressive.”

Once upon a time, when depression was neither seasonal, atypical, bipolar or treatment resistant, it was considered to be a self-limiting disease. In fact, just about the only good thing you could say about depression was it wouldn’t last forever.

But now, pharma is giving depression the don’t-wait scare treatment like coronary events (statins), asthma attacks (“controller” drugs) and thinning bones (Sally Field). If you don’t hurry and take medication, your depression will get worse!

“Depressive episodes become more easily triggered over time,” floats an article on the physician web site Medscape (flanked by ads for the antidepressant Pristiq.) “As the number of major depressive episodes increase, the risk for subsequent episodes is predicted more from the number of prior episodes and less from the occurrence of a recent life stress.” The article, unabashedly titled“Neurobiology of Depression: Major Depressive Disorder as a Progressive Illness ,” is written by Vladimir Maletic who happens to have served on Eli Lilly’s Speaker’s Bureau, says the disclosure information, and whose co-authors are each employees and/or Lilly shareholders.

Before direct-to-consumer advertising, the health care system was devoted to preventing over-treatment and assuring patients they were probably okay. Who remembers “Take two aspirin and call me in the morning”?   Now patients are assured they probably aren’t okay but probably have a progressive disease. Luckily their disease can be treated with progressive prescriptions from pharma.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Do-You-Have-Depression-He-by-Martha-Rosenberg-110605-409.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

18 U.S. veterans commit suicide daily; largely due to psychiatric drugs

Saturday, June 4th, 2011

NaturalNews.com – June 3, 2011

by Neev M. Arnell

Prior to the Iraq war, American soldiers in combat zones did not take psychiatric drugs - by 2007, more than 20,000 troops were taking antidepressants & sleeping pills

“If mentally incapacitated troops are being drugged with dangerous, mind-altering drugs and deployed to battle against their will, how can we say that we have a volunteer army?” asked Alliance for Human Research Protection, the national network dedicated to advancing responsible and ethical medical research practices.

This is just one of the many criticisms being levied against the U.S. military in light of its liberal use of prescription medication, which is now being linked to rising suicide rates among soldiers.

A study released by the Army in June 2009 indicated that nearly as many American troops at home and abroad committed suicide in the first six months of 2006 as the number who had been killed in combat in Afghanistan during the same time period (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/…).

An average of 18 American veterans commit suicide every day (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMo…). Now, the increasingly high number of deaths among both veterans and active duty soldiers–including suicides, accidental overdose, and lethal drug interactions–have now been linked to the exponential increase in the prescribing of drugs for post traumatic stress disorder, depression and other psychological illnesses.(http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/vie…)

Prior to the  Iraq war, American soldiers in combat zones did not take psychiatric medications, according to PBS Frontline documentary The Wounded Platoon, which aired in May 2010. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front…) But by the time of the 2007 surge more than 20,000 of our deployed troops were taking antidepressants and sleeping pills.

These drugs allowed soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder to remain in combat when they otherwise could not.

“What I use medications for is to treat very specific side effects,” said Army psychiatrist Col. George Brandt. “I don’t want somebody in a helpless mode in a combat environment. I want to make sure I don’t have someone with suicidal thoughts where everyone is armed.”

Well over 300,000 troops have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan with P.T.S.D., depression, traumatic brain injury or some combination of those, according to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/u…). Following the lead of civilian medicine, the military has relied heavily on medications to treat those problems, resulting in more widespread use of drugs in the military than in any previous war.

The aforementioned Army report on suicide recognized that one-third of the troops were taking at least one prescription medication and stated that prescription drug use was on the rise. The report also noted that one-third of the 162 active-duty soldiers who committed suicide in 2009 were taking medication.

Frontline’s The Wounded Platoon looked at the problem of PTSD, depression and prescription medication in the military from the perspective of one platoon from Fort Carson, CO. 18 soldiers from Fort Carson have been charged with or convicted of murder, manslaughter or attempted murder committed in the United States, since the beginning of the “War on Terror,” and 36 have committed suicide.

Jose Barco, who was once known as the hero who saved his fellow soldiers during a suicide-bombing, is now serving a 52-year prison sentence for attempted murder. Barco suffered traumatic brain injury as a result of his heroics and was also diagnosed with PTSD for which he was prescribed nine different medications.

“We have someone who’s been emotionally traumatized, and they’ve got PTSD,” said retired military psychiatrist Stephen Xenakis. “They’re anxious, and they’re depressed, and they’ve got TBI, which means that they’ve got problems in decision making. They can’t think as clearly. They are really vulnerable to just overreacting.”

The rate of PTSD diagnosis at Fort Carson rose 4,000 percent between 2002 and 2010, and the increase in medications being prescribed for both veterans and those in combat rose to meet the demand.

Kenny Eastridge, another platoon member that Frontline spoke with who is in jail for murder and other crimes, was prescribed a cocktail of medications while in combat.

“I was having a total mental breakdown. Every day we were getting in battles and never having a break. It seemed like, it was just crazy,” he said. “They put me on all kinds of meds, and I was still going out on missions. They had me on Ambien, Remeron, Lexapro, Celexa, all kind of different stuff.”

Eastridge was sent to a remote combat outpost for weeks at a time with no medical supervision or mental health provision, despite the recommendation that patients on this medication should be monitored. Frontline footage showed Eastridge’s unstable behavior, which included wandering into Iraqi homes, lying in the people’s beds, and trying to hug local people.

As more soldiers return home to Fort Carson, concern abounds.”We’re all wondering what’s going to happen,” says Colorado Springs psychotherapist Robert Alvarez. “It’s a scary thought, you know, what’s going to happen in this community. Are we going to have more murders? Are we going to have more suicides, or are we going to have more crime? I think the answer to that is probably yes.”

http://www.naturalnews.com/z032598_veterans_suicide.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

How Seroquel, a Risky Antipsychotic, Became a “General Purpose” Mental Health Drug

Friday, May 27th, 2011

BNET
By Jim Edwards
May 27, 2011

In 2008, the FDA declared that powerful antipsychotics such as AstraZeneca (AZN)’s Seroquel were being over-prescribed and started a monitoring initiative to curb their use. It hasn’t worked, judging by an analysis of the FDA’s adverse event database by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

Seroquel is only approved for schizophrenia, mania and bipolar disorders. It’s a powerful drug that has serious side effects if taken for a long time: It’s associated with weight gain and diabetes, among other problems.

Yet the ISMP found that 47 percent of all adverse events linked to Seroquel since 2004 occurred when the drug was being used for unapproved or “off-label” purposes, such as depression. 21 percent of adverse events are linked to off-label use of Seroquel in depression — a condition for which there are plenty of other available drugs — and 26 percent of events occur with other off-label uses:

The ISMP said:

the adverse event data show quetiapine [Seroquel] has become a general purpose psychiatric drug with most reported injuries occurring outside its core indication for treatment of the most severe mental disorders, schizophrenia and psychosis.

In the off label category more than half the cases were for sleep disorders and insomnia. The next largest group was anxiety, and the remainder was divided among many other medical uses including autism, panic attack, headache, restlessness, nervousness, dementia and agitation.

The report is yet another in a series of publications from a variety of sources that suggest some psychiatric doctors are abusing their patients with Seroquel. In addition to the FDA’s 2008 declaration, consider:

Injuries from Seroquel’s side effects can be severe and permanent. In addition to diabetes they include suicidal/self-injurious behavior, and neurological movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia, dystonia and parkinsonism.

AstraZeneca’s role in promoting Seroquel for off-label uses is well documented. The company has paid $1.5 billion in legal costs and settlements for its mismarketing of the drug ($520 million to the Department of Justice; another $743 million in legal costs in unresolved cases through March 2011; and $198 million in civil settlements.)

So doctors have no excuse. The FDA — which has almost no jurisdiction over physicians — and the courts have performed their roles. It’s time for the medical profession to take responsibility for the damage it is causing and cut down on its dispensing of Seroquel.

Read article here:  http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/how-seroquel-a-risky-antipsychotic-became-a-8220general-purpose-8221-mental-health-drug/8545

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

The Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Has Been Drugged

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

OpEdNews
By David Swanson
May 23, 2011

Movements for justice have historically been driven by a small percentage of any population. One percent of Americans nonviolently occupying Washington, D.C., could make Cairo and Madison and Madrid look like warm-up acts. It is certainly true that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens is the only thing that ever has changed the world for the better.

So, what happens if a society picks out a significant slice of its population, one including many thoughtful and committed citizens, and drugs them?

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) held a first-time, one-day, little publicized event last September that allowed people to turn in their extra prescription drugs. The DEA reports collecting 242,000 pounds or 121 tons. A second such day was held in April with 376,593 pounds or 188 tons of pills collected. This is the stuff nobody wants and is willing to hand in to the government. This is not the amount that’s out in circulation. That amount is no doubt in proportion to the roaring flood of television ads for the stuff. “More Americans currently abuse prescription drugs,” says the DEA, “than the number of those using cocaine, hallucinogens, and heroin combined. . . . [I]ndividuals that abuse prescription drugs often obtained them from family and friends, including from the home medicine cabinet.” And that’s just the users said to be abusing.

Ted Rall suggested drugging to me as a possible explanation for the big mystery staring us in the face, namely why Americans sit back and take so much more than other people from their government. The Patriot Act is being put on steroids with hardly a peep of protest. The “Defense Authorization Act” now before Congress would give presidents virtually limitless power to single-handedly make wars or imprison people. This is the biggest formal transfer of power in the U.S. government since the drafting of its Constitution. This undoes the American War for Independence. But perhaps we’d still be 13 colonies if Prozac and Zoloft had come along sooner.

“Like many people,” says Rall, “I have often wondered why so many Americans seem so emotionally flat and politically apathetic in response to a political and economic landscape that cries out for protest, or at least complaint. Could it be that our society’s most angry — justifiably angry — are being medicated into quiescence?” It does seem possible. I don’t mean to discount the fact that the United States imprisons record numbers of people. I’m willing to share some blame with our education system, our so-called news media, our religiosity, the two-party trap, and several other likely factors. But drugs looks like the big one that is nonetheless hardest to see. People don’t usually tell you they’re drugged, but chances are at least one in 10 people you meet is.

Two years ago, a study found that “the number of Americans taking antidepressants doubled to 10.1 percent of the population in 2005 compared with 1996, increasing across income and age groups.” One year earlier, another study had found that close to 10 percent of men and women in America were taking drugs to combat depression, and that 11 percent of women were taking antidepressants.”

Author and clinical psychologist Bruce Levine tells me this may be even worse than it sounds. “If you are around certain populations,” Levine says, “that 10 percent stat seems very low, especially among healthcare professionals and college students.” College students? I can remember them getting pretty thoughtful and committed in times past. “And that 10 percent,” Levine adds, “only includes the ‘official antidepressants’ such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, Effexor, etc. This stat doesn’t include people using ADHD drugs such as Ritalin, Adderall, etc. to stimulate themselves.”

Adderall, Levine explained, is an amphetamine that affects the same neurotransmitters as cocaine (dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine), “and if one takes the antidepressant Effexor (affects serotonin and norepinephrine) at the same time one is taking the antidepressant Wellbutrin (affects dopamine), one can sense the hypocrisy in labeling certain psychotropics (drugs that affects neurotransmitters) as ‘antidepressants’ and other psychotropics as ‘ADHD psychostimulants.’ Lots of people — especially young people — are popping ‘Addies’ (street name for Adderall) to ‘motivate’ them to get them through their lives, especially during exam time.”

Levine said he’s counseling a young man who is supplementing his income by selling ADHD psychostimulant drugs to his fellow college students. He gets the best price around final exam time. “He told me, ‘Bruce, you’ve got to do better improving the self-esteem of these young kids who you are counseling.’ Why, I ask him, why do you care? ‘Well,’ he says, ‘these little brats who are getting their freebie prescription Addies feel so crappie about themselves that they are giving away their Addies to their older brothers for free just so they will hang out with them, and all those freebie Addies on the market are driving price down for me.”

Levine stresses that Adderall, like nicotine or caffeine or cocaine, provides a buzz that antidepressants do not. In fact, he points out, the so-called antidepressant drugs make people twice as likely to commit suicide. Levine concedes that some people swear antidepressants have saved their lives, but points out that people will say that about a placebo as well. The evidence, Levine says, shows antidepressants working no better than a placebo at lifting people out of depression.

Antidepressants may bear as Orwellian a name as the Patriot Act, but Levine finds the latter easier to talk about with people. “I get less grief,” Levine tells me, “when I talk about something like anarchism and Emma Goldman than when I talk about antidepressants’ effectiveness and [author] Irving Kirsch, as abstract political ideologies are far less threatening than people’s very own drugs.” Political movements may in fact be less threatening to those in power, because of people’s drugs.

Read article here:  http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Small-Group-of-Thought-by-David-Swanson-110523-181.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »