Posts Tagged ‘drugs’

The Over-Prescribing of Psychoactive Drugs to Children: A Scourge of Our Times

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

The Huffington Post

September 1, 2010

by Dr. Ronald Ricker and Dr. Venus Nicolino

Today, the administration of psychoactive drugs to children (6-17) is all too common and growing at an alarming rate. These drugs often cause the opposite of the intended effect, often condemning children to a life of misery and ill health. The prescription of these drugs is said to treat “chemical imbalances” which were said to cause ADHD, Depression and Bi-polar disorder. It turns out, however, that what we were calling “disease-causing chemical imbalances,” is simply incorrect . The sad irony is, the inappropriate use of these medications is in fact creating different chemical imbalances, which do cause mental disorders, many of which are both life-long and debilitating.

Furthermore, it is now clear that often we are diagnosing ordinary childhood and adolescent behavior as mental disorders (Wait, children are supposed to be bursting with energy? It’s normal for a teenager to be moody and aloof?). This diagnosing is not only based on this idea of “chemical imbalances,” but also a general and pervasive notion that every non-acceptable behavior is due to a mental illness. And last, but certainly not least, the prescribing of these medications by doctors is based on the disinformation provided them by the FDA, drug manufactures and often fraudulent studies, all in the name of making money, on the backs of our children.

In a recent lecture, respected journalist, writer and Nobel Prize Nominee, Robert Whitaker (PBS, Boston, June 15, 2010) highlighted not only the appallingly unscientific methodology used in the development, prescription and use of psychotropic drugs in school-aged children, but also how hopelessly corrupt and failed the systems that should be regulating the safety of medicines are in this country.

Unfortunately, many drug companies exist for one reason: to make money. As such, the people who run these companies have developed a worldview bereft of any more notion of ethics or morality than British Petroleum. Some drug companies’ success is not based on a drug’s usefulness or the safety of its products, but whether it makes money. The path to more money is simple: find new uses for their old drugs, invent new drugs and find new markets for both new and old drugs. Unfortunately, children are today’s newest market.

The FDA requires a “Successful Drug Trial” to approve new medications. “Trial” is often a misnomer, as the word implies some notion of impartiality and unknown outcome. These “trials” often are more like kangaroo courts. In one “trial,” in this case to prove the usefulness of Prozac, corruption and dishonesty were the rule. Children who responded to placebos were removed from the data, as were negative responders to the actual drug. This meant that the only children who were left in the study group were so-called “positive responders.” And, even then, the researchers and doctors, whose “research” funding was provided by the makers of Prozac, were the very ones to decide which subjects, if any, actually did respond “positively” to the drug. This, of course, is a massive conflict of interest. The doctors, researchers and drug companies all want the same thing — FDA approval and to make more money.

In a 2004 article published in perhaps the most prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, said the trial studies used to provide proof of the usefulness of anti-depressant drugs in children, were “nothing but fraudulent.” Following that assessment, all anti-depressants but Prozac were banned in the UK for use on children. (The fact that Prozac was not banned was based on very dubious, some say dishonest, research as documented above).

The true damage caused by the use of anti-depressant drugs like Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, etc. (AKA of SSRI’s: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) by school-aged children is only found by legitimate, longer studies, like those that continued from 17 months to six years. In one study, 25 percent of children who had been on SSRI’s for three years were re-diagnosed with the much more serious disorder of Bi-polar disease. This number increased to 50 percent after six years of SSRI use. Long-term use of new anti-psychotics may lead to even greater problems than the initial disease. Diabetes, morbid obesity and early death have all been linked to the use of these drugs. And, as written by us in a previous blog both short and long term use of stimulant drugs such as Adderall), have numerous serious side effects.

Read the rest of this article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-ronald-ricker-and-dr-venus-nicolino/the-prescribing-of-psycho_b_665838.html

Note: To view all international drug regulatory warnings and studies on psychiatric drugs including those issued specifically for children,visit CCHR’s psychiatric drug search engine here: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

Also see this video – Drugging Our Children: Side Effects – http://www.cchrint.org/videos/

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

ADHD: Has this diagnostic fad run its course?

Friday, August 20th, 2010

“On a societal level, we take responsibility for the fact that the diagnostic labels we have accepted, and pharmacological interventions we have embraced, are harming children and that we have no right to ask children to bear those harms. On a personal level, we place the difficulties of childhood within the context of the life of each child, and within the nature of childhood itself. We make a commitment to helping children be their best selves, and above all, we do the best we can to make sure that we never use our positions of authority to harm anyone.” Professor Stephen R. Herr

The Christian Science Monitor

August 20, 2010

The idea of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as a credible diagnostic term has passed and it is time that we accept that and move on. Fads and disappointments are not new to the field of psychology nor is the need for people to get beyond them.

Phrenology,  hysteria, eugenics, compulsory sterilizations, shock therapy, and Thalidomide all at one time had some grounding in hope and reason. For awhile, each of them captured the imagination, but over time each led to more pain than good, and for that reason they all got left behind.

Like diagnostic fads before it, ADHD has been in many ways a disorder of its time.

Previous diagnostic fads

Hysteria found expression in a Victorian-era society that vigorously attempted to constrain the lives of women. The eugenics movement addressed societal concerns of the early 20th century relating to burgeoning minority populations.

ADHD became a popular diagnosis in the 1980s as more parents went to work and the role of schools and teachers changed. If we look at the history of our culture and the ailments that have plagued it, is not difficult to see why people in positions of authority told women that they were weak, minorities that they were feeble-minded, and children that they had a psychological disorder: It was easier for them than addressing the difficult conditions that women, minorities, and children faced.

At one time, ADHD appeared to be a reasonable theory that might help people address genuine concerns.  Raising children can be hard,  especially when adults are tired, frustrated, overwhelmed, and riddled with self-doubt. Beyond that, children can be annoying; They fidget, they interrupt, they don’t pay attention, and they don’t always do what they are told.

The behaviors of children and the difficulties of adults often lead to guilt, worry, and a sense of wrong that concerned adults feel a responsibility to address. The creation of ADHD as a psychological disorder was in part an attempt to deal with some of the difficulties of raising children. Unfortunately, that attempt has fallen short and led to new problems in recent years.

On a diagnostic level, ADHD is problematic. After generations of research, there is still no test for ADHD, nor is there a standard diagnostic measure within the profession.

A huge – and lucrative – market

What started out as a theory articulated by professionals is now an urban legend. Parents, teachers, talk show hosts, friends, neighbors and even the person you’re standing next to in the grocery store each believe that they can diagnose and treat ADHD. This superfluity of focused misinformation has helped fuel a pharmacological intervention that would have seemed absurd two generations ago. As of 2006, 4.5 million kids have been diagnosed with ADHD, with nearly half taking medication. In 2008, the ADHD pharmaceutical market was worth $4 billion.

Another problem with our fixation on ADHD is that it is not working. Again, even after generations of research there is no evidence that suggests placing children on Schedule II drugs such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Vyvanse improves their intellectual abilities over an extended period, or that these drugs affect children with ADHD any differently than they affect any other child. A stimulant is a stimulant is a stimulant. What we do know is that the use of these drugs can be debilitating, addictive, and deadly.

And just this week, a Michigan State University study found that nearly one million children in America are potentially misdiagnosed with ADHD – in large part because they were the youngest and least mature in their kindergarten classes.

Maybe the greatest problem regarding ADHD as a diagnostic label is that our faith in that label has distracted us and kept us from looking for the better understandings we should be seeking. Stress and sleeplessness lead to inattention. Frustration leads to anger and rebellion. Depression leads to indifference and a lack of enthusiasm.

Probably one of the best ways to make sense of children and the rise of ADHD is for adults to focus on some basic questions. Don’t most adults become distracted when they are tired? Don’t most adults become fidgety when they are bored? Don’t most adults lose interest in their work when they don’t see any significance in what they are doing? And when adults wrestle with concerns relating to stress, sleeplessness, frustration, and depression, aren’t the responses often “get some rest,” “exercise” “start eating better,” and “try finding something you’re interested in”?

As adults, aren’t some of our most meaningful discussions about how to live a meaningful life? If that’s the case for adults, why don’t we put more emphasis on these sorts of answers for children? Wouldn’t more rest, better meals, more exercise, and a greater focus on helping children understand their interests serve most children well?

Read the rest of this article here:  http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0819/ADHD-Has-this-diagnostic-fad-run-its-course

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Professor of Bioethics—Co-opted by market forces, clinical drug trials are now just covert instruments for promoting drugs

Friday, August 20th, 2010

MinnPost.com

By Susan Perry |

In the September issue of Mother Jones magazine, Dr. Carl Elliott, a professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, writes about the suicide in 2004 of 26-year-old Dan Markingson, who was enrolled at the time in a U of M industry-funded clinical trial of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine).

It’s a disturbing tale (the unsuccessful efforts of Markingson’s mother to get her son released from the trial and into other treatment are particularly heartbreaking) and one that, as Elliott acknowledges, was first told in the Pioneer Press by Jeremy Olson and Paul Tosto.

But Elliott’s purpose in writing the article wasn’t only to revisit the tragic details of Markingson’s story. “[T]he more I examined the medical and court records, the more I became convinced that the problem was worse than the Pioneer Press had reported,” he writes. “The danger lies not just in the particular circumstances that led to Dan’s death, but in a system of clinical research that has been thoroughly co-opted by market forces, so that many studies have become little more than covert instruments for promoting drugs. The study in which Dan died starkly illustrates the hazards of market-driven research and the inadequacy of our current oversight system to detect them.”

Those hazards include questionable informed consent (is a young man who’s experiencing psychotic episodes competent to give his consent?) and financial conflicts of interest. According to Elliott, the U of M psychiatry department earned $15,648 for each person it enrolled in the Seroquel study. In addition, the study’s two U of M investigators, Drs. Charles S. Schulz and Stephen C. Olson, personally earned a combined $811,045 between 2002 and 2008 from Big Pharma, including $261,364 from AstraZeneca, the maker of Seroquel.

At the time Markingson entered the Seroquel study, reports Elliott, the investigators were having serious problems recruiting subjects. Did that factor lead them to enroll someone into the study who shouldn’t have been?

“Even by the standards of a fairly ugly history [of clinical drug trials with ethical breaches] in medical history — even by those standards, this [case] jumps up,” Elliott told me in an interview last week. “There were so many things that went wrong — the consent process, the commitment order under which [Markingson] was recruited into the trial, the financial incentives of the university, the financial incentives of the investigators, and the sheer worthlessness of the trial. Anyone who looked into this and knew anything about clinical research would say this is terrible.”

Elliott sees the trial’s worthlessness as a particularly abhorrent part of the story. The Seroquel study was designed as a marketing tool, he suggests, not as a true scientific inquiry. Such studies, he writes, present a huge ethical problem that isn’t being properly addressed by the oversight systems currently in place:

What is simply assumed [when bioethicists and regulators debate the risks of a clinical trial], without much consideration at all, is that the research is being conducted to produce scientific knowledge. This assumption is codified in a number of foundational ethics documents, such as the Nuremberg Code, which was instituted following Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. … But what if a research study is not really aimed at producing genuine scientific knowledge at all? The documents emerging in litigation [involving various prescription drugs] suggest that pharmaceutical companies are designing, analyzing, and publishing trials primarily as a way of positioning their drugs in the marketplace. This raises a question unconsidered in any current code of research ethics. How much risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose principal aim is to “generative commercially attractive messages”?

Or, as Elliott told me: “I don’t think anybody who enrolls in a clinical trial thinks, “I know this study is risky, but I think it’s worth it to help Pfizer or AstraZeneca market their drug.”

Read the rest of this article here:  http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2010/08/20/20742/disturbing_suicide_tale_u_of_m_professor_reexamines_ethics_questions_of_drug_trial

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Overmedication contributes to military suicides, advocates say

Thursday, August 12th, 2010
By Veronica Nett
The Charleston Gazette

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The suicide rate among military veterans has ballooned in recent years, in part because of overmedication of service members and a lack of support for veterans, advocates for treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder said Thursday.

Psychiatrists sometimes prescribe drugs as a cure without an actual understanding of what the drugs do, said Dr. Peter R. Breggin, a psychiatrist and author from Ithaca, N.Y.

In 2008, the Army’s suicide rate — 20.2 per 100,000 — exceeded the civilian suicide rate for the first time. The civilian suicide rate has held steady for years at about 18 per 100,000, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Breggin and seven panelists addressed a crowd of about 50 therapists, social workers, members of the state Veterans Affairs department, in addition to service members and their families at the 2010 PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury Education and Awareness Conference.

Care-Net, a branch of the state Council of Churches, sponsored the conference at the Blessed John XXIII Pastoral Center in Charleston.

PTSD is the brain’s natural reaction to extreme stress and traumatizing experiences, said Breggin, the conference’s keynote speaker. Tramuatic brain injury looks just like PTSD, he said.

“There is no drug that improves the function of the brain,” said Breggin, who said he will not prescribe psychiatric drugs as treatment for any disorder.

Psychiatric drugs, such as antidepressants and anxiety medication, alter the chemical balance in the brain, disrupt the release of serotonin and, in many cases, have the same effect as street drugs, Breggin said.

Patients using psychiatric drugs have experienced psychotic and violent behavior, attempted suicide and are unable to think clearly, Breggin said.

Mary Lahas talked about her son, Michael, who she said stuck IV needles into his arms in a suicide attempt.

Her son, an Army infantry member, survived roadside bomb explosions, and witnessed the shooting death of civilians in Iraq, Lahas said Thursday.

He returned from his first deployment in 2008 with PTSD and TBI and suffered from headaches, anxiety, guilt, tinnitus and memory problems, Lahas said. He refused to seek help, she said, because he saw other soldiers ridiculed who did.

When he finally did seek help, he was given a “cocktail of death,” that included antidepressants, anxiety medications and sleep aids, Lahas said.

“He was so overmedicated he could not care for himself — eat, sleep or brush his teeth,” she said.

The drugs and stress led him to try to take his own life, and while standing in his bathroom bleeding, he drew a smiley face on the wall in his own blood, she said.

Read the rest of this article here: http://wvgazette.com/News/201008120975

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Pharmaceutical Industry and Psychiatry—Conjoined Twins Joined at the Wallet, by former Pharma rep turned whistleblower

Friday, July 30th, 2010

OpEdNews
By K. L. Carlson
July 30, 2010

“Unlimited spending! Schedule all the programs you can.” That was the management directive announced at the regional business meeting I attended when I first became a pharmaceutical rep. When I heard the announcement I felt like I was on an Enron train that was roaring down the tracks, and the company expected everyone to be on board. The company was giving its sales force unlimited funds to hire physicians as paid speakers, sometimes to influence other physicians to prescribe the company’s drugs, at other times to simply financially reward physicians who wrote high volumes of prescriptions every month for the company’s drugs.

Former Merck regional sales manager, Gene Carbona, told the New York Times that the only thing the company considered when selecting physicians to provide presentations was “the volume or potential volume of prescribing that the doctor could do.” This is true of all pharmaceutical companies. According to The Wall Street Journal (August 31, 2009), Eli Lilly alone paid physicians $22 million dollars in just the first quarter of 2009.

The higher a physician is on the influential ladder, the greater the financial rewards to be reaped. Pharmaceutical companies pay influential leaders who can sway public opinion and influence research. And the area of medicine receiving the greatest amount of pharmaceutical money is psychiatry. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is the most drug industry financially supported medical association. In July 2008, Senator Charles Grassley’s demands that the APA provide an accounting of its finances revealed that in 2006 the pharmaceutical industry accounted for about 30 percent of the APA’s financing; more than $20 million dollars.

Read entire article here:  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pharmaceutical-Industry-an-by-K-L-Carlson-100727-454.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Just a great article: The Huffington Post—A Psychiatric Drug Story of Tragedy and Triumph by Dr. Peter Breggin

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

The Huffington Post
By Dr. Peter Breggin
July 7, 2010

Today I am reproducing for my readers a letter that we recently received from a woman I will call “Janice.” My wife Ginger reads and responds to most of the many communications that come to us each day through email and the networking sites she has joined. Several times a week we will get a communication that tells us that our reform work “saved my life.” I have never talked about this before because it seems self-serving, but people need to know how lifesaving it can be when health professionals dare to be honest about the hazards of psychiatric drugs and the value of empathic therapeutic approaches.

This week we received several more such letters but one stood out with its dramatic and heartfelt detail. Janice vividly portrays how she suffered not only from the disabling effects of the drugs, but also from the stigma of psychiatric diagnosis that discouraged her and made her well meaning family insist that she remain on drugs. As it seems to be in Janice’s case, the vast majority of the adults labeled “bipolar” that I see in my practice are suffering from antidepressant-induced mania in addition to whatever original life trauma led them to be diagnosed in the first place. I document several similar stories and provide the background science in Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime.

Notice how much courage and motivation Janice received from a single doctor verifying for her that her problems were due to psychological trauma and not to an alleged psychiatric disease. This should lend inspiration to health care practitioners who choose to speak honestly to their patients about the origins of their emotional problems in the story of their lives.

Janice went off psychiatric drugs cold turkey and suffered greatly as a result. I never recommend this. But unfortunately too few health care providers have any idea about the merits of withdrawing from psychiatric drugs and how to help patients go about tapering off psychiatric drugs in way to minimize the withdrawal effects.

Janice’s story moves from tragedy to triumph. I offer it to you for the inspiration that it provides and I wish to thank Janice for the trust she has shown in sharing her story with us, and in allowing us to publish it anonymously.

Read entire article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/a-psychiatric-drug-story_b_634352.html

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

The Gawker—Columbia University: The Best Place to Score Drugs in New York (for Adderall and Ritalin that is)

Monday, May 10th, 2010

Gawker
By Jeff Neumann
May 10, 2010

One Columbia senior wanted to know how his fellow students were able to get so high, yet still do well on exams. So he went straight to the source: the school library. It’s “study drug time”!

Daniel D’Addario at The Daily Beast found kids in his school’s library high on Adderall, studying for final exams and getting very excited about how high they are. Students like “Owen,” a junior at Columbia, who during the interview was just coming down off his study drug high. The first time he took Adderall was at a party, where he mixed it with cocaine and ecstasy and probably had the worst night/next three days of his life.

The drugs are easy to find. Just ask your dorm’s resident weed dealer and he can probably set you up with some pills, and maybe even some cocaine for the post-exam blowout. Or, if you’re Owen, just hang around the library long enough and “James” will show up, bottle in hand, for “study drug time.” Normally James will use his Adderall prescription “sparingly” — for parties, exams, or to impress the ladies — but he’s taking this school shit seriously and has thrown his stash of amphetamines into the mix to kick some ass during finals: “[…] this week, I’m not gonna worry. Next week, school will be over, and then I’m just going to chill.”

Read entire article:  http://gawker.com/5534967/columbia-university-the-best-place-to-score-drugs-in-new-york

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Pregnant women should stop medications which cause birth defects: “Psychiatric drugs can & should be avoided”

Monday, November 30th, 2009

The Daily Inquirer
November 29, 2009

Canadian researchers are saying that women who are planning to become pregnant should take an inventory of the medications they take.

The researchers have found that many pregnant women still take medications which can cause birth defects.

Dr. Anick Berard, at the University of Montreal in Quebec, said drugs that control epilepsy are essential during pregnancy, albeit known to have fetal risk.

However, medications such as those which treat severe acne, anxiety and psychiatric drugs, antibiotics, and many drugs prescribed for heart disease and medical conditions “can and should be avoided,” according to Berard.

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Was Fort Hood Psychiatrist/Shooter on drugs that cause homicidal/suicidal reactions? 16% of psychiatrists “self medicate”

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Richard Balon
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Vol. 76, No. 5, 2007

Abstract

Background: Self-treatment and treatments of friends or relatives is a controversial issue, tolerated by some and discouraged by others, including professionals. The author studied the attitudes toward self-treatment of depression among psychiatrists in Michigan. Method: A questionnaire asking whether the psychiatrist would or did self-treat for depression was mailed to 830 members of the Michigan Psychiatric Society. Results: The response rate was 68.3% (567 psychiatrists). Almost 43% of responders would consider self-medication or would self-medicate if afflicted with mild/moderate depression. Seven percent would self-medicate or consider self-medication for severe depression or if suicidal ideation became a component of one’s depression. In the past, 15.7% responders treated themselves for depression. Conclusion: These results suggest that a considerable number of psychiatrists would treat themselves for depression, possibly because of fear of stigma or fear of a permanent record, or other reasons.

Click here for article

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark

Before psychiatrists start vying for more $ to drug troops ask: Was Fort Hood, Texas shooter part of our medicated army?

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Mark Thompson
TIME
June 5, 2008

Seven months after Sergeant Christopher LeJeune started scouting Baghdad’s dangerous roads — acting as bait to lure insurgents into the open so his Army unit could kill them — he found himself growing increasingly despondent. “We’d been doing some heavy missions, and things were starting to bother me,” LeJeune says. His unit had been protecting Iraqi police stations targeted by rocket-propelled grenades, hunting down mortars hidden in dark Baghdad basements and cleaning up its own messes. He recalls the order his unit got after a nighttime firefight to roll back out and collect the enemy dead. When LeJeune and his buddies arrived, they discovered that some of the bodies were still alive. “You don’t always know who the bad guys are,” he says. “When you search someone’s house, you have it built up in your mind that these guys are terrorists, but when you go in, there’s little bitty tiny shoes and toys on the floor — things like that started affecting me a lot more than I thought they would.”

So LeJeune visited a military doctor in Iraq, who, after a quick session, diagnosed depression. The doctor sent him back to war armed with the antidepressant Zoloft and the antianxiety drug clonazepam. “It’s not easy for soldiers to admit the problems that they’re having over there for a variety of reasons,” LeJeune says. “If they do admit it, then the only solution given is pills.”

« Return to news items


  • Share/Bookmark