For the first time in criminal history, a murder was attributed to an anti-depressant drug. (Photo Credit -The Daily Telegraph)

Perth Now – December 21, 2011

FIRST it was ADHD drugs, then organ donation, now WA Labor MP Martin Whitely is hoping to get some action on the fatal risks of antidepressant drugs, such as Prozac, to children.

Anti-depressant manufacturers warn that products such as Prozac should not be given to children, because of the potentially tragic consequences, but they are prescribed every day to Australian kids.

Some anti-depressants, prescribed to help lift people out of a depressive state, actually have the opposite effect and make things worse.

This is what happened, with fatal results, in the case of a 16-year-old boy in Canada who stabbed a friend to death.

For the first time in criminal history, a murder was attributed to an anti-depressant drug.

In the finding, handed down on the 16th of September 2011, a Canadian Judge said a 16-year-old boy, who stabbed his brother’s friend in the stomach, would not have committed the offence had he not been treated with the drug Prozac (a brand of Fluoxetine).

The judge accepted the evidence of psychiatrist, Dr Peter Breggin, who told the court the boy’s symptoms were consistent with a Prozac-Induced Mood Disorder with Manic Features.

In delivering his decision the judge stated, “his basic normalcy now further confirms he no longer poses a risk of violence to anyone and that his mental deterioration and resulting violence would not have taken place without exposure to Prozac”.

The boy, who had no history of violence, had been taking Prozac for three months, during which his parents observed a marked deterioration in his behaviour and mood, which included acts of violence and self-harm where previously no such signs existed.

His alarmed parents returned to his doctor for advice, but instead of taking him off Prozac or reducing his dosage, his doctor increased the dose, obviously believing more of what appeared to be causing these dangerous behaviours, would solve the problem.

Fluoxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and is approved for use in Australia for the treatment of depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

However, it is routinely prescribed ‘off label’ for a range of other conditions including panic and eating disorders.

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing figures revealed that in the 2008 financial year, 110,848 Australians received Fluoxetine scripts that were subsidised via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Concerns about possible aggression and manic side effects of Prozac were first raised in Australia in the New South Wales parliament in 1995, just five years after the release of the drug in Australia.

Since 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration has labelled SSRI antidepressants including Prozac with the highest possible ‘black box’ warning stating:

“All patients being treated with antidepressants for any indication should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, and unusual changes in behavior, especially during the initial few months of a course of drug therapy, or at times of dose changes, either increases or decreases. The following symptoms, anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania, have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and non-psychiatric.”

The US Black Box warning was followed by similar warnings in Australia. The evidence that led to these warnings came from, ‘pooled analyses of short-term placebo-controlled trials of anti-depressant drugs (SSRIs and others)’ which ‘showed that these drugs increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents [by 100%], and young adults ages 18-24 (by 50 per cent) with major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.’ The fact that SSRI antidepressants like Prozac are supposed to manage severe depression in young people but increase the risk of suicidality poses obvious questions.

Over a 10 year period, up until 30 June 2011, more than 40 adverse events of self-harm and violence, including suicides, homicides and suicidal or homicidal ideation, for Fluoxetine were reported to the Australian Therapeutic Drugs Administration (examples are listed below).

Hundreds of reports were recorded by the TGA for other antidepressants however, it is impossible to know the true number of actual events, as the voluntary nature of the reporting system means only a fraction of actual incidents gets reported.

Despite the fact that the manufacturers advise that Prozac and other SSRI antidepressants are ‘not recommended for use in children and adolescents under 18 years of age’ they are frequently prescribed ‘off label’ to even very young children.

Data provided by the Commonwealth Department of Health revealed that in the 2007-8 financial year 3,752 Australian children 15-years-old or younger (863 were 10 or younger, 117 were six or younger) were prescribed Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme-funded Fluoxetine.

Furthermore all the expense and risks of adverse side effects may be for little or no benefit. The efficacy of antidepressants are being questioned – with some high profile, mainstream critics, arguing that placebos are just as effective and much safer in treating moderate depression.

One such critic, Marcia Angell, MD, Senior Lecturer on Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, contends; ‘that clinical trials have failed to find antidepressants effective at all in mild to moderate depression; that many psychiatric drugs have devastating adverse effects, especially in children and when used long-term; and that despite the risks and uncertain benefits, use of psychiatric drugs is soaring and the heavy reliance on drugs diverts resources better spent on improving treatment’.

In summary, taxpayers are subsidising the ‘off label’ use by children and adolescents of antidepressants, with questionable efficacy, that double their risk of suicidality. This invites some obvious questions: Is this the best way to spend our taxes? And more importantly, is this the best way to help troubled young people?

* A sample from the Adverse Drug Reactions Committee (ADRAC) adverse event reports for Fluoxetine Hydrochloride:

• A 54 year old woman attempted suicide. She was also suffering from mania and a confusional state.

• A 36 year old woman “attempted suicide”.

• A 36 year old woman was admitted to intensive care in a coma following a suicide attempt.

• A 51 year old woman “had sudden urge to murder someone”.

• A 37 year old woman was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suffering from “suicidal ideation, nausea, trembling, feelings of despair, anxiety, paranoia and fear”.

• A 16 year old boy suffering from agitation and auditory hallucinations heard voices “telling him to kill his mother, father, sister and himself”.

• A 45 year old man “became obsessively suicidal and cut his throat” 3/7 days after Prozac was stopped.

• A 17 year old girl “became manic half an hour after commencing antidepressant.”

• A 40 year old patient “experienced trembling, cramps, heard voices and had suicidal ideation.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age experienced “homicidal and suicidal ideation.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age attempted suicide after experiencing suicidal ideation.

• A 44 year old patient “experienced akathisia, suicidal ideation and suicide attempt.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age experienced “suicidal violence” and “aggression.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age experienced “suicidal ideation.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age experienced “suicidal ideation and “suicide attempt.”

• A 50 year old patient experienced “suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and akathisia.”

• A 37 year old patient attempted suicide.

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age experienced “suicidal ideation and suicide attempt.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age made a suicide attempt and was violent.

• A 16 year old girl “attempted to hang herself with television cord from curtain rail in hospital bedroom. Nurse said she found her at the last moment.”

• A 16year old girl “ingested 40 Panadol tablets. Also frequent self-harming.”

• A 16 year old girl “attempted suicide by ingestion of 80 Panadol, 20 Panadeine, 7 Olanzapine.”

• A 29 year old patient “developed acute suicidal akathisia” and made a suicide attempt.

• A 73 year old patient “experienced homicidal ideation and made a suicide attempt.”

• A 60 year old woman “experienced suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and homicidal ideation – she attempted to kill her parents.”

• A 69 year old patient “experienced suicidal ideation and was very anxious.”

• A 16 year old girl attempted to “strangle herself with and IPod cord in the bathroom of the hospital. Agitation. She ran around crying and banging her fists of the walls and windows begging to be let out. … it lasted about 10 minutes before I could settle her.”

• A patient of unrecorded gender and age “took a fistful of sleeping pills.”

• A 35 year old patient “murdered his wife whilst on Prozac. He had also experienced suicidal thoughts.”

• A female patient of unrecorded age “became seriously depressed, complained of headaches, and clenching jaw, was unable to sleep and started to self-harm. She began to have suicidal thoughts, was hyperventilating, agoraphobic, had five suicide attempts, was confused, tearful, phobic, aggressive, experienced akathisia and suspected serotonin syndrome. She experienced weird dreams, was impulsive, light headed, had numbness and tingling limbs and committed suicide by hanging on 11 September 2000 on the second attempt.”

• A 50 year old woman “became more depressed whilst taking Prozac. She wanted to throw herself off a train or bus, had difficulty sleeping, was pacing and restless, had voice hallucinations, would look in the mirror and see a different person, had murderous thoughts, stiff legs, was hot a lot, felt she was in a delirium, could not concentrate, was angry, had numbness in her hands and pins and needles a lot in her body.”

• A 19 year old male “had thoughts about killing himself which made him violent, tried to hit someone else, tried to hit a security guard with feelings of killing and tried to do physical damage. Tried to hurt himself and had thoughts of hurting other people. He was walking faster than normal. Experienced aggression, insomnia and was feeling high on Prozac. Also felt anxious and put on more than 20kg.”

• A male of unreported age “experienced severe depression, cognitive impairment and was acutely suicidal.”

• A 16 year old girl was “cutting herself, throwing herself against the walls while an inpatient”. She “intentionally overdosed on Fluroxetine” and “developed severe levels of aggression and violence.”

• A 14 year old boy experienced “suicidal ideation.”

• A female of unreported age “experienced suicidal ideation”.

• A 16 year old girl experienced “excessive bleeding, psychosis, high blood pressure, severe diarrhea, sweating, tremors, violent, aggressive and suicidal behavior, serotonin syndrome.”

• A 14 year old male experienced “severely increased suicidal ideation in two days with high level of intent and plan to jump in front of train. Previously no suicidal ideation and settled spontaneously within four days of ceasing Fluoxetine”.

• A female patient experienced a “sudden and marked increase in hostility and verbal abuse of others and describes intrusive suicidal ideation. Seems agitated and restless”.

• A 32 year old woman experienced “audio hallucinations, bright and blurred vision, made everything sound louder, constipation, increased suicidal thoughts and increased anxiety”

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/prozac-is-now-a-defence-for-murder/story-e6frg13u-1226227796937

Note from CCHR International:  CCHR is the only organization to have decrypted the US FDAs Medwatch reports on adverse reactions to psychiatric drugs and compiled them in an easy to search database.    This database is provided here http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/medwatch_psych_drug_adverse_reactions.php

CCHR has also compiled all international drug warnings and studies on psychiatric drugs here http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Can Prozac Cause Kids to Kill? A Canadian Judge Has Ruled it Can (2)
• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• The Huffington Post: “Pilots Taking Antidepressants? The FAA Is Risking Our Lives” (1)
• Judge Agrees Prozac Turned Teen into Murderer (0)
• Ron Paul Reintroduces The Parental Consent Act 2011- Prohibits Federal Funding For Psychiatric ‘Screening’ of Kids (1)

San Francisco Chronicle – 11/26/2011
by Erin Allday

"Another diagnosis, dysphoric mood dysregulation disorder, is basically temper tantrums," Robbins said. "Next thing you know, you could have 2-year-olds on psychotropic medications."

The “bible” of American psychiatry – a manual of mental health used around the world by doctors, consumers and insurance providers – has come under fire from a growing group of psychologists who worry that proposed revisions will feed into a culture of overdiagnosing, and overtreating, otherwise healthy people.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM, is undergoing its fifth major revision in the more than 60 years since it was first published by the American Psychiatric Association. The last update was in 1994, and the new manual is expected to be released in spring 2013.

Revisions to the DSM are often hotly debated, but after two decades of major, and frequently controversial, shifts in how mental health problems are diagnosed and treated in the United States, this latest update has become especially contentious, many mental health providers say.

Last month a group of psychologists with the Society for Humanistic Psychology posted a petition against many of the suggested DSM revisions, citing what they see as a broadening of the definition of mental health disorders, which, in turn, would lead to overtreatment with drugs.

7,000 signatures

The petition now has more than 7,000 signatures, and last week it won the support of San Francisco’s Saybrook University, with roughly 60 faculty members who emphasize a holistic approach to treating mental illnesses.

“There’s this propensity to push pills instead of looking at what’s really going on with the person,” said Saybrook President Mark Schulman. “When we saw in the DSM-5 that there was going to be a push in the direction of a more medical, less holistic way of doing things, we felt we should take a stand.”

A work in progress

The American Psychiatric Association has posted an online response to the petition, welcoming critiques to and comments on the proposed revisions. Their response notes that the manual is still a work in progress and, as more scientific evidence becomes available, some of the changes may become more palatable to critics.

Since the last diagnostic manual update, research has increasingly pointed to biological causes for a wide variety of mental health conditions and, in response, treatment has turned toward pharmacological answers, some psychologists say. Drugs are being used to solve mental health problems that aren’t problems at all, they add.

In 2010, 1 in 5 American adults was using some type of mental health medication, a 22 percent increase over the past decade, according to a report released last week by Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy-benefits management company.

Therapy is still popular, but part of the problem is that there simply aren’t enough trained counselors to fill the mental health need. Patients are turning to primary care doctors for medical relief from symptoms for everything from depression and anxiety to attention deficit disorder, many mental health providers say.

Because many primary care doctors rely on the DSM to help them understand and diagnose mental health problems, it’s critical that the manual be as accurate and science-based as possible, say psychologists who have signed the petition.

While trained psychiatrists might be able to distinguish between a mental health disorder that needs medical intervention and a so-called normal human response to a difficult time or situation, primary care doctors may struggle.

Critics’ concerns

Critics of the DSM update say that the task force assigned to make the revisions has suggested broadening the definitions of too many mental health problems, opening the door to even more diagnoses and treatments.

Grief after the death of a loved one, for example, may be included under the diagnosis of major depressive disorder. That means a person’s grief could be labeled a pathological disorder, and not a normal human experience, said psychologist Brent Robbins, a professor at Point Park University in Pittsburgh and an author of the petition.

2-year-olds on meds

“Another diagnosis, dysphoric mood dysregulation disorder, is basically temper tantrums,” Robbins said. “Next thing you know, you could have 2-year-olds on psychotropic medications.”

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• DSM: The Book of Woe—Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness (1)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)
• How PTSD took over America (0)
• Mental illness redefined (0)

The New York Times, November 20, 2011

by Benedict Carey

Click image to see video on psychiatric drug warnings for kids

Foster children are being prescribed cocktails of powerful antipsychosis drugs just as frequently as some of the most mentally disabled youngsters on Medicaid, a new study suggests.

The report, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is the first to investigate how often youngsters in foster care are given two antipsychotic drugs at once, the authors said. The drugs include Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa — among other so-called major tranquilizers — which were developed for schizophrenia but are now used as all-purpose drugs for almost any psychiatric symptoms.

“The kids in foster care may come from bad homes, but they do not have the sort of complex medical issues that those in the disabled population do,” said Susan dosReis, an associate professor in the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the lead author.

The implication, Dr. dosReis and other experts said: Doctors are treating foster children’s behavioral problems with the same powerful drugs given to people with schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder. “We simply don’t have evidence to support this kind of use, especially in young children,” Dr. dosReis said.

In recent years, doctors and policy makers have grown concerned about high rates of overall psychiatric drug use in the foster care system, the government-financed program that provides temporary living arrangements for 400,000 to 500,000 children and adolescents. Previous studies have found that children in foster care receive psychiatric medications at about twice the rate among children outside the system.

The new study focused on one of the most powerful classes of drugs, antipsychotics. It found that about 2 percent of foster children took at least one such drug, even though schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, for which the drugs are approved, are extremely rare in young children.

“It’s a significant and important finding, and it should prompt states to improve the quality of care in this area,” said Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University who did not contribute to the research.

In the study, mental health researchers analyzed 2003 Medicaid records of 637,924 minors from an unidentified mid-Atlantic state who were either in foster care, getting disability benefits for a diagnosis like severe autism or bipolar disorder, or in a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. All of these programs draw on Medicaid financing. The investigators found that 16,969, or about 3 percent of the total, had received at least one prescription for an antipsychotic drug.

Yet among these, it was the foster children who most often got more than one such prescription at the same time: 9.2 percent, versus 6.8 percent among the children on disability, and just 2.5 percent of those in the needy families program.

Antipsychotic drugs, the authors said, also cause rapid weight gain and increase the risk for metabolic problems in many people, an effect that may be amplified by the use of two at once.

Doctors who treat such children are aware of the trade-offs and often prescribe lower doses of the medications as a result. And when they add a second such drug, it is often to counteract side effects of the first medication.

read the rest of the article here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/health/research/study-finds-foster-children-often-given-antipsychosis-drugs.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1321895404-XjlZbL3lXs10CI4v4o6z6w

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Mass psychosis in the US—How Big Pharma got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs (1)
• Drugging the Vulnerable: Atypical Antipsychotics in Children and the Elderly (0)
• Making a Market in Antipsychotic Drugs: An Ironic Tragedy (0)
• Antidepressant Nation (0)
• The New Child Abuse: The Psychiatric Diagnosing and Drugging of Our Children (0)

InjuryBoard Blog Network – September 29, 2011

AstraZeneca paid one Chicago doctor, Dr. Michael Reinstein nearly half-a-million dollars to promote Seroquel. In return, Dr. Reinstein provided AstraZeneca with a vast customer base.

The Chicago Tribune reportedthat drug companies paid more than $25 million to Illinois doctors to promote and use drugs from the pharmaceutical companies. Nearly 40 physicians got payments and perks exceeding $100,000 between 2009 and early 2011.

Eight drug companies paid more than $220 million to doctors and promotional speakers in 2010 to promote their drugs.

Starting in 2013, all drug and medical device companies must report such information to the federal government which will make these disclosures available to the public.

The most controversial payments involve consulting arrangements and promotional speeches. Drug company officials say they are funding talks that provide much-needed medical education, led by physicians who are experts in their fields. Critics say financial relationship between doctors and drug companies can threaten patient care by influencing physicians to prescribe certain medications whether or not they are the best choice.

Until 2009, drug company payments to doctors and other health professionals were closely held as trade secrets. However, some companies have begun reporting this information in advance of the 2013 requirements and pressure from lawmakers or as a condition of settling federal whistle-blower lawsuits.

ProPublica has created a database called Dollars for Docs identifying amounts paid to doctors for promotion of drugs and medical devices. Dollars for Docs has identified more than $760 million in disclosed marketing payments from only 12 companies between 2009 and the 2nd quarter of 2011.

“[The drug company payments] make it look like physicians are not impartial or are in the service of the drug companies, and can cause patients to wonder if physicians’ recommendations for treatment are being made because it was the best option based on their clinical expertise or because they have a relationship with the company,” [Hastings Center research scholar Josephine] Johnston said. “I don’t think many physicians have taken that risk (of patient distrust) as seriously as they should.”

In 2009, the Chicago Tribune reported on the millions of dollars paid by foreign drug maker AstraZeneca to doctors in order to promote its anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel. AstraZeneca paid one Chicago doctor, Dr. Michael Reinstein nearly half-a-million dollars to promote Seroquel. In return, Dr. Reinstein provided AstraZeneca with a vast customer base.

Dr. Reinstein was traveling the country telling doctors that Seroquel would help patients lose weight while the FDA was warning about Seroquel’s link to weight gain and diabetes. Even Seroquel executives called Dr. Reinstein’s conclusion that patients experienced no adverse side effects “suspect” and “hard to believe”. When faced with the choice of protecting patients or protecting profits, AstraZeneca and Dr. Reinstein chose profits over safety.

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics division also paid millions — more than $80 million — to surgeons to promote its artificial hip systems. The US Department of Justice brought charges against four medical device companies – including DePuy – in 2007, claiming the companies were using kickbacks to doctors in promoting their products. However, DePuy kept paying doctors:

• $48 million to doctors in 2009
• $33 million from January to September 2010

Some surgeons received more than $1 million in single year.

These payments create a direct conflict of interest between doctor and patient. Drug company sponsored research potentially taints results and doctors create the impression – and sometimes the actual effect – of choosing profits and drug company kickbacks over patient safety.

Read More:

• Drug companies pay $25 million to Illinois doctors [Deborah L. Shelton at Chicago Tribune]
• Doctor-drugmaker ties: Psychiatrist Dr. Michael Reinstein received nearly $500,000 from antipsychotic drug’s manufacturer [Christina Jewett and Same Roe at Chicago Tribune]
• Dollars for Doctors [ProPublica]

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Creating juvenile zombies, Florida-style (0)
• How Seroquel, a Risky Antipsychotic, Became a “General Purpose” Mental Health Drug (1)
• Once Again Psychiatrists Top the List of Top Prescribers—And Are Heavily Funded by Pharma (0)
• Antipsychotic Drug Seroquel— Diabetes Lawsuits Hurt AstraZeneca Profits (0)
• Antipschotic Drugs—Side Effects May Include Lawsuits (0)

September 20, 2011

New Study published in American Journal of Family Therapy confirms millions of normal kids misdiagnosed with ADHD & drugged.

by CCHR Int—A new study published today in the American Journal of Family Therapy has found that millions of children have been misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and wrongly prescribed amphetamine-like drugs categorized by  the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the same class of highly addictive drugs as cocaine, opium and morphine.

The study conducted by researchers at the New England Center for Pediatric Psychology and the Rhode Island College Department of Special Education found that of the “over 5 million children who are now being treated with ADHD medication, a majority may be suffering from Faux-ADHD, a disorder linked to irregular bedtimes” and that a majority of the children diagnosed ADHD may be unnecessarily medicated.    Now while we at CCHR applaud any study on the issue of “ADHD” which is not  ghost written by Big Pharma or those with a vested interest in drugging kids, we would like to pose two simple questions regarding this latest study:

1)  If there is such as thing as  “Faux-ADHD” what exactly is “real” ADHD?    There are no blood tests, brain scans, x-rays or genetic abnormalities that can prove any child has a “real” condition of ADHD.   Therefore any diagnoses of ADHD is “Faux.”   The criteria for an ADHD diagnoses  rests entirely on a checklist of behaviors,  including such “abnormal” child behavior as:

• “runs about or climbs excessively in situations when it is not appropriate”
• ” is often “on the go”
• “acts as if driven by a motor”
•  ”blurts out answers”
•  ”is easily distracted”
• ” loses pencils or toys”
• “often doesn’t seem to listen”

2)  Given the diagnoses itself is not a medical condition, what child being prescribed drugs isn’t being “unnecessarily medicated?”   ADHD drugs are classified by the DEA as schedule ll drugs because they are as highly addictive as cocaine, morphine and opium.  ADHD drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta and Adderall are documented by the FDA and international drug regulatory agencies to cause hallucinations, mania, psychosis, drug dependence,  stunted growth, insomnia,  heart attack, suicidal ideation and sudden death.  Normal children are simply being drugged.  Not medicated.  Drugged.

The fact is that any child diagnosed with ADHD has been misdiagnosed.  Any child placed on cocaine–like ADHD drugs is being unnecessarily drugged.  The diagnoses of ADHD in any circumstances is a Faux-diagnoses, serving only the psychiatric pharmaceutical industries and fueling their $4.8 billion a year ADHD drug empire.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• ADHD’s Rapid Rise: 5 Theories [And One Answer] (3)
• ADHD drugs linked to heart disease and death (1)
• The United States of Adderall (0)
• Psychiatric disease labeling of children exposed as scam by non-profit group (0)
• Study Claims “ADHD Boys” Get in More Car Accidents—Fails to Mention ADHD Drug Side Effects & Recommends…More Drugging (0)

Note from CCHR: Both Gwen Olsen, and Mike Adams, founder of NaturalNews.com are CCHR Human Rights Awards recipients.

Natural News – July 12, 2011

Gwen Olsen, an ex-pharmaceutical sales representative, is using her personal experience and insider knowledge to turn the tables on Big Pharma and tell people the disturbing and disheartening truth about the highly corrupt industry: it’s only after the money, not the health of its patients. Gwen, a 2007 Human Rights Award recipient, is a dedicated mental health activist, public speaker, and writer committed to child and mental health advocacy; her specialties include promoting the cessation of America’s over medication of its children and teens. It’s hard to imagine that this same woman was once a successful pharmaceutical sales rep for more than 15 years, working for many of the industry’s big name manufacturers. “We (were) being trained to misinform people,” said Gwen.

Now on a personal, passionate quest to wake up as many people as possible to the deception of the pharmaceutical industry, Gwen’s research emphasizes her concerns about the increasingly prevalent use of prescription drugs and the deadly effects that these drugs can have. “There is no such thing as a safe drug,” said Gwen in a video interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4bY…).

Gwen’s astounding admissions in another video interview on Natural News (http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=29359…) dispels the myth that Big Pharma is in the business of healing or helping cure disease — instead, the industry is out to regulate illness,  manage symptoms, and keep people trapped in a lethal cycle of chemical dependency, says Gwen.

In the video, Gwen explains that drugs — psychiatric drugs in particular — are meant to encourage people to remain customers of the pharmaceutical industry. After all, if Big Pharma intended to help cure disease, they would be putting themselves out of business.

“I don’t want people thinking that I am a conspiracy theorist, because in fact, there is no theory behind what I’m telling you, it’s all provable… what I’m saying is provable is, the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want to cure people,” said Gwen in the video.

The confessions of a Pharma veteran

The Rx Reformer recently released a book, Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher(http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-D…), which provides considerable insider knowledge of the serious dangers that lie within the game of the pharmaceutical industry and the disinformation that has jeopardized lives. Her book presents many admissions, some deeply personal, of what she discovered and observed throughout her career with Big Pharma, during which she was encouraged to minimize the side effects of the drugs she was selling when speaking to doctors.

Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher is a strikingly candid and much-needed wake-up call about the flawed U.S. health care system, which is — with good reason — currently ranked last among 19 industrialized nations worldwide. You can read more about the book on Gwen’s site: http://www.gwenolsen.com

As Gwen’s book reveals to readers, more than 180,000 people die annually from the effects of legal drugs. “By the time a  drug is approved and it hits the general population, we don’t even know 50% of the side effects involved,” said Gwen. In the same interview, Gwen explains that there is no medical evidence required for psychiatrists who wish to prescribe their patients drugs. This broadens the potential patient population considerably, allowing Big Pharma a lucrative advantage over an increasingly diseased and medicated public.

How the Rx Reformer came into existence

Gwen’s self-proclaimed calling as the “Rx Reformer” evolved not only from extensive personal experiences obtained during the years she spent working for major drug companies, but a shocking event that occurred within her own family.

The health of Gwen’s niece, Megan Blanchard, a bright pre-med student, quickly deteriorated through the onset of drug-induced addiction, withdrawal, mental illness, and depression. This painful suffering resulted in Meg’s unfortunate and tragic suicide, and Gwen quickly realized that her niece was not the first to painfully suffer from the consequences of doctor prescribed pharmaceuticals, nor would she be the last. In her book, Gwen writes: “Compassion is what Meg really needed, not more drugs.”

“There are thousands and thousands of people like that out there — and they need a voice,” said Gwen. “I serve as that voice.”

Gwen’s disillusionment with the industry — her anger at the immense deceit and misinformation she witnessed taking place within the profitable alliance between medical doctors and Big Pharma — led her to get out of pharmaceutical sales and pursue a new vocation: spreading truth.

“I had been used in the game, I literally was the one at the front lines, harming people — unintentionally — but I was responsible, and I carry a burden for that now,” said Gwen.

Gwen has now made it her moral obligation, or what she has labeled her “spiritual calling,” to educate others on what she learned the hard way about the abundance of harmful drugs being given to a credulous population.

Watch a recorded interview with Gwen here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=29359…

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Doctors Paid Millions To Promote Drugs and Medical Devices (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• American Psychiatric Association Slammed by Disease Mongering Parody Featuring Instant Disease Generation Engine (0)
• Talk Doesn’t Pay, So Psychiatry Turns Instead to Drug Therapy (0)
• A DANGEROUS COMBINATION: Corrupt Psychiatrists Partnering With Wealthy Pharmaceutical Giants (3)

“Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Salem News

by Marianne Skolek

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.) – Fox News reports that U.S. military troops are taking more prescription medication than ever. US troops Heavily Medicated on Prescription Drugs, the report warns.

The bottom line is that the men and women of the US armed forces are taking more addictive medication than they ever have in the past.

The Daily reported Wednesday, that the US Department of Defense doesn’t keep track of those medical prescriptions doled out to service members in combat. This, despite ongoing pleas from federal officials to record the data. The military’s 2012 budget report from the House Appropriations Committee, cited how the prescription of pain management drugs is not handled consistently, particularly in battle. According to The Daily, the report includes an ultimatum. The committee expects concrete information within two months of the budget’s approval, detailing “the required steps and potential obstacles toward electronic transmission of prescription drug data.”

In 2010 a US Army study revealed how 14 percent of soldiers have been prescribed an opiate painkiller. 95 percent of those prescriptions were for oxycodone, a notoriously-addictive pharmaceutical best known by the brand name OxyContin. And since 2001, military spending on prescription medication has skyrocketed. Orders for antipsychotics like Seroquel are up 200 percent, and demand for anti-anxiety drugs like Valium has increased by 170 percent, according to Defense Logistics Agency records. Many of the antidepressants, antipsychotic drugs and anti-anxiety drugs prescribed are highly addictive. Potential side effects include dulled reaction times, irritability and a heightened risk of suicide. “The medications they use shouldn’t be so heavily prescribed in combat,” said Dr. Judith Broder, a psychiatrist and founder of the Soldiers Project, a nonprofit counseling service.

“But they can’t afford to send anyone home. They need the bodies — health and welfare are secondary,” she said.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232011/drugged-soldiers-ms.php

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Overmedication contributes to military suicides, advocates say (0)
• US Troops Heavily Medicated on Prescription Drugs, Report Warns (0)
• Are Soldiers Suicides Caused by Prescription Drugs?—At Fort Brag 4,994 troops on antidepressants/664 on antipsychotics (0)
• Psych Meds Spike Among Younger Troops—The rise & potential dangers of psychiatric drug use a growing concern (0)
• Psychiatric drug use skyrockets in U.S. military (1)

New York Review of Books  – From the July 14, 2011 issue

by Marcia Angell

United Artists/Photofest Lan Fendors, Louise Fletcher, and Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1975

In my article in the last issue, I focused mainly on the recent books by psychologist Irving Kirsch and journalist Robert Whitaker, and what they tell us about the epidemic of mental illness and the drugs used to treat it.¹ Here I discuss the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)—often referred to as the bible of psychiatry, and now heading for its fifth edition—and its extraordinary influence within American society. I also examine Unhinged, the recent book by Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist, who provides a disillusioned insider’s view of the psychiatric profession. And I discuss the widespread use of psychoactive drugs in children, and the baleful influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the practice of psychiatry.

One of the leaders of modern psychiatry, Leon Eisenberg, a professor at Johns Hopkins and then Harvard Medical School, who was among the first to study the effects of stimulants on attention deficit disorder in children, wrote that American psychiatry in the late twentieth century moved from a state of “brainlessness” to one of “mindlessness.”² By that he meant that before psychoactive drugs (drugs that affect the mental state) were introduced, the profession had little interest in neurotransmitters or any other aspect of the physical brain. Instead, it subscribed to the Freudian view that mental illness had its roots in unconscious conflicts, usually originating in childhood, that affected the mind as though it were separate from the brain.

But with the introduction of psychoactive drugs in the 1950s, and sharply accelerating in the 1980s, the focus shifted to the brain. Psychiatrists began to refer to themselves as psychopharmacologists, and they had less and less interest in exploring the life stories of their patients. Their main concern was to eliminate or reduce symptoms by treating sufferers with drugs that would alter brain function. An early advocate of this biological model of mental illness, Eisenberg in his later years became an outspoken critic of what he saw as the indiscriminate use of psychoactive drugs, driven largely by the machinations of the pharmaceutical industry.

When psychoactive drugs were first introduced, there was a brief period of optimism in the psychiatric profession, but by the 1970s, optimism gave way to a sense of threat. Serious side effects of the drugs were becoming apparent, and an antipsychiatry movement had taken root, as exemplified by the writings of Thomas Szasz and the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. There was also growing competition for patients from psychologists and social workers. In addition, psychiatrists were plagued by internal divisions: some embraced the new biological model, some still clung to the Freudian model, and a few saw mental illness as an essentially sane response to an insane world. Moreover, within the larger medical profession, psychiatrists were regarded as something like poor relations; even with their new drugs, they were seen as less scientific than other specialists, and their income was generally lower.

In the late 1970s, the psychiatric profession struck back—hard. As Robert Whitaker tells it in Anatomy of an Epidemic, the medical director of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), Melvin Sabshin, declared in 1977 that “a vigorous effort to remedicalize psychiatry should be strongly supported,” and he launched an all-out media and public relations campaign to do exactly that. Psychiatry had a powerful weapon that its competitors lacked. Since psychiatrists must qualify as MDs, they have the legal authority to write prescriptions. By fully embracing the biological model of mental illness and the use of psychoactive drugs to treat it, psychiatry was able to relegate other mental health care providers to ancillary positions and also to identify itself as a scientific discipline along with the rest of the medical profession. Most important, by emphasizing drug treatment, psychiatry became the darling of the pharmaceutical industry, which soon made its gratitude tangible.

These efforts to enhance the status of psychiatry were undertaken deliberately. The APA was then working on the third edition of the DSM, which provides diagnostic criteria for all mental disorders. The president of the APA had appointed Robert Spitzer, a much-admired professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, to head the task force overseeing the project. The first two editions, published in 1952 and 1968, reflected the Freudian view of mental illness and were little known outside the profession. Spitzer set out to make the DSM-III something quite different. He promised that it would be “a defense of the medical model as applied to psychiatric problems,” and the president of the APA in 1977, Jack Weinberg, said it would “clarify to anyone who may be in doubt that we regard psychiatry as a specialty of medicine.”

When Spitzer’s DSM-III was published in 1980, it contained 265 diagnoses (up from 182 in the previous edition), and it came into nearly universal use, not only by psychiatrists, but by insurance companies, hospitals, courts, prisons, schools, researchers, government agencies, and the rest of the medical profession. Its main goal was to bring consistency (usually referred to as “reliability”) to psychiatric diagnosis, that is, to ensure that psychiatrists who saw the same patient would agree on the diagnosis. To do that, each diagnosis was defined by a list of symptoms, with numerical thresholds. For example, having at least five of nine particular symptoms got you a full-fledged diagnosis of a major depressive episode within the broad category of “mood disorders.” But there was another goal—to justify the use of psychoactive drugs. The president of the APA last year, Carol Bernstein, in effect acknowledged that. “It became necessary in the 1970s,” she wrote, “to facilitate diagnostic agreement among clinicians, scientists, and regulatory authorities given the need to match patients with newly emerging pharmacologic treatments.”³

The DSM-III was almost certainly more “reliable” than the earlier versions, but reliability is not the same thing as validity. Reliability, as I have noted, is used to mean consistency; validity refers to correctness or soundness. If nearly all physicians agreed that freckles were a sign of cancer, the diagnosis would be “reliable,” but not valid. The problem with the DSM is that in all of its editions, it has simply reflected the opinions of its writers, and in the case of the DSM-III mainly of Spitzer himself, who has been justly called one of the most influential psychiatrists of the twentieth century.⁴ In his words, he “picked everybody that [he] was comfortable with” to serve with him on the fifteen-member task force, and there were complaints that he called too few meetings and generally ran the process in a haphazard but high-handed manner. Spitzer said in a 1989 interview, “I could just get my way by sweet talking and whatnot.” In a 1984 article entitled “The Disadvantages of DSM-III Outweigh Its Advantages,” George Vaillant, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, wrote that the DSM-III represented “a bold series of choices based on guess, taste, prejudice, and hope,” which seems to be a fair description.

Not only did the DSM become the bible of psychiatry, but like the real Bible, it depended a lot on something akin to revelation. There are no citations of scientific studies to support its decisions. That is an astonishing omission, because in all medical publications, whether journal articles or textbooks, statements of fact are supposed to be supported by citations of published scientific studies. (There are four separate “sourcebooks” for the current edition of the DSM that present the rationale for some decisions, along with references, but that is not the same thing as specific references.) It may be of much interest for a group of experts to get together and offer their opinions, but unless these opinions can be buttressed by evidence, they do not warrant the extraordinary deference shown to the DSM. The DSM-III was supplanted by the DSM-III-R in 1987, the DSM-IV in 1994, and the current version, the DSM-IV-TR (text revised) in 2000, which contains 365 diagnoses. “With each subsequent edition,” writes Daniel Carlat in his absorbing book, “the number of diagnostic categories multiplied, and the books became larger and more expensive. Each became a best seller for the APA, and DSM is now one of the major sources of income for the organization.” The DSM-IV sold over a million copies.

As psychiatry became a drug-intensive specialty, the pharmaceutical industry was quick to see the advantages of forming an alliance with the psychiatric profession. Drug companies began to lavish attention and largesse on psychiatrists, both individually and collectively, directly and indirectly. They showered gifts and free samples on practicing psychiatrists, hired them as consultants and speakers, bought them meals, helped pay for them to attend conferences, and supplied them with “educational” materials. When Minnesota and Vermont implemented “sunshine laws” that require drug companies to report all payments to doctors, psychiatrists were found to receive more money than physicians in any other specialty. The pharmaceutical industry also subsidizes meetings of the APA and other psychiatric conferences. About a fifth of APA funding now comes from drug companies.

Drug companies are particularly eager to win over faculty psychiatrists at prestigious academic medical centers. Called “key opinion leaders” (KOLs) by the industry, these are the people who through their writing and teaching influence how mental illness will be diagnosed and treated. They also publish much of the clinical research on drugs and, most importantly, largely determine the content of the DSM. In a sense, they are the best sales force the industry could have, and are worth every cent spent on them. Of the 170 contributors to the current version of the DSM (the DSM-IV-TR), almost all of whom would be described as KOLs, ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.⁵

The drug industry, of course, supports other specialists and professional societies, too, but Carlat asks, “Why do psychiatrists consistently lead the pack of specialties when it comes to taking money from drug companies?” His answer: “Our diagnoses are subjective and expandable, and we have few rational reasons for choosing one treatment over another.” Unlike the conditions treated in most other branches of medicine, there are no objective signs or tests for mental illness—no lab data or MRI findings—and the boundaries between normal and abnormal are often unclear. That makes it possible to expand diagnostic boundaries or even create new diagnoses, in ways that would be impossible, say, in a field like cardiology. And drug companies have every interest in inducing psychiatrists to do just that.

In addition to the money spent on the psychiatric profession directly, drug companies heavily support many related patient advocacy groups and educational organizations. Whitaker writes that in the first quarter of 2009 alone,

Eli Lilly gave $551,000 to NAMI [National Alliance on Mental Illness] and its local chapters, $465,000 to the National Mental Health Association, $130,000 to CHADD (an ADHD [attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder] patient-advocacy group), and $69,250 to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

And that’s just one company in three months; one can imagine what the yearly total would be from all companies that make psychoactive drugs. These groups ostensibly exist to raise public awareness of psychiatric disorders, but they also have the effect of promoting the use of psychoactive drugs and influencing insurers to cover them. Whitaker summarizes the growth of industry influence after the publication of the DSM-III as follows:

In short, a powerful quartet of voices came together during the 1980’s eager to inform the public that mental disorders were brain diseases. Pharmaceutical companies provided the financial muscle. The APA and psychiatrists at top medical schools conferred intellectual legitimacy upon the enterprise. The NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] put the government’s stamp of approval on the story. NAMI provided a moral authority.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/illusions-of-psychiatry/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• “Psychiatry’s ‘bible’ could roll out a whole new list of disorders—and more prescriptions for psychoactive drugs” (0)
• Depression? Don’t believe it —Big Pharma has gained an ever greater hold over our mental & emotional lives (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• Psychiatric diagnostic manual editor reveals emperor has no clothes, “There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bull__.” (3)

Natural News – June 8, 2011

by Monica G. Young

While sipping drinks from coconut shells, psychiatrists from around the world recently met in Honolulu to discuss more ways to capitalize on human behavior and promote drug dependency. The occasion was the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), held in a Hawaiian convention center lined with mental disorder displays and pharmaceutical booths.

“Hot” topics (potential markets for social control and drug pushing) included:

1) Mental health issues during a woman’s reproductive cycle, such as “treating” pregnant women for bipolar – a disorder said to cause unusual shifts in mood and energy levels. In speaking to Medscape News, an APA committee co-chair, Dr. Don Hilty, called this “a really nice-growing area.”

Yet most every woman experiences mood and energy shifts during pregnancy. Despite this, it is not uncommon for pregnant women to be diagnosed as bipolar and prescribed antipsychotics, some of the most powerful drugs on the market. Even the FDA website alerts doctors to “be aware of the effects of antipsychotic medications on newborns when the medications are used during pregnancy.” The site warns of abnormal muscle movements and withdrawal symptoms, and the FDA’s adverse effects reporting program (Medwatch) includes cerebral hemorrhage, heart malformations and death as documented reactions in newborns. Similarly, studies show birth defects and other serious risks for infants whose mothers took antidepressants while pregnant.

2) Childhood disorders were a particularly popular issue at the convention. But they didn’t stop there – prenatal and newborn genetic screening for mental illness has taken on new emphasis in the psychiatric world. “It’s also trying to understand how genetics predict what medications can be used,” stated APA’s Dr. Hilty.

Having already labeled millions of kids “abnormal” and drenched their brains in toxic substances – a multi-billion dollar business – apparently they aren’t satisfied. They aim to brand children as mental patients and destine them for drug-dependency before they’re even born.

The conference even touched upon electroconvulsive shock therapy (ECT) for children – sending electric volts through their heads. That will teach ‘em to shut up and sit still! It will also cause permanent brain damage.

3) ADHD is usually promoted as a childhood disorder but a team of psychiatrists proposed a new definition to make it easier to diagnose (and drug) older teens and adults. They claim people who tend to miss work deadlines and interrupt others deserve this label.

This would surely lead to millions more on daily meds. Who doesn’t know co-workers who miss deadlines or even friends who interrupt you? Not emphasized however is that, per a study published in The Clinical Neuropsychologist, one in four adults seeking an ADHD diagnosis fake it to obtain stimulant drugs.

4) Capitalizing on America’s service men and women was another hot one: diagnosing and drugging the military for post-traumatic distress disorder, depression and anxiety.

Did they mention that 18 U.S. veterans commit suicide daily, largely due to psychiatric drugs? Not likely. As reported by Neev M. Arnell in NaturalNews, “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.naturalnews.com/032598_v…)

5) Anticipating the “silver tsunami” as the Baby Boomer generation moves into the over-65 bracket, psychiatrists stressed the need for more psychiatric services for the elderly.

Not stressed, if mentioned at all, is the rampant over-use of psychiatric drugs in nursing homes. Elderly patients’ reactions to physical ailments are often squelched with mind-altering drugs. And a recently released government audit shows nearly one in seven elderly nursing home residents are given antipsychotics – nearly all of them dementia patients for whom the drugs can be lethal. Many lawsuits and settlements have revealed that drug companies have falsely promoted these drugs to doctors and nursing homes for years.

6) While not on the “hot” list, another issue that bit was bedbugs. A New York psychiatrist and his colleagues presented a detailed study showing bedbugs can trigger anxiety.

What a remarkable – and potentially profitable – discovery! Gee, with the rise in bedbug infestation in New York City, maybe Bedbug Anxiety should be included in the next edition of the DSM (psychiatry’s diagnostic and billing bible).

Father of psychiatry – the bloodletter

The American Psychiatric Association calls itself “the voice and conscience of modern psychiatry.”

Adorning the convention hall was the APA logo which enshrines Dr. Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) as the father of psychiatry. A very influential doctor, teacher and statesman of his time, Rush propagated his theory that Blacks suffered from an inherited disease called “Negritude.” The only evidence of a cure, he said, was the skin turning white. He warned, “whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend to infect posterity with the ‘disorder.’” Whites, seeking not to be “infected,” used this fabled disease to justify segregation.

Rush was also a chief proponent of bloodletting as a cure-all for mental and physical illnesses. Widespread in America in those days, he made lots of money at it. One of Rush’s students applied his teachings to a patient who complained of a sore throat: nine pints of blood were removed from the man’s body in twenty-four hours and he died. That patient was George Washington, the first President of the United States.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle…

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle…

http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/…

http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/…

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/h…

http://www.jstor.org/pss/985399

http://www.websters-online-dictiona…

http://www.cchr.org/cchr-reports/cr…

About the author:
Monica G. Young is a human rights investigator and educational writer with a purpose to expose the truth about the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries and safeguard human liberty. She encourages non-drug alternative approaches based on healthy lifestyles and human decency. She supports the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and like-minded groups.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)
• The Total Failure of Modern Psychiatry (0)
• 7 Reasons America’s Mental Health Industry Is a Threat to Our Sanity (0)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)
• The problem with the DSM (0)

Seroxat Sufferers Please Stand Up
By Bob Fiddaman
June 2, 2011

Two great articles by Kat McCormick from May 2011. It seems McGorry has a growing army of critics, pity the Aussie government can’t see through his crystal ball gazing as many others can – it’s akin to taking a losing lottery ticket up to a paypoint and…well, being paid the jackpot prize.

McCormick’s first article poses many questions, the most pertinent of which are: Are our children really AT RISK or is Patrick McGorry selling us Voodoo Science & Snake Oil?

Her article is concise as well as thought-provoking.

McCormick’s second article, ‘Mental Health and the Budget’ focuses on McGorry’s research methods and she writes, “There are several disturbing elements in Patrick McGorry’s research and I’m not the only one to question his motives or methodologies.”

Nope, you sure ain’t sister!

Read article here:  http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-patrick-mcgorry-selling-us-voodoo.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Pharma Backed Australian of the Year Psychiatrist Wants Millions in Government Funding for Brave New World of “Pre-Drugging” Kids (18)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry Wants His Pre-Drugging Agenda to Go Global (7)
• Meet the Psychiatrist Pushing For A Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids—Patrick McGorry (4)
• Australian of the Year, psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s pre drugging agenda comes under fire from fellow psychiatrist (1)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s push for psychiatric “early intervention” called “a prescription for disaster” (3)