CCHR International » Paxil

Canadian judge rules antidepressants like Prozac can cause children to commit murder

admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:07:21 +0000

NaturalNews – Dec 19, 2011

By Jonathan Benson

11 recent school shooters were under the influence of psychiatric drugs

The use of antidepressant and psychiatric drugs, particularly among children, is an extremely risky activity that could have fatal consequences for both the individuals that use them, as well as their friends and family. According to the National Post, a Canadian judge recently ruled that the extreme mind-altering effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac were in large part responsible for causing a 15-year-old boy to thrust a nine-inch kitchen knife into one of his closest friends.

Though the Winnipeg boy that committed the heinous crime had allegedly abused prescription drugs and “experimented” with cocaine long prior to the incident, he had never had a violent or aggressive personality about him, according to reports. It was only when he began taking Prozac, the very thing doctors had given him as a so-called “solution” to his previous illicit drug problems, that he began to rapidly go off the deep end.

“He had become irritable, restless, agitated, aggressive and unclear in his thinking,” said Justice Robert Heinrichs of the Manitoba Justice Department, who ruled on the case. “It was while in that state he overreacted in an impulsive, explosive and violent way. Now that his body and mind are free and clear of any effects of Prozac, he is simply not the same youth in behavior or character.”

What the judge appears to be implying here is that Prozac is directly responsible for altering the brain of a user and causing them to think irrationally, which in turn can cause them to harm themselves or others. In other words, if it were not for the use of this mind-warping drug, the murderer in this case most likely would never have dreamed of slaughtering one of his best friends.

Judge Heinrichs ultimately determined that, because of the drug’s involvement, the boy who murdered his friend would not be tried in an adult court. Even though the boy pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, the judge only added a ten-month sentence on top of the two years that the boy had already spent in jail pending the trial — and there will apparently be no appeal, which is a first in any North American court.

In a similar outcome back in 2001, a Wyoming jury ruled that the antidepressant drug Paxil had caused a man to murder his wife, daughter, and granddaughter, after which he killed himself. And one of the mass-murderers in the infamous Columbine High School shooting, Eric Harris, had allegedly been taking the antidepressant drug Luvox at the time that he participated in the tragedy (http://www.naturalnews.com/019342.html).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034433_SSRI_drugs_children_murder.html#ixzz1h0LjlA4V

« Return to news items

News Feed

Hundreds of Soldiers & Vets Dying From Antipsychotic–Seroquel

cchrint — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:43:21 +0000

Market Watch
November 7, 2011

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD & Stan White (Father of Deceased Veteran, Andrew White) disclose the following:

EL CAJON, Calif., Nov. 7, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — As a neurologist who has discovered and described medical diseases, I (Fred A. Baughman) read the May 24, 2008, Charleston (WV) Gazette article “Vets taking Post Traumatic Stress Disorder drugs die in sleep,” and opened and financed my own investigation into these unexplained deaths.

Andrew White, Eric Layne, Nicholas Endicott and Derek Johnson, all in their twenties, were four West Virginia veterans who died in their sleep in early 2008. There were no signs of suicide or of a multi-drug “overdose” leading to coma, as claimed by the Inspector General of the VA. All had been diagnosed “PTSD”–a psychological diagnosis, not a disease (physical abnormality) of the brain. All were on the same prescribed drug cocktail, Seroquel (antipsychotic), Paxil (antidepressant) and Klonopin (benzodiazepine) and all appeared “normal” when they went to sleep.

On February 7, 2008, Surgeon General Eric B. Schoomaker, had announced there had been “a series, a sequence of deaths” in the military suggesting this was “often a consequence of the use of multiple prescription and nonprescription medicines and alcohol.”

However, the deaths of the ‘Charleston Four’ were probable sudden cardiac deaths (SCD), a sudden, pulseless condition leading to brain death in 4-5 minutes, a survival rate or 3-4%, and not allowing time for transfer to a hospital. Conversely, drug-overdose coma is protracted, allowing time for discovery, diagnosis, transport, treatment, and frequently–survival.

Antipsychotics and antidepressants alone or in combination, are known to cause SCD. Sicouri and Antzelevitch (2008) concluded: (1) “A number of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs can increase the risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death,” (2)”Antipsychotics can increase cardiac risk even at low doses whereas antidepressants do it generally at high doses or in the setting of drug combinations.”

On April 13, 2009, Baughman wrote the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSGWebPublisher@amedd.army.mil): “On February 7, 2008 the Surgeon General said there had been ‘a series, a sequence of deaths.’ Has the study of these deaths been published?”

On April 17, 2009 the Office of the Surgeon General responded, “The assessment is still pending and has not been released yet.” More than a year later and still no explanation, nor further acknowledgement that these deaths even took place.

In a press release, (PRNewswire, May 19, 2009) Baughman wrote: “I call upon the military for an immediate embargo of all antipsychotics and antidepressants until there has been a complete, wholly public, clarification of the extent and causes of this epidemic of probable sudden cardiac deaths.”

Googling “dead in bed,” “dead in barracks,” by April 16, 2009, veteran’s wife, Diane Vande Burgt, had Googled 74 probable sudden cardiac deaths. By May 2010: 128, and, by November 2, 2011: 247. Two-hundred-forty-seven!

In April 2010 I was in anonymous receipt of an Army National Guard Serious Incident Report for the 5 months 10/03/09 to 3/7/10. In it were 93 “incidents” including 4 “heart attacks,” 6 “cardiac arrests” and 3 “found dead”; 13 of 93 (14%) probable SCDs.

Pfc. Ryan Alderman, was on a cocktail of psych drugs when found unresponsive, dying in his barracks at Ft. Carson, Colo. Sudden cardiac death was confirmed by an ECG done at the scene. Inexplicably, military officials de-classified his death and reversed the cause, calling it instead, a “suicide.”

Again I challenge the military to produce the evidence.

In June 2011, a DoD Health Advisory Group backed a highly questionable policy of “polypharmacy” asserting: “…multiple psychotropic meds may be appropriate in select individuals.” The fact of the matter is that psychotropic drug polypharmacy is never safe, scientific, or medically justifiable. What it is a means of (1) maximizing profit, and (2) making it difficult to impossible to blame adverse effects on any one drug.

From 2001 to the present, US Central Command has given deploying troops 180 day supplies of prescription psychotropic drugs–Seroquel included. In a May 2010 report of its Pain Management Task Force, the Army endorsed Seroquel in 25- or 50-milligram doses as a ‘sleep aid.’

Over the past decade, $717 million was spent for Risperdal and $846 million for Seroquel, for a mind-blowing total of $1.5 billion when neither Risperdal nor Seroquel have been proven safe or effective for PTSD or sleep disorders.

Ironically, yet not surprisingly, pay-to-play in Washington becomes more egregious every day. Heather Bresch, daughter of U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, (D-WV) was recently named CEO of WV drug-maker Mylan Inc., that recently contracted with the DoD for over 20 million doses of Seroquel.

Defense Department Health Advisory Group chair, Charles Fogelman, warned: “DoD currently lacks a unified pharmacy database that reflects medication use across pre-deployment, deployment and post-deployment settings.” In essence, through a premeditated lack of record keeping, mandated by law at any other pharmacy or medical office to track potential fatal reactions to mixing prescription drugs, the military is willfully preempting all investigations into the injuries and deaths due to psychiatric drugs.

I call on the DoD, VA, House and Senate Armed Services and House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees to tell concerned Americans and the families of fallen heroes what psychiatric drugs each of the deceased, both combat and non-combat, soldiers and veterans were on?

It is time for the military and government to come clean.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hundreds-of-soldiers-vets-dying-from-antipsychotic-seroquel-2011-11-07

« Return to news items

News Feed

With growing public awareness of antidepressant risks: Pro-pill website Web MD does damage control

admin — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:08:20 +0000

OpEdNews – October 24, 2011

by Martha Rosenberg

WebMD, the gigantic, pro-pill web site whose original partner was Eli Lilly, is doing damage control for SSRI antidepressants.

There was a day when it seemed like everyone was on antidepressant “happy pills” like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. But then the pendulum began to swing. Patients objected to the weight gain and feelings of not being “themselves,” sexual side effects and the withdrawal symptoms. There were even reports and warnings about suicide and other “neuropsychiatric” effects.

Now, WebMD, the gigantic, pro-pill web site whose original partner was Eli Lilly, is doing damage control for SSRI antidepressants. New articles, sounding like they’re from crib makers or cantaloupe growers, urge patients not to panic or quit taking their pills just because of things they read.

Don’t believe all the hooey about antidepressants turning “you into a zombie,” ruining your sex life or costing too much, says an article called Fears and Facts About Antidepressants on WedMD. And don’t be impatient! “ If the first antidepressant medication doesn’t help, the second or third often will . Most people eventually find one that works for them.” Ka-ching. Don’t listen to all that suicide talk either! “Switching to a different antidepressant may help,” say the damage control articles.

Is your fear of becoming a drug lifer keeping you from antidepressants, asks another WebMD article called What’s Stopping You from Seeing a Doctor About Depression? “If you do need a medication, it most likely won’t be for life,” says the article. Just until the patent runs out?

Do you think you can ignore your depression and it will go away? “Waiting for depression to simply pass can be harmful,” because “depression that goes untreated may become more severe,” say the WebMD articles–rewriting medical practice itself since depression has never been a progressive disease but is actually self limiting.

The important thing, say the articles, is to never stop your meds. “Stopping medication abruptly may.. cause depression to return,” and can cause side effects, say the articles. Worse–”prescription abandonment”–people who discover what a drug costs and leave it at the pharmacy or quit drugs because of their effects– costs Pharma lots of money! Pharma even has programs now that send Big Brother nurses to people’s homes, through their pharmacies, to make sure people are taking their meds.

One antidepressant with a big PR problem is Eli Lilly’s Cymbalta. It’s linked to the deaths of Traci Johnson, a healthy 19-year-old who hung herself on the Lilly campus during clinical trials in 2004, and Carol Anne Gotbaum, daughter-in-law of former New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum who died in police custody at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport in 2007.

Cymbalta is noted in the scientific literature for producing suicidal side effects in people with no mental health history. A 37-year-old man described in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology with a stable marriage and employment and no history of mental problems tried to kill himself with carbon monoxide two months after taking Cymbalta for back pain. A 63-year-old man, also with no mental health history, became suicidal on the drug after two weeks.

“There is an emergence of suicidality in apparently nonsuicidal patients after starting or increasing Duloxetine [Cymbalta] reads an article in Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health.”

But now, Cymbalta is being promoted as a pain drug of choice like it’s not a repurposed antidepressant with antidepressant side effects. Last year it was approved for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including discomfort from osteoarthritis and chronic lower back pain, and it was already approved for fibromyalgia and diabetic nerve pain.

A Cymbalta ad in October’s New England Journal of Medicine , says “Today a non-NSAID [non- aspirin or ibuprofen] non-narcotic, once daily analgesic FDA approved for 3 indications across 4 different chronic pain conditions can be found in 1 med.” Sounds as safe Vioxx.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Should-You-Take-A-Psychiat-by-Martha-Rosenberg-111023-164.html

Martha Rosenberg’s first book , Born With A Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health, will be published by Prometheus Books in 2012.

« Return to news items

News Feed

PEOPLE’S PHARMACY:Can drugs cause violent behavior?

admin — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:01:12 +0000

Tuscaloosa News – July 21, 2011

PEOPLE’S PHARMACY

Americans revere personal responsibility. It resonates with our respect for accountability and frontier justice. That may explain why we have a hard time believing that medications could alter people’s personalities or lead them to behave badly.

Violence as a drug side effect seems preposterous to patients, pharmacists, physicians and even juries. Trying to use the “Prozac defense” to justify killing or hurting someone is often met with scorn.

Although drug-induced hostility or aggression has not been well-studied, a surprising number of medications come with precautions about violent acts.

Antidepressant prescribing information, for example, warns physicians that, “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.” Drugs such as citalopram (Celexa), escitalopram (Lexapro), fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Paxil) and sertraline (Zoloft) carry warnings about aggressiveness, agitation, hostility, impulsivity and irritability.

The stop-smoking medication varenicline (Chantix) also comes with warnings about agitation, hostility, depressed mood and changes in behavior. The trouble with such warnings is that people don’t imagine that these bad things could happen to them. But many readers have shared scary stories about Chantix and violence. Here is one:

“I started taking Chantix early in January 2011 because I promised my son I’d quit. After about two weeks on the drug, my husband and I got into a disagreement, and I ended up giving him a black eye and busting out his tooth. Rage and panic attacks were occurring every day, so I quit taking Chantix.

“I figured it was just the stress of having to live with my in-laws, so I stayed off it until I left my husband and got my own place with my son. I’ve now been taking Chantix for about two weeks, and I’m having emotional outbursts and extreme rage again. I have no stress in my life right now, so it can’t be anything else but the drug.

“I’ve researched this, and apparently Chantix is at the top of a list of drugs that cause violent behavior. Chantix worked very well for a friend of mine to help her stop smoking, but now I wonder if it contributed to her breakup with her fiance.”

Other readers have shared stories of people who had no history of aggressiveness, violence or mental-health problems going berserk while taking Chantix. One man beat his wife and called police but had no recollection of the incident.

A recent article in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (online, June 7, 2011) “confirms the risk of violence associated with benzodiazepines and related drugs (zopiclone and zolpidem). … Physical aggressiveness, rapes, impulsive decision making and violence have been reported, as have autoaggressiveness and suicide.”

Benzodiazepines are anti-anxiety agents such as alprazolam (Xanax), clonazepam (Klonopin), diazepam (Valium) and lorazepam (Ativan). Eszopiclone and zolpidem are popular prescription sleep aids. Americans need to know how prescribed drugs might affect their behavior. Only then can they take responsibility for their actions.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110721/NEWS/110719697/1005/sitemaps04?p=2&tc=pg

(Note from CCHR: Our psychiatric drug database, comprised of international drug regulatory agency warnings and clinical studies, contains 19 warnings of psychiatric drugs causing violence, aggression and hostility - type in aggression in the red search box – or suicide which has 66 warnings) http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php )

« Return to news items

News Feed

Paxil and Prozac Linked to Risk of Heart Birth Defects

admin — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:27:42 +0000

AboutLawSuits.com – June 27, 2011

According to Finnish researchers, doctors should avoid prescribing Paxil or Prozac to pregnant women, due to the potential risk of heart birth defects.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology medical journal, researchers found that side effects of Prozac and Paxil use during pregnancy may increase the risk of women giving birth to children with congenital heart defects. Both drugs belong to a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Researchers looked at national data from Finland on 635,583 births occurring between 1996 and 2006, and found that 31 out of every 10,000 women who took Paxil during pregnancy gave birth to children with right ventricular outflow tract defects that affect blood flow from the right chambers of the heart to the rest of the body, more than four times the frequency of births among women who did not take Paxil. For those who took Prozac, 105 babies born out of every 10,000 had isolated ventrical septal defects; a hole between the left and right sides of the heart, which was more than double the rate of babies born to women who did not take the drug.

The researchers also found that women who took any SSRI antidepressant during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to give birth to a child with a neural tube defect; 22 out of every 10,000 newborns, as compared to 9 out of every 10,000 newborns born to women who did not take any SSRI during pregnancy.

SSRIs are a relatively new class of antidepressants, which help reduce symptoms of depression by preventing certain nerve cells in the brain from re-absorbing the chemical serotonin. These drugs are commonly used by millions of Americans with depression.

Although the drugs have been found to cause fewer side effects than older anti-depressants, research has shown that users of the drugs could also face an increased risk of suicides, and use during pregnancy has been linked to a risk of birth defects, especially among users of Paxil.

Prozac (fluoxetine) is marketed by Eli Lilly and is approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other psychiatric problems. In 2007 there were more than 22 million Prozac prescriptions in the United States.

Paxil (paroxetine) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribed to treat depression. Approved in 1992, it has become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with sales of just under $1 billion in 2008.

In December 2005, the FDA issued an alert about the risk of birth defects from Paxil after studies showed the drug could increase the risk of the heart defects when taken during the first three months of pregnancy. At that time, the agency also required GlaxoSmithKline to update the warning label to include information about the risk of birth defects from Paxil side effects.

The company reportedly agreed to settle hundreds of Paxil heart birth defect lawsuits last year. The Paxil lawsuits were filed by parents who say that the use of the antidepressant during pregnancy caused persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns (PPHN) and other birth defects. The lawsuits claimed that the company failed to warn consumers and doctors that use of Paxil during pregnancy could lead to congenital heart defects in newborns. The lawsuits also claimed that the company purposefully hid test results that would have revealed the side effects of Paxil and misled doctors.

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/paxil-prozac-birth-defect-study-19139/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research

admin — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:37:17 +0000

The One Click Group – June 16, 2011

By Dr. Marc-André Gagnon
and Dr. Sergio Sismondo
Expert Advisors – EvidenceNetwork.ca

The medical research world has been concerned about the problem of ghostwriting for more than a decade.

The issue has been repeatedly raised in the mainstream media over the past few years, with most of the commentary focused on the ethics of academics serving as authors on papers they did not write and on some of the most egregious actions by pharmaceutical companies.

But these efforts miss the ways in which Big Pharma has developed new forms of medical research to serve its own interests.

How ghostwriting feeds Big Pharma profits

Big Pharma firms spend twice as much on promotion as on research and development (R&D). But it is worse than that: more and more medical R&D is organized as promotional campaigns to make physicians aware of products. The bulk of the industry’s external funding for research now goes to contract research organizations to produce studies that feed into large numbers of articles submitted to medical journals.

Internal documents from Pfizer, made public in litigation, showed that 85 scientific articles on its antidepressant Zoloft were produced and coordinated by a public relations company. Pfizer itself thus produced a critical mass of the favourable articles placed among the 211 scientific papers on Zoloft in the same period. Internal documents tell similar stories for Merck’s Vioxx, GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil, Astra-Zeneca’s Seroquel, and Wyeth’s hormone-replacement drugs.

To promote the now-notorious Vioxx, Merck organized a ghostwriting campaign that involved some 96 scientific articles. Key ones did not mention the death of some patients during clinical trials. Through a class action lawsuit against Vioxx in Australia, it was discovered that Elsevier had created a fake medical journal for Merck – the AustralasSian Journal of Joint and Bone Medicine – and perhaps 10 other fake journals for Merck and other Big Pharma companies.

In another example, GlaxoSmithKline organized a ghostwriting program to promote its antidepressant Paxil. According to internal documents made public in 2009, the program was called “Case Study Publication for Peer-Review”, or CASPPER, a playful reference to the “friendly ghost”. Such strategies are not exceptions; they are now the norm in the industry. Most new drugs with blockbuster potential are introduced accompanied by 50, 60, or even 100 medical journal articles. Any firm that refused to play this game in the name of ethics would likely lose market share. Profits in the pharmaceutical industry depend on companies’ capacity to influence medical knowledge and create market share and market niches for their products.

A call for Evidence-Based medicine

In 2008, research showed that pharmaceutical companies systematically failed to publish negative studies on their SSRIs, the Prozac generation of antidepressants. Of 74 clinical trials, 38 produced positive results and 36 did not: 94 per cent of the positive studies were published, but only 23 per cent of the negative ones were, and two-thirds of those were spun to make them look more positive.

Physicians reading the scientific literature got a biased view of the benefits of SSRIs. This helps to explain the huge number of antidepressant prescriptions, in spite of the fact that, according to a meta-analysis in JAMA in January 2010, for 70 per cent of people taking SSRIs, the drug did not bring more benefits than a placebo. Compared to placebo, however, SSRI antidepressants can result in serious adverse drug reactions.

There we see one of the problems with the ghost management of medical research and publication. Pharmaceutical companies want upbeat reports on their drugs. They design, write, and publish studies that are likely to show their drugs in positive lights – and there are myriad ways to do so. Ghosts sometimes bend the truth, and sometimes even commit fraud, with grave results.

Why do academics serve as authors on scientific articles they did not write, using research they did not perform? Because they are rewarded, both by their universities and by their colleagues for how much they publish and for its prominence. Pharmaceutical companies and their agents are very good at placing articles in prestigious journals, and then make them even more prominent by having their armies of sales reps circulate them and talk them up.

Researchers who serve as authors on studies and analyses (perhaps scientifically correct) that are favourable to the industry can expect to see these articles increase their prestige and influence, and possibly even funding.

What happens, however, when a researcher produces studies and analyses (also scientifically correct) showing that some products are dangerous or inefficient, as some did about Vioxx before the scandal broke? Reading Merck’s internal e-mails, revealed during the class lawsuit, it was exposed that the company drew up a hit list of “rogue” researchers who needed to be “discredited” or “neutralized” – “seek them out and destroy them where they live,” reads one e-mail. Eight Stanford researchers say they received threats from Merck after publishing unfavourable results.

Corporate science

In the ghost management of research and publication by drug companies we have a new model of science. This is corporate science, done by many unseen workers, performed for marketing purposes, and drawing its authority from traditional academic science. The high commercial stakes mean that all of the parties connected with this new corporate science can find reasons or be induced to participate, support, and steadily normalize it. It also biases the available science by pushing favourable results and downplaying negative ones – and sometimes through outright fraud.

As long as pharmaceutical companies hold the purse strings of medical research, medical knowledge will serve to market drugs, not to promote health. And as long as universities grovel for more partnerships with these companies, the door will remain wide open to proceed with the corruption of scientific research.

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=6349#newspost

Dr. Marc-André Gagnon is assistant professor with the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University. He is also an expert advisor with EvidenceNetwork.ca, a comprehensive and non-partisan online resource designed to help journalists covering health policy issues in Canada. Dr. Sergio Sismondo is professor of Philosophy and Sociology at Queen’s University. His current research is on the pharmaceutical industry’s relationships with academic medicine and practicing physicians.

« Return to news items

News Feed

The Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Has Been Drugged

cchrint — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:59:54 +0000

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

News Feed

Panel to Examine Murder and Suicide Associated With Antidepressants

admin — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:39:58 +0000

The Huffington Post, March 22, 2011
by Dr. Peter Breggin

Click image to visit the Psychiatric Drug Database

On Saturday morning April 9th of this year, a panel discussion will be held for the public and professionals on the theme of “Psychiatric Drug Tragedies: Personal, Legal and Medical Perspectives.”

The two-hour presentation focuses on suicide and murder potentially caused by antidepressant medications. It is part of the international Empathic Therapy Conference put on by the Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, Education & Living (April 8-10, 2011 in Syracuse, New York).

The panel will present a unique examination of an antidepressant-related suicide from three perspectives: Mathy Downing, the mother of a twelve-old-child who committed suicide; Karl Protil, the lawyer in her case, which was settled without any admission of negligence; and myself as the medical expert in the case. Mathy will be accompanied by her surviving daughter. Other family members will tell the stories of two more children who committed suicide, a father who committed suicide, and a husband who murdered his two young children–all while taking prescribed antidepressants.

A great deal is now known about suicide and violence in association with the newer antidepressants such as Prozac (fluoxetine), Paxil (paroxetine), Zoloft (sertraline), Luvox (fluvoxamine), Celexa (escitalopram), Lexapro (escitalopram), Cymbalta (duloxetine), Effexor (venlavaxine), Pristiq desvenlafaxine), and Wellbutrin (bupropion).

The FDA has imposed a Black Box on all antidepressant labels that warns against the risk of suicidal behavior in children, youth and young adults. Click here to find the example of Prozac’s official prescribing information. More importantly and more broadly, the new labels also warn about the risk of aggression, hostility, mania, and an overall worsening of the individual’s mental condition, for all ages. The new FDA-approved labels also include a Medication Guide, which the FDA urges prescribers to give to patients and their families. Originally intended for children taking antidepressants, it now has no age limitation and pertains to all ages. The Medication Guide warns patients and their families to be aware of the possibility of suicidal and violent behavior, mania, and a long litany of other dangerous mental abnormalities.

The new FDA-approved antidepressant labels confirm that the risks are highest at the start of medication therapy or during changes in dose, either up or down. To a great extent, the labels read like my prior publications, one of which was given by the FDA to its outside expert committee that recommended the changes to the labels.

Unfortunately, many psychiatrists, internists, family doctors, nurse practitioners and other professionals continue to prescribe these medications, too often without providing adequate information to the patient and the family. As a result, I was asked to write about the implications of these new labels for the most widely read psychiatric journal for primary care prescribers. The panel at the Empathic Therapy Conference, the first of its kind, will explore these tragedies and put a human face on them through the presence and presentations of surviving family members.

Other aspects of the conference will describe empathic approaches to helping a wide variety of emotional conditions and problems in children and adults. Speakers will bring unique and inspiring approaches to children and adults given psychiatric diagnoses, ordinary folks who are suffering from stress, street people overcome by psychosis, military personnel recovering from PTSD and head injuries, and elderly victims of dementia. Professionals and the general public are welcome at the Empathic Therapy Conference in Syracuse, New York, April 8-10, 2011. Continuing education credits (CEs) for 29.5 hours are available.

Peter R. Breggin, MD is a psychiatrist in private practice in Ithaca, New York, and the author of dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books including Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock and Biochemical Theories of the “New” Psychiatry, as well as his newest book, Medication Madness. The Empathic Therapy Conference brings together more than forty presenters and a diverse audience from around the world. Professionals and nonprofessionals are welcome. Learn about the conference at http://www.empathictherapy.org.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System

cchrint — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:27:35 +0000

By Bob Fiddaman and Shelia Matthews
March 10, 2011

For some time now, Sheila Matthews has been suspicious about her home state of Connecticut’s treatment of its most vulnerable children. As a mother of two children and co-founder of Ablechild, her instincts led her to scrutinize the dubious relationships among Connecticut’s Department of Children and Family Services [DCF], the pharmaceutical industry and a billion dollar law firm who has defended the likes of Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co., among others.

Sheila’s investigation has led her on a journey that links a non-profit children’s advocacy group, with assets over $15 million [2009] with nationally-renowned mass tort and class action defense law firms, to the Connecticut DCF – an $865 million bureaucracy, as described by the Connecticut Mirror.

The Connecticut DCF serves approximately 36,000 children and 16,000 families across its four Mandate Areas:

1. Child welfare;
2. Children’s behavioral health;
3. Juvenile Services; and
4. Prevention.

Sheila’s Ablechild has been questioning the Connecticut DCF since 2003, when Ablechild demanded that the Connecticut DCF immediately ban the use of the antidepressant Paxil in its treatment of mental disorders after multiple studies confirmed Paxil increased the risk of suicide in children and adolescents. This was more than a year prior to America’s Food & Drug Association (FDA) announcement that all antidepressants, including Paxil, should bear a black box warning regarding this suicide risk. Ablechild was disturbed that children in state custody were being prescribed this dangerous psychotropic medication. Ablechild’s public pressure paid off, and the Connecticut DCF deemed Paxil unsafe for children and adolescents, and according to the DCF drug approval list, Paxil has not been approved for use in over eight (8) years.

In August 2003, less than one month later, Ablechild reported that the commissioner of the Connecticut DCF held a ‘behind closed doors‘ meeting with Glaxo officials. This meeting was reported by the Associated Press, who wrote:

The maker of the anti-depressant Paxil plans to meet this week with Connecticut officials, weeks after the State stopped using the drug to treat young people in its care.

GlaxoSmithKline, a British pharmaceutical company, is sending its regional medical director and a medical team to meet with officials from the Department of Children and Families. [Source]

Despite repeated requests from Ablechild, the Connecticut DCF refused to inform the public what was discussed at this secret meeting.

Eight years later, Sheila and Ablechild continue to raise concerns and investigate potential wrongdoings and conflicts within the Connecticut DCF. Last month, in February 2011, Sheila attended a meeting sponsored by the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership [CBHP], where its medical director, Dr Steven Kant, presented the Husky Behavioral Pharmacy Data. The CBHP is a state vendor that provides mental health services to DCF children. These services are paid, in part, by the State-run insurance program, HUSKY. Incredibly the pharmacy data presentation showed that dangerous psychotropic drugs, like Paxil, are still being prescribed to thousands of children and adolescents. In fact, the Pharmacy Data presentation showed that the HUSKY program, financed by taxpayer dollars, paid drug companies over $60 million for psychotropic drugs for Connecticut’s children and adolescents in 2009 alone – many of which are not approved by the FDA for use in the pediatric population and all of which carry the most serious warning possible regarding the risk of suicide.

According to the pharmacy data presentation: [Which can be downloaded as a Powerpoint presentation HERE]

More than 50% of HUSKY Youth Behavioral med utilizers are on stimulants.
Close to 30% of HUSKY Youth Behavioral med utilizers are on antipsychotics.

The pharmacy data also revealed the following:

Most Frequently Used Behavioral Meds for DCF-Involved Youth

Medications for ADHD

Ritalin (10%)
Adderall (5%)
Vyvanse (4%)
Strattera (3%)

Atypical Antipsychotics

Abilify (11%)
Risperdol (10%)
Seroquel (8%)

Anti-anxiety

Hydroxyzine (2.5%)

Antidepressants

Prozac (4.5%)
Zoloft (4%)
Zyban (3%)
Desyrel (2.5%)
Celexa (2%)

Mood Stabilizers

Lithum (3%)
Depakote (3%)
Lamictal (2.5%)

Curiously, none of the above medications are on the Connecticut DCF list of approved/unapproved drugs listed in its DCF PMAC document.

With this in mind, Sheila Matthews contacted Dr Steven Kant and inquired as to whether any of the above drugs were approved by the Connecticut DCF for use in children.

Dr Kant replied:

… the answer to your question is not that straight forward.. . . Medications may be indicated by age and/or by specific treatment needs so it is not either a simply “yes” or “no”. Also, some medications may have the age indication but for a totally different condition, such as anti epileptic condition. . .Also FDA indications are static, they do not change over time though medical practice is constantly evolving…

Contradicting the very document that lists Connecticut’s approved and unapproved drugs, a “check-off” list that verifies the status of medications, Dr Kant replied, “I don’t think a “check off” for each medication would work in terms of verifying their status.”

With such an ambiguous response from Dr. Kant, we found the DCF Approved Medication List on the Internet. This particular version was revised in 2009.

It appears that the DCF has approved drugs in children that have not been approved for children by the FDA. In fact, the FDA has issued multiple advisories and alerts since 2004 about the increased risk of suicide in children, adolescents and young adults up to age 25 who are treated with psychotropic medications.

And while Fluoxetine (Prozac) is the only medication approved by the FDA for use in treating depression in children ages 8 and older, it still carries a black box warning regarding the risk of suicide.

In contrast, the DCF seems to be ignoring the conclusions of the FDA. Its list of approved medication in children and adolescents include every single antidepressant except paroxetine [Paxil] and venlafaxine [Effexor].

Forest Lab’s citalopram [Celexa] – APPROVED

Forest Lab’s escitalopram [Lexapro] – APPROVED

Solvay Pharmaceuticals’ fluvoxamine [Luvox] – APPROVED

Pfizer’s sertraline [Zoloft] – APPROVED

GlaxoSmithKline’s bupropion [Wellbutrin -also marketed as an anti-smoking cessation drug under the name of Zyban] – APPROVED [1]

Alarmingly, the DCF has produced a guide entitled, “MEDICATIONS USED FOR BEHAVIORAL & EMOTIONAL DISORDERS – A GUIDE FOR PARENTS, FOSTER PARENTS, FAMILIES, YOUTH, CAREGIVERS, GUARDIANS, AND SOCIAL WORKERS” where it writes, “Most of the side effects from the medications are mild and will lessen or go away after the first few weeks of treatment.” The guide also points out possible side effects of SSRI’s/SNRI’s:

SSRIs and SNRIs:

Headache
Nervousness
Nausea
Insomnia
Weight Loss

One of the most dangerous side effects of these medications, suicidal thoughts/ideation, doesn’t even make the 5 bullet-pointed list. The Guide does, however, add the following: “Watch for worsening of depression and thoughts about suicide.”

The DCF Approved Medication List writes:

“The DCF Approved Medication List is a list of psychotropic medications that has been carefully established by the Psychotropic Medication Advisory Committee, a group of DCF and community professionals.”

Sheila has since investigated other advocacy groups that were concerned about the off-label prescribing of psychiatric medications to youths in state custody. This is where she stumbled upon Children’s Rights, a non-profit charity based in New York City.

In 2005, Children’s Rights employed ten (10) attorneys and a staff of 31. It claims to use its expertise to change child welfare red tape and scrutinize failing systems. If the child welfare system fails to respond, Children’s Rights files a lawsuit. If successful, it enforces reform and then monitors its implementation.

In 1989, Children’s Rights had in fact filed a suit against William O’Neill and the Connecticut state Department of Children and Youth Services [DCYS].

The suit charged that an overworked and underfunded DCYS failed to provide services including abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, foster care, mental health care, caseloads and staffing. The case has been pending for over twenty (20) years, and while there have been numerous arguments that DCYS should be more inclusive or has failed to provide certain services, the issue of massive off-label prescription of psychotropic medications has never been brought to the court’s attention.

Children’s Rights is chaired by Alan C Myers, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, a billion dollar law firm which represents the pharmaceutical industry in mass torts and class actions. Myers is also co-head of the firm’s REIT Group [Real Estate Investment Trust].

Also, listed on the Children’s Rights website are individuals and law firms that have served as co-counsel on Children’s Rights’ legal campaigns to reform America’s failing child welfare systems, including:

Missouri - Shook Hardy & Bacon – Eli Lilly Co. and Forest Labs, defended the original Wesbeker Prozac trial in Kentucky and still defend Prozac, Celexa and Lexapro.

New Jersey – Drinker Biddle & Reath – GlaxoSmithKline attorneys – defended Paxil as local counsel in Philadelphia cases.

Oklahoma – Kaye Scholer LLP – provides work in Pharmaceutical Products Liability defense and employs an attorney who was former General Counsel of Pfizer, Inc.

A particular success for Skadden Arps occurred in 2010 when it secured a summary judgement ruling for Pfizer Inc. in a suit filed by two insurance companies who sought $200 million in damages for Pfizer’s predecessors alleged “off-label” marketing of its epilepsy drug, Neurontin.

Furthermore, in February 2011, Skadden Arps secured the dismissal of over 200 cases in a multi-district litigation pending against their client, Pfizer Inc. The plaintiffs had alleged injuries related to the use of Pfizer’s anti-epilepsy drug, Neurontin.

Neurontin, the generic version is called gabapentin, is prescribed by psychiatrists for a variety of “off-label” indications. It is often tried as an alternative treatment, when patients are unable to tolerate the side effect of more proven mood stabilizers such as lithium. [2]

Gabapentin has also been associated with an increased risk of suicidal acts or violent deaths.

This is a drug that has been known to cause behavioral problems, which include unstable emotions, hostility, aggression, hyperactivity or lack of concentration.

Children dependent on child welfare systems have rights and, according to its web page, Children’s Rights is dedicated to protecting them.

It should come as no surprise that the site fails to discuss the off-label prescription of non-approved psychotropic medications to children and adolescents, unless this falls under the ‘abuse and neglect’ category?

If Children’s Rights’ motive was to accomplish fixing the child welfare system then why hasn’t it investigated why thousands of children under state care are prescribed “off-label” psychiatric drugs? With a partner in a billion dollar pro-pharmaceutical law firm as its Chair, and supporters who also defend pharmaceutical products, is it safe to assume that its stance on the drugging of children is one that is being ignored?

Children’s Rights push to remove abused and neglected children into safety.

The basic question always comes down to trust. When power, money and a good cause is mixed, it is imperative to check motives. We would be less of a society if we didn’t check out all the facts. Abuse and neglect exist, always has and always will, but society is obligated to ensure those victims are not transformed into “good cause victims” and expensed out. There is no doubt we have a right to question the system and those who claim to promote change for the good of the children within it.

Children’s Rights Chairman, Alan C. Myers, Medical Director of Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership, Steven Kant and the Connecticut Department of Children and Families may get their knickers in a twist with regard to an advocate of Ablechild and a blogger from Birmingham, UK questioning their motives but hey, what’s the downside of shinning a light on all these players, be they good or bad players?

Sheila’s concern is that Children’s Rights with its multi-million dollar budget and with the help of its billion dollar law firms, will continue to ignore the risks of these unapproved and dangerous medications, under the guise of helping our nation’s most vulnerable children. The question remains: how can the lawyers who defend psychotropic drugs also be the same lawyers who advocate for abused and neglected children to get into state welfare programs which place these children on the same drugs? The conflict is clear and obvious – and it poses an unmistakable danger to children who truly need our help.

[1] Bupropion [also known as Wellbutrin, Zyban] is a non-tricyclic antidepressant.
[2] Gabapentin

Bob Fiddaman is the author of the Seroxat Sufferers blog and the book, “The evidence, however, is clear… the Seroxat scandal.” Chipmunka Publishing.

Sheila Matthews is the co-founder of Ablechild and a mother of two children.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

Blog Feed

A sugared pill

cchrint — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:46:23 +0000

Financial Times
By Andrew Jack
March 8, 2011

Stefan Kruszewski, a US psychiatrist who has been a whistleblower against pharma companies in three recent cases that resulted in settlements, warns that the legacy of the past will generate yet more pain. “Some companies have got better,” he says. “But there is more to come out.”

When Daniel Carlat, a psychiatrist in Massachusetts, was flown to New York with his wife by Wyeth, the “training” weekend he attended in a luxury hotel was topped off with a Broadway show. It was early 2001 and he had just agreed to the US pharmaceuticals company’s proposal that he give talks to doctors about its antidepressant Effexor.

During the following year, he was regularly paid fees of $750 a time to drive to “lunch and learn” sessions where he would speak for 10 minutes to emphasise the drug’s advantages to fellow doctors, using slides prepared by the company. “It seemed like a win-win,” he recalls. “I was prescribing it, educating doctors and making some money.”

But within a few months, he became disillusioned with his co-option as a marketing representative. He was selectively presenting clinical data that put the drug in a positive light to physicians who had been targeted by the company through “data mining” techniques that identified their individual prescription patterns.

Dr Carlat has spoken out as part of a growing backlash against such aggressive marketing tactics, which are leading to significant changes in the relationship between doctors and drug companies. But even as pharmaceuticals executives argue that such problems belong to the past and were always exaggerated, they are bracing for both intensifying penalties and calls for further reform.

“In some ways, our industry lost its way and failed to fully appreciate the evolving expectations of our stakeholders,” Deirdre Connelly, head of North American operations at GlaxoSmithKline, told a conference in January. While playing down the extent of the problem, she conceded: “No matter the reasons, at the end of the day, we must regain the public’s trust.”

Her comments came as the UK-based company put aside provisions of £2.2bn ($3.6bn), largely to cover a settlement under negotiation with the US district attorney’s office for Colorado over sales and promotional practices between 1997 and 2004 for drugs including its antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin. A report in January by Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, predicted a surge in litigation, including against GSK, as still undisclosed “whistleblower” lawsuits and regulatory settlements translate into claims totalling billions of dollars for the industry in the coming months.

At the heart of the problem is a wide-ranging, cosy and opaque relationship between companies and physicians – one that often includes money or other benefits changing hands. For most in the industry, such links are essential to understanding diseases and patient needs, developing effective medicines and providing education on them to prescribers.

US authorities have taken the lead, investigating practices used in other countries as well as at home. Authorities elsewhere, including in the UK, France and Italy, have also been scrutinising arrangements.

Chris Viehbacher, head of Sanofi-Aventis, the French drugmaker, rejects the suggestion that payments need cause insuperable problems. “Doctors are professionals and I have every confidence in their judgment,” he says, arguing that payments from companies need not undermine the integrity of prescribers.

Yet others argue that payments to doctors have at times resulted in the prescription of medicines to patients who do not stand to benefit, risking suboptimal or even dangerous treatment and substantial and unnecessary costs to health systems.

“The industry has made important steps to clean up its act, but more needs to be done,” says Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, the medical journal. He chaired a working party at the UK’s Royal College of Physicians two years ago that launched recommendations to rebalance the relationship between the industry, academia and the taxpayer-funded National Health Service. In the face of a lack of consensus and practical difficulties, many have yet to be implemented.

He and others say questionable links between doctors and industry reached their apogee in the US at the start of the millennium, when fierce competition among companies at a time of slowing innovation resulted in the creation of a slew of “me too” drugs, often with little advantage over existing treatments. Pressure from increasingly aggressive makers of low-cost generic versions of out-of-patent proprietary products heightened the urgency of maximising sales. Companies were spending heavily on media advertisements – often including celebrity endorsements – to persuade patients to lobby doctors for prescriptions of their products.

Above all, a wave of takeovers spurred by falling productivity left newly expanded groups such as Pfizer with thousands of sales “reps”, often recruited more for their charm than their medical expertise, charged with visiting doctors to persuade them to prescribe their drugs. This created an “arms race” among leading companies, often with barely distinguishable products.

One tool used in the US was “sampling”, whereby reps would leave free supplies of their often costly drugs with doctors, who were able to hand them out to patients without medical insurance. They also paid for physicians’ meals and even petrol.

In Europe and most other industrialised regions, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is typically banned or tightly controlled, and free samples are less relevant in markets where drugs are largely paid for by governments.

Yet close links between sales reps and doctors have been widespread – and not always limited to small gifts such as pens, notepads and coffee mugs. There have also been allegations of significant payments, some of which are under scrutiny by federal investigators focusing on the overseas activities of companies operating in the US.

In the UK, US-based Abbott Laboratories was severely reprimanded by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in 2006 after reps took doctors to Wimbledon matches, greyhound races and a lap-dancing club. Two years later, Swiss-based Roche suffered the same fate after encouraging the sale of weight-loss pills to individuals in private slimming clinics not qualified to prescribe.

. . .

Practising doctors are required by their own professional bodies to participate in “continuing medical education” sessions to keep up to date. But speakers and themes can be influenced by drugmakers. Often flown business class with their spouses to resorts in exotic locations, doctors around the world attend scientific conferences where companies hold “satellite” sessions presenting their products in a favourable light.

While Dr Carlat participated in such “speaker bureaus”, other “key opinion leaders” were paid as consultants for a variety of services. Those included advice on the design and writing up of clinical drug trials and adding their names and credibility to articles ghost-written by specialist authors hired by the companies.

A series of studies has demonstrated that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals – a cornerstone of marketing to doctors – generally favour their drugs. Trials with less promising results are not generally published. This can distort the true picture of risks and benefits of medicines.

The full extent of such marketing activities and any distortion of prescribing practices is unclear. But “sunshine” legislation introduced as part of US President Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms is beginning to reveal the amount companies have been willing to spend. According to an analysis by ProPublica, an investigative journalism agency, the first eight companies to disclose their spending paid a total of $320m in 2009-10 to 18,000 doctors, the top 10 of whom received more than $250,000 each.

Such transparency is itself accelerating reform. Companies – some forced by legal settlements, others persuaded by the requirements of government funders and medical journals – are making details of their clinical studies available on public websites, allowing scrutiny by independent researchers. GSK this year changed its payment system for reps, hiring and assessing them based on medical expertise and removing commissions linked directly to sales.

Organisations including Britain’s ABPI, its Swedish counterpart Lif, and Efpia, the European Union-wide trade body for the sector, have introduced ever tougher codes of conduct that have restricted gifts, drug samples, entertainment and travel. In the US, the independent Institute of Medicine has called for far more aggressive measures to control continuing medical education, in order to put content at arm’s length from drug companies. The National Institutes of Health, the US federal research funder, is revising its conflict of interest codes for grant recipients, and many medical schools have taken similar steps to clamp down on industry influence on faculty members.

But such measures have proved partial. Disclosure of clinical trial results remains patchy, and pledges to publish payments to doctors in Europe are less comprehensive than those in the US. The ethics code of Phrma, the US trade grouping, has no enforcement mechanism. Ifpma, the international body, has only ever considered – and then rejected – four complaints against companies.

Susan Chimonas, of New York’s Columbia University, says the medical profession must take more responsibility. She highlights a recent study that found the majority of US medical schools had weak or non-existent conflict of interest guidelines on payments to their faculty. “It takes two to tango,” she argues. “Industry is behaving the way industry is expected to in a capitalist system, but the medical profession has lost its way. Prescribers are willing partners.”

In the UK Des Spence, a Glasgow doctor who founded a national chapter of the No Free Lunch movement, which rejects drug company hospitality, points out that the NHS is supposed to provide registers of payments to doctors, but few disclosures have been made. The General Medical Council, the profession’s regulator, has shown little interest.

. . .

The greatest pressure for reform has come from governments and health insurers. A growing trend towards rigorous and continuing comparative data on drugs’ safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness is shifting prescription powers from individual doctors to technical organisations such as the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

The result has been a cull in tens of thousands of drug reps in the industrialised world in the past few years, although their numbers have been growing in the less-regulated emerging markets to which the pharmaceuticals companies are increasingly turning. If some of the more egregious payments to doctors are on the wane, that leaves more subtle issues such as the independence of continuing medical education. If the drug industry pulls back, either individual doctors or their employers will have to provide funding instead.

With austerity measures squeezing government health spending in many countries, and UK changes giving more powers to family doctors, the solution will not be easy. Stefan Kruszewski, a US psychiatrist who has been a whistleblower against pharma companies in three recent cases that resulted in settlements, warns that the legacy of the past will generate yet more pain. “Some companies have got better,” he says. “But there is more to come out.”

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae7099a0-49bc-11e0-acf0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1G80Pn69u

« Return to news items

News Feed

CCHR International » Paxil

Canadian judge rules antidepressants like Prozac can cause children to commit murder

Related Posts

Hundreds of Soldiers & Vets Dying From Antipsychotic–Seroquel

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD & Stan White (Father of Deceased Veteran, Andrew White) disclose the following:

Related Posts

With growing public awareness of antidepressant risks: Pro-pill website Web MD does damage control

Related Posts

PEOPLE’S PHARMACY:Can drugs cause violent behavior?

Related Posts

Paxil and Prozac Linked to Risk of Heart Birth Defects

Related Posts

Beware the ghost(writer)s of medical research

Related Posts

The Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Has Been Drugged

Related Posts

Panel to Examine Murder and Suicide Associated With Antidepressants

Related Posts

Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System

Related Posts

A sugared pill

Related Posts