The Chronicle of Higher Education – September 18, 2011
by By John Horgan

American psychiatry, in collusion with the pharmaceutical industry, is perpetrating what may be the biggest case of iatrogenesis—harmful medical treatment—in history.Dave Plunkert for The Chronicle Review

Three years ago, I was reminded in dramatic fashion of the chasm between psychiatry and more-effective branches of medicine. My 14-year-old son, Mac, while playing lacrosse, emerged from a collision with his right arm askew. I drove him to a local hospital, where an orthopedic surgeon on duty immediately diagnosed the injury: dislocated elbow. He gave Mac an oral and local anesthetic and put him in a portable X-ray machine that showed Mac’s elbow joint on a screen, in real time. Watching the screen, the doctor quickly snapped Mac’s elbow back into place.

Overcome with gratitude to the doctor, I was leading my groggy son out of the hospital when my cellphone rang. An old friend, whom I’ll call Phil, was on the line. He was in the psychiatric ward of a New York hospital, to which his 16-year-old son had been committed. The boy, who was taking antidepressants for depression, had threatened to commit suicide, not for the first time. Thedoctors were recommending electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT.

Knowing that I had written about shock therapy and other psychiatric treatments, Phil asked my opinion. The fact that Phil had called me, a mere journalist, for advice in such a dire situation spoke volumes about the troubles of modern psychiatry.

I first took a close look at treatments for mental illness 15 years ago while researching an article for Scientific American. At the time, sales of a new class of antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRI’s, were booming. The first SSRI, Prozac, had quickly become the most widely prescribed drug in the world. Many psychiatrists, notably Peter D. Kramer, author of the best seller Listening to Prozac, touted SSRI’s as a revolutionary advance in the treatment of mental illness. Prozac, Kramer said in a phrase that I hope now haunts him, could make patients “better than well.”

Clinical trials told a different story. SSRI’s are no more effective than two older classes of antidepressants, tricyclics and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. What was even more surprising to me—given the rave reviews Prozac had received from Kramer and others—was that antidepressants as a whole were not more effective than so-called talking cures, whether cognitive behavioral therapy or even old-fashioned Freudian psychoanalysis. According to some investigators, treatments for depression and other common ailments work—if they do work—by harnessing the placebo effect, the tendency of a patient’s expectation of improvement to become self-fulfilling. I titled my article “Why Freud Isn’t Dead.” Far from defending psychoanalysis, my point was that psychiatry has made disturbingly little progress since the heyday of Freudian theory.

In retrospect, my critique of modern psychiatry was probably too mild. According to Anatomy of an Epidemic (Crown Publishers, 2010), by the journalist Robert Whitaker, psychiatry has not only failed to progress but may now be harming many of those it purports to help. Anatomy of an Epidemic has been ignored by most major media. I learned about it only after Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and now a lecturer on public health at Harvard, reviewed the book in The New York Review of Books in June. If Whitaker is right, American psychiatry, in collusion with the pharmaceutical industry, is perpetrating what may be the biggest case of iatrogenesis—harmful medical treatment—in history.

As recently as the 1950s, Whitaker contends, the four major mental disorders—depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia—often manifested as episodic and “self limiting”; that is, most people simply got better over time. Severe, chronic mental illness was viewed as relatively rare. But over the past few decades the proportion of Americans diagnosed with mental illness has skyrocketed. Since 1987, the percentage of the population receiving federal disability payments for mental illness has more than doubled; among children under the age of 18, the percentage has grown by a factor of 35.

Between 1985 and 2008, sales of antidepressants and antipsychotics multiplied almost fiftyfold, to $24.2-billion.

This epidemic has coincided, paradoxically, with a surge in prescriptions for psychiatric drugs. Between 1985 and 2008, sales of antidepressants and antipsychotics multiplied almost fiftyfold, to $24.2-billion. Prescriptions for bipolar disorder and anxiety have also swelled. One in eight Americans, including children and even toddlers, is now taking a psychotropic medication. Whitaker acknowledges that antidepressants and other psychiatric medications often provide short-term relief, which explains why so many physicians and patients believe so fervently in the drugs’ benefits. But over time, Whitaker argues, drugs make many patients sicker than they would have been if they had never been medicated.

Whitaker compiles anecdotal and clinical evidence that when patients stop taking SSRI’s, they often experience depression more severe than what drove them to seek treatment. A multination report by the World Health Organization in 1998 associated long-term antidepressant usage with a higher rather than a lower risk of long-term depression. SSRI’s cause a wide range of side effects, including insomnia, sexual dysfunction, apathy, suicidal impulses, and mania—which may then lead patients to be diagnosed with and treated for bipolar disorder.

Indeed, Whitaker suspects that antidepressants—as well as Ritalin and other stimulants prescribed for attention-deficit disorder—have catalyzed the recent spike in bipolar disorder. Though bipolar disorder was relatively rare just a half-century ago, reported rates of it have increased more than a hundredfold, to one in 40 adults. Side effects attributed to lithium and other common medications for bipolar disorder include deficits in memory, learning ability, and fine-motor skills. Similarly, benzodiazepines such as Valium and Xanax, which are prescribed for anxiety, are addictive; withdrawal from these sedatives can cause effects ranging from insomnia to seizures, as well as panic attacks.

Whitaker’s analysis of treatments for schizophrenia is especially disturbing. Antipsychotics, from Thorazine to successors like Zyprexa, cause weight gain, physical tremors (called tardive dyskinesia) and, according to some studies, cognitive decline and brain shrinkage. Before the introduction of Thorazine in the 1950s, Whitaker asserts, almost two-thirds of the patients hospitalized for an initial episode of schizophrenia were released within a year, and most of this group did not require subsequent hospitalization.

Over the past half-century, the rate of schizophrenia-related disability has grown by a factor of four, and schizophrenia has come to be seen as a largely chronic, degenerative disease. A decades-long study by the World Health Organization found that schizophrenic patients fared better in poor nations, such as Nigeria and India, where antipsychotics are sparingly prescribed, than in wealthier regions such as the United States and Europe.

A long-term study by Martin Harrow, a psychologist at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, found an inverse correlation between medication for schizophrenia and positive, long-term outcomes. Beginning in the 1970s, Harrow tracked a group of 64 newly diagnosed schizophrenics. Forty percent of the nonmedicated patients recovered—meaning that they could become self-supporting—versus 5 percent of those who were medicated. Harrow theorized that those who were heavily medicated were sicker to begin with, but Whitaker suggests that the medications may be making some patients sicker.

Several possible objections to Whitaker’s case against psychiatry come to mind. First of all, as Harrow speculates, over time heavily medicated patients may not fare as well as less-medicated patients because the former truly are sicker. Also, the recent surge in mental disability may stem, at least in part, from a decrease in the stigma associated with mental illness, spurring more people to seek and obtain treatment and government assistance. In her review, Marcia Angell called Whitaker’s book “suggestive, if not conclusive,” which seems right to me. At the very least, Whitaker’s claims warrant further investigation.

Between 1985 and 2008, sales of antidepressants and antipsychotics multiplied almost fiftyfold, to $24.2-billion.

Although Whitaker doesn’t address electroconvulsive therapy, its persistence strikes me as yet another symptom of the weakness of modern psychiatry. It fell out of favor in the 1970s, in part because of its negative portrayal in the 1975 film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and yet about 100,000 Americans a year still receive ECT. Studies suggest that the therapy can provide temporary relief from acute depression, but virtually everyone who receives electroconvulsive therapy relapses within a year without further treatment. Proponents claim that ECT has few significant side effects, but this year an FDA panel ruled that ECT should remain classified as a “high-risk” procedure because it can cause persistent memory loss and other side effects. If SSRI’s and other psychiatric medications were truly effective, ECT would long ago have been tossed into the dustbin of failed psychiatric treatments.

So what happened to Phil’s son? When Phil called me, I told him that if my son were suicidally depressed, I’d resist giving him shock treatment unless doctors convinced me there was absolutely no alternative. Phil decided against ECT, and his son, after being released from the hospital, gradually stopped taking antidepressants too. He still struggles with depression, and he smokes more marijuana than Phil would like. But he is healthy enough to be starting college this fall.

http://chronicle.com/article/Are-Psychiatric-Medications/128976/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Mass psychosis in the US—How Big Pharma got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs (1)
• The Drugging of America (0)
• Antidepressant Nation (0)
• Making a Market in Antipsychotic Drugs: An Ironic Tragedy (0)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)

The Fix – Aug 5, 2011

by Walter Armstrong, Deputy Editor, The Fix.

Pharmaceutical giants spend billions a year to get doctors to prescribe drugs to American kids. Johnson & Johnson even passes out Legos advertising its latest anti-psychotic, ignoring mounting evidence that the drug causes diabetes, wild weight gain, and grows breasts in boys and girls who take it. Their solution? More pills

Plastic Legos stamped "RISPERDAL" are a fixture at pediatricians' offices nationwide.

In the past decade, America’s pharmaceutical industry has knowingly marketed dozens of dangerous drugs to millions of children, a group that executives apparently view as a lucrative, untapped market for their products. Most kids have no one to look out for their interests except anxious parents who put their trust in doctors. As it turns out, that trust is often misplaced. Big Pharma spends massive amounts to entertain physicians, send them on luxury vacations and ply them with an endless supply of free products. As a result, hundreds of thousands of American kids—some as young as three years old—have become dependent on amphetamines like Adderall and a pharmacopeia of other drugs that allegedly treat depression, insomnia, aggression and other mental health disorders.

The fact that none of these powerful mood-altering medications have been approved by the FDA to treat children under 10 has posed no obstacle to the industry’s marketing masterminds. They’ve waved off objections by some some doctors who wonder how these complex drugs will affect the vulnerable brains and bodies of their young patients. Other experts have warned that children exposed to this multi-molecular barrage on their central nervous systems could potentially be at much higher risk of becoming adults who are addicted to chemicals, prescription and otherwise. But thanks to a billion-dollar advertising campaign, millions of kids across the nation are now taking pills to control a long  litany of “behavioral problems.”

Luckily, Johnson and Johnson is not getting off scot-free. Last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakely announced that the state was suing the world’s biggest pharmaceutical firm, Johnson & Johnson, for illegally promoting Risperdal, an “atypical anti-psychotic”,  for off-label treatment of childhood schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder, depression and anxiety, sleep disorders, anger management, mood enhancement or stabilization. As BNet’s Placebo Effect blog recently reported, the list of maladies is grotesquely long. J&J, which prides itself on its high-minded credo of “always putting patients first,” began moving its new drug into this new market as soon as Risperdal won approval in adults—even though the FDA explicitly forbid it from doing so, for the simple reason that the firm had never done a single test of the drug in children who suffered from these or any other conditions.

Though Risperdal was marketed as a less dangerous—if not more effective—alternative to older “typical” anti-psychotics, it quickly became apparent that the drug had many worrisome side effects in adults, including the rapid onset of diabetes and alarming weight gains. But despite a growing weight of evidence about the drugs, J&J only stepped up its promotion of the drug for children—aiming for more conditions and in ever-younger kids—no doubt to squeeze as many profits as possible out of this lemon before the FDA ordered them to stamp a warning on the label or withdraw it from the market altogether.

Unsurprisingly, teens and kids started developing symptoms of drug-induced diabetes and weight gain. Several also developed a bizarre condition called galactorrhea, in which milk flows spontaneously from the nipples of your breasts—girls and boys alike—a happening that is likely to drive even the most balanced teen around the bend. What may be even more bizarre, when doctors alerted J&J sales reps to this side effect, sales reps relayed the warning to their managers, who advised the sales reps to tell the doctors (in a frankly illegal reversal of medical protocol) that rather than take the kids off Risperdal, they could be treated with yet another drug.

The Massachusetts case is the third of about 10 state lawsuits in which jurors will be asked to pass judgment on whether J&J’s Risperdal promotional practices constitute medical fraud. Class-action suits by patients (or parents) claiming injury are also in the works. The Obama administration has shown some guts in not simply allowing the giant drug makers to settle such lawsuits for giant fees ($2 billion is not unusual, however ho-hum to pharma) but in holding individual company executives personally liable for the criminal activity.

In fact this code of misconduct is what we have come to expect from the pharmaceutical industry: Always put profits first, break the law now, pay the fine years later. Given the high-risk nature of drug development—a novel compound costs close to $1 billion and a decade to get to market—Big Pharma has tried all manner of dark arts to increase its odds. Criminal activity, once largely limited to the sales divisions, has overtaken the entire endeavor. Clinical trials that produce negative data—including health risks—are hidden from the FDA. Early signals of serious side effects are covered up, as are promised follow-up studies upon which approval is conditioned. Like other industries, pharma and its lobbyists have regulators and Congress by the balls.

But it’s the corruption of the medical profession by the pharmaceutical industry that has proved most insidious, and nothing illustrates the perilous consequences better than J&J’s illegal marketing of Risperdal to kids. Making 100,000 sales calls on psychiatrists and pediatricians, the company lined the pockets of willing MDs employing familiar pharma ploys, from the small-change items like lavishing free samples, free lunches and—this may be a first—even free colorful plastic Lego blocks printed with the word RISPERDAL for children to play with in the waiting room, to the big-ticket items such as “educational” meetings at fancy resorts and “advisory board” soirees at the Four Seasons. The company even paid certain leading specialists hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to conduct J&J-designed trials and sign their name to J&J-written studies published in the top medical journals—providing a “scientific” spin to the promotional materials. In this amorphous manner, a professional consensus emerged that the atypical anti-psychotics were effective in very young children for attacks of rage, poor impulse control, defiant and oppositional behavior—the transient, irrational, sometimes frightening “acting out” that sends overworked adults around the bend.

By means of this closed circle or deceit and kickbacks, J&J beat out the competition to grab 50 percent of the pediatric market for anti-psychotics. And although many other psychiatrists and pediatricians were arguing that anti-psychotics should never be given to children under 10 in the first place, the white wall of silence in the medical profession generally prevents doctors from becoming whistleblowers unless prodded by investigative news reporting.

Everybody was profiting, it seemed, except for the kids.

Consider Kyle Warren, who as an 18-month-old Louisiana toddler began taking Risperdal prescribed by a pediatrician on the J&J payroll (plastic RISPERDAL Legos and all). Kyle suffered from frequent temper tantrums, and his mother, Brandy Warren, then 22, was a new mother on Medicaid and, as she told the New York Times, “at my wit’s end.” But like any good mother, Brandy kept on searching for the right diagnosis and the right treatment, going from doctor to doctor and amassing a contradictory set of assessments, such as autism, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. By the time he was age three, Kyle’s daily pill regimen resembled that of someone very old or very sick, including Risperdal, the antidepressant Prozac, uppers for ADHD and downers for insomnia. He was sedated, he drooled, and he was ballooning with fat from the side effects of the Risperdal—but, look Ma, no more temper tantrums!

read the rest of the article here: http://www.thefix.com/content/jj-sued-illegal-promotion-drugs-kids?page=all

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Antipschotic Drugs—Side Effects May Include Lawsuits (0)
• Claim: J&J Wrongly Marketed Antipsychotic Drug Risperdal to Kids (1)
• Drug firms paid ‘independent’ experts (0)
• Antipsychotics Have Dramatic Consequences in Kids, Study Shows (0)
• How Seroquel, a Risky Antipsychotic, Became a “General Purpose” Mental Health Drug (1)

Truthdig – July 14, 2011

10 percent of Americans over age six now take antidepressants

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

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

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

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

Marcia Angell in The New York Review of Books:

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

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

Read Part 2: The Illusions of Psychiatry

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Mass psychosis in the US—How Big Pharma got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs (1)
• Profiting from mental ill-health (1)
• Making a Market in Antipsychotic Drugs: An Ironic Tragedy (0)
• Are Psychiatric Medications Making Us Sicker? (0)
• Drugs Used for Psychotics Go to Youths in Foster Care (0)

ALJAZEERA – July 12, 2011

by James Ridgeway

Drug companies like Pfizer are accused of pressuring doctors into over-prescribing medications to patients in order to increase profits - GALLO/GETTY

Has America become a nation of psychotics? You would certainly think so, based on the explosion in the use of antipsychotic medications. In 2008, with over $14 billion in sales, antipsychotics became the single top-selling therapeutic class of prescription drugs in the United States, surpassing drugs used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux.

Once upon a time, antipsychotics were reserved for a relatively small number of patients with hard-core psychiatric diagnoses – primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder – to treat such symptoms as delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder. Today, it seems, everyone is taking antipsychotics. Parents are told that their unruly kids are in fact bipolar, and in need of anti-psychotics, while old people with dementia are dosed, in large numbers, with drugs once reserved largely for schizophrenics. Americans with symptoms ranging from chronic depression to anxiety to insomnia are now being prescribed anti-psychotics at rates that seem to indicate a national mass psychosis.

It is anything but a coincidence that the explosion in antipsychotic use coincides with the pharmaceutical industry’s development of a new class of medications known as “atypical antipsychotics.” Beginning with Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel in the 1990s, followed by Abilify in the early 2000s, these drugs were touted as being more effective than older antipsychotics like Haldol and Thorazine. More importantly, they lacked the most noxious side effects of the older drugs – in particular, the tremors and other motor control problems.

The atypical anti-psychotics were the bright new stars in the pharmaceutical industry’s roster of psychotropic drugs – costly, patented medications that made people feel and behave better without any shaking or drooling. Sales grew steadily, until by 2009 Seroquel and Abilify numbered fifth and sixth in annual drug sales, and prescriptions written for the top three atypical antipsychotics totaled more than 20 million.  Suddenly, antipsychotics weren’t just for psychotics any more.

Not just for psychotics anymore

By now, just about everyone knows how the drug industry works to influence the minds of American doctors, plying them with gifts, junkets, ego-tripping awards, and research funding in exchange for endorsing or prescribing the latest and most lucrative drugs. “Psychiatrists are particularly targeted by Big Pharma because psychiatric diagnoses are very subjective,” says Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, whose PharmedOut project tracks the industry’s influence on American medicine, and who last month hosted a conference on the subject at Georgetown. A shrink can’t give you a blood test or an MRI to figure out precisely what’s wrong with you. So it’s often a case of diagnosis by prescription. (If you feel better after you take an anti-depressant, it’s assumed that you were depressed.) As the researchers in one study of the drug industry’s influence put it, “the lack of biological tests for mental disorders renders psychiatry especially vulnerable to industry influence.” For this reason, they argue, it’s particularly important that the guidelines for diagnosing and treating mental illness be compiled “on the basis of an objective review of the scientific evidence” – and not on whether the doctors writing them got a big grant from Merck or own stock in AstraZeneca.

Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and a leading critic of the Big Pharma, puts it more bluntly: “Psychiatrists are in the pocket of industry.” Angell has pointed out that most of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of mental health clinicians, have ties to the drug industry. Likewise, a 2009 study showed that 18 out of 20 of the shrinks who wrote the American Psychiatric Association’s most recent clinical guidelines for treating depression, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia had financial ties to drug companies.

In a recent article in The New York Review of Books, Angell deconstructs what she calls an apparent “raging epidemic of mental illness” among Americans. The use of psychoactive drugs—including both antidepressants and antipsychotics—has exploded, and if the new drugs are so effective, Angell points out, we should “expect the prevalence of mental illness to be declining, not rising.” Instead, “the tally of those who are so disabled by mental disorders that they qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) increased nearly two and a half times between 1987 and 2007 – from one in 184 Americans to one in seventy-six. For children, the rise is even more startling – a thirty-five-fold increase in the same two decades. Mental illness is now the leading cause of disability in children.” Under the tutelage of Big Pharma, we are “simply expanding the criteria for mental illness so that nearly everyone has one.” Fugh-Berman agrees: In the age of aggressive drug marketing, she says, “Psychiatric diagnoses have expanded to include many perfectly normal people.”

Cost benefit analysis

What’s especially troubling about the over-prescription of the new antipsychotics is its prevalence among the very young and the very old – vulnerable groups who often do not make their own choices when it comes to what medications they take. Investigations into antipsychotic use suggests that their purpose, in these cases, may be to subdue and tranquilize rather than to treat any genuine psychosis.

Carl Elliott reports in Mother Jones magazine: “Once bipolar disorder could be treated with atypicals, rates of diagnoses rose dramatically, especially in children. According to a recent Columbia University study, the number of children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder rose 40-fold between 1994 and 2003.” And according to another study, “one in five children who visited a psychiatrist came away with a prescription for an antipsychotic drug.”

A remarkable series published in the Palm Beach Post in May true revealed that the state of  Florida’s juvenile justice department has literally been pouring these drugs into juvenile facilities, “routinely” doling them out “for reasons that never were approved by federal regulators.” The numbers are staggering: “In 2007, for example, the Department of Juvenile Justice bought more than twice as much Seroquel as ibuprofen. Overall, in 24 months, the department bought 326,081 tablets of Seroquel, Abilify, Risperdal and other antipsychotic drugs for use in state-operated jails and homes for children…That’s enough to hand out 446 pills a day, seven days a week, for two years in a row, to kids in jails and programs that can hold no more than 2,300 boys and girls on a given day.” Further, the paper discovered that “One in three of the psychiatrists who have contracted with the state Department of Juvenile Justice in the past five years has taken speaker fees or gifts from companies that make antipsychotic medications.”

In addition to expanding the diagnoses of serious mental illness, drug companies have encouraged doctors to prescribe atypical anti-psychotics for a host of off-label uses. In one particularly notorious episode, the drugmaker Eli Lilly pushed Zyprexa on the caregivers of old people with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia, as well as agitation, anxiety, and insomnia. In selling to nursing home doctors, sales reps reportedly used the slogan “five at five”—meaning that five milligrams of Zyprexa at 5 pm would sedate their more difficult charges. The practice persisted even after FDA had warned Lilly that the drug was not approved for such uses, and that it could lead to obesity and even diabetes in elderly patients.

In a video interview conducted in 2006, Sharham Ahari, who sold Zyprexa for two years at the beginning of the decade, described to me how the sales people would wangle the doctors into prescribing it. At the time, he recalled, his doctor clients were giving him a lot of grief over patients who were “flipping out” over the weight gain associated with the drug, along with the diabetes. “We were instructed to downplay side effects and focus on the efficacy of drug…to recommend the patient drink a glass a water before taking a pill before the  meal and then after the meal in hopes the stomach would expand” and provide an easy way out of this obstacle to increased sales. When docs complained, he recalled, “I told them, ‘Our drug is state of the art. What’s more important? You want them to get better or do you want them to stay the same–a thin psychotic patient or a fat stable patient.’”

For the drug companies, Shahrman says, the decision to continue pushing the drug despite side effects is matter of cost benefit analysis: Whether you will make more money by continuing to market the drug for off-label use, and perhaps defending against lawsuits, than you would otherwise. In the case of Zyprexa, in January 2009, Lilly settled a lawsuit brought by with the US Justice Department, agreeing to pay $1.4 billion, including “a criminal fine of $515 million, the largest ever in a health care case, and the largest criminal fine for an individual corporation ever imposed in a United States criminal prosecution of any kind,”the Department of Justice said in announcing the settlement.” But Lilly’s sale of Zyprexa in that year alone were over $1.8 billion.

Turning people into zombies

As it turns out, the atypical antipsychotics may not even be the best choice for people with genuine, undisputed psychosis.

Read the rest of the article here: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Antidepressant Nation (0)
• Antipschotic Drugs—Side Effects May Include Lawsuits (0)
• Drugs Used for Psychotics Go to Youths in Foster Care (0)
• Are Psychiatric Medications Making Us Sicker? (0)
• Making a Market in Antipsychotic Drugs: An Ironic Tragedy (0)

Anchorage Daily News – July 9, 2011

By John Havelock

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

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

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

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

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

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Antidepressant Nation (0)
• Depression? Don’t believe it —Big Pharma has gained an ever greater hold over our mental & emotional lives (0)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)
• Mass psychosis in the US—How Big Pharma got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs (1)
• “How do I get off all the depression drugs?” We asked an expert (0)

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)

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

Related Posts

• Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System (0)
• A sugared pill (0)
• Dealing With Depression Naturally (0)
• Nation of Pill Poppers: 19 Potentially Dangerous Drugs Pushed By Big Pharma (0)
• Justice to Pharma: “Do the Perp Walk!” (0)

There are no genetic tests, no brain scans, blood tests, chemical imbalance tests or X-rays that can scientifically/medically prove that any psychiatric label is a real medical condition.

Vancouver, British Columbia — (SBWIRE) — 04/25/2011 — A new must-see video produced by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International graphically demonstrates the fraudulent nature of psychiatry’s labels.

In real life, 20 million children are now wearing these labels that are based solely on a checklist of behaviors. There are no brain scans, x-rays, genetic or blood tests that can prove the scientific validity of any of the psychiatric labels, yet these children are prescribed dangerous and life-threatening psychiatric drugs based on nothing more than the invented label.

Child drugging is a $4.8 billion-a-year industry.

The psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars a year in order to convince the public, legislators and the press that these labels such as Bi-Polar Disorder, Depression, (ADD/ADHD), Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, etc., are medical diseases on par with verifiable medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. This is simply a way to maintain their hold on a $84 billion dollar-a-year psychiatric drug industry that is based on marketing and not science.

Brian Beaumont, president of the Vancouver chapter of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) said, “Unlike real medical disease, there are no scientific tests to verify the medical existence of any psychiatric disorder. Falsely labeling children is fraud and drugging these children is child abuse”.

Despite decades of trying to prove mental disorders are biological brain conditions, due to chemical imbalances or genetic factors, psychiatry has failed to prove even one of their hundreds of so-called mental disorders is due to a faulty or “chemically imbalanced” brain”.

http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/sbwire-89685.htm

To find out more about psychiatric diagnosing, labels and drugs, click here: http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• Is the American Psychiatric Association in Bed with Big Pharma? Answer: Yes (1)
• ADHD drugs linked to heart disease and death (1)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)

There’s a reason psychiatrists prescribe drugs rather than talking therapy: the latter makes no money for pharmaceutical firms

The Guardian
By Harriet Fraad
March 15, 2011

More than one in ten Americans takes Prozac; the US comprises 5% of the world's population, yet consumes two thirds of psychological medications. Photograph: Stone/Jonathan Nourok/Getty

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Antipschotic Drugs—Side Effects May Include Lawsuits (0)
• Antidepressant Nation (0)
• People & Power—Drug Money (0)
• Pharma’s Drug Ads: From Million Dollar TV Ads to $1.7 Billion Internet Marketing Campaign (15)
• Ron Paul Reintroduces The Parental Consent Act 2011! Prohibits Federal Funding For Psychiatric ‘Screening’ of Kids (7)

Natural News — January 24, 2011

by Monica G. Young

"There is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bull___. I mean, you just can't define it." —Allen Frances, MD, lead editor for the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-IV).

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bull___. I mean, you just can’t define it,” states Allen Frances, MD, lead editor for the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). As DSM-IV is the imperial doctrine used by psychiatrists in diagnosing mental disorders, prescribing powerful psychotropics to the masses, and commanding health care dollars, this is quite a confession. “We made mistakes that had terrible consequences,” Frances concedes.

Gary Greenberg who interviewed Frances and wrote an in-depth article for Wired Magazine, describes how Frances’ conscience has been hitting him in the gut. “Diagnoses of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and bipolar disorder skyrocketed, and Frances thinks his manual inadvertently facilitated these epidemics — and, in the bargain, fostered an increasing tendency to chalk up life’s difficulties to mental illness and then treat them with psychiatric drugs,” writes Greenberg.

DSM-IV led to a 40X increase in child bipolar diagnoses and an epidemic of dangerous antipsychotic prescriptions for children, even as young as 3.

Senior editor of DSM-III (the prior version), Robert Spitzer MD, had his own rude awakening. He is the one who spurred Frances to join him in battling against the creators of DSM-5 — the next edition in progress. Spitzer publicly censured the APA for mandating that psychiatrists involved in DSM-5 sign a written promise to never talk about what they were doing, except when necessary for their jobs. “The intent seemed to be not to let anyone know what…was going on,” says Spitzer.

Spitzer and Frances warn that including a proposed “pre-psychotic” disorder could lead to a new diagnosis explosion and drug company marketing onslaught. Frances says an emphasis on early intervention would encourage the “wholesale imperial medicalization of normality,” producing “a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry” while imposing on patients the “high price [of] adverse effects, dollars, and stigma.”

There are many other dissenters in the field. Greenberg says “they are becoming increasingly restive, and some are beginning to agree with Frances that public pressure may be the only way to derail a train that he fears will ‘take psychiatry off a cliff.’”

Greenberg, himself a psychotherapist, points out that scientific certainty eludes psychiatry. He reports, “every fight over nomenclature threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the profession by revealing its dirty secret: that for all their confident pronouncements, psychiatrists can’t rigorously differentiate illness from everyday suffering.”

With 25% more mental disorders than DSM-III, DSM-IV has been a goldmine for drug companies. According to a 2006 study by Tufts University, more than half of the DSM-IV authors had financial links to the pharmaceutical industry.

Lacking medical research, the DSM-5 website is riddled with “deliberating”, “discussing”, and “heavy discussions” to describe how these professed experts attempt to decree new disorders. New proposals for DSM-5 include “Hoarding Disorder”, “Skin Picking Disorder” and worse, new labels for babies: “Temper Dysregulation Disorder” and “Feeding Disorder”. This would open the door to an infant drugging marketing campaign!

Like the tale of the pompous emperor who pretends his clothes are so magnificent they can only be seen by wise people, the psychiatric and drug industries peddle their fabricated labels and drug remedies to the world. And like the little boy who shouts the obvious “the emperor has no clothes”, it’s up to public pressure to stop this.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)
• The Illusions of Psychiatry (0)
• What’s A Mental Disorder? Even Experts Can’t Agree (0)
• Pre-Crime? Try Pre-Diagnose and Pre-Drug: Psychiatrists target infants as mental patients (0)
• Pre-Crime? Try Pre-Diagnose and Pre-Drug: Psychiatrists target infants as mental patients (34)