Posts Tagged ‘psychiatric research’

Leading “brain imaging” center (Pharma funded) studying “biology of mental disorders” gets raided by Feds & shut down

Friday, July 23rd, 2010

(For more information on recently debunked  brain imaging studies on “schizophrenia” see link at bottom of this post)

The New York Times
By Benedict Carey
July 16, 2010

Columbia University has quietly suspended research at a nationally prominent brain-imaging center and reassigned its top managers after federal investigators found that it had routinely injected mental patients with drugs that contained potentially dangerous impurities.

The investigations found that the center — regarded by experts as the nation’s leader in the use of positron emission tomography, or PET, for psychiatric research — repeatedly violated Food and Drug Administration regulations over a four-year period.

“Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in legal action without further notice,” the agency wrote to Columbia in December 2008, citing lax internal quality control and sloppy procedures for formulating drug injections.

F.D.A. investigators returned in January 2010 and found that many of the center’s lab’s practices had not changed, and cited a long list of specific violations, including one instance in which the staff hid impurities from auditors by falsifying documents.

“They raided the place like it was a crime scene, seizing hard drives,” said one former lab worker, who requested anonymity because he feared reprisals from the university.

In a statement, the university said on Friday that it had conducted its own investigation of the lab at the request of the F.D.A. had and reported to the agency on July 6 that it found no evidence of harm to patients. The F.D.A. did not publicize its investigations; The New York Times learned of them from doctors who were familiar with the lab’s problems.

The office under fire, the Kreitchman PET Center, on West 168th Street in Manhattan, has attracted millions of dollars in research funds from the federal government and pharmaceutical companies to study drug actions and the biology of brain disorders, among other things.

Many of its studies focus on patients with disorders like schizophrenia and severe depression, who are especially vulnerable to poorly prepared imaging drugs because the compounds can act on brain receptors involved in their illness.

“We acknowledge serious shortcomings of quality control in the manufacturing process and record-keeping at this lab,” said David I. Hirsh, Columbia’s executive vice president for research. “That is why we are fundamentally reorganizing the lab’s management and operations in response to what the F.D.A. told us.”

To perform a PET scan, doctors must first inject patients with a radiotracer, a drug engineered to accumulate in the area of the body being studied and to emit low-level radiation detectable by a scanner.

The compounds are considered very safe. But because they degrade quickly, many laboratories produce them themselves, under protocols agreed upon with the F.D.A.

The agency regulates the allowable radiation levels and the purity of the drugs. If a drug contains too many impurities — unknown chemicals that may or may not be related to the tracer itself — then its effects in the body are unpredictable.

“There could be a patient safety issue, for one,” said Dr. Barry Siegel, chairman of the radioactive drug research committee at Washington University in St. Louis. “And there could be a scientific validity issue. If you’re exposing people to radiation and getting garbage data, then that becomes an ethical problem.”

Read entire article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/health/17columbia.html

For other recent expose’s on psychiatric brain imaging – see this article:

Anti-Psychotic Drugs are Likely to Cause Brain Damage, According to a New Study—

“The results challenge the widely-held view that schizophrenia itself causes brain structural changes, such as less brain grey matter, bigger ventricles and larger cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) spaces, claim researchers. The results are published in an edition earlier this year of the Psychological Medicine Journal.”

http://psychminded.co.uk/news/news2010/july10/Anti-psychotics-likely-to-cause-brain-damage001.html

« Return to news items


Share

Psychiatric Times – Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

“The proposed DSM5 would be a giant step backwards for psychiatry. American psychiatrists should petition the APA to drop this ill-conceived and badly executed project.”

Psychiatric Times
By Irwin Feinberg, MD
May 27, 2010

A vital consideration we learn in medicine is that continuing life support for a moribund patient past a certain point is harmful to the lives of all concerned. We have reached that point with DSM5. Dr Allen Frances has outlined compelling clinical arguments against many of the new disorders DSM5 proposes and he has shown how their adoption could have far-reaching, unintended, and damaging consequences for the patients we have pledged not to harm, and for society generally.

I write from the vantage point of 50 years of psychobiological research. Most of it is in the field of sleep neuroscience. However, as often happens in science, one thing leads to another and my observations enabled me to propose that the human brain undergoes a profound reorganization during adolescence driven by synaptic pruning and that some cases of schizophrenia might be caused by errors in this process. My association at NIMH with Edward V. Evarts, one of the great neurophysiologists of the last half century, stimulated me to propose that the hallucinations of schizophrenia result from a failure of feed-forward mechanisms that distinguish self-initiated neural activity from that produced by external stimulation, resulting in auditory hallucinations and other first-rank symptoms.

It is difficult and time-consuming to produce reliable new knowledge; it cannot be accomplished by committee fiat, as Drs Kupfer, Schatzberg and Regier seem to be believe. Dr Frances has mentioned the damage to psychiatric research that several new, ill-conceived categories in DSM5 could inflict. He also pointed out that changing nomenclature and diagnostic standards in the absence of compelling scientific justification will severely damage psychiatric research as well as clinical practice. Many of these changes would make it impossible to compare decades of epidemiological results with new findings. Moreover, the sloppy thinking and language in the proposed revision will be apparent to any educated layman. The “field trials” and timetables proposed for new categories are laughable to any statistically trained psychologist. The inevitable public exposure of the gross defects in DSM5 will bring our entire field into disrepute and diminish public support for the research we need.

There have been no research advances that demand new diagnoses and syndromes. Despite many intriguing findings, no psychiatric disease can be diagnosed by a biological or psychological test.

Read entire article:  http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1576554?CID=rs

« Return to news items


Share

Wake Up FDA—Even Drug Giants Are Admitting No Lab Tests Exist To Prove If Antidepressants Work

Friday, February 5th, 2010

By CCHR
February 5, 2010

With drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) now stating it will abandon future antidepressant research, one can only wonder if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noted GSK’s CEO Andrew Witty’s admission that it is “hard to prove that a depression drug is working” because “patient improvement is measured by subjective mood surveys, and not by the clear-cut blood tests and biological measures used in other diseases.”

To put this in perspective, the head of GSK is pointing out an obvious flaw in the psycho/pharmaceutical cash cow of psychiatric drugs.  There is no way to prove if a drug is working because there are no lab tests to prove anyone has a mental disorder in the first place—unlike medical diseases where blood and lab tests can show the effect of any drug upon the disease.

Given this statement, the next logical question is how did the FDA ever approve any psychiatric drug as safe and effective when the drug makers admit there is no proof of efficacy, only “subjective mood surveys.”

It seems the drug companies are catching on while the FDA is still promoting junk science in order to grant drug approval.

And that’s on top of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) landmark study published last month that found antidepressants no more effective than placebo. Add to that, 40% of antidepressant clinical trials have not been published because of negative results—they failed to show any significant benefit.  So, even with a “subjective mood survey,” they can’t get the drug to make the mark.  And the studies that did “prove” it did so, as Newsweek put it, for “the same reason why Disney’s Dumbo could initially fly only with a feather clutched in his trunk—believing makes it so.”

The FDA says: “Drugs must undergo a rigorous evaluation of safety, quality, and effectiveness before they can be sold.” Clearly, there is nothing rigorous about testing efficacy in antidepressants.  GSK’s confession is on par with former American Psychiatric Association president, Steven Sharfstein admitting that there is no lab test to confirm a chemical imbalance in the brain.  Reiterating this was his APA cohort Mark Graff, who told CBS Studio 2 that this theory was “probably drug industry derived”—in other words, a marketing ploy in the same vein as antidepressants are “effective.”

John Swann, Ph.D., historian at the FDA, once said: “To establish fraud, the bureau had to show that the manufacturer knew the product was worthless, and this proved difficult in many cases.”[i]

Well, FDA, if a drug company can admit what the FDA has known all along—that the efficacy of an antidepressant or any psychiatric drug is entirely subjective and, therefore, not based on science, how can the FDA continue to approve and condone the use of these drugs as “safe and effective?”

Instead of the potential fraud of a manufacturer, a more pertinent question we should be asking is this:
What if the government agency in charge of approving drugs, the FDA, knew a product was worthless and approved its use anyway? What happens then?


[i] http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/PromotingSafeandEffectiveDrugsfor100Years/default.htm

« Return to news items


Share