Posts Tagged ‘research’

Long Awaited Army Report on Suicides Ignores Role of Suicide-Causing Drugs such as Antidepressants/Antipsychotics

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

OpEdNews
By Martha Rosenberg
August 1, 2010

Why are troops killing themselves?

The long awaited Army report, “Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, Suicide Prevention” considers the economy, the stress of nine years of war, family dislocations, repeated moves, repeated deployments, troops’ risk-taking personalities, waived entrance standards and many aspects of Army culture.

What it barely considers is the suicide-inked antidepressants, antipsychotics and antiseizure drugs whose use exactly parallels the increase in US troop suicides since 2005.

In the report Chief of Staff General Peter W. Chiarelli acknowledges antidepressant risks, saying there’s “fair quality evidence that second generation antidepressants (mostly SSRI) increase suicidal behavior in adults aged 18 to 29 years” but adds that “other research evidence shows the benefit of antidepressant use”.

And nowhere does he acknowledge the suicide potential of antiseizure drugs so widely used for pain and as “mood stabilizers” by troops even though the FDA mandated suicide warnings on Lyrica, Topamaz, Depakote, Lamictal, Tegretol, Depakene, Klonopin and 16 others in 2008.

(Lamictal also has the distinction of wasting more taxpayer money than any other drug according to a July American Enterprise Institute report. Medicaid spent an unnecessary $51 million on Lamictal instead of buying a generic last year, thanks to GSK salesmen. You go, guys,)

When asked by NPR’s Robert Siegel if the high number of medicated troops contributed to suicide, Gen. Chiarelli said, “The good thing about those numbers is…the prescriptions were all made by a doctor.” Asked why troops who had not even deployed were among the suicides, Chiarelli said there were other stressors involved.

In June Marine Times reported 32 deaths on prescription drugs in Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) since 2007 and said an internal review “found the biggest risk factor may be putting a soldier on numerous drugs simultaneously, a practice known as polypharmacy.”

But instead of citing dangerous drugs and drug cocktails for turning troops suicidal (and accident prone and at risk of death from unsafe combinations) the Army report cites troops’ illicit use of them along with street drugs. (The word “illicit” appears 150 times in the Army report and “psychiatrist” appears twice.)

No, it’s not the 8,000 urine samples in 2009 which showed prescription drug traces according to the Army report — it’s the fact that 21 percent of the drugs were “illicit.”

No wonder the revised suicide report form suggested by the Army report doesn’t even have a box to enter “adverse reactions to drug or drug combinations.” Instead, it has a box that asks how long before a suicide a patient was “compliant” with the prescription. Was the medication “taken as prescribed? Skipped?” Taken “In excess of prescription? In different manner (e.g., crushed instead of in capsule)?”

Read entire article here:  http://www.opednews.com/articles/Army-Suicide-Report-Ignore-by-Martha-Rosenberg-100801-596.html?show=votes

« Return to news items


Share

Science Mag—This Is Your Brain Off Drugs:Why Pharma May Be Cooling on Psychiatry Drugs—no pathology for mental ‘disease’

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Though this article includes some scientific/medical terminology, the  significance of what the neurologist is describing is extremely relevant:  Unlike regular “diseases” there is no clear pathology for psychiatric disorders.   See this previous blog/news entry by CCHR on this same subject: Wake Up FDA—Even Drug Giants Are Admitting No Lab Tests Exist To Prove If Antidepressants Work  http://www.cchrint.org/2010/02/05/wake-up-fda%E2%80%94even-drug-giants-are-admitting-no-lab-tests-exist-to-prove-if-antidepressants-work/

ScienceMag.com

by Greg Miller, July 28, 2010

Earlier this year, pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca announced it was ceasing drug-discovery research for psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia. The move, along with cutbacks at other companies, has raised concerns about where the next generation of neuropsychiatric drugs will come from—see this Friday’s issue of Science for a feature article exploring this topic.

Yesterday, ScienceInsider spoke with neuroscientist Menelas Pangalos, who in May took over as AstraZeneca’s head of drug-discovery research and early development. His comments have been edited for brevity.

Q: What do the recent changes mean for neuroscience research at AstraZeneca?

M.P.: Basically, from a research perspective, we’re pulling out of the psychiatry space. We’re still very much focused on neurology, so Alzheimer’s disease, pain, cognition, … those areas are still very active.

Q: What makes research on psychiatric drugs less attractive?

M.P.: Our understanding of disease pathophysiology is still relatively in its infancy.

These are complex and heterogeneous disorders. Also, the size and robustness of the clinical trials made it a less attractive area for us to be in compared to other areas we were working in. There has to be a much better alignment between preclinical and clinical work.

Q: How so?

M.P.: In neurology, if you take stroke as an example, preclinical models of stroke tend to be occlusion of the middle cerebral artery, which causes ischemic damage in the brain of a rodent or nonhuman primate that mirrors fairly well what happens in the human situation.

When you start getting into psychiatry, we have tail suspension assays, we have forced swim assays, we have learned helplessness assays … none of which have been developed through a detailed understanding of the pathophysiology. [In these tests, researchers measure how long it takes a rodent to stop struggling after being suspended by its tail or placed in a pool of liquid; giving up is presumed to be a rodent version of despair.]

Read the entire article here:  http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/this-is-your-brain-off-drugs-why.html


« Return to news items


Share

Drug Giant AstraZeneca to drop psychiatric drug research for schizophrenia, bipolar, depression & anxiety drugs

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Reuters
By Ben Hirschler
March 2, 2010

AstraZeneca (AZN.L) is to stop researching some disease areas that form the backbone of its current business — including schizophrenia and acid reflux — in a drive to focus R&D efforts and cut costs.

The Anglo-Swedish drugmaker, which faces one of the sector’s worst “cliffs” of expiring drug patents, told its staff on Tuesday it would cease discovery in 10 of its current disease areas, or around one quarter of the total.

A wide-ranging overhaul had been expected since the group said in January it was cutting a further 8,000 staff, or some 12 percent of the workforce, including a net 1,800 in research. But it is only now that staff know where the axe will fall.

AstraZeneca is not alone in taking the knife to previously sacrosanct R&D, though its cuts are particularly deep. Pfizer (PFE.N) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) are also ditching drug discovery work that does not pay its way. [ID:nLDE61408I]

Read entire article:  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62019Q20100302?type=marketsNews

« 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

U.S. Senator charges “scientific” support of drugs often written by Pharma ghost writers

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

Natasha Singer
The New York Times
August 18, 2009

A growing body of evidence suggests that doctors at some of the nation’s top medical schools have been attaching their names and lending their reputations to scientific papers that were drafted by ghostwriters working for drug companies — articles that were carefully calibrated to help the manufacturers sell more products.

Experts in medical ethics condemn this practice as a breach of the public trust. Yet many universities have been slow to recognize the extent of the problem, to adopt new ethical rules or to hold faculty members to account.

Those universities may not have much longer to get their houses in order before they find themselves in trouble with Washington.

With a letter last week, a senator who helps oversee public funding for medical research signaled that he was running out of patience with the practice of ghostwriting. Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has led a long-running investigation of conflicts of interest in medicine, is starting to put pressure on the National Institutes of Health to crack down on the practice.

Read entire article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/health/research/19ethics.html?_r=2&ref=health

« Return to news items


Share