Posts Tagged ‘side effects’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Profiting from mental ill-health

Tuesday, March 15th, 2011

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

The New York Times recently led with a front-page splash about psychiatry’s propensity to prescribe pills, “Talk Doesn’t Pay, So Psychiatry Turns Instead to Drug Therapy”. That news is already widely known in the mental health field, but it has vast ramifications for Americans trying to maintain their sanity in our market-driven and medical system for delivering mental healthcare.

What does the turn to drug therapy mean for the mass of Americans?

Mental illness has not decreased with the change from talk therapy to drugs. In fact, as Robert Whitaker’s book diagnoses, mental illness in America has become an established epidemic. So-called miracle drugs like Prozac are taken by 11% of the population – and Prozac is only one of the 30 available antidepressants on the market. Antidepressants are accompanied by anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs. Xanax, America’s leading anti-anxiety medication, is so ubiquitous that Xanax generates more revenue than Tide detergent, reports Charles Barber in his Comfortably Numb.

Anti-psychotics drugs alone net the pharmaceutical industry at least $14.6bn dollars a year. Psycho-pharmaceuticals are the most profitable sector of the industry, which makes it one of the most profitable business sectors in the world. Americans are less than 5% of the world’s population, yet they consume 66% of the world’s psychological medications.

Do these psycho pharmaceuticals work to restore mental health? Actually, the evidence is overwhelming that they fail. Antidepressants, the most popular psycho-pharmaceuticals, work no better than placebos. They work 25% of the time and stop working when the user stops taking them. In addition, they may actually harm patients in the long run. They disrupt brain neurotransmitters and may usurp the brain’s organic soothing functions.

Psycho-pharmaceuticals are less effective in the long run than talk therapy. Talk therapy, like drugs, does change brain and body chemistry; unlike drugs, though, talk therapy has no side-effects. Instead, talk therapy gives a patient tools that usually help to solve future problems. The latest research is most clearly expressed in both Irving Kirsch’s Antidepressants: The Emperors New Drugs and Gary Greenberg’s, Manufacturing Depression, both published last year. Kirsch is one of the world’s leading psychiatrists; Greenberg is one of the world’s most prestigious psychologists. Their views are echoed by many voices in the field of mental health. Why is prestigious and extensive research so widely ignored by doctors and patients alike? Our market-driven healthcare system gives us clues.

All 30 of the available antidepressants have suffered lawsuits within five years of their appearance on the market. These suits are often settled with large payments and gag clauses. The new generation of anti-psychotics are the latest case in point. Anti-psychotics were the single biggest targets of the False Claims Act. Every major company selling anti-psychotics – Bristol Meyers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneca – has either settled investigations for healthcare fraud or is currently being investigated for it. Two recent settlements involving charges of illegal marketing set records for the largest criminal fines ever imposed on corporations. Their corporate logic is expressed in the words of Dr Jerome Avorn, a medical professor and researcher at Harvard: “When you are selling a billion a year or more of a drug, it’s very tempting for a company to just ignore the traffic ticket and keep speeding.”

There is also the widespread practice of paying physicians and psychiatrists heavy subsidies to recommend psycho-pharmaceuticals to their colleagues in small meetings at which a drug company representative is present. If doubt or criticism of the discussed drug is expressed, the doctor’s stipend stops. Another legally acceptable tool is to publish praise of a company’s drug in a scholarly article, which is often written by drug company personnel and simply tweaked by the physician whose name appears on the article. The physician is paid handsomely for such a service.

Under the pressure of legal settlements and embarrassing disclosures, eight pharmaceutical companies began posting doctors’ names and compensation on the web. ProPublica compiled these disclosures, totaling $320m, into a single database that allows patients to search for their doctor. Receiving payments for publishing articles written by drug companies is not illegal.

Two doctors, Dr Joseph Biederman and Dr Timothy Wilens of Harvard University Medical School, illustrate the close and cozy relationship between medical “scholarship” and drug companies. Drs Biederman and Wilens netted $1.6m each from drug companies for their work in recommending powerful anti-psychotic drugs for children. Biederman, Wilens and other extremely well-rewarded child psychiatrists are in part responsible for giving children the diagnosis of paediatric bipolar disorder for which anti-psychotic drugs like Risperidal and Zyprexa are used.

Experts agree that there is no long-term improvement in children’s lives from taking anti-psychotic drugs. In fact, these drugs have a substantiated pattern of metabolic problems and rapid weight gain that often leads to diabetes. The use of bipolar diagnoses and bipolar medications is one small example of how market-driven mental healthcare works in the United States. It illustrates the transformation of US healthcare into a system dominated by some of the richest corporations in the world.

Caring about profit is first, and that is why psychiatry has turned to drug therapy.

Read article here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/15/psychology-healthcare

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

Study: Diet May Help ADHD Kids More Than Drugs (yeah, ya think???)

Monday, March 14th, 2011

Note from CCHR:  We added the “yeah, ya think?” to the title because of the word “may” in the headline.   Children are being prescribed Ritalin and Ritalin-like drugs which are categorized as schedule ll by the U.S.  Drug Enforcement Administration as “highly addictive” in the same class as cocaine, opium and morphine.  The US FDA warns  ADHD drugs cause hallucinations, stroke, heart attack and sudden death to name a few (watch Drugging Our Children: Side Effects http://3.ly/atyH.)   Studies also prove that ADHD drugs do not improve children’s academic performance, they simply make the kid sit still and “behave.”   So which is better, diet or drugs? Is there really any question?  Given the fact that ADHD is not a disease, and the fact ADHD drugs are deadly,  we think the the may help kids more than drugs is a bit ridiculous.   Not to mention the fact that just because a kid acts like a kid, (ADHD ‘criteria,’ also known as childhood) they do not deserve to be labeled with a mental disorder and stigmatized mentally ill for the rest of their life.

NPR March 12, 2011

Hyperactivity. Fidgeting. Inattention. Impulsivity. If your child has one or more of these qualities on a regular basis, you may be told that he or she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. If so, they’d be among about 10 percent of children in the United States.

Kids with ADHD can be restless and difficult to handle. Many of them are treated with drugs, but a new study says food may be the key. Published in The Lancet journal, the study suggests that with a very restrictive diet, kids with ADHD could experience a significant reduction in symptoms.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Lidy Pelsser of the ADHD Research Centre in the Netherlands, writes in The Lancet that the disorder is triggered in many cases by external factors — and those can be treated through changes to one’s environment.

“ADHD, it’s just a couple of symptoms — it’s not a disease,” the Dutch researcher tells All Things Considered weekend host Guy Raz.

The way we think about — and treat — these behaviors is wrong, Pelsser says. “There is a paradigm shift needed. If a child is diagnosed ADHD, we should say, ‘OK, we have got those symptoms, now let’s start looking for a cause.’ ”

Pelsser compares ADHD to eczema. “The skin is affected, but a lot of people get eczema because of a latex allergy or because they are eating a pineapple or strawberries.”

According to Pelsser, 64 percent of children diagnosed with ADHD are actually experiencing a hypersensitivity to food. Researchers determined that by starting kids on a very elaborate diet, then restricting it over a few weeks’ time.

“It’s only five weeks,” Pelsser says. “If it is the diet, then we start to find out which foods are causing the problems.”

Teachers and doctors who worked with children in the study reported marked changes in behavior. “In fact, they were flabbergasted,” Pelsser says.

“After the diet, they were just normal children with normal behavior,” she says. No longer were they easily distracted or forgetful, and the temper tantrums subsided.

Some teachers said they never thought it would work, Pelsser says. “It was so strange,” she says, “that a diet would change the behavior of a child as thoroughly as they saw it. It was a miracle, a teacher said.”

But diet is not the solution for all children with ADHD, Pelsser cautions.

“In all children, we should start with diet research,” she says. If a child’s behavior doesn’t change, then drugs may still be necessary. “But now we are giving them all drugs, and I think that’s a huge mistake,” she says.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134456594/study-diet-may-help-adhd-kids-more-than-drugs?sc=emaf

For more information on psychiatric labeling of kids, watch Psychiatry: Labeling Kids with Bogus Mental Disorders http://www.cchrint.org/videos/

For more information on documented side effects of drugs, watch Drugging Our Children – Side Effects :http://www.cchrint.org/videos/drugs/drugging-our-children-side-effects/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

False peace of mind – Antidepressant Placebos

Thursday, March 10th, 2011

Antidepressant placebos remain a steady presence in clinical experiments, but not in public knowledge

The McGill Daily
Debbie Wang
March 10, 2011

Victor Tangermann | The McGill Daily

It’s the classic situation: with an imminent exam and a carefully planned cramming schedule, you awake one morning with the all too familiar symptoms of a common cold. Feeling sorry for yourself between sniffles and coughs, you self-medicate with the usual blend of OJ, vitamins and copious amounts of water, fervently hoping for a rapid recovery.

Most of us who catch a cold end up taking desperate measures to fix the situation, regardless of whether such measures are founded on scientific truth. Increased vitamin C intake? Not only is there zero proof that it prevents colds, there’s also none that it expedites recovery, according to a paper in Evidence-Based Child Health. Herbal remedies like echinacea? Hot liquids? Beyond the latter’s ability to provide temporary relief, neither will provide much help.

Indeed, the most powerful panacea of them all is our own gullible mind. Once convinced of the effectiveness of a cold cure through a lifetime of anecdotal accounts and lore, many of us will start feeling better after a day of downing orange juice even though it serves as much of a medical purpose as twiddling your thumbs. And while juice manufacturers don’t proclaim cold-fighting abilities on every carton, another highly lucrative industry relying heavily on the placebo effect does assert a claim: that antidepressants cure depression.

Beginning in 1998, a series of studies have repeatedly questioned the difference in efficacies between antidepressant drugs and placebos. Pioneering analysis work done by University of Connecticut researchers Irving Kirsch and Guy Sapirstein confirmed the effectiveness of antidepressants – but also their inert counterparts. In 38 studies conducted with over 3,000 depressed patients, placebos improved symptoms 75 per cent as much as legitimate medications.

“We wondered, what’s going on?” said Kirsch in a 2010 interview with Newsweek. The medical community, skeptical of his analysis, asked him to instigate a more comprehensive study with the results of all clinical trials conducted by antidepressant manufacturers, including those unpublished – 47 studies in total.

Over half of the studies showed no significant difference in the depression-alleviating effects of a medicated versus non-medicated pill. With this more thorough analysis, which now included strategically unpublished studies from pharmaceutical companies, placebos were shown to improve symptoms 82 per cent as much as the real pill.

Now also consider that any apparent advantage of the genuine medication might be more the mind’s handiwork than chemical effect. Patients in double blind clinical trials, where neither experimenter nor patient know if a placebo or real drug has been taken, may easily determine which is the placebo. The obvious side effects of the genuine pill, such as headaches or nausea, may alert the patient to which study group they’ve been placed in, and the knowledge that their pill is medicated may be enough to alleviate their depression.

Are antidepressant drugs really “a triumph of marketing over science,” as researchers have claimed? Kirsch and other experts are convinced that antidepressants do not chemically cure depression. A British agency charged with determining which treatments are effective enough for government funding has stopped endorsing antidepressants as the default treatment for anything but the most severe forms of depression. And drug manufacturers themselves don’t deny Kirch’s data. A spokesperson for Pfizer, producer of  Zoloft, has alluded to the existence of a “wealth of scientific evidence documenting [antidepressants’] effects,” yet the fact that treatment “commonly fail[s] to separate from placebo” is “well known by the FDA, academia, and industry.”

However, if experts and antidepressant manufacturers are aware of this, the general public certainly isn’t. Which is precisely why antidepressants work. Without the knowledge that even manufacturers of medications aren’t completely convinced of their product’s superiority, antidepressants will continue to be effective. This not a recommendation for current users to halt taking the pills; abrupt withdrawal is extremely dangerous, and there is still a range of perspectives on the topic of antidepressants versus sugar pills.

But you have it. Millions of people every year feel better, simply because they believe they’ll feel better. We’ve recovered from colds, headaches, pain, and depression, courtesy of the placebo effect. After all, there’s something to be said for feeling better.

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2011/03/false-peace-of-mind/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals—How Female Sexual Dysfunction (a “mental disorder”) was invented by the drug industry

Friday, October 1st, 2010

The Independent
By Jeremy Laurance
October 1, 2010

Female sexual dysfunction – which is claimed to affect up to two thirds of women – is a disorder invented by the pharmaceutical industry to build global markets for drugs to treat it, it is claimed today.

Drug companies have invested millions in the search for a female equivalent of Viagra, so far without success. But while doing so they have stoked demand by creating a buzz around the disorder they have created, according to Ray Moynihan, a lecturer at the University of Newcastle in Australia.

Corporate employees worked with medical opinion leaders, ran surveys aimed at portraying the problem as widespread and helped create the diagnostic instruments to persuade women that their sexual difficulties deserved a medical label. But sex problems in women are far more complex than they are in men, encompassing lack of desire, lack of arousal and lack of orgasm and the drug industry’s narrow focus is failing them.

Mr Moynihan, who first investigated the drug industry’s role in female sexual dysfunction a decade ago, says it illustrates a wider problem about the creation of new diseases, and the widening of existing boundaries for treatment with designations such as pre-diabetes, pre-hypertension and pre-osteoporosis, for which the latest treatments are aggressively promoted.

In his new book, Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals, which is previewed in the British Medical Journal, he says: “Drug marketing is merging with medical science in a fascinating and frightening way. Perhaps it is time to reassess the way in which the medical establishment defines common conditions and recommends how to treat them.”

In 2005, Pfizer, makers of Viagra, funded a survey which showed 63 per cent of women had sexual dysfunction and that testosterone and Viagra might be helpful. In 2006, Procter and Gamble, makers of a testosterone patch for women, sponsored a survey showing one in 10 postmenopausal women had hypoactive [low] sexual desire disorder (the company sold its drug business in 2009). In 2008, Boehringer Ingelheim, makers of flibanserin which is claimed to boost the female libido, sponsored a survey which also showed one in 10 women was in need of help.

Efforts by the companies to meet the need have subsequently foundered. Pfizer pulled Viagra from the market for women after trials showed it had no greater effect than placebo. Procter and Gamble’s testosterone patch was rejected in 2004 in the US, over fears it raised the risk of cancer and heart disease and Beohringer Ingelheim’s drug, flibanserin, was rejected by the US Food and Drug Administration in June on the grounds it had failed to deliver the agreed benefits while carrying the risk of serious side effects.

Mr Moynihan warns that although the drugs have so far failed, more are in the pipeline and claims that “the drug industry shows no signs of abandoning plans to meet the unmet need it has helped to manufacture”. A spokesman for Pfizer said: “We currently have no plans to develop medicines for FSD.”

Read entire article here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/female-sexual-dysfunction-was-invented-by-drugs-industry-2094578.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers Site Offers News And Information About Antidepressant Heart Defects

Monday, September 27th, 2010
Quote startDespite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, Glaxo deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug.Quote end

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy. Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects.

PR WEB

September 27, 2010

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy.

Paxil is part of a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). After it first went on the market in December 1992, Paxil has gone on to become one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States, with annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2002.

Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects. In December 2005, the Food and Drug Administration called for stronger birth defects warnings on the drug’s labeling after two studies found that Paxil doubles the risk of birth defects when taken by women during the first trimester of pregnancy. Most of these birth defects involved cases of atrial and ventricular septal defects (holes in the walls of the chambers of the heart).

Paxil has also been linked to an increased risk of birth defects when taken later in pregnancy. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who take Paxil or similar antidepressants after the 20th week of pregnancy are six times more likely to give birth to a child with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), a condition which causes breathing and circulation problems that may lead to hospitalization or death.

Taking Paxil during pregnancy may also be linked to a number of other serious heart defects in newborns, including cardiomyopathy, tricuspid stenosis, cleft mitral valves, hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), hypoplastic right heart syndrome (HRHS), bicuspid aortic valves or patent ductus arteriosus (PDA).

Documents uncovered in the ongoing litigation against GSK [Paxil] products liability litigation (MDL-1574)] have revealed that GlaxoSmithKline, the drug’s manufacturer, was aware of the potential link between the antidepressant and birth defects as early as 1980, but failed to recall the drug or properly warn about its dangers until these risks were made public by researchers.

“Despite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, GlaxoSmithKline deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug,” says David Friend of Hissey Kientz, LLP. “It is impossible to say how many lives were drastically altered because of the company’s failure to heed the advice of experts and investigate the link between Paxil and birth defects.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4565144.htm

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Psychotropic Drugs, Our Children and Our Pill-Crazed Society

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

The Huffington Post
By Dr. Ronald Ricker and Dr. Venus Nicolino
September 8, 2010

Today, the use of psychoactive drugs by children (6-17) is all too common, relied on far too much and growing at an alarming rate. It all started in the ’70s.

Memorialized in 1966 by the Rolling Stones’ “Mothers Little Helpers,” it was at that time that our society took the first steps at becoming “Pill Crazy.” Valium and Librium and Quaaludes were “Mother’s Little Helpers. The first drugs to enter the stage. If you couldn’t stand Johnny, your friends, your husband, in-laws, etc, tranquilizers smoothed you out, made you tranquil. Not surprisingly, in the 70s, the consumption of these tranquilizers, once discovered and available, skyrocketed. Anxiety was the popular diagnosis. Antidepressants were beginning to raise their heads as well. Their popularity at that time, however, was muted by the fact that they didn’t work well, and also sported many side effects, some of which were very annoying and occasionally dangerous. And, no one knew what was just around the corner.

Prozac

Prozac was first marketed in 1987. It was a totally new type of antidepressant, which seemed to work and had far less side effects. What had been a stream of tranquilizers became a tsunami of Prozac’s and tranquilizers. Other ‘Prozac’s’ entered the scene–Zoloft, Celexa, Paxil and Luvox, all vying to take part of Prozac’s market share. Promotion of these drugs by drug manufacturers exploded. Where there had been a surge in the diagnosis of anxiety, now the diagnosis of the decade was ‘depression.’ Housewives by the droves needed and demanded antidepressants and even more tranquilizers. If one was good, two must be better. The pill craze was on.

Diagnoses started to morph. The more the diagnoses, the more opportunities to sell drugs. Anxiety became anxiety neurosis, panic disorder, panic attacks, etc. ‘Depression,’ as a diagnosis, was of course and remains very popular. However, many patients don’t and didn’t like that diagnosis–perhaps it sounded too much like a disease. So a new depression explanation and diagnosis emerged–’chemical imbalance,’ which sounded more sheik and less like a disease and, of course, yielded more customers.

Not far behind ‘chemical imbalance’ came ‘mood disorder,’ a special type of depression, also called bipolar disorder. There are people who actually have a bipolar disorder and require numerous special medications for treatment. These medications, mood stabilizers, antidepressants, and second generation antipsychotics are far more dangerous medications than Prozac and tranquilizers. Further, there are also many people who are said to have ‘bipolar disorder’ who don’t. Often these patients are those who were said to be depressed yet don’t get better with standard antidepressants. They get all the special and dangerous medications (the number of which is multiplying geometrically) and have the additional advantage of being able to excuse pretty much anything they do as a result of their ‘mood disorder.’

This pretty well takes us through the ’90s. But here come our children. How did our children get sucked into all this? Our pill craze was and is a huge part. Parents and physicians often subscribe to this theory, that there is a pill for everything. Mommy says Johnnie is depressed, doctor agrees, Johnnie doesn’t. Guess who wins? Certainly not Johnny. Guess what Johnnie gets? A pill, usually an SSRI, which he may end up taking for a long time. Assuming Johnnie takes three years of SSRI therapy, his diagnosis is changed 25 percent of the time, usually to the much more serious diagnosis, bipolar disorder. His medications are changed to a much more serious and dangerous types. If Johnny takes an SSRI for six years the chances of his diagnosis changing to bipolar increases to 50 percent. So do his meds.

There’s yet another and newer mine field for Johnnie to negotiate, new in the last two decades. Let’s say Johnnie fidgets in his seat, doesn’t listen to the teacher, hates to read, and talks to his neighbor all the time. Guess what. Johnnie is diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and given another serious type of drug, a stimulant–usually Ritalin or a form of speed (one example being Adderall). Did you know that Adderall is 100 percent speed? We know speed kills but give it to our children. Think about that. Speed kills and we give speed to our children, masked as Adderall.  Astounding.

Read entire article here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-ronald-ricker-and-dr-venus-nicolino/psychotropic-drugs-our-ch_b_680488.html

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 1 Comment »

The Over-Prescribing of Psychoactive Drugs to Children: A Scourge of Our Times

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010

The Huffington Post

September 1, 2010

by Dr. Ronald Ricker and Dr. Venus Nicolino

Today, the administration of psychoactive drugs to children (6-17) is all too common and growing at an alarming rate. These drugs often cause the opposite of the intended effect, often condemning children to a life of misery and ill health. The prescription of these drugs is said to treat “chemical imbalances” which were said to cause ADHD, Depression and Bi-polar disorder. It turns out, however, that what we were calling “disease-causing chemical imbalances,” is simply incorrect . The sad irony is, the inappropriate use of these medications is in fact creating different chemical imbalances, which do cause mental disorders, many of which are both life-long and debilitating.

Furthermore, it is now clear that often we are diagnosing ordinary childhood and adolescent behavior as mental disorders (Wait, children are supposed to be bursting with energy? It’s normal for a teenager to be moody and aloof?). This diagnosing is not only based on this idea of “chemical imbalances,” but also a general and pervasive notion that every non-acceptable behavior is due to a mental illness. And last, but certainly not least, the prescribing of these medications by doctors is based on the disinformation provided them by the FDA, drug manufactures and often fraudulent studies, all in the name of making money, on the backs of our children.

In a recent lecture, respected journalist, writer and Nobel Prize Nominee, Robert Whitaker (PBS, Boston, June 15, 2010) highlighted not only the appallingly unscientific methodology used in the development, prescription and use of psychotropic drugs in school-aged children, but also how hopelessly corrupt and failed the systems that should be regulating the safety of medicines are in this country.

Unfortunately, many drug companies exist for one reason: to make money. As such, the people who run these companies have developed a worldview bereft of any more notion of ethics or morality than British Petroleum. Some drug companies’ success is not based on a drug’s usefulness or the safety of its products, but whether it makes money. The path to more money is simple: find new uses for their old drugs, invent new drugs and find new markets for both new and old drugs. Unfortunately, children are today’s newest market.

The FDA requires a “Successful Drug Trial” to approve new medications. “Trial” is often a misnomer, as the word implies some notion of impartiality and unknown outcome. These “trials” often are more like kangaroo courts. In one “trial,” in this case to prove the usefulness of Prozac, corruption and dishonesty were the rule. Children who responded to placebos were removed from the data, as were negative responders to the actual drug. This meant that the only children who were left in the study group were so-called “positive responders.” And, even then, the researchers and doctors, whose “research” funding was provided by the makers of Prozac, were the very ones to decide which subjects, if any, actually did respond “positively” to the drug. This, of course, is a massive conflict of interest. The doctors, researchers and drug companies all want the same thing — FDA approval and to make more money.

In a 2004 article published in perhaps the most prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, said the trial studies used to provide proof of the usefulness of anti-depressant drugs in children, were “nothing but fraudulent.” Following that assessment, all anti-depressants but Prozac were banned in the UK for use on children. (The fact that Prozac was not banned was based on very dubious, some say dishonest, research as documented above).

The true damage caused by the use of anti-depressant drugs like Paxil, Zoloft, Prozac, etc. (AKA of SSRI’s: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) by school-aged children is only found by legitimate, longer studies, like those that continued from 17 months to six years. In one study, 25 percent of children who had been on SSRI’s for three years were re-diagnosed with the much more serious disorder of Bi-polar disease. This number increased to 50 percent after six years of SSRI use. Long-term use of new anti-psychotics may lead to even greater problems than the initial disease. Diabetes, morbid obesity and early death have all been linked to the use of these drugs. And, as written by us in a previous blog both short and long term use of stimulant drugs such as Adderall), have numerous serious side effects.

Read the rest of this article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-ronald-ricker-and-dr-venus-nicolino/the-prescribing-of-psycho_b_665838.html

Note: To view all international drug regulatory warnings and studies on psychiatric drugs including those issued specifically for children,visit CCHR’s psychiatric drug search engine here: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

Also see this video – Drugging Our Children: Side Effects – http://www.cchrint.org/videos/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

The US Military’s Drugged Troops: Survey finds at least 1 in 6 service members is on some form of psychiatric drug

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Pharmalot
By Ed Silverman
August 31, 2010

The widely used Seroquel antipsychotic was never approved to treat post-traumatic stress disorder or the insomnia sometimes related to the afflication, but that hasn’t stopped the drug from being prescribed for that purpose by the US Department of Veteran Affairs and, in the process, becoming one of the VA’s biggest expenditures.

Since 2001, VA spending on Seroquel jumped more than 770 percent, while the number of patients covered by the VA increased just 34 percent, the Associated Press writes. Seroquel is now the VA’s second-biggest prescription drug expenditure since 2007, behind the Plavix bloodthinner. The agency spent $125.4 million last fiscal year on Seroquel, up from $14.4 million in 2001, and the growth in spending outpaces the growth in personnel who have gone through the military during that time.

Meanwile, thousands of soldiers have taken the med, and several soldiers and veterans have died, raising concerns among some military families the government is not being forthcoming about the risks, the AP writes, noting that they want Congress to investigate. The trend, by the way, is not confined to Seroquel. An investigation earlier this year found that at least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug (background).

According to the VA, Seroquel is only prescribed as a third or fourth option for patients with difficult-to-treat insomnia stemming from PTSD, the AP writes. And the US Defense Department’s deputy director for force health protection, Michael Kilpatrick, tells the news service that the government has not seen any increase in dangerous side effects from Seroquel and other drugs.

Read entire article:  http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/08/the-military-post-traumatic-stress-and-seroquel/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Meet the Queen of “Preschool Depression” — and Her Drug Company Backers

Monday, August 30th, 2010

by Jim Edwards

BNET August 30, 2010

The NYT Sunday magazine crowned Dr. Joan Luby as the queen of preschool depression this weekend, but failed to mention that Luby has taken cash from Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Shire (SHPGY) and AstraZeneca (AZN) to study using atypical antipsychotics in young children. The article is significant because of the outsize role that the Times magazine plays in creating and naming new social trends. (Remember when you suddenly figured out that carbs make you fat but fatty meat doesn’t? That was the NYT mag.)

In this case, the phenomenon is depression in children as young as three years old, and the trend is to treat it with drugs such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Adderall and Seroquel. The article, by Pamela Paul, provides a useful roadmap into how parenting will be medicalized by Big Pharma:

“The idea is very threatening,” says Joan Luby, a professor of child psychiatry  at Washington University School of Medicine, … “In my 20 years of research, it’s been slowly eroding,” Luby says of that resistance. “But some hard-core scientists still brush the idea off as mushy or psychobabble, and laypeople think the idea is ridiculous.”

The “ridiculous” layperson who first pointed out that Luby had written medical journal articles urging the use of antipsychotics on preschool children without declaring her drug company payments was me. Luby was a paid speaker for AstraZeneca in 2003-2004 (AZ makes Seroquel); she received $2019 in a for a consultancy from Shire in 2004 (Shire makes Adderall and Vyvanse); and prior to 2006 she received grant/research support from Janssen, the unit of J&J that markets Risperdal. Luby is also a member of a group of scientists who want greater study of potential new uses for psychiatric drugs in young children. That group has ties to 16 different drug companies. Some of these drugs have dangerous side effects.

The Archives of General Psychiatry (published by the American Medical Association) said it would investigate how Luby failed to disclose her past ties when it published “Preschool Depression,” a study she did on 3- to 6-year-olds. Joseph Coyle, the editor of the AGP, did not immediately respond to an email requesting an update on its Luby probe. (The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the American Journal of Psychiatry, has chosen to ignore the issue.)

Read the rest of this article here:  http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/meet-the-queen-of-8220preschool-depression-8221-8212-and-her-drug-company-backers/5595

To read about other pharma funded psychiatrists promoting a psycho/pharma agenda  read Shrinks For Sale – The Corrupt Alliance of the Psychiatric-Pharmaceutical Industry by CCHR   http://www.cchrint.org/cchr-issues/the-corrupt-alliance-of-the-psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industry/

Also read DSM Panel Members Still Getting Pharma Funds by CCHR http://www.cchrint.org/2010/05/21/dsm-panel-members-still-getting-pharma-funds/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Antipsychotic Drugs, U.S. Vets & Sudden Deaths: Families Call on Congress to Investigate

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Note from CCHR:  Our psychiatric drug database lists FDA advisory warnings on Seroquel causing sudden death, death, suicide, suicidal ideation, heart problems, as well as a Journal of Toxicology report dating back to 2001, warning of antipsychotic drugs causing stroke, cerebrovascular events (such as loss of brain function) seizures, toxicity, confusion and coma. Simply keyword search Seroquel here (or for a broader search, newer antipsychotics)  http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

Questions loom over drug given to sleepless vets

By MATTHEW PERRONE (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — Andrew White returned from a nine-month tour in Iraq beset with signs of post-traumatic stress disorder: insomnia, nightmares, constant restlessness. Doctors tried to ease his symptoms using three psychiatric drugs, including a potent anti-psychotic called Seroquel.

Thousands of soldiers suffering from PTSD have received the same medication over the last nine years, helping to make Seroquel one of the Veteran Affairs Department’s top drug expenditures and the No. 5 best-selling drug in the nation.

Several soldiers and veterans have died while taking the pills, raising concerns among some military families that the government is not being up front about the drug’s risks. They want Congress to investigate.

In White’s case, the nightmares persisted. So doctors recommended progressively larger doses of Seroquel. At one point, the 23-year-old Marine corporal was prescribed more than 1,600 milligrams per day — more than double the maximum dose recommended for schizophrenia patients.

A short time later, White died in his sleep.

“He was told if he had trouble sleeping he could take another (Seroquel) pill,” said his father, Stan White, a retired high school principal.

An investigation by the Veterans Affairs Department concluded that White died from a rare drug interaction. He was also taking an antidepressant and an anti-anxiety pill, as well as a painkiller for which he did not have a prescription. Inspectors concluded he received the “standard of care” for his condition.

It’s unclear how many soldiers have died while taking Seroquel, or if the drug definitely contributed to the deaths. White has confirmed at least a half-dozen deaths among soldiers on Seroquel, and he believes there may be many others.

Spending for Seroquel by the government’s military medical systems has increased more than sevenfold since the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act. That by far outpaces the growth in personnel who have gone through the system in that time.

Seroquel is approved to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression, but it has not been endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for insomnia. However, psychiatrists are permitted to prescribe approved drugs for other uses in a common practice known as “off-label” prescribing.

But the drug’s potential side effects, including diabetes, weight gain and uncontrollable muscle spasms, have resulted in thousands of lawsuits. While on Seroquel, White gained 40 pounds and experienced slurred speech, disorientation and tremors — all known side effects.

Last year, researchers at Vanderbilt University published a study suggesting a new risk: sudden heart failure.

The study in the January 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine found that there were three cardiac deaths per year for every 1,000 patients taking anti-psychotic drugs like Seroquel. Seroquel’s unique sedative effect sets it apart from others in its class as the top choice for treating insomnia and anxiety.

AstraZeneca PLC, maker of the drug, said it is reviewing the study. The FDA is conducting its own review, citing the limited scope of the Vanderbilt study.

According to the Veterans Affairs Department, Seroquel is only prescribed as a third or fourth option for patients with difficult-to-treat insomnia stemming from PTSD.

Marine Cpl. Chad Oligschlaeger, 21, was being treated for PTSD when he died in his sleep at Camp Pendleton, Calif., in May 2008. Oligschlaeger was taking six types of medication, including Seroquel, to deal with anxiety and nightmares that followed two tours of duty in Iraq.

The military medical examiner attributed the death to “multiple drug toxicity,” indicating that Oligschlaeger, too, died from a drug interaction. Because of the complex reactions between various drugs, medical examiners do not attribute such deaths to any one medication.

After consulting with physicians, parents Eric and Julie Oligschlaeger now believe their son died of sudden cardiac arrest caused by Seroquel.

“Right now, I’m so angry, and I believe someone needs to be held accountable,” said Julie Oligschlaeger, of Austin, Texas. “The protocol absolutely has to change.”

The Defense Department’s deputy director for force health protection, Dr. Michael Kilpatrick, said the government has not seen any increase in dangerous side effects from Seroquel and other drugs.

Physicians interviewed by the AP said they began prescribing Seroquel because it was the only drug that offered relief from the nightmares and anxiety of PTSD.

“By accident, some people were giving them Seroquel for anxiety or depression, and the veterans said, ‘This is the first time I have slept six or seven hours straight all night. Please give me more of that.’ And the word spread,” said Dr. Henry Nasrallah of the University of Cincinnati, who has treated PTSD patients for more than 25 years.

Most of the soldiers and veterans seeking treatment for PTSD do so at hospitals run by the VA or the Defense Department.

The VA’s spending on Seroquel has increased more than 770 percent since 2001. In that same time frame, the number of patients covered by the VA increased just 34 percent.

Seroquel has been the VA’s second-biggest prescription drug expenditure since 2007, behind the blood-thinner Plavix. The agency spent $125.4 million last fiscal year on Seroquel, up from $14.4 million in 2001.

Spending on Seroquel by the Department of Defense, has increased nearly 700 percent since 2001, to $8.6 million last year, according to purchase records.

Read the rest of this article here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPPHBQ6w28w4kTXzANGm6kCzPN1gD9HTRUQ80

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »