Posts Tagged ‘UK’

Big pharma discredited by Twitter drug-pushing: Not supposed to punt prescription stuff to the public

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

United Kingdom – The Register – August 22, 2011

By OUT-LAW.COM

A pharmaceutical company’s use of Twitter to promote medicines discredited the industry, a regulatory body has ruled.

The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) said that Bayer Healthcare had violated the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Code of Conduct (ABPI Code). The Code sets rules on what companies can say when informing the public about prescription-only medicines.

Bayer was in breach of the parts of the Code which prohibits the advertising of prescription-only medicines to the public, the PMCPA said. The company also breached a rule that prohibits companies releasing information about prescription-only medicines that would encourage the public to ask their doctor for the product. Bayer also failed to maintain high standards and brought discredit upon, and reduced the confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry – two other rules written into the Code.

An advertisement publicising Bayer’s case was published in The Nursing Standard on 17 August. Further adverts will run in the British Medical Journal and The Pharmaceutical Journal on 20 August.

The PMCPA rules state that it must advertise brief details of all cases where companies bring discredit upon and reduce confidence in the pharmaceutical industry, or when companies are forced to issue a corrective statement or are the subject of a public reprimand.

Last year Bayer copied headlines from press releases it had formed about the launch of two products and sent them out as two tweets to its Twitter followers, according to the PMCPA ruling (3-page/42KB PDF). One of the tweets did not name the product but “referred to its qualities, indication and launch”, while the other tweet “mentioned the brand name, indication and launch”, the PMCPA said.

“The Panel considered that each tweet was in fact a public announcement about the launch of a prescription-only medicine which promoted that medicine to the public and would encourage members of the public to ask their health professionals to prescribe it,” the PMCPA said in its case summary.

“Breaches of the Code were ruled in relation to each tweet as acknowledged by Bayer. The Panel considered that high standards had not been maintained,” the summary said.

“The Panel was concerned that material placed on Twitter had not been certified. That the original press releases were certified was insufficient in this regard. If part of a certified document was reproduced in a different format or directed to a different audience the new material should be certified separately. The Panel was extremely concerned that controls within the company were such that uncertified information about the launch of prescription-only medicines had been posted on Twitter. A breach of [The Code] was ruled,” the summary said.

The self-regulatory Code sets out rules based on compliance with UK laws, including The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994. The regulations were introduced in the UK to implement an EU Directive, the “Community code” relating to medicinal products for human use. Civil and criminal sanctions exist for serious breaches of the regulations.

“Pharmaceutical companies must comply with the ABPI code of practice and have in place sufficient checks and regulations to ensure that breaches of the code such as this do not occur,” Camilla Balleny, legal expert in life sciences at Pinsent Masons said.

“Digital media is moving at such a pace that companies must be on the look out for ways in which issues such as this might breach the code in way not previously envisaged,” Balleny said.

“It seems that the problem in this case arose because of extracts from ‘approved’ announcements of the launch of two new medicines being posted on Twitter in circumstances where Bayer could not verify that the only people who could access the extract were healthcare professionals. The extracts were such that they were considered to be advertising, and in particular, likely to encourage members of the public to ask their health professional to prescribe a specific prescription. Advertising to healthcare professionals is not restricted per se, although the content of such advertisements is still heavily scrutinised for balance and truth,” Balleny said.

In April this year the PMCPA released guidance notes on how companies could use digital media without falling foul of the ABPI Code. Balleny said that inconsistencies exist in global rules governing the advertising of medicines, which makes it difficult for pharmaceutical companies that make information available online.

“In the US the advertising of medicines to the public is permitted. This is in contrast to the restrictions in Europe. This difference has long been a problem for pharmaceutical companies looking to develop website content which reaches around the world and it has led to, for example, the development of healthcare professionals-only websites,” Balleny said.

“Based on the recent PMCPA guidance, if pharmaceutical companies wish to use Twitter from a UK perspective, there is going to need to be tighter restriction on the content, in circumstances where the identity of the signatory cannot be verified,” Balleny said.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/22/twitter_advertising_of_medicines_discredited_industry_says_regulator/

« Return to news items


Share

Child victims of the chemical cosh: Boy who killed himself after taking Ritalin

Monday, June 13th, 2011

The Daily Mail – June 13, 2011

by Sue Reid

“This doctor said at the inquest my son had a chemical imbalance in his brain. I asked him: “How do you know? Did you take chemicals from his brain? ‘He told me it was a theory. So based on a theory — and seeing my son five times at the most — he decided to put him on this drug, Ritalin, which is as powerful as cocaine.”       – Darren Hucknall

Boisterous: Harry Hucknall was, says his father, a 'normal kid' whose problems were overstated

Captured in a family video, Harry Hucknall gives a cheeky grin before whizzing off down the street on his new bike. His father, Darren, will never forget the moment — when Harry was seven — and often watches the scene again and again.

It is a precious memory of Harry who, one Sunday evening in September last year, kissed his mother Jane and older brother, David, goodnight before going upstairs to his bedroom and locking the door. He then hanged himself with a belt from his bunk bed.

He was ten years old.

His father blames Harry’s death on two ‘mind-altering’ drugs that his son had been prescribed by a psychiatrist to cure his boisterous behaviour and low spirits.

An inquest was told in April that the boy had more drugs in his body than the normal level for adults suffering from the same problems.

Now, a distraught Mr Hucknall is to make a formal complaint to the NHS for prescribing his son Ritalin, a cocaine-like stimulant which, paradoxically, is said to calm down a child, and Prozac, a powerful antidepressant.

‘When I was growing up there were lots of kids like Harry — a bit over-active, a bit naughty, who didn’t always do as they were told. Now they are branded with a complaint called attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,’ says the computer engineer at his semi-detached house on the outskirts of Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria.

‘What is it? What has changed? Is there some weird disease in the air? Harry was just a normal little boy. But because we live in 2011 he, and many other kids, are on tablets.

‘It seems nearly every child has suddenly developed this ADHD. What a load of nonsense. It’s an easy get-out for parents and schools who can’t control children.’

Mr Hucknall is obviously grieving for Harry, and his words are spoken with anger. But they are close to the truth. Earlier this year, this paper revealed that 661,000 prescriptions are dished out annually in Britain to treat childhood ADHD — double the figure of five years ago.

Coroner: An inquest was told in April that the boy had more drugs in his body than the normal level for adults suffering from the same problems

These medicines are being given to very young children — one aged just 15 months, according to our investigations — despite official guidelines from the manufacturer and the fact that the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) prohibits their use for those under six.

Last week, educational psychologist David Traxson told me he suspects that in the West Midlands at least 100 three, four and five-year-olds are on Ritalin or similar drugs. If this is replicated around the country — as is likely — the number will run into thousands.

‘These young children are taking powerful, potentially addictive drugs and no one knows what will happen to their brains in the future,’ he warned.

The Association of Educational Psychologists last week demanded a national review into the use of Ritalin and similar drugs on children.

General Secretary Kate Fallon said: ‘The danger is that we rely on this “quick fix” for children with conditions such as ADHD, which frequently means a prescription for Ritalin.

‘No one’s certain what it will do to children’s brains’

‘We have significant concerns that the neurological impact of these drugs on the developing brains of children has not been fully researched. The potential damage they could cause needs further investigation.’

In America (where the term ADHD was first created 50 years ago), one in five children is diagnosed as having a hyperactivity disorder and is on Ritalin or a similar drug

The psychologists’ call was backed by the National Union of Teachers, whose members have to cope with the huge rise in pupils being dosed with ADHD drugs — which act on the central nervous system to change a child’s behaviour.

In some state primary classrooms, one in ten pupils is on Ritalin pills, which have to be handed out by teachers at lunch or break times. In one junior school of 389 children in the South-East, no fewer than 80 pupils — more than 20 per cent — are on the medication.

It is a phenomenon across Britain, affecting families in every income bracket. The area with the highest proportion of children receiving the drug is the Wirral, a wealthy part of Cheshire which is home to millionaire footballers and business executives.

Meanwhile, sceptics question the very existence of ADHD as an illness. There is no recognised test for it. A diagnosis is made by a psychiatrist or paediatrician merely by watching a child’s behaviour.

Some of the doubters argue the condition is really a politically correct creation, conjured up by the medical world for a child who finds it difficult to sit still or concentrate thanks to a combination of a fast-food diet, late nights and lack of exercise.

It’s easier for the medical world and its political masters, of course, to diagnose a syndrome rather than deal with the real causes.

Another worrying factor is that the parents of children receiving drugs for ADHD immediately become eligible for an array of generous state benefits, including a carer’s allowance and child-disability allowance, which can total thousands a year.

For instance, one family in the West Midlands has two children receiving medication for ADHD. They get £600 a month in disability allowances for each of the two children who have been diagnosed with the ailment.

A third child is being examined by psychologists to see if he is also a sufferer. If he is diagnosed, the family’s annual haul from the state will be £21,600 tax free.

No wonder thousands of families happily agree with child psychiatrists when they are told their son or daughter needs medicine to ‘cure’ their hyperactive behaviour.

Gwynedd Lloyd, an education researcher at Edinburgh University, has explained her doubts. ‘You can’t do a blood test to see if a child has ADHD. It is diagnosed by ticking a behaviour checklist — getting out of your seat and running about is an example. Half the kids in a school would qualify under these sorts of criteria.’

And, it appears, a lot of them do. In the four years to 2010, there was a  65 per cent increase in NHS spending on drugs to treat childhood ADHD, with a cost to the taxpayer of £31million annually. This does not take into account thousands of prescriptions paid for by parents who take their children to private doctors.

In America (where the term ADHD was first created 50 years ago), one in five children is diagnosed as having a hyperactivity disorder and is on Ritalin or a similar drug.

It is predicted that unless the craze for drugging children is not stopped in the UK, one in seven pupils will soon be diagnosed with the condition in many parts of the country, as is already the case in places such as the Wirral.

‘Doubters say it’s an illness conjured up by medics’

Meanwhile, the side-effects of the ADHD treatments are legion. Ritalin is a Class B drug, which is banned for recreational use. It was invented in the Fifties in the U.S. to combat the effects of illegal drug overdoses.

Alarmingly, it can stunt growth (doctors are asked to regularly monitor a young patient’s height and weight), while making children prone to heart problems, depression and insomnia.

At least 11 deaths of children while taking Ritalin have been reported to the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products’ Regulatory Agency since the drug became available 20 years ago. The official causes of nine of the deaths included heart conditions, respiratory problems and brain diseases. Significantly, two of the children ended their own lives just like Harry Hucknall.

'Enough is enough': Home Secretary Theresa May has warned of the dangers of the ADHD drugs

Home Secretary Theresa May has said that enough is enough. As the Shadow Leader of the House of  Commons before the last election, she warned of the dangers of the ADHD drugs. ‘They are powerful prescription drugs and we don’t know what their long-term effects on a child will be.’

She related to Parliament the story of a six-year-old on Ritalin. ‘He experienced low moods and marked depression and tried to throw himself out of a window within two months of starting treatment. He only recovered once the drug had been withdrawn.’

Sadly, Harry Hucknall never had the chance to stop taking Ritalin, or the antidepressant Prozac. Now his father is asking difficult questions about why his son died. On the fateful weekend last September, Harry was staying at the home in Dalton-in-Furness of his mother, Jane White, 33, his brother David, and his two step-siblings.

In America (where the term ADHD was first created 50 years ago), one in five children is diagnosed as having a hyperactivity disorder and is on Ritalin or a similar drug

He would spend every other weekend and one day during the week with his father, who parted amicably from Jane when Harry was three.

Early last year, child psychiatrist Mr Sumitra Srivastava had prescribed Harry with Prozac for depression, and Ritalin for hyperactivity. He was having difficulty concentrating at school, was being bullied by classmates, and had told his parents he was feeling unhappy.

At an inquest in April, the coroner Ian Smith declared that Mr Srivastava had acted appropriately, but warned that doctors should be extremely careful what they prescribed to ten-year-old boys.

The coroner ruled out a deliberate suicide, but said that the influence of Ritalin and Prozac could not be excluded as a factor in Harry’s death. ‘What a child with ADHD is prescribed by his doctor is mind-altering drugs of a powerful nature,’ he added.

But Harry’s father believes drugs had a huge part to play in the tragedy. ‘Harry was put on Prozac first, and without my knowledge,’ he told me. ‘I only found out about it when he came to stay for the weekend and his mother told me what dose to give him: one in the morning and one at night. “Are you crazy?” I asked her. “That’s an antidepressant.”

‘I can go to work every day and pay for my child’s keep, but it seems I have little say when it comes to things like the authorities deciding to give my son drugs.’ At first, Mr Hucknall refused to give Harry the pills. But Harry’s mother said that if he didn’t dose his son, the child would not be allowed to visit him. She said the doctors had told her Prozac would stop Harry being depressed.

‘I reluctantly agreed. I wanted to see Harry,’ remembers 37-year-old Mr Hucknall. ‘Later, I went with Harry’s mother to see the psychiatrist. I insisted on going along to tell him that I did not want Harry on any drugs whatsoever.

‘While I was there, he said Harry was going to be put on Ritalin as well. I said I did not want him on more drugs. I didn’t want him  on any at all.

‘I had never heard of Ritalin. I was told it was to help his concentration. I was never told a side-effect of Ritalin is depression. But the doctor said that if Harry took the Ritalin he would be off everything and drug free within a month.’

Mr Hucknall believed him, although this scenario was very unlikely. Most children remain on ADHD drugs for years. ‘In the end I agreed, because I thought I was doing the right thing. The next thing I know, a month or two later, there was a knock on my door and two police officers were telling me my son had  hanged himself,’ he says.

‘He was just a kid. There was nothing wrong with him. He may have had some problems, but they were overstated.

‘A lot of things that Harry’s mum complained about in terms of his behaviour, he did not do here. How can you have ADHD in one place and not in another?

‘I think Harry might have been playing up a bit by attention- seeking because there were three other children in the family.

‘I admit there were a couple of times I forgot to give him his  tablets. To me, he seemed quiet and subdued when he was on them.

‘I would have happily thrown them in the bin. Harry just took them, of course. He was a kid and he did as he was told.’

An emotional Mr Hucknall continues: ‘I think ADHD is a disease invented by drug companies. Nobody ever died of ADHD and it didn’t existed once upon a time. It’s too easy to hand out tablets. They are being over-prescribed to children.

‘A perfectly normal kid isn’t allowed to grow up without interference these days. I’m angry about what has happened because I have lost my son.

‘At the school meetings about Harry, his teachers said he was quiet. My son had just recently moved house and been put into a new school, where he didn’t know anybody. What did they expect?

‘Another teacher said Harry didn’t laugh at his jokes. I asked Harry about that. He told me they weren’t very funny.’

Mr Hucknall believes his son was ‘inappropriately medicated’ and has asked Independent Complaints’ Advocacy Service (ICAS) — which supports those wishing to complain about the NHS — to take on the case.

At the inquest, Mr Hucknall also took the chance to challenge Mr Srivastava again about why he had put Harry on drugs. ‘This doctor said at the inquest my son had a chemical inbalance in his brain. I asked him: “How do you know? Did you take chemicals from his brain?”

‘He told me it was a theory. So based on a theory — and seeing my son five times at the most — he decided to put him on this drug, Ritalin, which is as powerful as cocaine.

‘Harry ended up taking two drugs that work against each other — the Prozac that fights depression and the Ritalin that can cause it. How can that be right?’


Note from CCHR:  If you want to  help inform parents of the actual documented dangers of psychiatric drugs from international drug regulatory agencies — help distribute this video, which links to our psychiatric drug side effects database:

Drugging Kids - Side Effects

« Return to news items


Share

Britain ‘Massive spin’ on child ADHD study

Thursday, September 30th, 2010
The Morning Star/UK
Thursday 30 September 2010
Lizzie Cocker

A high-profile child psychologist accused drugs companies and other scientists on Thursday of falsely claiming attention deficit disorder (ADHD) was a genetic disease in order to promote the controversial drug Ritalin.

Clinical child psychologist Dr Oliver James tore into a Cardiff University study on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, accusing the university’s child and adolescent psychiatry professor Anita Tharpar of “putting a massive spin” on the research which claimed to prove that ADHD was a genetic disorder.

The study said it found that children with ADHD were more likely to have a difference in the brain caused by small pieces of DNA that were duplicated or deleted. But of the 336 children with ADHD in the study’s sample, just 16 per cent of them had such DNA.

Dr James said the study in fact disproved any link between genes and ADHD because almost nine out of 10 of the children did not have the gene supposed to cause it.

While the research sought to downplay the effects of poor diets, deprivation and other environmental pressures such as parental stress, Dr James said: “Why are we even talking about this study? Hardly a month goes by without a study being published showing strong environmental factors.”

He said it was in the interests of major drugs companies to promote the idea that genetic factors had a greater influence than environmental factors as this would signal the importance of medical solutions over social remedies, adding: “They want them to keep taking Ritalin.”

The number of children prescribed the drug has soared over the past 15 years and it is known to have side effects such as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, mood swings and sleeping problems.

Read the rest of the story here: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/95901

Note from CCHR,  the Lancet Journal shows one of the sources of funding for this study was the Wellcome Trust, if this name sounds familiar, it is because it was named after, and established in order to administer the fortune of American born pharmaceutical giant, Sir Henry Wellcome (Glaxo-Wellcome later became GlaxoSmithKline) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellcome_Trust

« Return to news items


Share

Leading psychologist says antidepressants no better than placebo—the difference is no suicidal side effects with placebo

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

The Daily Mail
By Professor Irving Kirsch
August 3, 2010

We spend more than £250 m a year on antidepressants in the UK – and it’s a complete waste of money.

They are not much better than sugar pills, they have nasty side – effects, such as sexual dysfunction, and they increase young people’s risk of suicide.

New research shows they don’t even work on the brain in the way we thought they did.

For years we were told depression was caused by low levels of a brain chemical called serotonin, and that antidepressants worked by boosting it.

But an Australian study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry shows that rather than low levels, depressed people might have double the normal amount in some parts of their brains.

Many people were surprised by these new findings, but I wasn’t.

I’ve been studying antidepressants for more than a decade, and I knew that if they worked at all, it wasn’t by changing brain chemistry.

The major reason you feel better when taking an antidepressant – maybe the only reason – is the placebo effect.

When I first published a paper back in 1998 saying that antidepressant drugs such as Prozac and Seroxat were not much better than a placebo, almost everyone thought it couldn’t be true.

There was so much evidence they worked. Thousands of people claimed the drugs had turned their lives round.

My colleagues said that I must have made a mistake: either I had looked at the wrong data, or I hadn’t analysed it properly.

In fact, what I’d done was to look at the research on antidepressants in a different way from everyone else.

Other researchers were concentrating on how much better the drugs were than a placebo.

What I was interested in was finding out how strong the placebo effect was in treating depression.

I compared the placebo effect to having no treatment at all – no one had done that before.

We already knew that placebos could have a powerful effect in conditions such as pain, angina, ulcers and asthma.

Depression was an obvious next step, because when you are depressed you lose hope, and placebos give you hope.

But I was flabbergasted by just how big the placebo effect was.

Read entire article here:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1299791/Why-antidepressants-simply-confidence-trick-A-leading-psychologist-claims-taking-sugar-pills-work-just-well.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

« Return to news items


Share

Number of Prescriptions Written in UK for Antidepressants Nearly Equals Entire Population

Friday, December 4th, 2009

David Gutierrez
NaturalNews.com
December 4, 2009

There were 36 million prescriptions issued for antidepressant drugs in the United Kingdom in 2008, nearly one for every adult in the population, according to numbers obtained by the Liberal Democrat party.

The number is 2.1 million higher than in 2007.

Writing in the Guardian, Ed Halliwell examines the reason for this trend, noting that antidepressant prescriptions have increased more than threefold since the beginning of the 1990s, far outstripping the increase in the percentage of the population classified with a “common mental disorder.” From 1993 to 2007, this number increased by only one million, going from 15.5 percent of the population to 17.6 percent.

Halliwell notes that while national guidelines recommend that psychological therapies are the preferred treatment for mental illness or distress, 75 percent of doctors report having prescribed drugs in cases where they thought that therapy or other non-pharmaceutical treatments would have been more effective. In part, this is because despite government recommendations, psychotherapy treatment remains difficult to find in the United Kingdom, with long waiting lists.

Read entire artilcle: http://www.naturalnews.com/027651_antidepressants_prescriptions.html

« Return to news items


Share

Report finds nearly 2,000 elderly patients killed each year by anti-psychotic drugs

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

Owen Bowcott
Guardian.co.uk
November 12, 2009

As many as many as 144,000 people suffering from dementia are being given anti-psychotic drugs unnecessarily, according to a review ordered by the Department of Health.

Excessive use of the medication causes an estimated 1,800 deaths and almost as many strokes among older people every year, the study revealed.

The care services minister, Phil Hope, accepted all the recommendations in the review and promised a fundamental change in the treatment of those suffering from dementia.

The numbers being given “chemical restraints” will be reduced, extra training will be given to nursing home staff, more psychological therapies are to be made available and a national clinical director for dementia will be appointed.

The author of the study, Sube Banerjee, professor of mental health and ageing at the institute of psychiatry at King’s College London, said that as few as 36,000 patients were benefiting from the use of anti-psychotic drugs, but their use was widespread and usually unquestioned.

Read entire article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/12/anti-psychotic-drugs-kill-dementia-patients

« Return to news items


Share

Scandalous abuse of the elderly prescribed antipsychotics in hospital exposed

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Rebecca Smith
The Daily Telegraph
October 7, 2009

Three quarters of nurses have seen people with dementia in general wards in hospital prescribed antipsychotic drugs that are known to double the risk of death and triple the risk of a stroke in these patients, research has shown.

It is the first time the scale of the abuse in hospital wards is exposed, following warnings that 100,000 dementia patients in care homes are prescribed the drugs leading to the deaths of 23,000 a year.

Ten leading charities, carers groups and experts have written to The Daily Telegraph saying: “We cannot stand by while this scandalous abuse of vulnerable citizens continues.”

Neil Hunt, Chief Executive of Alzheimer’s Society said: “The massive over prescription of antipsychotics to people with dementia is an abuse of human rights, causing serious side effects and increasing risk of death.

Read entire article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6264962/Scandalous-abuse-of-the-elderly-prescribed-antipsychotics-in-hospital-exposed.html

« Return to news items


Share