Fornits

Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Antigen on November 17, 2003, 11:32:00 PM

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 17, 2003, 11:32:00 PM
Quote
FDA Cautions on Antidepressants and Youth
Doctors Warned About Potentially Higher Suicide Risk for Those Under 18 on the Drugs
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2003; Page A02

Concerned about studies that showed antidepressants may be leading some adolescents and children to suicidal activity, the Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory yesterday telling doctors to be especially careful in prescribing the drugs.
 
Full Text: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A26473-2003Oct27&notFound=true)


If your kid is on SSRI's, this might be of special interest to you. If your kid was prescribed SSRIs while held incommunicado in a TBS or lockdown facility, you should be pimp slapped! But first, you should get your kid to safety and learn all about safe withdrawal procedures.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of both mind and body will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day
Thomas Jefferson

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 19, 2003, 09:10:00 PM
Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average, according to the Utah Psychiatric Association

The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.
-- Plutarch

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 19, 2003, 09:45:00 PM
Holy Moroni!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 19, 2003, 11:47:00 PM
Okay, this is fine *except* that some kids come from families with hereditary major mental illnesses and some kids get those illnesses while young and *need*  appropriate psychiatric medication to control those illnesses.

I agree that antidepressants shouldn't be passed out like candy, *but*.....

Yes, you develop some tolerance to SSRI's---not much.  But usually if you've had them prescribed to you, you're depressed to start with.  If you stop them suddenly, sure as hell you're going to get really depressed and likely suicidal---and that would be true of *anything* that would successfully help your problem.  No duh.  It has the same effect if you stop them suddenly as an adult.

*Because* your brain, if you need them, is out of whack to begin with, and *because* they are successfully rebalancing your brain chemistry to what everybody else has, if you stop them suddenly you *are* going to temporarily swing back *lower* than you were before you started taking them, before restabilizing at where you were before---stopping them makes you suicidal because the people prescribed them are depressed and they *work* to stop the depression---but only while you take them.

The problem is, if you have certain major mental illnesses and you *don't* take the medications, the illness is not merely an unpleasant symptom---it also causes brain damage that worsens the underlying mental illness.

I have bipolar II disorder (and a degree in psych), and I'm on SSRI's and my daughter, at seven is also on SSRI's.  Because she needs to be, just like I do.  Hereditary.  Just about everybody in my family has something.  But the medications work.

Taking the medication is likely to *prevent* further damage---because the bipolar disorders are (we now know) progressive---you don't treat the symptoms, the disorder gets worse---because the symptoms mean the imbalance is doing more and more actual brain damage.

So for people without very specific mental illnesses, SSRI's are hazardous.

For people with those specific mental illnesses, NOT taking the medications is *certain* to do more and more and more damage.  

Risk of side effects is the lesser of risks.

Okay, I know, the programs tell everyone "If you don't do this you'll be dea--ea---ea---ead!"---and it's a lie.

Well, for those of us with a major mental illness, "If you don't take the medication, you're going to be crazy, and it's going to have bad effects on your life, and it's going to get worse and worse, and you *may* die young of it."  And in our case, it's pure statistical truth.

So SSRI's are not EEEEEEeeeee-Viiiilllllll.  (I know, you didn't say they were).

I just don't want someone who *needs* them to go off them thinking they're going to die of them----and end up crazy instead, and yeah, for real maybe dead down the road.

They're not candy, they're not harmless as an aspirin, they're powerful drugs with potentially serious side effects that should *not* be taken unless you really need them----but if you really do need them, you sure as hell need to follow the instructions of your competent, licensed psychiatrist and stay on them.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 12:03:00 AM
Oh---and if you wonder about a kid on SSRI's at seven, *I* was suicidal starting at age 5.  And a lot of other people who have what I have got ill very young, too, it's just that the belief that mental illness "didn't happen that young" was so ingrained in the medical community, and among parents (*no* normal parent wants to believe their kid has a mental illness), it was there, it just wasn't being recognized.

My daughter, fortunately, is *not* as bad off as I was, but just letting her sit and suffer without treating the problem when we now know darned well what it is, is not an option.

She's a great kid, and we are really privileged to have her in our lives.  It's just that our family has this hereditary chemical thing that needs a little tweaking---on the right meds, we're fine.

I definitely don't think anybody should take these meds *except* under the direction of an MD who is a licensed specialist in the correct field (such as a psychiatrist) who has an actual doctor/patient relationship with the person taking the meds----and programs don't seem to be very good at reliably meeting that standard, and that's a hell of an understatement.----so if a program is putting your kid on SSRI's----CAVEAT EMPTOR---Big Time.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 12:13:00 AM
Hmmm, I like this.  People sharing info and points of view without demonizing the author of the posts (or calling them vicious, vile names).

Personally, I have no doubt these drugs work but question their safety and efficacy when used on young minds as opposed to consenting adults.

Just my opinion, not being critical or judgmental.

 :smile:
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 20, 2003, 12:51:00 AM
Oh, but this is so boring!

Jus kiddin'  :em:

I'm sure SSRIs are good medicine for some people. But, like any other medicinal substance, there are side effects. The trouble is that they are handing the stuff out like candy.

The really dumb part as relates to the industry is that a lot of these kids are getting sent off to TBSs for smoking cannabis, which is also a very effective antianxiety/antidepressant for some people and much safer than any of the pharmaceuticals. Then they put them on SSRIs instead based on diagnostic info acquired by laymen from the kids while they're under extreme duress.





We need cops.

We can't live without 'em.

But they need to start working for us....

That's no longer an option.

They've pushed it.

They've gone to far.

They've just gone to far.
Tom Crosslin

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 09:46:00 AM
Okay, I agree a hundred percent with you on this, Ginger.

People think because these SSRI's have so much fewer and less serious side effects than the previously available treatments for depression that they're as safe as aspirin and can just be taken for relatively minor problems.

And that's where you get problems with people whose harms from the drugs outweigh their benefits.

And, to the other guy, believe me, my daughter would much rather take an SSRI than suffer the excruciating stomach pain that was the somaticized symptom of, well, the family genetics turning up again.  When the choice is taking the meds and living an otherwise normal life or living as an invalid having to tiptoe around one's genetics, it's no contest.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 20, 2003, 02:57:00 PM
I can't say anything at all about you or your daughter. You're the mommy. Sounds like you've found very competent professional care and you've got things in hand. I'm a big advocate of individuals taking full charge of their own healthcare. You get advice and expertise from the pros, but in the end, you decide what works for you.

But, as you note, that's not what's going on here. Administering SSRIs and other psyche drugs is not the only and maybe not even the most dangerous kind of heroic intervention wrecklessly embraced by the Behavior Mod or Emotional Growth 'schools' industry (Adderall and Ritalin are also big hits)

If you look at all these different institutions, they're all variations on a theme; they all have their differences, but there are basic themes that run through the whole industry. Straight, for example, they used to be adimantly, radically, anti drug. The only drug approved for treating a cold was sudafed. Why sudafed? Who the hell knows. Maybe because it was supposed to be a non-stimulant. If a kid got dental or some other surgery, they were not allowed pain killers afterward.

But just think about what the parents buy into. Look over any of the lists of signs of _____;  take your pick, ODD, substance abuse... whatever you want to believe about your kid, they'll tell you that things like mood swings, desire for privacy, new friends, trying new styles in clothing or music and other affectations of adolescence are evidence of this dire malady.

Why do some parents buy this obvious fraud? I think I have a pretty good idea. I think it's because we've been told for a couple of generations now that any deviation from the way American culture is portrayed by Reader's Digest (for example) is a sign of mental illness. Parents buy into this because they carry this terrible secret that they, themselves, are undiagnosed lunatics by virtue of their own manifestation of 'the signs' when they were young.

To any Program parents who may stumble accross this thread, I'm not one of those who hate you or who can't understand why you've done what you've done to your kids. It's a mistake. And it's a serious one. It will effect not only you and your children directly, but your whole family. You're squashing the only connection your kids have to their real heritage. Your grandchildren will be lost souls unless your kids are able to pull it out of the lurch for you. Please examine the assumptions on which you've made this difficult decision. You are being taken for a ride.

May 12-13: Sowed Hemp at Muddy  hole by Swamp. August 7: Began to separate the Male from the Female at Do - rather too late.
George Washington (Diary)

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 04:55:00 PM
Mental illness is actually an inability to deal with horrific emotions that we didn't deal with in childhood.  Think about it.  Psychotherapy and guidance through dealing with and integrating those emotions into your psyche.  ANY psychotropic medication is going to screw up your brain really bad.  We are a world on the verge of mass chaos. How did we ever think our bodies and minds could be this defective
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 06:15:00 PM
No, mental illness is a heck of a lot more complex than that.  Schizophrenia and autism, for example, have nothing to do with parenting or emotional coping (people with those conditions sure have problems with that, but their diseases don't develop because of them).

And think about it for a minute:  1/3 of us will get cancer if we live long enough, a huge proportion will get high blood pressure, diabetes is not rare and no one goes through life without at least one encounter with the flu or colds or broken limbs...

and there was no primordial golden age where we didn't get these illnesses.. before modern medicine, we just died too early for many of them.

Why is it at all weird that 20-30% of us should have some form of mental problem when the brain is the most complex object in the known universe?

Why do we all expect to have physical illnesses from time to time but see mental illnesses as something that should be rare, when the mind is way more complex than the rest of the body?

we're evolved creatures, we're not designed for perfect health-- mental or physical.

it's pretty impressive, in fact, how few of us are mentally ill.  but it's hardly surprising that some problems are as widespread as physical ones.

keep in mind, whenever you think about mental life, that we evolved not to be happy, but to successfully reproduce our genes.

and beware of anyone who says any psychological system can bring perfect mental health or physical health-- it's by definition going to be nonsense.

we're problematic, contingent, hacked-together from what was available creatures-- and amazing miracles that we function at all, given that.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 06:55:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-20 13:55:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Mental illness is actually an inability to deal with horrific emotions that we didn't deal with in childhood.  Think about it.  Psychotherapy and guidance through dealing with and integrating those emotions into your psyche.  ANY psychotropic medication is going to screw up your brain really bad.  We are a world on the verge of mass chaos. How did we ever think our bodies and minds could be this defective"


Wow.  Such ignorance is just....staggering.

And so *sweeping* a pronouncement.  I would *love* to hear your mechanism for explaining what particular childhood trauma causes general paresis.

Go ahead.  It should be entertaining.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 20, 2003, 08:45:00 PM
Any of this sound familiar?

http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/media/ssr ... nd_FDA.htm (http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/media/ssri/paxil/VictimsRespond_FDA.htm)

June 19, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Contact: Robin McCall, Media Relations
Day: (800) 827-0087 or (310) 207-3233

Excerpts:
Attorney Karen Barth added: "I hope I am wrong in my skepticism about the FDA and that it does not white-wash the suicide risk as it has done in the past. But the FDA's recent actions cause me concern. The FDA this past year joined forces with Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft, by submitting an amicus ('friend of the court') brief in one of our Zoloft suicide cases, stating that it would not allow Pfizer to place a suicide warning in the label for Zoloft even if Pfizer sought to include one because, to do so, according to FDA attorneys, would misbrand the drug."

Baum Hedlund later learned that the FDA's intervention in the case was the result of a telephone call between the FDA's newly appointed Chief Counsel, Daniel Troy, and Pfizer's national counsel. Alarmingly, Baum Hedlund also learned that Mr. Troy worked for Pfizer during the pendency of the case.

"The FDA is violating its own mandate to act in the interests of the American consuming public by taking sides with the pharmaceutical companies it is supposed to police," Barth stated.

"The manufacturers of the SSRIs, including GSK, have continuously and adamantly denied even the possibility of a causal connection between the SSRIs and suicide, and, instead, have blamed the victim and the 'disease.' This is notwithstanding clear evidence very early on in the clinical trials of these drugs that they can cause these problems. We have documents obtained through discovery in our litigation showing that there was an awareness of the problem as far back as the late 1970s, long before the first SSRI (Prozac) was approved for marketing in this country. In fact, the German equivalent to the FDA (the 'BGA') initially refused to license Prozac for distribution in that country due to the disproportionate number of suicides in the clinical trials. Germany eventually allowed the drug on the market, however, only with a stronger suicide warning. The reality is that all of the SSRIs, Paxil, Zoloft and Prozac, share the same side effect profile regarding suicide and the safety of these drugs needs to be re-examined, objectively."

According to a study released on June 1, 2003, in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: "SSRIs have become the most rapidly increasing psychotropic used to treat children and adolescents in the United States."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 20, 2003, 08:53:00 PM
I am writing a reply to the article republished in the Wednesday, August 27, 2003 edition of the [Austin American] Statesman. The title of the article was "Study finds Zoloft effective for children" and was taken from an article in the New York Times, according to the byline.

I have been a practicing pharmacist in the state of Texas since 1981. I reviewed the study this article was based on and found the following:

The researchers all had financial ties to Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft and two of the researchers were employed by Pfizer and held stock options in the company. The conclusions reached by the researchers were based on a rating scale that was filled out by the researcher based on his or her assessment with input from the children or parents in the study. Lastly, the researchers themselves concluded that "the differences between treatment groups did not reach
statistical significance."

In summary, the study measurements and results could hardly be considered scientifically sound and unbiased. This study only proves further that the drug companies are very good at providing the nation's press with misleading data and getting free advertising for their products, regardless of the potential harm to the general public health and safety.

[Name withheld-did not seek permission]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 09:01:00 PM
What will this girl's brain be like in 5 years, when she is 12?  10 years when she is 22? Doesn't it bother you that there are no long term studies on the use of these drugs on children?  Your daughter is NOT a guinea pig!!!

 :eek:
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 09:05:00 PM
I'm sorry, I meant 15 years when she would be 22.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 10:24:00 PM
When the disease is debilitating enough, the benefits outweigh the risks.

Especially since the disease itself is known to cause progressive brain damage.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 10:27:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-20 18:01:00, Anonymous wrote:

"What will this girl's brain be like in 5 years, when she is 12?  10 years when she is 22? Doesn't it bother you that there are no long term studies on the use of these drugs on children?  Your daughter is NOT a guinea pig!!!



 :eek: "


Her *doctor* is licensed to practice medicine.

Are you?  Didn't think so.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 20, 2003, 10:35:00 PM
Oh, for more information, the mental illness I have, and her paternal grandmother has, is the mental illness that is statistically most likely to end in suicide if left untreated.  The hard numbers statistical risks are...high.

The programs lie and tell you if you didn't do the program you'd be dead.

I've got hard numbers for *my* risk of death without the right treatment.

And my daughter's illness is more likely than not the initial stages of the same thing.

If there were long term studies being run right now, she'd be a very solid candidate for being on the list.  Because the risks of *not* medicating are horrible and the *certain* damage of not medicating is serious on a significant life-damaging level.

If your kid has cancer, you don't deny chemo just because it has risks.  If your kid had frequent recurring tonsillitis, you don't not have the surgery just because there's a statistical risk of dying from the anesthesia.

When you have a serious illness, you have to make serious cost-benefit decisions, and leaving the illness untreated would be the most cruel and neglectful decision of all.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 20, 2003, 11:30:00 PM
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/Prozac-Backlash.htm (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/Prozac-Backlash.htm)

I spent whole weekend days in the bowels of the Harvard Medical School Library poring through esoteric psychiatric journals. I was amazed to find reports estimating thousands of cases of four different side effects involving loss of motor control. The first is tics like Maura's. The second is neurologically driven agitation ranging from mild leg tapping to severe panic. The third is muscle spasms, which, when they are mild, can cause tension in the neck, shoulder, or jaw, but can lock body parts in bizarre positions when severe. The fourth is drug-induced parkinsonism, with symptoms similar to those seen in Parkinson's disease. In this chapter, I refer to this cluster of four, closely related syndromes ? tics, agitation, muscle spasms, and parkinsonism ? as the neurological side effects of the drugs. I found reports that they were occurring with all of the serotonin boosters: Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Luvox. These neurological side effects represent abnormalities in the involuntary motor system, which is a large group of nerves found deep in the older part of the brain. Normally, these nerves influence automatic functions like eye-blinking, facial expression, and posture. When the brain attempts to compensate for the effects of a drug, it can lead to disorganized, chaotic activity in the involuntary motor system and loss of motor control ? an example of Prozac backlash. In my experience, patients with any one of these side effects are at increased risk to develop the others, including tics.

Many patients looking for information on these side effects have to turn to chat rooms on the Internet, support groups in cyberspace for people on the drugs, because so little official information is available. In this Internet correspondence, people post notices or questions to which others can then respond. A number of patients have brought me representative printouts from chat rooms with names like alt.support.depression, alt.support.anxiety-panic, and alt.support.ocd at Web sites with names like http://www.dejanews.com (http://www.dejanews.com). Reading the Internet correspondence, I was struck by the similarities between what people are reporting on the Web and what I have seen in my office.

Patients should not have to turn to the Internet in hopes of finding information that ought to be readily available from their doctors.

Unfortunately, the history of delayed reaction to these side effects with major tranquilizers appears to be repeating itself with serotonin boosters. In spite of reports estimating thousands of cases of neurological side effects, the reaction is again slow, marked by hesitancy to inform the public. The spontaneous reports by clinicians are considered to represent a small fraction of the total number of cases, which only more systematic monitoring would expose.
***********************

http://www.jeffersonhospital.org/news/s ... durki=7423 (http://www.jeffersonhospital.org/news/show.asp?durki=7423)

Jefferson Scientists Show Several Serotonin-Boosting Drugs Cause Changes in Some Brain Cells
Some cells shriveled, while others took on corkscrew shapes

Researchers from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia have found changes in brain cells in rats treated with large doses of several anti-depressant or anti-obesity drugs. In some cases, the cells shriveled or took on abnormal corkscrew shapes. While the clinical significance of the findings isn?t known, the scientists say, they may raise new concerns about the prolonged use of such commonly prescribed drugs as fluoxetine (Prozac) and sertraline (Zoloft). The work also highlights the need for similar studies on other classes of drugs that act on the central nervous system.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 20, 2003, 11:41:00 PM
Many of the previous posts originated from this link which has a great stash of information:
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/side-effects.htm (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/side-effects.htm)

More on Utah and Antidepressants

http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/M ... xtgen.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/Miscellaneous/MRnextgen.html)

Excerpts:
There are presently a million children ages 6 - 18 on these drugs.

Perhaps because of Utah's high use of these medications for several years, we could stand as a test laboratory for the FDA and spare others the agony of serving as guinea pigs. Since the release of these drugs on the market Utah has held the title of the "Prozac Capital" of the nation. Along with that we have had drastic increases in: suicide, unwed pregnancies, domestic violence, manic-depression, MS, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, hypoglycemia, diabetes, bankruptcies, and our divorce rate is now higher than the national average. Patients report all of these as side effects of these drugs and there is overwhelming scientific evidence spanning over three decades to support those reports. Our teen suicide rate coincides perfectly with our use of mind altering prescription medications - Utah's teen suicide rate is three times the national average while our use of these drugs is also three times the national average.

Just last week in Salt Lake I interviewed a school teacher who attempted to hire students to kill her principal while on Prozac. Then a 14 year old girl, now off Paxil, through tears confessed to her mother that, although she did not know why, while on the drug she attempted to hire someone to kill her mother. Larramie Huntzinger, under the influence of SSRIs, blacked out and ran his car into three young girls killing two. Last summer a 13 year old boy on Prozac put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The same month another 13 year old boy on Zoloft only six days hung himself. An 18 year old model student and LDS seminary president on Paxil for four days shocked his loved ones by shooting himself. And a 16 year old on Prozac 2 weeks hung himself. How many more have done the same over the last ten years? How long will it take us to count the dead and dying children in Utah alone?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 20, 2003, 11:46:00 PM
When the disease is debilitating enough, the benefits outweigh the risks. ***********

Sounds much like the justification for abusing kids in BM facilities, particularly wilderness programs... afterall, they are just different branches of the same fraudulent industry.
*************

Especially since the disease itself is known to cause progressive brain damage.*************

Are you refering to "depression" causing progressive brain damage? Any links to the research findings for that?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 12:16:00 AM
Quote
On 2003-11-20 20:46:00, Deborah wrote:

"When the disease is debilitating enough, the benefits outweigh the risks. ***********



Sounds much like the justification for abusing kids in BM facilities, particularly wilderness programs... afterall, they are just different branches of the same fraudulent industry.

*************



Especially since the disease itself is known to cause progressive brain damage.*************



Are you refering to "depression" causing progressive brain damage? Any links to the research findings for that?"



No.  Bipolar I and Bipolar II cause brain damage.  Before they had Lithium to treat them with, Bipolars used to die in about their fifties of acute mania in mental institutions (yes, acute mania can, in and of itself, be fatal---it's the end of a progressive disease if you don't at some point intervene and treat it).

People rarely die of acute mania any more because before they get that sick they either voluntarily take the medication because their lives are a shambles without it, or they get involuntarily committed and put on medication in whatever institution.

The difference between BM/WT programs and psychiatry is that one group is run by licensed, regulated, qualified MD's and one isn't.  It's about the difference between taking big spoonfuls of Lydia Pinkham's Patent Medicine for your laundry list of miscellaneous crap and taking precise doses of insulin for your diabetes.

If it "sounds like the justifications" etc., it's because the BM/WT quacks ape the specialized vocabulary of legitimate psychology and psychiatry to try to make their scams more believable to the gullible.

Same thing happens in investment cons---the con-man apes the language and appearance of legitimate investments to lend verisimilitude to his con.

You abuse a kid in a BM/WT program, *if* you get caught you move to another state, change the name of your program, and set up all over again.  You abuse a kid as a licensed psychiatrist at *best* you get sued for malpractice, at worst (for you) you get your license to practice medicine yanked.

MD's may not be super terrific great about policing themselves, but if you're a serious quack you *can* lose your license and be out of the medicine business.

Repeat after me: "licensed to practice medicine."

It makes all the difference in the world.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 12:44:00 AM
Quote
On 2003-11-20 20:41:00, Deborah wrote:

"Many of the previous posts originated from this link which has a great stash of information:

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/side-effects.htm (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/side-effects.htm)



More on Utah and Antidepressants



http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/M ... xtgen.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/Miscellaneous/MRnextgen.html)



Excerpts:

There are presently a million children ages 6 - 18 on these drugs.



Perhaps because of Utah's high use of these medications for several years, we could stand as a test laboratory for the FDA and spare others the agony of serving as guinea pigs. Since the release of these drugs on the market Utah has held the title of the "Prozac Capital" of the nation. Along with that we have had drastic increases in: suicide, unwed pregnancies, domestic violence, manic-depression, MS, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, hypoglycemia, diabetes, bankruptcies, and our divorce rate is now higher than the national average. Patients report all of these as side effects of these drugs and there is overwhelming scientific evidence spanning over three decades to support those reports. Our teen suicide rate coincides perfectly with our use of mind altering prescription medications - Utah's teen suicide rate is three times the national average while our use of these drugs is also three times the national average.



Just last week in Salt Lake I interviewed a school teacher who attempted to hire students to kill her principal while on Prozac. Then a 14 year old girl, now off Paxil, through tears confessed to her mother that, although she did not know why, while on the drug she attempted to hire someone to kill her mother. Larramie Huntzinger, under the influence of SSRIs, blacked out and ran his car into three young girls killing two. Last summer a 13 year old boy on Prozac put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The same month another 13 year old boy on Zoloft only six days hung himself. An 18 year old model student and LDS seminary president on Paxil for four days shocked his loved ones by shooting himself. And a 16 year old on Prozac 2 weeks hung himself. How many more have done the same over the last ten years? How long will it take us to count the dead and dying children in Utah alone?



"


SSRI's are not candy, and they're not aspirin.

If you have bipolar I or bipolar II disorder and are misdiagnosed as having major depression, your doctor (and family) may not be aware if your dose of antidepressants is too high, or you're on the wrong one for you, and it sends you into a manic phase.

Bipolars in a manic phase can become psychotic and violent.

It's not so much that the SSRI just randomly causes people to freak out as it is that psychiatrists have problems recognizing the difference between major depression and one of the bipolar disorders for several reasons---1) The bipolar disorders are rare, and major depression is common; 2) Patients tend not to recognize symptoms of mania as *symptoms* and tend not to report them to their doctors.  It's common for bipolars to go several years misdiagnosed as major depressives before being (finally) correctly diagnosed.

It's not actually that the SSRI makes the patient manic and/or psychotic as it is that, in some patients, the SSRI activates symptoms of a disease the psychiatrist was not aware he was looking at.

The solution to this is not to quit prescribing SSRI's, it's to more closely monitor patients starting on SSRI's for symptoms of mania.

If the patient is sent manic by SSRI's, the solution may not be to discontinue the SSRI--if you can't find one that doesn't send the patient manic, the medically appropriate solution may be to put the patient on the SSRI *and* a mood stabilizer like Lithium.  No mania, no violence.  The reason for the SSRI is you don't want the patient depressed *either*.

Suicide is a little different issue---that *can* be caused by a major depressive who intended to suicide but didn't have the energy suddenly having enough energy to act.  Or it can be caused by someone suddenly and unpredictably stopping his medication.

Psychiatric medications are not candy.

BUT for people with major mental illnesses, psychiatric medications are *necessary*.  The trick is the right medicines, in the right doses, and the patient having the right diagnosis.

But, if you don't know psychiatry/psychology from a hole in the ground, it can *look like* "Gee, these bad and dangerous medicines are making people crazy!!!"

Wrong.

These people were crazy to start with.  If you give a crazy person the wrong medications for his/her illness because you've misdiagnosed that illness, Bad Things Happen.  Surprise, surprise.

These strong medications with associated risks and side effects are dangerous unless the patient is properly diagnosed and his/her condition is properly monitored by a *competent*, qualified, licensed psychiatrist.

It is *necessary* for patients with a major mental illness to be seen regularly by, and correctly diagnosed by, and treated with the right medications in the right doses by *competent*, qualified, licensed psychiatrists.

Oh, and, by the way, there is no way in hell bipolar disorders can be caused by taking SSRI's, or aspirin, or candy, or not brushing your teeth twice a day, or not saying your prayers like a good little boy/girl, or whatever.

The Bipolar Disorders Are Genetic.  Period.

There is more Bipolar Disorder in the statistics than there used to be for two reasons:

1) The Bipolar Disorders are being recognized and correctly diagnosed more often now that psychiatry understands this disorder much better than it did, say, 20 years ago.

2) Bipolar Disorders Are Genetic.  More bipolars are being helped by psychiatric medication to live normal lives, to NOT suicide, and to have children.  Duh.  If more of us live to have kids, you're going to have more bipolar kids next generation.  (I happen to think it's worth it.)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2003, 01:04:00 AM
You guys are not really arguing from mutually exclusive positions.

Deborah's showing some pretty damned compelling evidence that there might be some politicking going on between the FDA and the drug industry lobbyists. Will wonders never cease!

Anon's arguing that, for some conditions, the benefit is worth the risks.

The other anon argued that it's not the kids who are crazy, they're normal. It's the world that's fucked up and so we feed them Prozac to make them feel like it's normal.

All of the above, in my opinion, are true.

A good head and good heart are always a formidable combination. But when you add to that a literate tongue or pen, then you have something very special

--Nelson Mandela

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 01:29:00 AM
Mom Anon - What other options, short of giving a 7 year old powerful, mind-altering drugs, are available to treat bi-polar in pediatric patients?

Second, has anyone checked out the http://www.conductdisorders.com (http://www.conductdisorders.com) website?  How many of these parents are drugging their kids as the answer to controlling unwanted behavior at home, in school or the community?  Far too many, IMHO, thanks in large part to special interest groups like C.H.A.D.D.  Public Enemy #1.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 08:45:00 AM
Of course you are not going to believe that mental illness is caused from repressed horrible emotions.  Of course you don't believe we operate mostly from unconscious motives. That we really don't know who we are.  The father of Psychiatry "Freud" believed this, but its just to simple.  80% of people have a neurosis. We don't know as humans how to be conscious,guiding, use common sense, intuition. We don't know what we are doing to our children. Maybe if just one person can get anything out of this and say hmmmmm,  but no, the majority as they vilify Freud won't.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 09:05:00 AM
Quote
On 2003-11-21 05:45:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Of course you are not going to believe that mental illness is caused from repressed horrible emotions.  Of course you don't believe we operate mostly from unconscious motives. That we really don't know who we are.  The father of Psychiatry "Freud" believed this, but its just to simple.  80% of people have a neurosis. We don't know as humans how to be conscious,guiding, use common sense, intuition. We don't know what we are doing to our children. Maybe if just one person can get anything out of this and say hmmmmm,  but no, the majority as they vilify Freud won't. "


Freud's model did a reasonably good job, for *initial* work in the field, of describing the maladies of his sample set----middle-aged Victorian housewives.

There are a whole hell of a lot of people in this world who are *not* middle-aged Victorian housewives.

I notice you *didn't* address general paresis.

You're like a program parent or a creationist---sold on faith, and impervious to evidence.

(If I don't appear all that moved by "evidence" it's because I've spent *years* studying the human mind, formally, from experts, and the "evidence" in this case just isn't all that good---or, more particularly, the person providing it doesn't have a whole lot of understanding of human brain chemistry and the things that can and do go wrong with it to provide any context for the observations of the people she's quoting.)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 09:32:00 AM
Quote
On 2003-11-20 22:29:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Mom Anon - What other options, short of giving a 7 year old powerful, mind-altering drugs, are available to treat bi-polar in pediatric patients?



Second, has anyone checked out the http://www.conductdisorders.com (http://www.conductdisorders.com) website?  How many of these parents are drugging their kids as the answer to controlling unwanted behavior at home, in school or the community?  Far too many, IMHO, thanks in large part to special interest groups like C.H.A.D.D.  Public Enemy #1.

"


The *only* other option, short of drugs, is leaving her to suffer the symptoms---which are painful, causing adverse life consequences, will not go away, and likely to cause physical, medical damage.

For you people lucky enough to have *normal* brain chemistry, "mind altering" drugs are a "bad thing".

For people with major mental illnesses, the particular combination of "mind altering" drugs that alter a specific patient's brain chemistry to what everyone else has are a *good* thing.

You just don't get it.  For people with fucked up brain chemistry, from genetics, *life* is a mind altering drug---and not at all a safe one.

There *is no* effective alternate treatment for this particular problem.  It's just a question of this drug or that drug.  The risks are less, and the benefits greatest, with this one as opposed to that one, so you use this one.

We're not talking about "my parents are splitting up and I *feel bad*" or "my doggy died, and I need *counseling*".  We're talking about a serious problem where something is physically, medically wrong.  Would you expect a kid with appendicitis to explore "alternatives" to "dangerous" surgery?!  Of course not.

If you have a *behavioral* problem you have "alternatives."  If you have a serious *medical* problem, you treat it, or you don't, and the available treatments that work *all* have their dangers---in this case, the available treatments that work are *all* powerful mind-altering drugs---because mind-altering is exactly the medical result needed.  The only "alternative" is *which one you pick*---and they *all* have their own individual down sides, you just pick the one with the fewest problems for *this patient*.

The alternative is to sit in denial and neglect my child by failing to provide medical treatment, OR medication to treat the problem.  Which problem, as I said, is *painful*, seriously *life-damaging*, and *will* cause further medical problems of other varieties if left untreated.

Geez, you folks bitch at the programs for not getting a kid to the doctor for a broken arm, and then you're upset that someone else *won't* neglect a kid.

Your problem is you're absolutely convinced that you know better than licensed medical doctors, and never mind that *you* never went to and passed med school and went through and passed a medical internship.

And you can't see that you're being as bad as the people at Straight that wouldn't let a kid that had just had surgery have pain killers after because that would be *drugs* and *Drugs Baaaaaad*.

I have a degree in this crap.  *I'm* not an expert (that takes a PhD and license, IMO), but I sure as hell know enough to know my daughter's licensed medical doctor (approved of by my very good insurance company, btw) is a good, competent doctor who has properly diagnosed my daughter, is prescribing the best treatment option for her considering all aspects of her problem *including her age*, and is very carefully watching (as am I) for any of the signs that would indicate an adverse reaction to the particular medication, or an incorrect dosage.

The other thing you may not know is that there is a *very good* indicator of which patients will have adverse reactions or good results from which drugs, but it only works in *families* with mental illnesses---and that is that a medication that works well (few side effects) for a same sex close relative, works well (few side effects) for the patient.  My family has *ample* data on multiple psychiatric drugs in close same sex relatives---including the one my daughter is taking---one of her grandmothers takes it.

Not all parents are program parents.  Not all parents make ill-informed medical decisions for their children.

Usually, that the child's care provider is a *licensed* professional, in the right field, in private practice, approved of by the insurance company, is a pretty positive sign.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 09:36:00 AM
Ginger---if any of that sounded like it was directed at you, it wasn't.  You are showing your usual very good sense, IMO.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 10:47:00 AM
Freud basically made up most of his research any way.

For example, he decided one woman had a neurosis that could be cured by, of all things, surgery on her nasal cavities done by one of his good friends.

The friend did the surgery, but left a giant piece of gauze inside the woman's nose.

The woman's symptoms were then dismissed as "hysteria" until massive bleeding lead them to investigate and the gauze was found.

After this, Freud *still* believed that the symptoms, even the bleeding, were hysteria.

The man was a genius, but completely unethical, completely unscientific and took American psychiatry on a ridiculous detour from which it has yet to recover.

I haven't even mentioned the invention of "repressed memories" which sent hundreds of innocent people to jail and broke up thousands of families.

Further, how could you evolve an unconscious that has the properties of Freud's unconscious, for example, properties that make trains run late so you miss the first five minutes of your shrink appointment due to "resistance."?

it's all voodoo.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 21, 2003, 10:50:00 AM
Letter to the Editor re Andrea Yates:

How shocked and troubled we all are at the June 20th killing of her five children by Houston's Andrea Yates. We struggle to make sense of such
horrible tragedy, and we read reporters' attempts to do the same. I do not know this woman or her situation, and I have no easy answers. But as a psychologist, I have observed a pattern emergent in the large majority of these incidents of so-called senseless violence. Many others and I are
convinced that this pattern reveals a key factor that has been largely missed or ignored by the press. First, four indisputable facts:

!) There has been a dramatic increase in the use of psychiatric drugs in the last 20 years.

2) Research has clearly documented the connection between violence and suicide and psychiatric drugs. This connection is especially strong for
drugs intended to raise serotonin levels such as the family of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as Prozac, Paxil, Seroxat and Luvox, as well as for newer antidepressants like Effexor and many others.

3) A high percentage of the perpetrators of violent killings, both suicidal and homicidal, in the last 15 years committed their awful acts under the direct effects of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, legally prescribed by their doctors for depression or other alleged "mental
illnesses."

Andrea Yates is the latest in a long line of tragedies in which psychiatric drugs are implicated. The courts are even beginning to
take action; witness the recent $8 million settlement against the makers of Paxil awarded to the family of Donald Schell, a Wyoming man who killed his wife, daughter, granddaughter and himself while under the influence of that drug.

Texans For Safe Education, a citizens group of which I am founding director, is expressly concerned with the ever-increasing role of psychiatry in the schools, has school violence as one of its main concerns. We have witnessed this link in most of the recent cases of dramatic school shootings; examples just since 1998 are Kip Kinkel in Oregon, Eric Harris in Colorado, Steven Abrams in California, and most recently, Jason Hoffman in California.

4) These drugs are dangerous for many reasons. Ann Tracy systematically details these dangers, of these drugs. To provide just one example, in a
1999 addendum to her book, Prozac: Panacea or Pandora, she reports that the latest FDA figures show Prozac has about 44,000 adverse reports,
including 2500 deaths with the large majority of them linked to suicide or violence.

Here is a quick course in how these drugs can cause such ugly violence.

1) Humans are made with a built-in fight or flight response, triggered by release of cortisol. These so-called antidepressants trigger a release of cortisol, and it becomes a matter of time before a parasympathetic (or shutting down of arousal for recovery purposes) response kicks in. If such a compensatory response is not allowed, we will inevitably experience system/organ exhaustion and breakdown. The overall hell state of agitation that goes with fight or flight, toxicity and depletion leads
to hopelessness and desperation

Blocking uptake of 5ht serotonin, the molecule affected by these drugs, actually decreases metabolized serotonin, creating the very deficiency supposedly treated. Everybody responds differently according to their unique physiological pattern, but it is bound to be a mess sooner or later. Disruption of sleep, and rapid eye movement (REM) activity in
particular, is a major contributor to this.

The effects of these drugs is like LSD in the sense that it messes with these central nervous system neurotransmitters, and that creates the
altered states of consciousness in which inner or outer visions are confused with "objective" reality. Psychiatry calls this hallucination
and psychosis. Acted out, society calls it murder or suicide.

Why is this information suppressed by psychiatry and the drug manufacturers? That has to do with money, greed, and power.

John Breeding, PhD
Psychologist and Director,
Texans For Safe Education
2503 Douglas St.
Austin. TX 78741
(512) 326-8326
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2003, 11:53:00 AM
Quote
On 2003-11-21 06:36:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Ginger---if any of that sounded like it was directed at you, it wasn't.  You are showing your usual very good sense, IMO."


Well thank you. No, I didn't think any of it was. I just think ya'll are fighting eachother needlessly. You're all right. Nobody's wrong here.

The function of the press is very high. It is almost holy. It ought to
serve as a forum for the people, through which the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or suppress the news is a breach of trust.
--Mr. Justice Brandeis

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2003, 01:34:00 PM
Everybody, in your opinion, is Utah handing out more SSRIs because more people are mentally ill there? Or are more people mentally ill because they hand out more SSRIs? How can we tell?

I'm not 100% impressed with professionals, medical or otherwise. I've seen doctors say the stupidest things sometimes. For example, "Advances in medical science are 100% responsible for increases in life expectancy." In order for that to be true, it would have to also be true that advances in food production, distribution, refrigeration, education and hygene, transportation, absence of active war, lifestyle changes (the modular family), heating/cooling systems and general prosperity have had 0% effect.

You can't rely entirely on regulatory agencies like FDA, DEA or medical licensing agencies for your information. DEA says cannabis is a highly dangerous, addictive drug w/ no accepted medical uses and that Prozac is safe and effective for a broad range of maladies. I think they're wrong on both counts. It seems obvious to me that doctors are prescribing SSRIs to people for whom the risks far outweigh any benefits. That doesn't mean there are no benefits. I think it just means people put off too much personal responsibility on ppl who present themselves as professionals.

I don't have enough info right now to know whether people are going postal because of the effects of SSRIs or if people are going postal because the SSRIs are ineffective for their specific maladies. I just know people are going postal and doctors are handing out SSRIs like candy. Correlation is not causation.

In the `70s, we took LSD to make the world weird. It worked! Now the world's weird and we take Prozac to make it normal.

Anon Mom, you might be taking just the right drug for just the right reasons in just the right amounts. But, at the same time, hundreds of thousands more people are taking SSRIs than could possibly be afflicted with organic bipolar disorder.

In my view, you're doing it right. But I don't think you're explaining it exactly right. The fact that your doctor has his credentials does not make him well qualified to decide for you whether or not these drugs are right for you and your daughter. Lots of equally qualified doctors are giving bad advice. You seem to have checked his or her homework thoroughly yourself.

That's what people need to do. If everyone did that, then we wouldn't have the problems we do with idiot parents turning their mentally healthy, though angry or depressed, kids over to quack professionals who feed them psyche drugs and subject them to psyche abuse.  

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

I think o'le TJ was onto something there.

Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.
--Rep. Robert L. Henry, TX December 22, 1914 (quoting Lincoln)

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 03:23:00 PM
Actually, there's a number of studies correlating increased antidepressant use in a community with *decreased* suicide rates-- in both U.S. and Europe, you can find on Medline.

It certainly seems to be the case that for the vast majority of people who take antidepressants, increased suicidality is not a problem -- if it were, we'd have seen a MASSIVE inc in suicide rates in U.S. in general, but since the dramatic inc in use of these drugs, the suicide rate has been relatively flat or declining.

*however* there is clearly a minority who experience an increase in suicidal thoughts and actions.  We need more data to know who these people are, but it's pretty obvious that there should be some more monitoring when people first start these drugs and they should be warned about possible danger signs

Re:  Utah.  Utah has Mormons who don't allow any psychoactive drug use including caffeine and alcohol.  Clearly, they are allowing antidepressants, so maybe this is kind of taking up for the decreased use of other psychoactive.
Or maybe Utah itself is just depressing.

Also, given the huge "troubled teen" industry in the state, the increased suicides there may have more to do with that than with Prozac et al.-- either because they are making kids worse or because the kids sent there are already troubled, have high rates of use of these drugs as well and/or both.  I understand there was a similar excess of suicides in Florida where the Straights operated.

Re:  LSD and Prozac.  This is completely silly.  they both affect the same neurotransmitter, sure, but in widely digressing ways.  It's kind of like saying all food is the same because it activates the taste bud receptors.  

Further, there's evidence that depression shrinks the hippocampus (brain area involved in memory, amongst other thngs) and that all effective antidepressants from Prozac to cognitive-behavioral therapy promote growth in this area.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 03:30:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-21 07:50:00, Deborah wrote:

"Letter to the Editor re Andrea Yates:



How shocked and troubled we all are at the June 20th killing of her five children by Houston's Andrea Yates. We struggle to make sense of such

horrible tragedy, and we read reporters' attempts to do the same. I do not know this woman or her situation, and I have no easy answers. But as a psychologist, I have observed a pattern emergent in the large majority of these incidents of so-called senseless violence. Many others and I are

convinced that this pattern reveals a key factor that has been largely missed or ignored by the press. First, four indisputable facts:



!) There has been a dramatic increase in the use of psychiatric drugs in the last 20 years.



2) Research has clearly documented the connection between violence and suicide and psychiatric drugs. This connection is especially strong for

drugs intended to raise serotonin levels such as the family of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as Prozac, Paxil, Seroxat and Luvox, as well as for newer antidepressants like Effexor and many others.



3) A high percentage of the perpetrators of violent killings, both suicidal and homicidal, in the last 15 years committed their awful acts under the direct effects of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, legally prescribed by their doctors for depression or other alleged "mental

illnesses."



Andrea Yates is the latest in a long line of tragedies in which psychiatric drugs are implicated. The courts are even beginning to

take action; witness the recent $8 million settlement against the makers of Paxil awarded to the family of Donald Schell, a Wyoming man who killed his wife, daughter, granddaughter and himself while under the influence of that drug.



Texans For Safe Education, a citizens group of which I am founding director, is expressly concerned with the ever-increasing role of psychiatry in the schools, has school violence as one of its main concerns. We have witnessed this link in most of the recent cases of dramatic school shootings; examples just since 1998 are Kip Kinkel in Oregon, Eric Harris in Colorado, Steven Abrams in California, and most recently, Jason Hoffman in California.



4) These drugs are dangerous for many reasons. Ann Tracy systematically details these dangers, of these drugs. To provide just one example, in a

1999 addendum to her book, Prozac: Panacea or Pandora, she reports that the latest FDA figures show Prozac has about 44,000 adverse reports,

including 2500 deaths with the large majority of them linked to suicide or violence.



Here is a quick course in how these drugs can cause such ugly violence.



1) Humans are made with a built-in fight or flight response, triggered by release of cortisol. These so-called antidepressants trigger a release of cortisol, and it becomes a matter of time before a parasympathetic (or shutting down of arousal for recovery purposes) response kicks in. If such a compensatory response is not allowed, we will inevitably experience system/organ exhaustion and breakdown. The overall hell state of agitation that goes with fight or flight, toxicity and depletion leads

to hopelessness and desperation



Blocking uptake of 5ht serotonin, the molecule affected by these drugs, actually decreases metabolized serotonin, creating the very deficiency supposedly treated. Everybody responds differently according to their unique physiological pattern, but it is bound to be a mess sooner or later. Disruption of sleep, and rapid eye movement (REM) activity in

particular, is a major contributor to this.



The effects of these drugs is like LSD in the sense that it messes with these central nervous system neurotransmitters, and that creates the

altered states of consciousness in which inner or outer visions are confused with "objective" reality. Psychiatry calls this hallucination

and psychosis. Acted out, society calls it murder or suicide.



Why is this information suppressed by psychiatry and the drug manufacturers? That has to do with money, greed, and power.



John Breeding, PhD

Psychologist and Director,

Texans For Safe Education

2503 Douglas St.

Austin. TX 78741

(512) 326-8326





"


The guy is not an MD, and, if you notice his reference to "alleged" mental illnesses----hello?  He's as fringe as a flat earther.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2003, 03:46:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-21 08:53:00, Antigen wrote:

"
Quote

On 2003-11-21 06:36:00, Anonymous wrote:


"Ginger---if any of that sounded like it was directed at you, it wasn't.  You are showing your usual very good sense, IMO."




Well thank you. No, I didn't think any of it was. I just think ya'll are fighting eachother needlessly. You're all right. Nobody's wrong here.

The function of the press is very high. It is almost holy. It ought to
serve as a forum for the people, through which the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or suppress the news is a breach of trust.
--Mr. Justice Brandeis


"



Ginger, I don't dispute that a lot of doctors---frequently in fields other than psychiatry--are over-prescribing SSRI's and are ill-equipped to properly monitor those patients for adverse reactions.  That's pretty much what I'm referring to when I say SSRI's are not candy.

I just dispute the seeming allegation that SSRI's are bad chemicals that are *never* medically appropriate.

I also don't dispute that the world has *changed* and that that's one reason why a lot more people are having mental illness problems.

The following changes affect those problems:

Our water is more purified, filtering out the lithium salts that were in many people's well water as part of their natural diet which tended to stabilize those that needed it.

We live indoors under artificial light in the daytime, preventing the serotonin boost from ample sunshine we all got when we were all hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers---and in the winter it didn't matter that we were depressed, because staying still and sleeping a lot were good ways to survive the winter.

We get less exercise, cutting off that source of natural serotonin in our systems.

We eat a lot of processed carbohydrates, which boost serotonin in fits and starts and does who knows what long term damage to the body's previously evolved ways of regulating the serotonin system.

We save the lives of the suicidal---which means they're around for us to continue to notice they're "mad"---and we have families that are less tolerant of just warehousing, usually at home, a family member who is "high strung" or "having a nervous breakdown" and letting them just be nuts.

Life expectancy has gone from the thirties to the seventies---naturally, we're noticing more of disorders that get worse as you get older---including certain mental illnesses.

Life has *changed*---whether it's "fucked up" or not is a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't necessarily argue with someone who takes that position.

Julie
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2003, 03:49:00 PM
Here's a thought. No one can know for sure whether or not this is true, so it's a theorum at this point, not even a tryable theory.

If you start studying up on herbalism, one of the first things you notice is that an awful lot of spices and food items are medicinally and psychotropically active. Lettuce, which derives from wild dandilion, contains a certain amount of opium, among other medicinally active compounds. That class of food items have always been a food staple in European cultures, and practically unknown in African and Asian culinary culture.

Say your heritage throws back to Europe but you're born and raised for generations in America. Your ancestors would have eaten a lot of dandilion, lettuce and other popular vegitable cousins, so you'd have a small amount of opium as a regular part of your diet. So your people have developed a tolerance and dependency on this small amount of opium.

Meanwhile, the industrial revolution comes along. Everyone gives over Grandma's family recipes for prepared foods and fad diets formulated according to ever changing FDA research and recomendations. The only lettuce you ever see, if any, is the iceburg variety, which has almost no nutrients. It's specially bread for big, crisp, watery (heavy) heads. And you wouldn't even think of picking dandilions from the yard in Springtime for salads, soups and teas (like I do LOL!)  

What do you think of the possability that some of these manifestations of organic mental illness are actually the result of deficiencies, from gestation to geriatrics, in certain nutrients not present in the typical 21st Century American diet?

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of it's victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those that torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C.S. Lewis, God In The Dock

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2003, 03:54:00 PM
Ok, we passed eachother. Seems asthough we already agree on just about everything. Damn! What the hell are we going to argue about?


Quote

I just dispute the seeming allegation that SSRI's are bad chemicals that are *never* medically appropriate.


I dont' think that's what Deborah is saying. Just that there are a whole lot more and more common side effects to these drugs than what FDA and the manufacturors are telling us.


Then there was an anon post or two questioning the wisdom of using SSRIs on small children. I have to admit it's worrisome to me too. There are plenty of parents (I've known and wanted badly to pimp slap a few) who do jump at every new trend in psyche drugs first before even considering that the kid might just have a high strung, pensive or otherwise unusual personality or that, horrors!, the kid might be the only sane member of the family. Based on what you've said, I don't think you're one of those. But there are a lot of them out there.


The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
--John Gilmour



_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2003, 03:56:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-21 05:45:00, Anonymous wrote:

Of course you are not going to believe that mental illness is caused from repressed horrible emotions.  


I think a lot of what we call mental illness is more accurately described as normal, healthy response to insane situations. But not all of it.

When I started as a federal narcotics agent, the budget that we were working with, it was less than $5 million a year, and there was only 125 agents for the entire world to work the narcotic trade that we were fighting in those days.  Times have changed.  The gluttony has grown.
--Nick Navarro, former Broward, FL Sherrif

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 21, 2003, 09:26:00 PM
Nutrition/ Lifestyle/ Social Connectedness/  and Well Being- What's Missing

As research of indigenous cultures shows, we really are prefectly designed to be "relatively" disease free and mentally stable provided we supply ourselves the necessary ingredients.
Two good examples:
http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/gpacs/abkhazia/people.html (http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/gpacs/abkhazia/people.html)
http://forum.lef.org/forum16/topic23056.html (http://forum.lef.org/forum16/topic23056.html)

A good story re: Autism is "Son Rise" by Barry Kaufman? Required reading in many psych classes.
Professionals all over the country told them to give up. One parent was with him every waking moment. Required nothing and mimicked his every move (ie demonstrated that the external world wasn't as threatening as it felt). The child eventually came out of his protective shell, attended public school and did very well.

"A Beautiful Mind"- classic example of overcoming Schizophrenia without drugs. The movie led people to think that psych drugs made the "disease" manageable. Fact is, he quit the meds and learned to manage it on his own.
http://www.geocities.com/oppressionacti ... inder.html (http://www.geocities.com/oppressionactivist/minddrugshinder.html)

Alternatives do exist. You have to look to find them.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 21, 2003, 10:11:00 PM
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/heari ... ughman.htm (http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/106th/oi/ritalin92900/baughman.htm)

On December 13, 1999, Surgeon General, David Satcher released his Report on Mental Health. In it he alleged: "Mental illness is no different than diabetes, asthma or other physical ailments?Mental illnesses are physical illnesses?We know the chemical disorders we are treating?"

In a letter of January 25, 2000, I [29] responded: "Having gone to medical school and studied?disease, then, diagnosis, you and I, and all physicians, know that the presence of any bona fide disease, like diabetes, cancer, or epilepsy is confirmed by an objective finding--a physical or chemical abnormality. No demonstrable physical or chemical abnormality: no disease! You also know, I am sure, that there is no physical or chemical abnormality to be found, in life, or at autopsy in "depression, bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses?" Why, then, are you telling the American people that "mental illnesses" are "physical" and that they are due to "chemical disorders"??Your role in this deception and victimization is clear. Whether you are a physician, so unscientific, that you cannot read their contrived, "neurobiologic" literature and see the fraud, or whether you see it and choose to be an accomplice--you should resign."

In January, 2000 Castellanos [30], summarized the state of ADHD science: "Incontrovertible evidence is still lacking?In time I?m confident we?ll confirm the case for organic causes."

On May 1, 2000, the law firm of Waters and Kraus [31] of Dallas, Texas filed the first class action suit charging that the APA, CHADD and Novartis: " planned, conspired, and colluded to create, develop, promote and confirm the diagnoses of Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, in a highly successful effort to increase the market for its product Ritalin."

As of September, 2000, five or six or such class action suits had been filed, 2 in California.

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that ADD/ADHD is a total fraud leading to the medical victimization of millions of previously normal, if troubled, mis-educated, children across the United States.

It is also impossible to escape the conclusion that many departments, offices, and officials, of the federal government, are, knowingly and unknowingly, parties to this fraud and victimization.

(PROJECT TRANSPARENCY)

If you, Ladies and Gentlemen, if want to know whether ADHD, or any psychiatric ?disease? is truly a disease or not, all you have to do is pose the following question, just as I did, on September 19, to Doctors Hyman and Castellanos (or any reputable psychiatric researcher, or psychiatric organization), of the NIMH:

Is ADHD (or any psychiatric ?disease?) a bona fide disease with a confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality demonstrable within the patient? Circle ?yes? or ?no.?

(do not write in this space).

If ?yes,? cite the article which constitutes proof of the confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality, entering the following:

the author(s)?????????..

title of the article??????.

journal name????????.

date???????????.

volume??????????

page numbers???????..
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 21, 2003, 10:29:00 PM
http://www.geocities.com/speakupforkids ... gkids.html (http://www.geocities.com/speakupforkids/druggingkids.html)

Let me clear this up right now. ADHD is not like diabetes and [the stimulant used for it] is not like insulin. Diabetes is a real medical condition that can be objectively diagnosed. ADHD is an invented label with no objective, valid means of identification. Insulin is a natural hormone produced by the body and it is essential for life. [This stimulant] is a chemically derived amphetamine-like drug that is not necessary for life. Diabetes is an insulin deficiency. Attention and behavioral problems are not a [stimulant] deficiency.¨
Dr. Mary Ann Block,
author of No More ADHD

Given their farcical empirical procedures for arriving at new disorders with their associated symptoms lists, where does the American Psychiatric Association get off claiming a scientific, research-based foundation for its diagnostic manual? This is nothing more than science by decree. They say it is science, so it is.¨
Dr. Margaret Hagen, PhD,
Professor of Psychology
Boston University

"Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV (the fourth edition) is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more of a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so --although its brief apologia is rarely noted. DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making best seller-its major failings notwithstanding...It is the way to get paid...The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with
the problem? They don't and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder psychiatry a hoax--as practiced today? Unfortunately the answer is mostly yes."
Dr. Loren Mosher, Psychiatrist former Chief of The
National Institute of Mental Health's Center for the Study of Schizophrenia

Research has yet to identify specific biological causes for any of these [mental] disorders. Mental disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no biological markers or laboratory tests for them.¨
The U.S. Congress Office of Technology

'There has never been any criterion that psychiatric diagnoses require a demonstrated biological etiology' [cause], said Dr. Harold Pincus, vice chairperson of the DSM-IV task force. In fact, virtually no mental disorder, except those that are substance induced or due to a general medical condition, has one."
Clinical Psychiatry News

"...What they have done is medicalize many problems that don't have demonstrable, biological causes." They are a "masterpiece of political maneuvering."
Al Parides, California psychiatrist

"...modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness...Patients [have] been diagnosed with 'chemical imbalances' despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and... there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like. Yet conclusions such as depression is a chemical imbalance are created out of nothing more than semantics and the wishful thinking of scientist/psychiatrists and a public who will believe anything now that
has the stamp of approval of medical science.¨
David Kaisler Psychiatrist

"There's no biological imbalance. When people come to me and say, 'I have a biochemical imbalance,' I say, 'Show me your lab tests.' There are no lab tests. So what's the biochemical imbalance?"
Ron Leifer, New York Psychiatrist

"Contrary to what is often claimed, no biochemical, anatomical or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients."
"... many are not aware of the enormous influence that the [pharmaceutical] industry has in shaping our views of mental disorders and the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic drugs.."
"I am convinced that the pharmaceutical industry spends enormous amounts of money to increase its sales and profits by influencing physicians and the pubic in ways that sometimes bend the truth and that are often not in the best interests of science or the public.
Dr. Elliot Valenstein, University of Michigan Neuroscientist
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, author of: Blaming the Brain:
The Truth about Drugs and Mental Health
Article Above From: Methylphenidate.net
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2003, 12:43:00 AM
For years, there was no way of testing for mental illness because the brain is very inaccessable and brain biopsy very dangerous.

Now, we have imaging technology like PET and fMRI-- and what doyou know... you *can* see differences in brains of schizophrenics, people with depression, ADD, bipolar, etc.

Too expensive and invasive for diagnostic use though-- but read the research and you'll see we're getting better and better and there is no mainstream neuroscientist who would make those arguments about "there's no test for it so it's not a disease" about mental illness any more.

Further, the idea that indigenous peoples are healthy is just not supported by evidence.  It's romantic idealization-- just not based on any actual facts.

Human lifespan has only extended via modern medicine and sanitation... smallpox, cholera, plague, Ebola, river blindness, Chagas' disease...
think about all the microbial nasties our ancestors faced.  True, they got worse when people concentrated in cities because they were able to spread faster-- but life as a hunter gatherer was nasty, brutish and short, not peaceful and disease free.

Just look at lifespans of animals in wild compared to captivity, also.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2003, 08:27:00 AM
Your information on Freud is wrong,but as I said you are in the majority.  Read Freuds' paper "The Problem with psychoanalysis".  You probably have not read any of his work but all the negative work about him.   Freud himself said that no one can evaluate psychoanalysis unless they have gone through it themselves. Maybe you should try it for six months at 4 times a week and then see what you think. But you won't.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2003, 08:48:00 AM
No you are wrong.  Show me the information where its been proven that Bi-Polar is genetic.  What is directly applicable is our child-rearing.  There are writings where they say it MAY be genetic but tell me what the symptoms are.  I had severe depression with psychosis.  Was on Effexor, celexa, hospitalized.  I have been in psychottherapy 3 times a week going into my fourth year.  No meds now. My horrible symptoms were part of me from my childhood.  Repressed wanting to die feelings.  Integrated now into my psyche.  These feelings don't just come up now and throw me off, I realize why!!!  What a wonderful feeling to know I am not diseased, defective,  I almost have my Bachelors degree. I almost died on the meds.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2003, 10:20:00 AM
Anecdote is not evidence.

Mental illnesses can and do go into spontaneous temporary remissions.

Which is one of the reasons so many ineffective treatments have gotten traction---there are anecdotes that get used to sell the ineffective treatment.

Long term studies show that drugs and cognitive behavioral therapy are basically the only effective long-term treatments for depression.

For the bipolar disorders, the key is not only relieving any depression, but *preventing* or *stopping* manic phases.  If you aren't manic, you don't necessarily need a mood stabilizer---or maybe just don't need one right then.  Regular sleep habits, abstinence from stimulants or alcohol or other self-prescribed street-drugs, help reduce the risk of manic episodes, but may not be enough to prevent them all on their own.

Statistical studies exist that show the heritability of the bipolar disorders.  The geneticists are working now to track down which specific genes are involved, but I'm not going to go out and track down the cites just because you're a flat earther---do your own literature search.

I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm just stating the mainstream position in the psychiatric community, so that the fringe inanities don't go totally unchallenged.

There's loads of evidence now that these disorders are biochemical, the reason that the tests that show that evidence are not used diagnostically is that they're expensive as hell and the behavioral symptoms are reliable for diagnosis and observing them is relatively cheap.

Only an idiot would argue that hearing loss wasn't generally biomedical, and we have objective tests that can look at where your brain lights up and tell whether you are hearing a tone in a hearing test or not.  That doesn't change the fact that hearing tests are virtually universally done by patient self report on audiograms---raising a hand when the patient hears a tone.

A whole hell of a lot of medical diagnosis is done by asking the patient where it hurts and what the pain feels like.  Doesn't mean there isn't an objective test, just that in the real world costs matter and sensible people try to keep medical costs down when the less expensive option is even close to being just as effective and reliable as the more expensive one.

The only reason I'm taking my time to type any of this at all is I'm afraid if I leave the misinformation unchallenged, it's going to prompt someone who reads it to go cold turkey off their psychiatric medication without consulting their doctor and maybe get them killed.

Please, please, please----if you are reading these threads and you are on psychiatric medication and for whatever reason decide you want to go off of it:  CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR!  If you're really determined to go off your medication, your doctor will help you even if he/she thinks you should stay on it.  Your doctor will help you stop that medication gradually and SAFELY!

Stopping any psychiatric medication suddenly can trigger serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.

Don't just throw your medication away based on something you read on the internet.

SEE YOUR DOCTOR.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 22, 2003, 12:30:00 PM
Quote
Anon Mom(right?)
Please, please, please----if you are reading these threads and you are on psychiatric medication and for whatever reason decide you want to go off of it: CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR! If you're really determined to go off your medication, your doctor will help you even if he/she thinks you should stay on it. Your doctor will help you stop that medication gradually and SAFELY!

Stopping any psychiatric medication suddenly can trigger serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.

Don't just throw your medication away based on something you read on the internet.

SEE YOUR DOCTOR.


Absolutely. Not only that, but read for yourself. Most doctors really don't know all that much about the medications they presecribe. They can't. They're very busy people who often don't have adequate time in their lives for their families and rarely find time to keep up with the latest research and litterature.

Here's an anectdote. My husband had Burgers' Disease when he was young. It's typically something you see in the elderly. So the prognosis is usually poor and, therefore, heroic intervention more acceptable than in better known, more treatable conditions.

So this hot-shot nephrologist prescribed massive doses, like 6 grams (not mg, not a typo) every other day of Prednizone. We asked him about side effects, he recomended he drink half a bottle of Malox before taking his dose because the stuff is hard on your stomach, but no other serious side effects were likely. Some weeks later, my husband was having horrible homocidal dreams at night.

Then, one day, he's sitting on the couch rocking back and forth, staring hard at a neighbor who was working on a car. I asked him what was up, he said "I want to kill Pete." What???

So THEN I went down to the drug store and asked to borrow the pharmacist's PDR. Turns out, the doctor was either banefully incompetent or he lied outright. There was a page and a half of serious side effects, including induction of psychosis. And that was at NORMAL dose, somewhere around 25mg or less per day.

He did throw the stuff away cold turkey. It would have been nice if we could have just gone to the doctor and gotten help. But they guy had lied to us about this drug already and, at that point, my husband was more afraid of doctors than the disease.

You have to do your own homework. Professionals in any field can be helpful. But we can't go along blithely trusting in the pros to make all of our decisions for us. In the end, our health is our own responsibility.

The newspaper articles are what really put the nail in the coffin for the local program.


--Claude Greene, Seed spokesman, speaking of the closing of the St Pete Seed, 10/7

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 22, 2003, 03:20:00 PM
If you are taking psych drugs and have to rely on someone on the internet to inform you that it could be dangerous or fatal to discontinue them cold turkey, consider suing your doctor for not adequately informing you about the dangers of the drugs.
For god's sake, what would you do if you were on a plane for Europe and discovered that you'd left your drugs at home?
Seems an important piece of information not to share with your patient.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 22, 2003, 03:31:00 PM
Excerpt from an article called "There Are No Chemical Imbalances":

"Various sorts of brain imaging techniques are currently very much in vogue: a PET scan (positron emission tomography, which visualizes
regional energy utilization in the brain) of a depressed person is different from the same scan of a "normal" person. A SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) scan is even more impressive, since it has the ability to visualize particular kinds of receptors.

But this line of argument is entirely fallacious. If the argument is: mental state x can be shown to have a physiological substrate, therefore it is pathological, the response is obvious. All mental states, without exception, have neurochemical substrates. This proves exactly nothing. No doubt there are neurochemical differences between conservatives and liberals, too.

Who, however, is to decide which state is pathological? Brain imaging techniques are currently the favorite tool used by biopsychiatrists to argue for a purported
physiological cause for the various phenomena called "mental illnesses," largely because the scans yield brightly colored pictures of the brain ? almost like coloring book drawings ? which can be shown to the public and which appear to offer highly dramatic demonstrations of something "wrong" with the brain that has fewer
bright colors in it. The public generally knows little about either scientific method or logical inference, and even less about the interpretation of brain scans, and so is likely to be mightily
impressed by this "scientific evidence."

So PET and SPECT scans of people called schizophrenic, or depressed, or obsessive-compulsive, are compared to those of people called "normal", and differences between the images are taken as evidence of a biochemical original for mental illness. Do the varieties of consciousness called mental illnesses have a biochemical substrate? Of course they do, but, as noted above, this is only because every kind of mental state has such a substrate.

Having said that, let's think in greater detail about the idea that brain scans demonstrate that various unwanted mental phenomena are biochemical in origin - as opposed to their being the result of experience. There are so many fallacies in the "argument from brain imaging studies" (if I may borrow that phraseology for our modern religion) that it is difficult to decide where to begin criticizing it.

Should one start with the experimental details, such as the near-universal irreproducibility of such studies? Or should one begin with the larger problems, such as the impossibility of distinguishing whether what is seen in the scans is the cause or the effect of the phenomenon in question ? assuming that it is related to said
phenomenon at all? Perhaps the fact that the criteria for categorizing the subjects in the first place are so nebulous as to be nearly arbitrary might be a good place to begin. Or should one discuss the fact that everything from playing music to asking the subject to think about a particular thing will radically alter PET
and SPECT images of the brain?

The idea that brain imaging studies prove that the wildly divergent phenomena that are grouped under the label "mental illness" are brain diseases doesn't need to be torn to shreds: it is essentially nonsensical in the first place.

Consider:
a woman goes to the doctor for her annual physical. The year is 2074, biopsychiatry has found a definitive brain scan for schizophrenia, and brain scans have become cheap enough that they're now considered routine lab work. The woman's scan shows that she "has" schizophrenia, even though she feels fine and shows none of
the symptoms of schizophrenia. But the doctor, armed with objective evidence, knows better, and starts her on a powerful antipsychotic drug. Does something seem absurd about this scenario?

Everything from the assumptions and definitions underlying such studies to the details of contemporary brain scan work are ridiculous; indeed, they are laughable. It is astonishing that anyone could know anything of life, especially modern life, of history, of the nature of human consciousness, and conclude that he or she should search for the roots of twisted experience and misery in pictures of glucose
utilization by the nervous system.

If mental illness does exist, surely belief in so bizarre an idea must qualify one for inclusion in
that category."

The complete article is here:
http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm (http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm)

You may also like to read the paper "Broken Brains or Flawed Studies", which you'll find here:
http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/ ... ofadhd.pdf (http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/criticalreviewofadhd.pdf)

Insight Article on the flaws in Castellanos brain scan study:
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?incl ... yid=449586 (http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=449586)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 22, 2003, 04:11:00 PM
I think, when it gets right down to it, experience is the only really reliable instructor. All these drugs are new. All the behaviors we're calling mental illness are old as the hills.

At the bottom of it, I wouldn't consider treating anything with new drugs unless it were completely debilitating and there were no other option.

That certainly does NOT describe the way schoolpeople are diagnosing so many children as ODD or ADD/ADHD. I do know people who found, as adults, that they function better on speed. I suppose if you took away my coffee, I might find the same for myself.

Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic. The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.
--Abridged quote-Benjamin Rush, M.D., a signer of the Declaration of Independence

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2003, 06:48:00 PM
Of course all thoughts, ideas, feelings, sensations, etc. can be seen in the brain on PET etc.-- and of course normal has to be defined, but if "depression" or "bipolar" or "ADD" were just random categories with no relation to anything, why would there be consistent differences shown in these technologies?

If the categories are fake and don't correspond with anything, the differences should be all over the map, you shouldn't find anything consistent.

If we were just pathologizing normal behavior, the symptoms shouldn't clump in replicable ways and show replicable images.

Plus, whoever claimed that biochemical has to be genetic?  Biochemical changes can absolutely be caused by environmental situations and factors-- but that doesn't mean that changing the environment always fixes it.

Besides, if a drug works better, faster, cheaper and easier than a therapy, why should we have to slog through the therapy?

Therapies have "side effects" too-- in fact, this entire board is pretty well devoted to the negative side effects of one of them which can include long term brain changes (ie PTSD).

If we came up with a new drug that would eliminate  
physical therapy after stroke, no one would whine that the stroke victims are getting it easy and should learn to do it the "right" way, to grow through the emotional pain of the struggle.

So why do we think people with mental illnesses should be any different.

If I was abused as a child and that abuse caused PTSD and there was a drug that would fix it and make me feel comfortable and able to deal with people rather than paranoid and anxious, why on earth would you consider it morally superior for me to turn down that drug and spend hours with a therapist struggling through my past?  If a drug makes me available for relationships right away rather than years later and available for productive work now rather than later, why should I stick with the talk therapy?

People forget that talk therapists have every bit as much of an economic interest in pushing their product as the drug companies do.  They couch it in all these gentle, nice terms and in the rhetoric of the drug war and the evils of trying to take the "easy way" out-- but they are just trying to keep their jobs.

Further, if you think I'm wrong on Freud, you haven't read the latest on that case I cited:  even the most stringent Freudians don't back him on that any more.

The guy was a wacko-- he thought people wanted to have sex with their parents.  How on earth could a species evolve that wanted sex with its parents and had to develop cultural methods to prevent this?  By the time they'd developed the cultural techniques, the ones that had bio desires for non-relatives would have outcompeted them and outreproduced them.  THey would have died out due to harmful mutations, not
become the most successful species on the planet.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 22, 2003, 10:39:00 PM
It's not about being a purist and doing it the hard way. Not for me, anyway. Often enough, mental and emotional problems caused by external pressures are improved by a change of set and setting.

The way they're diagnosing disorders these days, though, is completely counterproductive to remedying those external pressures. If a kid is angry and defiant all the time, it's oppositional defiant "disorder". Only it's not a disorder. Anger and defiance are normal, healty responses to abuse and unreasonable demands. But we can't go about telling the experts they're wrong.

Their argument comes down to just exactly the same one Stalin used to pathologize dissent in the SU; the experts know just exactly what kids are supposed to do and think and be and they provide an ideal environment for 'normal' kids (school, cerfews, random SWAT raids, banning of any and all kid-like behavior, like hanging out skateboarding, romance, etc.) So any kid who's not happy with this students' paradise must, by definition, be crazy.

So, drug the kid or put him in a boot camp, whatever your pleause, to make him quit being defiant and angry just accept his lot in quiet desperation.

If you're convinced that you and your daughter are better off on SSRIs, go for it. Whatever works for you. But that doesn't solve the problem of adults pathologizing normal youthful behavior then crushing  all hope from our youth.

May 12-13: Sowed Hemp at Muddy  hole by Swamp. August 7: Began to separate the Male from the Female at Do - rather too late.
Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2003, 11:48:00 PM
Immediate previous post Ginger was responding to wasn't me---Julie
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2003, 12:01:00 AM
Quote
On 2003-11-22 09:30:00, Antigen wrote:

"
Quote
Anon Mom(right?)

Please, please, please----if you are reading these threads and you are on psychiatric medication and for whatever reason decide you want to go off of it: CONSULT YOUR DOCTOR! If you're really determined to go off your medication, your doctor will help you even if he/she thinks you should stay on it. Your doctor will help you stop that medication gradually and SAFELY!



Stopping any psychiatric medication suddenly can trigger serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.



Don't just throw your medication away based on something you read on the internet.



SEE YOUR DOCTOR.




Absolutely. Not only that, but read for yourself. Most doctors really don't know all that much about the medications they presecribe. They can't. They're very busy people who often don't have adequate time in their lives for their families and rarely find time to keep up with the latest research and litterature.



Here's an anectdote. My husband had Burgers' Disease when he was young. It's typically something you see in the elderly. So the prognosis is usually poor and, therefore, heroic intervention more acceptable than in better known, more treatable conditions.



So this hot-shot nephrologist prescribed massive doses, like 6 grams (not mg, not a typo) every other day of Prednizone. We asked him about side effects, he recomended he drink half a bottle of Malox before taking his dose because the stuff is hard on your stomach, but no other serious side effects were likely. Some weeks later, my husband was having horrible homocidal dreams at night.



Then, one day, he's sitting on the couch rocking back and forth, staring hard at a neighbor who was working on a car. I asked him what was up, he said "I want to kill Pete." What???



So THEN I went down to the drug store and asked to borrow the pharmacist's PDR. Turns out, the doctor was either banefully incompetent or he lied outright. There was a page and a half of serious side effects, including induction of psychosis. And that was at NORMAL dose, somewhere around 25mg or less per day.



He did throw the stuff away cold turkey. It would have been nice if we could have just gone to the doctor and gotten help. But they guy had lied to us about this drug already and, at that point, my husband was more afraid of doctors than the disease.



You have to do your own homework. Professionals in any field can be helpful. But we can't go along blithely trusting in the pros to make all of our decisions for us. In the end, our health is our own responsibility.

The newspaper articles are what really put the nail in the coffin for the local program.


--Claude Greene, Seed spokesman, speaking of the closing of the St Pete Seed, 10/7


"


Yeah, prednisone has some serious side effects.  There are bad doctors out there.  I've run into some.  *Most* doctors are good, but there's a reason you get second opinions for major things, and I do like to know what the majority, mainstream opinion is in the field so I know if I happen to hit a doctor who is just way out there.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2003, 08:48:00 AM
Mainstream opinion is what is doing you in. Reminds me , if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do the same.  Explain why people on antidepressants have to keep increasing the dose to ward off the symptoms. Maybe the body is saying,  no, you are going to feel these horrific emotions, fear and remember where they came from.  No its not for the faint of heart. Psychoanalysis though, if you read about it, is a fabulous way of learning to deal with your thoughts. And no, people on drugs should not immediately stop, I weaned myself off after several months with they help of my therapist.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2003, 02:59:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-23 05:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Mainstream opinion is what is doing you in. Reminds me , if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do the same.  Explain why people on antidepressants have to keep increasing the dose to ward off the symptoms. Maybe the body is saying,  no, you are going to feel these horrific emotions, fear and remember where they came from.  No its not for the faint of heart. Psychoanalysis though, if you read about it, is a fabulous way of learning to deal with your thoughts. And no, people on drugs should not immediately stop, I weaned myself off after several months with they help of my therapist."


People on antidepressants *don't* have to keep increasing the dose to ward off the symptoms.  Mine's been the same for years---it has to go down in Spring, and back up in Fall, because of the changes in sunlight.  In my case, I react seasonally.  It also has to go down if I start working out a lot, and back up if I don't have as much time.  Anyway, it stays in the same *range*, varying up *or down* based on the other things about my system that are known to affect serotonin levels.

I don't know where you're getting your information about people on antidepressants, but it's inaccurate as hell.

Now, I suspect (strongly, but haven't met you and I'm not a doctor, so take it with a grain of salt) that for you, psychoanalysis is like someone with OCD's checking and handwashing routines---it's a routine that you go through over and over again obsessively to relieve anxiety.

It's one of the reasons people with serotonin problems become "true believers" involved in all sorts of weird shit from fringe religious beliefs to psychotherapy cults to 12-step-programs.  The obsessive behaviors don't actually treat the anxiety, they just distract you from your life and give you an excuse to avoid doing things that upset you----so instead of taking night classes at college to get your degree, well, you *would* but you've got to get your head together first and your analyst says you're making *really good* progress.

It's like the program parents.  Exactly like them.  Any "treatment" that is so time-consuming it provides you an excuse for blowing off the parts of living that scare you is working on the exact same principle---it's not the "treatment" that's helping you---it's having an excuse you find acceptable to avoid doing stuff that scares you that is reducing your anxiety.  (In program parents' case, what scares them is their *kids* living a real life---and by locking them up away from all those imagined dangers, it shuts down the *parents* over-active anxiety.)

I mean, you can live with depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder and no drugs----if you're willing and able to live as an invalid.  As long as you take life real easy and avoid doing things that upset you, you can limp by.  

It's not that the things that upset you are that bad and have any real reason for upsetting you---they wouldn't and don't upset people with normal systems----it's just that if you have a messed up serotonin system, you get upset over stuff that's a lot...smaller...than what upsets normal people.

Cognitive behavioral therapy works because if the only reason you're anxious all the time is because of repeating thoughts or behaviors that you can *legitimately* avoid and live a normal life---then learning to avoid them lessens your anxiety enough to put you back on track.

And CBT will help a lot of people with genetic problems (like mine) because it legitimately helps to get rid of *unnecessary* stressors in your life no matter who you are.

The proper use of anti-anxiety (antidepressants) drugs, on a maintenance basis, is to take care of whatever hypersensitivity to life stressors is left over *after* you've learned the best coping strategies for dealing with life that you can learn.

The problem with psychoanalysis (and the reason it appears to work) is that it is so *time consuming* that it gives you an excuse to avoid things you really need to deal with to live a more or less normal life but that stress you out----while giving you the acceptable excuse, that you're not sloughing off your real life and dodging responsibility, you're just dealing with unfortunate early childhood traumas that aren't your fault.

It doesn't matter if your mythos says "the devil" is causing you your problems, or "childhood traumas", or "repressed memories", or "addictive personalities", or "engrams or thetans", or "the boogie man", or "The New World Order", or "the infidels", or "The right-wing extremists"---any bugaboo that convinces you your problems are not your fault (or even that they're all your fault--some systems, like Christian fundamentalism or Straight make wallowing in guilt a critical part of the game) while giving you a convenient excuse to spend all your time and energy on so that you don't have to deal with the ordinary stressors of having a real life will do.

The difference with the right drugs is that you actually go on living a normal, functional life.  The drugs don't provide an excuse for being fucked up and *not* living your life, they let you go out and live a real life the way everybody *without* fucked up brain chemistry lives.

And that's how to tell a treatment that works from snake oil.  Ask yourself---am I going out and living a normal life, or am I living with a time-consuming *excuse* for why I can't live a normal life *now* but will, SOMEDAY, when I've "completed" the indefinitely long time-consuming process that I'm "making great progress" at.

If a "treatment" can't give you a definite time of  three months or less at which point you will either be out living a normal life *or* will write the "treatment" off as not having worked for you and go try something completely different, not under the same provider(s), then it's SNAKE OIL.

My "treatment" takes me a couple of seconds each day, and an hour every three months---and otherwise I live a normal life.

Why the *hell* would I want to trade a normal life for the ERSATZ CRAP of spending hours and hours for years and years in some snake oil salesman's office on a couch?  Hours and hours for years and years when I can be *out living* instead of talking about why I can't be out living?  

Sorry, but I'm not *that* crazy! :wink:
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 23, 2003, 04:27:00 PM
Back to the Utah issue- this may lends some answers:

Posted with permission from Bob Collier
http://ezezine.com/home/586/ (http://ezezine.com/home/586/)

To Vicki Cottrell, Executive Director, NAMI Utah
16 September 2003
cc:
James H. Scully Jr., M.D., Medical Director, American Psychiatric Association
Richard Shulman, Ph.D., Director, Volunteers in Psychotherapy, Inc.
Dr. Loren Mosher, Director, Soteria Associates

For the attention of Vicky Cottrell, Executive Director.

Dear Ms Cottrell,
I read today this quote attributed to you:
"There now is a scientific base which provides evidence that mental illnessess are biologically-based brain disorders and are similar to
any other physical illness."
If you did indeed make this statement, you are misleading the American public and you are a fool. There is no such scientific base
and no such evidence. There is no science at all in the diagnosis of 'mental illnesses'.
Best wishes,
Bob Collier
Publisher, Parental Intelligence
Canberra, Australia


>From :   "Vicki Cottrell"  
To :    
Subject :   believes  
Date :   Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:31:46 -0700  
Dear Bob,
I have one perspective of mental health and you have another - who is the greater fool? Maybe the one who calls the other a fool for his/her beliefs.
Sincerely,
Vicki Cottrell

To Vicki Cottrell, Executive Director, NAMI Utah
29 September 2003
Copies to:
Rick C. Birkel, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill
James H. Scully Jr., M.D., Medical Director, American Psychiatric Association
David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom Support Coalition International
Fred A. Baughman Jr., M.D., ADHD Fraud

Hi, Vicki
I was reading today at the NAMI Utah website about your "Family to Family Education Program".
I note that your program is "a 12 week course for families of individuals with brain disorders (mental illness)", also the comment of parents who had previously attended the course that it had taught them they were "dealing with a real physical illness like any other"; furthermore, according to another comment by a previous attendee, an illness that the affected person "has no control over".
I note also that 'topic number 4' of the course is "The biology of the brain/new research".
You may know that the Medical Director of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. James Scully, was recently asked by representatives
of the 'Fast for Freedom in Mental Health' in Pasedena to produce scientific evidence in support of the APA's contention that mental
illness is, as you say, "a real physical illness like any other" and he was unable to do so. In fact, the APA's inability to provide hard
evidence in support of what appears to me to be a worldwide promotion of 'mental illness' as "a real physical illness like any other" was
confirmed as recently as two days ago (26th September 2003), in a statement issued by the APA to MindFreedom, the organisers of the
Pasedena hunger strike.
http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/ ... a2nd.shtml (http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/hungerstrikeapa2nd.shtml)

I have, myself, been unable to find even the merest shred of evidence to support the idea that mental illness is "a real physical illness
like any other" in almost a year of looking, and that includes making a personal request for assistance in that matter to Professor Russell
Barkley, arguably the world's leading authority on 'ADD/ADHD', and to Tim McGeorge, Deputy Director of the organisation 'Children and
Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder' (CHADD).
Perhaps you are in a privileged position and have evidence not available to others which does indeed support the assertion that 'mental illness' is "a real physical illness like any other".
Since we share a common goal in our determination to discover and publicise the facts about 'mental illness', I wonder if you would mind sharing with me the "new research" into the biology of the brain that you have included in your course.
Best wishes,
Bob Collier
Publisher, Parental Intelligence


To Vicki Cottrell, Executive Director, NAMI Utah
8 October 2003  
Copies to:
Rick C. Birkel, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
James H. Scully Jr., M.D., Medical Director, American Psychiatric Association
David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom Support Coalition International
Fred A. Baughman Jr., M.D., ADHD Fraud

Hi, Vicki
I didn't hear from you, so I assume you didn't find any evidence supporting the idea that mental illness is "a physical illness like any other".
Don't worry - I didn't either. Tim MacGeorge of CHADD assured me there was a "mountain" of it, but, between you and me, I think he must have been pulling my leg!
I do have some evidence to the contrary, however (getting on for 200 items at the latest count), but I don't suppose that's what you're looking for, is it?
If anything turns up, I'll be sure to let you know.
Best wishes,
Bob Collier
Publisher, Parental Intelligence


From :   "vicki cottrell"  
To :    
CC :   "vicki cottrell"  
Subject :   an illness like any other  
Date :   Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:22:58 -0600  
Bob,
The reason you didn't hear from me is that I chose not to debate this with you. You will find what you are looking for and so will I. If
you feel you need to prove that mental illness is not an illness like any other, go for it. I will not be wasting my time with those who want to prove it not so - I know my lived expericnce and you cannot prove that wrong no matter how you try.
Sincerely,
Vicki Cottrell

To Vicki Cottrell, Executive Director, NAMI Utah
9 October 2003
Copies to:
Rick C. Birkel, Ph.D., Executive Director, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
James H. Scully Jr., M.D., Medical Director, American Psychiatric Association
David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom Support Coalition International
Fred A. Baughman Jr., M.D., ADHD Fraud

Hi, Vicki
Great to hear from you!
Are we having a debate? I thought we were sharing a mutual interest in discovering the facts behind the American Psychiatric Association's manufactured 'disorders of childhood'.
Not to worry! I can't force you to be interested in the facts if you don't want to be. I'm sure the parents of this world whose critical
thinking skills are still functioning will be able to figure it all out for themselves anyway once the whole story has inevitably become
common knowledge.
Catch you later!
Bob
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 23, 2003, 05:07:00 PM
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How in the world can anyone prove that a thing does not exist? If I insist that my dead realatives follow me around the house giving stock tips and helping me locate lost objects, then how in the world are you going to prove me wrong.

That's the argument they're making here. They claim proof of this biological disease, in fact they claim there are mountains of it. But where is it? Nobody's seen it. It's an article of faith.

And I can still almost see and hear my friend's 10yo son throwing a fit of anger, screaming through clenched teeth "I NEED MY ADDERAAAAAAAALLLL!!" When they tried to make him go cold turkey.

No laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober
--Samuel Stiles

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2003, 10:25:00 PM
I've seen some of it.  One of the books I've read included plenty of study information on generational studies of manic-depressive families.

Also, in a science magazine subscription I took in high school, there was a review of a study that did spinal taps on patients diagnosed with depression, and on controls, and the depressives had significantly more incidences of low serotonin in their spinal fluids.  Also, the subgroup of depressives with low serotonin in their spinal fluids were more likely to complete suicide, and more likely to choose a violent (knife, gun)--and therefore highly likely to actually be fatal---method than normal serotonin depressive patients.  Normal serotonin depressive patients were just as likely to have attempted suicide, but they chose methods (like pills) that had low rates of suicide completion (actual death).

I've read the recaps of the studies that show a low maintenance dose of antidepressant, or CBT, are the only methods of treatment of depression that are more effective than a placebo.

I've only gone over the brain scan material on television, which is unreliable enough that I wouldn't be accepting it if it weren't that the other evidence is already compelling.

So you can't say *nobody* has seen it.

*I* have seen it.

And if you want to see it, go to your local *good* university library and do a literature search through their psychology and psychiatry journals.  You can find the study on serotonin I'm talking about, and any similar studies, by searching on serotonin, depression, and spinal taps.

Any university library will have reference librarians who will be happy to help you search out the relevant journal articles, and most university libraries have Kinko's or something similar inside the library so you can go pull the relevant journal volume, go xerox the study, and take your stack of studies home to read at your leisure.

That's how we did our literature searches in college for our research projects.  If you haven't had a course in psychological statistics, psychologial testing, and the college freshman introductory series of psychology courses, it's likely to be Greek to you, so expect it to be hard going wading through it.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2003, 10:42:00 PM
If you just want to look at information on the web:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/e/x/exc147/diag1.html (http://www.personal.psu.edu/staff/e/x/exc147/diag1.html)

There appear to be several different specific disorders that cause "depression"---which probably reflects several different mutations.  There's substantial reason to think that a predisposition to a given mental illness is a multiple allele trait---just like hair color or skin color.

Here's a journal article on the web where you can read it.

http://www.afsp.org/research/articles/mann.html (http://www.afsp.org/research/articles/mann.html)

And here's another one:

http://www.forensic-serotonin.com/ (http://www.forensic-serotonin.com/)

And here's a good site with links to a *bunch* of articles:

http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-236.htm (http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-236.htm)

Or, you could do what I did and find it in two seconds googling: "spinal tap" serotonin depression
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2003, 11:10:00 PM
Ginger, how you find this kind of research is you go to a major university.  Almost every state has at least two.  Georgia, for example, has reasonably decent libraries at University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, and Emory University---possibly others.  But a community college probably won't be good enough, and the garden-variety county Public Library probably won't be good enough.

You go in, you tell them, "I need to talk to a research librarian or someone who can help me do a literature search of experiments published in peer-reviewed psychology journals."

You get the research librarian to help you with the probably computerized search.  Try searching on combinations of: "depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, biology of, neurobiology of"

Write down the full citation information for the articles of the most likely studies, or print out your search results and circle or highlight the likelies.

Get the research librarian/reference librarian's help in deciphering what the cites mean, go to where they've shelved the volumes of the journals (they put each year's journals in a bound book, the volumes will be sorted by year).

Get the research librarian's help finding the photocopy center in the library.

Look up your studies that are likely to talk about what you're looking for in the appropriate journal volumes.  Read the abstract.  If it still looks like a study you want, go xerox it.  Go to the next one.  Leave with half a ream of studies to read.  Read them.

Actually, you'd save yourself all manner of time if you'd hire a psychology undergrad honors student, who's training to be a research psychologist and not a clinician, hand *her* the half a ream of studies, pay her by the hour to go through and sort the studies into two piles: Study is well done and proves what it says it does; and Study is crap.  Then have her go through the first group and summarize the results for you in plain English and staple the summary to the front of each study.  Then you can have her go over with you and explain any of the studies in either category, why they are in that category, and why they mean what they mean.

If you have more time than money, what you'd need to do is read and learn *well* the following college level texts:  Introductory Statistics, Psychological Statistics, Psychological Testing, and the areas of an Introduction to Psychology text that describes the how-tos and common mistakes in research.

I'm presuming that the reason you're saying "nobody's seen it" is because you didn't know how to find the research.  Now you do.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 23, 2003, 11:35:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-23 19:25:00, Anonymous wrote:

That's how we did our literature searches in college for our research projects. If you haven't had a course in psychological statistics, psychologial testing, and the college freshman introductory series of psychology courses, it's likely to be Greek to you, so expect it to be hard going wading through it.


Ah yes! The sacred science. The seer stones of the loaded language. You must approach the inner sanctum of knowledge and understaning either through an enlightened cleric or by way of years of sacrifice and dedication. You may not simply think and understand for yourself.

Please!  :roll:

Where's the causual effect? We know, for example, that people who are grieving the loss of a loved one or some other tragedy completely outside of the influence of either genetics or biological disease or injury will also test out low on serotonin (unless, of course, it's a traditional Rastafarian or Arcadian wake). And PET scans on avid football fans at touchdown will show the same rapid pattern differences as in a clinically manic or depressed patient.  

Where's the evidence to support a causative effect?

In laymen's terms:

A wet sidewalk
Don't really bring the rain
And the rooster's crow
Won't bring out the Sun again

Do you see how you might be falling for Program style slight of mind? Whenever I see a policy or sales advocate with a PET scan, I'm reminded of a Partnership for a Drug Free America ad that got pulled from circulation not long after NORML forced a peer review and subsiquent suit against the government agency that provided funding for it.

They held up two brain scans; one all bright and cheery yellows, oranges and reds and the other a dark hole with a little blue and grey. The healthy brain, they said, was drug free while the dead looking one was that of a pot smoker. Technically, it was. However, they neglected to mention that the pot smoker had been in a coma at the time of the test, having been hit by a truck.

I wish I could have your faith that most professionals are trustworthy and above deceptive marketing and politicing. But I'd have to discard out of hand a whole lot of my own experiences and observations about how human beings operate in order to accept that basic premis.

Is there such a thing as inherited and/or biological brain disease? I'm positive of it. Not so sure modern science has any concept of where to draw the line between individuality and dysfunction. But I'm sure there are people with poorly functioning brains due to heredity and injury.

But is most, or even quite a lot, of what we now call mental illness organic in origin? I doubt it very seriously. If it is, it's got the most peculiar means of propagation ever. It seems to selectively afflict the socially weaker in any human relationship, regardless of any other factors.

It's a common thread. Is the kid defficient in his ability to pay attention? Or are the teacher and curriculum just mind numbingly boring? Is the kid afflicted because she's sad? Or is she living in a sad world? Is the kid learning disabled? Or has he just got better things to do with his mind than what somebody else has in mind for him?

I think the vast majority of what we call mental illness is nothing but scapegoating the victim. Cause that's just how people tend to behave, given the power over others to do so.

What kind of humanism expresses its reluctance to sacrifice military casualties by devastating the civilian economy of its adversary for decades to come?  
Henry Kissinger

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 07:45:00 AM
No, you definately do not understand psychoanalysis.  People on antidepressants do have to keep increasing the doses, its a fact. Someday you will too. I advise you to really read about psychoanalysis before you make your mainstream opinions.  It is used as a way to learn about how the mind works.  I will never have to be hospitalized again.  Can you say that with conviction?  cognitive and behavioral therapy are small parts of psychoanalysis.  Telling someone their thoughts are wrong is not the same as figuring it out yourself and changing.   Yes, a behavior can be changed but what caused the behavior in the first place? Long standing psychological problems take years to really be understood by the person.  It is an investment in their life.  A life that is not just survived but thrived.  Knowing who you are and why you think and live the way you do is a phenomenal gift of psychoanalysis.  Freud, by the way did not just analyze women.  
You sound like you would do well as a counselor in one of these programs.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Froderik on November 24, 2003, 09:16:00 AM
Quote
It's a common thread. Is the kid defficient in his ability to pay attention? Or are the teacher and curriculum just mind numbingly boring? Is the kid afflicted because she's sad? Or is she living in a sad world? Is the kid learning disabled? Or has he just got better things to do with his mind than what somebody else has in mind for him?

I think the vast majority of what we call mental illness is nothing but scapegoating the victim. Cause that's just how people tend to behave, given the power over others to do so.

Very well said, Ginger.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 11:20:00 AM
Ginger, of course people mourning would show lowered serotonin-- death is a traumatic event and everyone who mourns experiences at least a taste of depression.

The problem is that for some people, they stay stuck in that state.

And as someone who has mourned while on antidepressants, trust me, they don't take away the pain.  Those of my siblings who were on meds at funeral were indistinguishable by med status from those who were off.

Also, there's a real difference between "sacred science" and actual science.  The scientific method is the best way we know to root out ineffective and harmful treatments.  Controlled studies, though they may not be perfect, are as close as we get in this world.  They certainly distinguish between those things that seem to make people better and those which do nothing at all or do harm.  And they are way fucking better than anecdotes!

Re: Freud fan.  I've read the original and am not impressed.  There's no evidence to support that psychoanalysis helps people-- head to head comparisons with these other therapies finds that psychoanalysis doesn't help depression.  CBT, drugs and interpersonal therapy do.

And yeah, so he treated *mostly* women-- if you read how he did it, you will read numerous passages where he talks of strenously having to convince people of his explanations.

Finally, his methods are unfalsifiable and therefore inherently unscientific.  In other words, if you deny wanting to have sex with your mother, you are in denial but if you say you do, you are telling the truth.  There's no way to win with that system because no matter what you say, you are confirming his theory.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 11:31:00 AM
Now that you've acquired reams of research to wade through, the difficult research begins- ascertaining if the research is as objective as humanly possible.

Note the researchers and those who funded their work. Do any have a vested interest in the findings being slanted a particular way? Do any own stock in a company that will benefit financially? Do either have a vested interest in disproving existing research?

Not sure why we don't consider this unethical, we certainly do in other areas of society.
Would you want a politician designing public policy and laws that would benefit a particular company that they or their cronnies were invested in, and which may not be in the best interest of "the people" or environment?

Would you want an accountant cooking the books for the corp you've slaved in for 25 years- being compensated on the side to cleverly funnel your retirement funds into the CEO/board members pockets?

Both happen inspite of laws designed to prevent it, but there appears to be no safeguards in the field of scientific research. Let's face it- most research is designed to be slanted, which will have an impact on public opinion and policy and consequently certain people's bank accounts.

Remember when scientist assured us that once we killed our limited number of brain cells we would not generate new ones, I guess one would just became a vegetable. Not sure who stood to gain from that, possible the drug war folks, but a subsequent study apparently disproved those findings because the notion was retracted.

Remember when researchers "proved" that blacks were "intellectually inferior"? That notion still exists and the study still cited, long after it was disproven by subsequent research. Rational people knew the truth without the benefit of either study.

We shouldn't have to research the researchers to ferret out any possible agendas. At the very least, they should be required to disclose personal information, as should those who fund the research.

Research can in fact do as much harm as good. Take it with a grain of salt.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 24, 2003, 11:49:00 AM
Anon mom, look, we're all guessing, even the scientists. That's why they so often turn out to be wrong.

You seem to be taking the position that all or most of what we call mental illness, specifically depression, is organic in origin. But you present as evidence low serotonin levels. And you acknowledge that inorganic depression also causes low serotonin levels. How do you determine which is the cause and which is the effect?

If the drugs are working for you, great! But that doesn't necessarily mean the cause of low serotonin levels is always genetic or organic.

Look, I woke up this morning after some unpleasant dreams. It's rainy, cloudy and chilly out. The kid lost a day of work due to slow business. Then a friend sends me this link:
http://www.kypost.com/2003/11/19/bill111903.html (http://www.kypost.com/2003/11/19/bill111903.html)

My serotonin levels are probably very low right now. I blame my father and his kin. They were poor coal minders and bootleggers who made it through the depression and all landed up owning homes and cars and a little cache of trinkets to leave to their young relatives when they died. They taught me that we live in a free country where, if you work hard and are honest, you'll be rewarded. Now I'm raising my kids in a world where, if they act like children or like teenagers, they'll likely land up in prison or under the same kind of forced treatment I endured. And their prospects for future prosperity and security are pretty slim.

If you want to call it organic mental illness and blame my father, fine. But I don't look at it that way. We're living in a very depressing, frightening world these days. Is my inability to unsee it a dysfunction? Should I drug myself so that I'll feel better about it?

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use

--Galileo Galilei



_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 12:00:00 PM
Psychoanalysts have a saying:  Let them continue their research with psychology,  it keeps them out of our hair so we can really help someone.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Froderik on November 24, 2003, 12:04:00 PM
In a desperate mind
Little gardens grow
They grow very wide
They grow very tall

Why am I alive
Urban Wonderland
By the fence I stand
In and out of hand

There are many paths
Dripping dark so dense
Do not enter here
Enter over there

People closing in
Barking at my mind
Shoving me to wine
I want all alone

I want my own home
I want my own girl
Help me hate the world
Own and love my life
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 24, 2003, 12:07:00 PM
Quote
Deborah
We shouldn't have to research the researchers to ferret out any possible agendas. At the very least, they should be required to disclose personal information, as should those who fund the research.

Research can in fact do as much harm as good. Take it with a grain of salt.


You've said essentially this a couple of times; we shouldn't have to check the researchers' homework or we shouldn't have to rely on the net for hidden informatin.

I disagree. I think a lot of the problems we're facing now are the direct result of having too much faith in the experts and authorities. We will always have to check, be skeptical, let the buyer beware.

The primary difference between the net and broadcast media is that broadcast goes from one central point of origin to many passive recipients while the net is a many to many medium. Before electronic communications, people read flyers and newspapers and listened to a guy on a soap box, but those broadcast style communications only garnered so much attention. People made up their minds about everything after discussion, argument and careful consideration.

That's how we came about our vaunted Constitution. I think it was a pretty good process, don't you? This is similar. Those of us who are pathologically curious can seek out more and better information than what filters through the professions and mainstream media. That's not a bad thing. That people have to be skeptical and question the presumed authorities is not a sign of some disfunction. That's the way human culture has always been.

A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.
James Madison, The Federalist No. 46

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 12:51:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-24 04:45:00, Anonymous wrote:

"No, you definately do not understand psychoanalysis.  People on antidepressants do have to keep increasing the doses, its a fact. Someday you will too. I advise you to really read about psychoanalysis before you make your mainstream opinions.  It is used as a way to learn about how the mind works.  I will never have to be hospitalized again.  Can you say that with conviction?  cognitive and behavioral therapy are small parts of psychoanalysis.  Telling someone their thoughts are wrong is not the same as figuring it out yourself and changing.   Yes, a behavior can be changed but what caused the behavior in the first place? Long standing psychological problems take years to really be understood by the person.  It is an investment in their life.  A life that is not just survived but thrived.  Knowing who you are and why you think and live the way you do is a phenomenal gift of psychoanalysis.  Freud, by the way did not just analyze women.  

You sound like you would do well as a counselor in one of these programs.  "


Nice insult.  Do you often get people to do what you want by insulting them?  If so, you muat be used to dealing with really gullible people.

Your predictive statement about antidepressants and increasing dose are interesting in that they are not falisifiable---if someone hasn't had to increase dose over a long period of time, you don't take that as evidence you just might be wrong, you just say that that doesn't matter because they *will*---so nothing ever counts as evidence against your hypothesis.

Which pretty much describes psychoanalysis in a nutshell, come to think of it.

I don't do, and wouldn't do, "program" counseling because I don't think unlicensed counselors have any business mucking up with the brain of someone who allegedly is so seriously fucked up that it justified institutionalizing them.  If they're *genuinely* fucked up enough to be involuntarily institutionalized, then they're fucked up enough to merit having their therapy and treatment done by *licensed professionals*.

(Also, even if I was qualified to treat institutionalized patients, I kind of have better things to do with my life.)

That the programs say, on one hand, "Your teen is fucked up enough that he's gonna die if you don't institutionalize him," and on the other hand say the mutually contradictory, "Oh, but his problem is mild enough that our counselors with only a bachelors in this or that can handle it just fine!"

Those are clear signs of a scam.  Those positions are mutually contradictory, and what they both have in common is they get the program more money.

Clinical studies of psychoanalysis have demonstrated pretty conclusively that it is no more effective than a placebo.  Stay a true believer if you want, it's crap, and that's all I have to say about it---but you're welcome to have the last word.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 24, 2003, 01:11:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-24 09:51:00, Anonymous wrote:

"
I don't do, and wouldn't do, "program" counseling because I don't think unlicensed counselors have any business mucking up with the brain of someone who allegedly is so seriously fucked up that it justified institutionalizing them.  If they're *genuinely* fucked up enough to be involuntarily institutionalized, then they're fucked up enough to merit having their therapy and treatment done by *licensed professionals*.

http://thestraights.com/ (http://thestraights.com/) Somewhere in the layout, there's a link to Wes' book, A Clockwork Straight In his chapter on Miller Newton (The Clinicians, I think it's called) Wes details how the Rev., Dr., Dr., Fr. Virgil Cassian Newton went about generating his impressive string of titles. He even managed to secure for himself priviledges like a real doctor at a local hospital!

Most of the time, PhD stands for Pile higher and Deeper.

Quote

Those are clear signs of a scam.  Those positions are mutually contradictory, and what they both have in common is they get the program more money.



Clinical studies of psychoanalysis have demonstrated pretty conclusively that it is no more effective than a placebo.  Stay a true believer if you want, it's crap, and that's all I have to say about it---but you're welcome to have the last word."


What can I say? Modern science is just not all it's cracked up to be. I sincerely think we're headed for another dark age. May you find yourself in the company of folk who are kind, poetic, competent and well able to defend themselves from the buggering masses of hungry and out of work ties and clip boards.

Being a street cop, witnessing the tragedy firsthand, I've become
convinced that drug prohibition -- not drugs themselves -- are driving the HIV epidemic and the systemic crime that has swamped our criminal justice systems.
--Vancouver Police Const. Gil Puder

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 01:21:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-23 20:35:00, Antigen wrote:

"
Quote

On 2003-11-23 19:25:00, Anonymous wrote:


That's how we did our literature searches in college for our research projects. If you haven't had a course in psychological statistics, psychologial testing, and the college freshman introductory series of psychology courses, it's likely to be Greek to you, so expect it to be hard going wading through it.



Ah yes! The sacred science. The seer stones of the loaded language. You must approach the inner sanctum of knowledge and understaning either through an enlightened cleric or by way of years of sacrifice and dedication. You may not simply think and understand for yourself.



Please!  :roll:



Where's the causual effect? We know, for example, that people who are grieving the loss of a loved one or some other tragedy completely outside of the influence of either genetics or biological disease or injury will also test out low on serotonin (unless, of course, it's a traditional Rastafarian or Arcadian wake). And PET scans on avid football fans at touchdown will show the same rapid pattern differences as in a clinically manic or depressed patient.  



Where's the evidence to support a causative effect?



In laymen's terms:



A wet sidewalk

Don't really bring the rain

And the rooster's crow

Won't bring out the Sun again



Do you see how you might be falling for Program style slight of mind? Whenever I see a policy or sales advocate with a PET scan, I'm reminded of a Partnership for a Drug Free America ad that got pulled from circulation not long after NORML forced a peer review and subsiquent suit against the government agency that provided funding for it.



They held up two brain scans; one all bright and cheery yellows, oranges and reds and the other a dark hole with a little blue and grey. The healthy brain, they said, was drug free while the dead looking one was that of a pot smoker. Technically, it was. However, they neglected to mention that the pot smoker had been in a coma at the time of the test, having been hit by a truck.



I wish I could have your faith that most professionals are trustworthy and above deceptive marketing and politicing. But I'd have to discard out of hand a whole lot of my own experiences and observations about how human beings operate in order to accept that basic premis.



Is there such a thing as inherited and/or biological brain disease? I'm positive of it. Not so sure modern science has any concept of where to draw the line between individuality and dysfunction. But I'm sure there are people with poorly functioning brains due to heredity and injury.



But is most, or even quite a lot, of what we now call mental illness organic in origin? I doubt it very seriously. If it is, it's got the most peculiar means of propagation ever. It seems to selectively afflict the socially weaker in any human relationship, regardless of any other factors.



It's a common thread. Is the kid defficient in his ability to pay attention? Or are the teacher and curriculum just mind numbingly boring? Is the kid afflicted because she's sad? Or is she living in a sad world? Is the kid learning disabled? Or has he just got better things to do with his mind than what somebody else has in mind for him?



I think the vast majority of what we call mental illness is nothing but scapegoating the victim. Cause that's just how people tend to behave, given the power over others to do so.

What kind of humanism expresses its reluctance to sacrifice military casualties by devastating the civilian economy of its adversary for decades to come?  
Henry Kissinger


"


Ginger, evaluating the research to see if it is well or poorly done, and whether, if well done, it actually does prove what the researcher *says* it proves IS thinking for yourself.

You just have to develop the competence to understand what the hell you're looking at before you can do that.

And, of course, causality is part of the whole question---and to understand if it's proven, you have to understand what kind of research and data provides support to the theory that A causes B, and what kind of research and data is not capable of providing information about causality.

And a literature search is how you get the information about which to think for yourself.  Because if you don't have data, then you're just building a priori castles in the air like Des Cartes.  Anti-empiricism ultimately boils down to solipsism.  It's a philosophical dead end.

It sounds like you're accusing me of making an argument from authority.  If so, then you don't understand my argument.  I'm arguing that the scientific method, applied correctly, *works*----and that you have no right to make broad sweeping claims about what "nobody" has seen when you haven't even bothered to apply that "thinking for yourself" to the body of collected data by going out and doing a literature search.

What you appear to mean by "thinking for yourself" is that reasoning from anecdotes in the wilfull absence of actual data (and no, the plural of anecdote is not "data") and conclusions arrived at therefrom is the equal or superior of reasoning from a careful evaluation of actual data from the body of experimental evidence from the body of experiments where sound scientific methods were actually correctly followed.

Garbage.

Reasoning from anecdotes leads people to all kinds of incorrect conclusions, systematically, when and where the anecdotes differ systematically from the real underlying phenomena---as they frequently do.

Reasoning from anecdotes is fine in a pinch when you don't have the actual data and you've got to make a decision *now*.  But an opinion formed from reasoning from anecdotes is *substantially* inferior to one formed from correct reasoning based on soundly-gathered data from well-designed experiments and studies.

Look, if you don't want to *bother* doing a literature search or learning how to evaluate that information FINE.  

NOBODY has time to go do a literature search on everything, and unless you really have a jones for understanding some particular thing, bothering to do so can seriously get in the way of having a life.

The only thing I'm bitching about is the arrogance of saying "nobody" has seen the research when you *haven't* bothered to go do a literature search and look at it.

I generally like you, but that is colossally arrogant.

I don't have a problem with "I'm not convinced, and I really don't care enough to take the time to pursue it."

I have a *real* problem with saying "nobody's seen it" about some body of research (ANY body of research on ANY topic) when the REASON some particular person "hasn't seen it," IF they haven't, is that they're too intellectually lazy to GO LOOK.

"I'm not convinced"---FINE

"It doesn't jibe with my life experience"---FINE

"Nobody's seen it"---NOT FINE.  How DARE you say "nobody's seen it" when you HAVEN'T LOOKED!!!!

Sorry, that just floors me.

And what floors me about it has nothing to do with the particular topic under discussion---we could be discussing ANY area of knowledge science has explored and I'd be having the same reaction, and don't you dare accuse me of "not thinking for myself" because I look at science----Because on the issues I care about enough to do a literature search I am NOT arguing from the "authority" of guys in white lab coats, I'm arguing from knowing damned well how to decide for myself if a particular piece of research is well done or a pile of crap and whether it proves what the researcher says it proves----and I've rejected the conclusions of *plenty* of published studies from "scientists" with pretty credentials because the research methodology or analysis methods were a load of crap or because the experimental results did NOT in fact prove what the researcher with the pretty credentials said they proved.  And not all the research I've rejected as flawed crap has been drawing conclusions I disagreed with (although I disagreed that that piece of research supported those conclusions), and not all the research I've accepted as sound has been drawing conclusions I agreed with.

What I'm upset about here has nothing to do with who's right on their view of a particular issue---it's the whole arrogance of "nobody's seen it" when you HAVEN'T LOOKED.

Program thinking my eye.

I like you, but you're better than this.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 01:33:00 PM
Oh, and if you'd *done* a literature search even close to right in a good research library and then were saying, "I looked.  I didn't see it and as far as I can tell nobody else has, either." I would be 100% cool with that----it's the combination of the big sweeping "nobody" statement and not having looked that.....well, obviously hits a hot button.

"I haven't seen it.  I haven't talked to anyone who has.  But I haven't looked and don't necessarily know how well or badly they've done at looking." would also be reasonable.

Big sweeping exclusionary statement combined with not having looked is not a Good Thing.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 04:46:00 PM
You say you read " the original" regarding Freud.  What are you talking about.  He wrote volumes.  The original is in German.  Wow I give you a lot of credit for reading that.  I am giving people including teens and children another alternative from meds and being told how to think.   Psychoanalysis or Psychotherapy for 4-6 years is a very viable therapy and your bashing it is really too bad.
    I am reading a book about selected papers by Frieda Fromm Reichmann who had as a teacher, Freud. She did analysis with schizophrenics and manic-depressives.  Very good reading
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 04:48:00 PM
Mourning and depression are a lot alike.  We don't medicate mourning.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 04:59:00 PM
Ginger, what you seem to be missing is that everything must be coded in the brain somehow.

For argument's sake (and to *way* oversimplify), let's say sadness = low serotonin and depression = extremely low serotonin.

Now, you could be born with fewer serotonin receptors, which would make you naturally sadder than other people.  You could experience the early deaths of your parents, which would lower your serotonin environmentally.  And a million other combinations could occur.

The point is, it doesn't matter if the cause of low serotonin is "natural" (ie death of loved one", artificial (ie, produced by the wearing off of drugs like cocaine) or genetic (ie, produced by pre-existing factors) or some combo thereof.

You can get at it several ways:  talk about it, use light therapy, use antidepressants.  If any of those work, your serotonin will go up.

it doesn't matter the initial cause.  so it doesn't matter how you treat it either.

All is preference, basically and there is no "natural."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 05:02:00 PM
re:  Freud fan.  I didn't read the original German, but I did read translations.  It still didn't impress me. It's still pseudoscience.

If you are interested in having your views challenged, check out "Therapy's Delusions" by Ofshe and Watters.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 05:07:00 PM
Oh... and one more reply to Ginger.

Re:  being skeptical about research and methods.  

i 100% agree with you.

But critiquing research doesn't mean throwing the baby away with the bathwater.  

it means:

understanding sample size and statistical significance

understanding sample selection and randomization

understanding diff between controlled research (AKA experimental) and observational data

understanding the importance of replication and peer review and good journals v. not so good.

understanding what factors were "controlled for" and how

using common sense

checking funding sources etc. but not using that as your only point of analysis

noting converging lines of evidence.

so, if there are multiple controlled studies published in good journals with large sample sizes  by a variety of researchers, you can pretty much believe it.

as opposed to one observational study published in an iffy journal with 2 subjects.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 07:15:00 PM
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1 ... rozac.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1stQtr_2001/010699Prozac.html)

Psychiatric Association to investigate Brown University

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The American Psychiatric Association plans to investigate a report that the head of Brown University's psychiatric
department failed to disclose more than $500,000 in consulting fees, most from pharmaceutical companies whose health benefits he praised in journals and at conferences.

Dr. Martin Keller, a noted researcher on depression, could be banned from APA-sponsored conferences if he did not follow the group's policies for financial disclosures, association spokeswoman Lynn Writsel said Wednesday.

The Globe reported that Keller received consulting fees from companies such as Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst, and Eli Lilly - all of which market antidepressants he praised in a series of medical research reports.

The school said Keller followed the school's rules to the letter. It requires annual conflict-of-interest reports for researchers who make more
than $10,000 or 10 percent in equity. The reports are reviewed by a misconduct committee and the dean of the graduate school.

"The fundamental basis of scientific research is that there is an open and honest presentation of the data that is not cooked, not slanted," Sasich
said.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 24, 2003, 08:13:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-24 16:15:00, Deborah wrote:

"http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1stQtr_2001/010699Prozac.html



Psychiatric Association to investigate Brown University



PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The American Psychiatric Association plans to investigate a report that the head of Brown University's psychiatric

department failed to disclose more than $500,000 in consulting fees, most from pharmaceutical companies whose health benefits he praised in journals and at conferences.



Dr. Martin Keller, a noted researcher on depression, could be banned from APA-sponsored conferences if he did not follow the group's policies for financial disclosures, association spokeswoman Lynn Writsel said Wednesday.



The Globe reported that Keller received consulting fees from companies such as Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst, and Eli Lilly - all of which market antidepressants he praised in a series of medical research reports.



The school said Keller followed the school's rules to the letter. It requires annual conflict-of-interest reports for researchers who make more

than $10,000 or 10 percent in equity. The reports are reviewed by a misconduct committee and the dean of the graduate school.



"The fundamental basis of scientific research is that there is an open and honest presentation of the data that is not cooked, not slanted," Sasich

said.

"


Deborah, there are unscrupulous prostitutes who will roll a client for his money and not have sex with him.  There have been a *lot* of anecdotal accounts of said unscrupulous prostitutes over the years.

Just because those anecdotes and *many* of them unquestionably exist, doesn't mean that if you go to a whore and pay her her fee you're not going to get laid.  People do it all the time.

You can come up with all the anecdotes in the world of bad whores, or bad cops, or bad soldiers,  or bad scientists, but that methodology of yours will *never* prove that *all* whores, cops, soldiers, or scientists are bad at their jobs.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 24, 2003, 08:31:00 PM
Quote
On 2003-11-24 17:13:00, Anonymous wrote:


On 2003-11-24 16:15:00, Deborah wrote:

You can come up with all the anecdotes in the world of bad whores, or bad cops, or bad soldiers, or bad scientists, but that methodology of yours will *never* prove that *all* whores, cops, soldiers, or scientists are bad at their jobs.



Can you find a strong advocate for your position who is not somehow affiliated with the pharms and who does not have a conflict of interest as regards their advocacy for SSRIs?

The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
-- John Adams, (1772)

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 09:36:00 PM
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/4 ... d0035.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/4thQtr_2002/record0035.html)

Insight Magazine?s interview with Dr. Thomas Laughren, team leader for the neuropharmachological drug-products division of the FDA, shows that FDA was caught off guard when Dr. Arif Khan independently analyzed FDA?s data revealing that the new psychotropic drugs?including antidepressants (SSRIs) and antipsychotics? substantially INCREASED the rate of suicide in patients who participated in clinical trials testing the drugs? safety and efficacy between 1985-2000. (See: Clinical Psychiatry News

A recent study conducted by Arif Khan, medical director of the Northwest Clinical Research Center in Bellevue, Wash., and adjunct professor of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine, has revealed startling numbers of suicides committed and suicides attempted in the clinical trials for the new SSRI antidepressants ? numbers that for years had been hidden from both prescribing physicians and the public.

Kahn has examined the official clinical drug-trial data for all SSRIs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1985 and 2000, in which 71,604 participants in the clinical trials were treated with antipsychotics, all SSRIs and anticonvulsants. The rate of suicides in the general public is 11 in 100,000, which means an incidence rate for those participating in the SSRI clinical trials of nearly 68 percent ? that?s 718 suicides for every 100,000. Kahn?s research further revealed that nearly 4 percent of SSRI drug-trial participants attempted suicide within the following year.

Asked what the FDA considers an acceptable number of deaths in clinical trials, Thomas Laughren, team leader for the neuropharmachological drug-products division of the FDA, tells Insight, ?Your question is not particularly pertinent because these trials are not designed to influence suicide. If you look at any one individual trial it is very unlikely you will find a suicide in the trial, and generally we don?t.?

You see, says Laughren, ?It?s only if you accumulate data across a large number of trials that you even have enough data to look at. What you do see in individual trials is that patients who get drugs improve more than patients who get placebo. That?s what we see. When you do a meta-analysis across a large number of trials and you look at the other outcomes of suicide and attempted suicide, you don?t see any particular benefit from being assigned the drug compared to placebo.?

Which, of course, is the point. And Laughren further announced that ?the drug is not approved for the treatment of suicide. They are approved for the treatment of depression. Dr. Khan?s findings and our findings suggest that these drugs that we?re studying and approving for depression don?t appear to have a benefit on the outcome of suicide. That is not to say that they don?t have a benefit in treating depression.?

The drugs don?t have a ?benefit? on the outcome of suicide, which they in fact increase dramatically, but they do have a ?benefit? for depression. How is this possible when in fact the clinical trials for SSRIs show the suicide rate increased by 68 percent?

?What this [increased suicide rate] would tell us,? says Laughren, ?is that this is a serious condition, not a trivial condition. Depression is a serious condition. If you look at individual trials there are so few suicides that you wouldn?t be able to make sense of it all. It?s only after you look across multiple development programs over a very long period of time that you have enough events that you can get this kind of analysis.?

So, does this mean that FDA should wait longer periods of time before approving such drugs? ?No,? says Laughren, ?because the data are very clearly showing that these drugs benefit patients. What this tells us is that it is very difficult to exclude patients that are suicidal. As hard as you try you really are not able to predict who is suicidal and who is not. It [the trial data] does not tell us that being in clinical trials puts you at risk of suicide. It is not surprising to see a few suicides when you look at a fairly large number of patients, many of whom are followed for months or years.?

But the data show the suicide rate is elevated 68 percent when comparing SSRI participants to those given placebo and to the general population. So the question isn?t whether being in a clinical trial puts a person at risk, but whether a particular drug puts a participant in a clinical trial at risk. Besides, what good does it do to be declared officially less depressed if it means you are 68 percent more likely to kill yourself?

Whitaker says, ?You shouldn?t be seeing four to five times the suicide rate in drug-treatment groups, especially when these drugs are supposed to prevent this. It?s terrible that the FDA approved drugs with these high suicide rates. Naturally they do expect some suicides, but the question is whether there is something the drug is doing that is increasing that rate, and here it looks like it may be. A further question that has to be asked is why it has taken 15 years to find out about this data. Why are we learning about these increased suicides in clinical trials 15 years after the drugs were approved??


http://www.insightmag.com/global_user_e ... yid=285737 (http://www.insightmag.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm?storyid=285737)

And the numbers in those trials:
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/3 ... d0002.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/3rdQtr_2002/record0002.html)
Here are the suicide rates. Keep in mind as you read through these that the rate of 11 out of 100,000 persons per year is the suicide rate for the population at large.

*752 per 100,000 for those treated with atypical antipsychotics?risperidone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), and quetiapine (Seroquel)

*718 per 100, 000 for those treated with the SSRIs ? Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa)

*425 per 100, 000 for those treated for ?social anxiety disorder? with nefazodone (Serzone), mirtazapine (Remeron), and bupropion (Wellbutrin/Zyban)

*136 per 100,000 for those treated for panic disorder?with benzodiazepine alprazolam (Xanax)

*105 per 100, 000 persons for those treated for obsessive-compulsive disorder with anticonvulsant valproate (Depakote).

These figures clearly speak for themselves. The massive numbers of wrongful death suits will obviously follow. At least loved ones will know why they have lost those who meant so much to them via such tragic circumstances.

Keep in mind as you read through this data that the new antipsychotics listed here are basically a combination of the older antipsychotics and the SSRIs. They too have a STRONG effect upon serotonin levels. Also the most likely reason researchers saw an even higher rate of suicide in placebo with the antipsychotics is that these patients were likely being abruptly discontinued from their older antipsychotics for the clinical trials. This abrupt withdrawal causes suicide.


[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-11-24 18:41 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 10:00:00 PM
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... d0015.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2002/record0015.html)

Treatment guidelines for psychiatrists "call unequivocally for medication," says Robert DeRubeis, chairman of the psychology department at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

But in the largest and longest-running study to pit medication against psychotherapy, Dr. DeRubeis and colleagues have found cognitive therapy -- which basically teaches patients to think about their thoughts differently -- is at least as effective as standard drugs in treating severe depression. The results of the study, which was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and GlaxoSmithKline PLC, maker of the antidepressant Paxil, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Philadelphia Thursday.

The findings have shocked hard-core "pharmaceuticals first" psychiatrists like Jay Amsterdam, a research psychiatrist at Penn and a co-author of the study. "I was a skeptic," he says. "I didn't think that in people with real, biochemically based depression, cognitive therapy would be effective. But I told Rob [DeRubeis], 'if you can fix my patients, I'll be a believer.' When I saw the result, I told him he had a highly effective treatment for depression, and that if he could bottle it he'd have a billion-dollar drug."

The results also run counter to those of an earlier study sponsored by the NIMH. In 1989, that three-site trial concluded that although cognitive therapy is as effective as drugs for mild depression, it is much less effective for the moderate-to-severe kind. The NIMH findings remain hugely influential, providing the basis for the drugs-first standard of care. In addition, other research has found that even if cognitive therapy helps initially, therapy patients face a higher risk of relapse than medicated patients.

A key unanswered question is which patients will respond better to drugs and which to talk therapy. Severity doesn't seem to determine that. Chronicity, however, does: The longer a patient has been depressed, the harder it is for cognitive therapy to help. That may reflect the entrenched nature of the depressive thoughts and the difficulty of changing the way the patient views them.

Doctors are reluctant to recommend cognitive therapy instead of drugs for depression not only because of the influence of the earlier NIMH study but also because of concerns about cost and insurance. Despite the widespread belief that long-term psychotherapy is financially impractical, however, in the Penn-Vanderbilt study it cost an average of $2,250 for the four months that patients received it. Treatment with drugs, which patients took for 16 months, cost $2,590. But insurance reimbursement favors drugs, so most primary-care doctors prescribe one of the SSRIs for depressed patients. HMOs, Dr. DeRubeis says, typically cap psychotherapy sessions at four. Many other plans cover half of allowed psychotherapy costs but a much larger percentage of prescription costs.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 10:07:00 PM
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... d0022.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2002/record0022.html)

After thousands of studies, hundreds of millions of prescriptions and billions of dollars in sales, two things are certain about pills that treat depression: Anti-depressants like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft work. And so do sugar pills.

A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as - or better than - anti-depressants. What?s more, the sugar pills, or placebos, cause profound changes in the same areas of the brain affected by the medicines.

The new research may shed light on findings such as those from a trial last month that compared the herbal remedy St. John?s wort against Zoloft. St. John?s wort fully cured 24 percent of the depressed people who received it, and Zoloft cured 25 percent - but the placebo fully cured 32 percent. The findings do not mean that anti-depressants do not work. But clinicians and researchers say the results do suggest that Americans may be overestimating the power of the drugs and that the medicines? greatest benefits may come from the care and concern shown to patients during a clinical trial - a context that does not exist for millions of patients using the drugs in the real world.

?The drugs work, and I prescribe them, but they are not what they are cracked up to be,? said Wayne Blackmon, a Washington psychiatrist. ?I know from clinical experience the drugs alone don?t do the job.? Still, drugs may have become the reflexive treatment for the vast majority of Americans receiving medical attention for depression: As the number of doctor visits for depression rose from 14 million in 1987 to almost 25 million last year, medications were prescribed for nine in 10 patients Seattle psychiatrist Arif Khan studied the placebo effect in trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. His analysis of 96 anti-depressant trials between 1979 and 1996 showed that in 52 percent of them, the effect of the anti-depressant could not be distinguished from that of the placebo.

Khan said the makers of Prozac had to run five trials to obtain two that were positive, and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even more. ?It speaks to the difficulty we have in classifying and identifying the disorders we deal with,? said Thomas Laughren, who heads the group of scientists at the FDA that evaluates the medicines.

Scientists don?t understand the neural mechanisms of depression - or why medicines like Prozac and Paxil work.

http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... oloft.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2002/Sugar_Pill_Rivals_Zoloft.html)
A study came out this week indicating that placebo is more effective than Zoloft or St. John?s Wort. I thought, ?So what?s new??

But there seems to be an interest here because not everyone realizes yet that increasing serotonin is the worst thing you could do for someone who is depressed since his or her serotonin levels are already too high. What is low is their ability to metabolize serotonin--exactly what antidepressants lower even further. So one should conclude that ANYTHING that increases serotonin would only make the depression worse after the initial high caused by the shock of the initial serotonin increase.

How much of it is just all in one's head?
FDA Approves Sale of Placebo
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/3 ... d0018.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/3rdQtr_2003/record0018.html)

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-11-24 19:11 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-11-24 19:29 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 10:17:00 PM
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... id_th.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2002/Favor_of_the_Month--Did_th.html)

?Few agencies have a mandate to regulate such a broad swath of American life as the FDA, which oversees products that amount to one quarter of the nation?s consumer economy and 80 percent of the nation?s food supply.?

The New Republic provides the low down about why an the Administration withdrew the leading candidate to head the FDA. Dr. Alistair Wood, a highly regarded pharmacologist, is an eminently qualified drug safety expert(according to all knowledgeable people).

But several of Dr. Wood?s ideas to save lives and money displeased the pharmaceutical industry: for example, a credible system for post-marketing surveillance to catch adverse side effects fast, and switching some drugs to over-the-counter status. Industry prefers to sell drugs by prescription because they can charge more since insurance companies pay for them. Of course, industry doesn?t care about the uninsured who have no money to pay for the higher costs of drugs. These folks are solicited for clinical trials to test new drugs ?without any cost?.

The FDA is currently being run by a former food inspector, Lester Crawford, a veterinarian who is knowledgeable about food safety not drugs. Wouldn?t the public interest be better served if we had two commissioners (or separate agencies), one to oversee food products, the other drugs?

More at the link.

And more on the FDA
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... ng_sa.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2002/FDA_headache--balancing_sa.html)
http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... ng_sa.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2002/FDA_headache--balancing_sa.html)


[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-11-24 19:20 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 24, 2003, 10:23:00 PM
Promise, this is the last post.. but couldn't resist. This site is full of interesting summaries of research, etc. No need to spend hours in a research library.

http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1 ... d0033.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/1stQtr_2002/record0033.html)

Intro to article:

Dan Ferber ([email protected])
 

 
Professional Codes of Ethics?in medicine and accounting?are in need of major revision. The ethics of both professions have been undermined as they came under the inordinate influence of Big Business.

An excellent article in BioMed Central (below) cites several examples of conflict of interest. The first being, John Mendelsohn, M.D., president of the U of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, who was a board member of ENRON as well as on the board of ImClone Systems, a biotechnology company that is reported to be under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for misleading investors about the potential of a new anticancer drug.

Lisa Bero, a pharmacologist and health policy expert at the University of California, San Francisco, notes that beyond individual conflicts of interest, the question that needs to be asked is: "who's driving the whole research agenda and who's planning it"? "Now we have to worry if those people are influenced by a corporate agenda." [See, BioMed Central below]

And in today's Wall Street Journal, Itzhak Sharav, Professor of Accountancy, Columbia University Business School, says, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) betrayed its mission when it failed to issue rules providing for full corporate financial disclosure. "The slippery slope that got us mired in the Enron swamp had its start in the FASB's initial capitulation to the politicians on the issue of stock options accounting." [See, WSJ below]

Reuters and USA Today report that British and American medical associations have crafted a new code of professional conduct. It "aims to restore public confidence in the medical profession, which has been badly bruised by cases of misconduct, to help doctors cope with ethical problems in the modern world and to reaffirm the profession's commitment to putting the needs of the patient first."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 25, 2003, 07:37:00 AM
I would have no interest in reading anything that is against psychoanalysis.  If you don't believe and know you have an unconscious that drives your thoughts and behaviors, you are not going to understand.  About suicide, since I have felt those wanting to die feelings.  Causes of suicide are either someone told you, you shouldn
't be alive, or your perception was that you shouldn't be.  This is deeply wired into your psyche. Also suicide can also be an extreme rage or hatred, murder directed at yourself.  When we are older and not able to repress those feelings anymore, something triggers these feelings again.  It takes realizing that its something that will shift when talked about enough that helps.  Also when doing research, its funny to me because the persons unconscious is always going to bias the research.  Oh well, have a good day.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 25, 2003, 02:37:00 PM
Q: How do you get your teenage girl to lose interest in a boy?

A: Invite him over to dinner and just gush over how much you like the kid.

Psychology; the 2nd oldest profession.

Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die
-- Malachy McCourt

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 25, 2003, 06:54:00 PM
I just started reading this and had to share...

Giant Floating Purple Pills



Are those creepy prescription-drug commercials on TV trying to kill you?  

By Mark Morford,

SF Gate
Columnist
Friday, November 21, 2003
 
Cut to picture of healthy-looking yuppie guy emerging from swimming pool and smiling.

Cut to picture of mother twirling her child in the park in slo-mo. Cut to picture of woman taking deep whiffs of fresh-cut lilies at the florist and grinning warmly as if the world was one big gob of perky happy fluffy bunny joy. Yay. Drugs. Yay.

Celebrex can make you feel like you again. Celebrex is a revolutionary new breakthrough in medicine technology. Celebrex is not for everyone. Ask your doctor if Celebrex is right for you.

Side effects may include nausea diarrhea anxiety sleeplessness headaches projectile vomiting genital warts narcolepsy halitosis death bed wetting pained nightmares involving angry bloodsucking poodles and the mad uncontrollable desire to smash your head into a brick wall over and over again until you stop screaming.

Do not use Celebrex if you are recently deceased. Do not use Celebrex if you are already experiencing heart palpitations or night sweats or screaming terrified wolf howls or if you take any other medication that begins with the letter C.

Pregnant or nursing mothers should not use Celebrex, unless you want your child to become a mutant deformed pygmy three-armed libertarian with 17 toes and the IQ of a small canned ham.

If you are absolutely certain nothing is wrong with you and you feel fine and hence you do not need Celebrex, this is actually the first troubling sign that Celebrex is exactly what you need. Contact your doctor immediately, if not sooner.

If you are right now watching this TV commercial for Celebrex and have no idea what the hell Celebrex is because we don't ever actually tell you what the hell it is, and, hence, if you feel the pharmaceutical industry is this freakish mega-powerful mind-control cult fully bent on convincing as much of the human population as possible that wildly expensive prescription meds are the answer to all your problems, this, too, means you should take our medication, pronto.

And if you go so far as to dare to think that maybe, just maybe, alternative medicine or homeopathy or just becoming much, much more aware of your life and what you eat and how you live might, in fact, negate the need for a great many of the drugs we manufacture, and if you believe that we might actually invent bogus ailments and drill a fear of them into the cultural consciousness, all in order to supply you with the narcotics to treat them, well, have we got a nice pill for you.

Sound familiar? It should. It was in 1997 that the FDA finally loosened the rules on DTCA (direct-to-consumer advertising), finally let them loose upon the unsuspecting and completely unprepared populace, and thus were major pharmaceutical companies given the right to advertise like savage and shameless maniacs on national television.

And they were allowed to hawk extremely expensive and often toxic drugs designed to relieve you of various debilitating ailments, but not even really tell you what those products actually do, or why, or how much they cost, or anything at all except for a quick charming listing of possible side effects, each of which seems to involve some sort of stomach recoil and skin eruption and painful bowel shift.

But there was a study. There is always a study. By the Kaiser Family Foundation. A couple years ago. It said that one in eight people who saw a drug commercial on TV did, in fact, ask their doctor about it, and 44 percent of those actually got themselves a prescription for that drug.

Sadly enough, drug ads work. In 1997, pharmcos spent $791 million on TV ads. Today that figure is well over $3 billion. This is why you can't turn on the TV without seeing some inexplicable commercial for some bizarre-sounding drug that features as its active ingredient siflintrate oxygtoralnyzincotim but which they call Happium or maybe Numbium. Drugs have become just another everyday consumer good, like Campbell's soup or Windex or a new Toyota Camry.

A swarm of giant purple pills gently fall from the azure sky, rotating slowly as they fall, like a rain of Skittles, like manna from the gods of Merck. A well-drugged housewife happily bakes cookies with her children as a bird sings on the windowsill. Happy narcotized citizens of America go about their business, usually in slow motion, always grinning calmly, the colors of the world oversaturated and utopian and creepy.

Lipitor. Nexium. Singulair. Vioxx. Vanceril. Xenical. Zyrtec. Allegra. Avandia. Claritin. Zoloft. Ritalin. Valtrex. Viagra. Flonase. Prinivil. Meridia. Prilosec. Provocal. Ditropan. All on TV. All aimed straight at consumers. All sounding like a new model from Acura.

Many of these drugs are, of course, beneficial to a great many people, but every single one crosses over that modest boundary of limited need and is heavily overmarketed and overprescribed and wickedly expensive, its promised results misleading and even dangerous.

And many of these drugs are, in the long haul, quite likely more toxic and destructive to the mind and body than pot or cocaine or ecstasy. But, hey, as every major oil CEO and BushCo warmonger and Wal-Mart exec knows, education and common sense are the true enemies of profit.

Simply put, it is in the vested interest of every pharmco in the world to convince as many doctors as possible to prescribe their drugs, wining and dining them and sending them elaborate gifts and buying them hookers and booze and cars and lost weekends during ridiculously lavish weeklong drug symposiums at the Bellagio in Vegas. Hey, just ask any M.D. -- this happens far, far more than you think.      

And, by the way, you have not seen the very embodiment of slick smarm until you've met a professionally groomed and carefully hatched drug rep from a major pharmaceutical corporation. Beware.

But now, much to their overall sinister glee, pharmcos no longer have to market solely to doctors. And they can also pass right over your neighborhood pharmacist, the specialist who's actually specifically trained in this sort of thing, who actually knows more than almost any doctor about prescription meds and what chemical does what to whom and why.

After all, why try to convince the wary professionals and experts when you can market straight to the gullible and the trusting and the easily duped? America is sick sick sick, besotted by a hundred thousand ailments, each one more icky and ravaging than the last. This is what they are selling. This is the underlying message. This is why you need their drugs.

And this is why television is their ultimate medium, allowing them to convince as many consumers as possible that they must demand a prescription for that neat-o pretty purple pill they saw on TV because, as we all know, if it's on television, it must be good.

We have become a nation completely inured to seeing giant pretty pills floating across our TV screens like they were just another can of Cheez-Whiz. Hell, even the FDA says many of these ads are seriously misleading, and has issued numerous warning letters to countless pharmcos for intentionally lying to consumers about the efficacy of their chemicals.

No matter. Few are demanding any drastic change to the ads, as Bush-backed corporations have more power than they've had since the industrial revolution, and, hence, nuanced awareness of corporate calculation, of what is being sold to us -- from war to jingoist ideology to the mountain of legal drugs we happily pump into our bodies -- seems to be at an all-time low.

But it's OK. That sadness and bitterness and overall disgust you might feel about all this? That sense that you are losing control, that they have far too much power and reach and you have too few defenses and they will soon be marketing Ritalin and kiddie Prozac straight to your child during "Spongebob" commercial breaks? Fear not. Just relax. They have a pill for that, too.

G:   "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?"
EB:  "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."
-- Somewhere in No Man's Land, BA4

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 25, 2003, 11:56:00 PM
ROFLOL!!! Thanks for the humor. I love Morford-right up there with Dave Berry whose piece on SUVs was side splitting!!

Back to Utah for a moment- Hatch and Ashcroft accept fat donations from drug companies.

http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2 ... d0030.html (http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/2ndQtr_2003/record0030.html)
Excerpts- more at the link:
Two Republican senators - John Ashcroft of Missouri and Orrin Hatch of Utah - are the latest to come under fire for accepting fat donations from America's drug industry.

Senator Ashcroft was labeled "the Fortune 500 senator" this week by Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader after a big drugmaker gave $50,000 to the Ashcroft Victory Committee.

Senator Hatch has spent recent weeks fending off critics who charged that he was quietly trying to help the same drugmaker (Schering-Plough) win a patent extension that could be worth billions to the firm. Hatch is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Ashcroft is chairman of Judiciary's Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights that oversees patent issues. Both senators are up for reelection this year.
***
The question critics ask is: Did Hatch and Ashcroft, in response to those contributions, do the bidding of Schering-Plough while disregarding the impact of their actions on the prices that Americans pay for drugs?

Recently, the spotlight has shone on Hatch. It began when someone in the Senate crafted a bill that would make it easier for drug companies to extend patents, a move opposed by generic drug firms.

The Senior Coalition, alarmed by the draft legislation, offered a $1,000 reward to whomever exposed the name of the senator responsible for producing it. They labeled this mystery person "Senator Anonymous."

After much speculation, Hatch conceded that he was that person. But he insisted that a more accurate name would be "Senator Anonymous, Wrongly Accused." Hatch says he did nothing improper. He explains that his Judiciary Committee staff, without his knowledge, drafted the proposal.

Hatch spokesman Chris Rosche says the draft was only "for the purpose of discussion." It was "far more overreaching than Senator Hatch would ever allow to become law," he says.
****

As the leading recipient of drug industry money in Congress, Hatch had collected more than $169,000 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies as of May 1, according to the Federal Election Commission. Of that, $14,000 came from Schering-Plough. He also used an airplane owned by Schering-Plough during his bid for the 2000 GOP presidential nomination.
****

Critics expect some sort of patent-extension legislation to come up again soon. With this in mind, the group that sponsored the bounty on "Senator Anonymous" says it will donate $1,000 to a senior center in Utah. John Powell, head of The Seniors Coalition, says the money could be used to invite Hatch over for some straight talk from seniors on the "negative effects of unwarranted patent extensions."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 27, 2003, 01:24:00 AM
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/w ... ressed.htm (http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/women/depressed/depressed.htm)

Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon. Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed.

WHY?

"The one true answer is we don't know," said Canning [Pres of Utah Psych Assoc], who has a private practice in Logan. "I have some hunches.

"In Mormondom, there is a social expectation--particularly among the females--to put on a mask, say 'Yes' to everything that comes at her and hide the misery and pain. I call it the 'Mother of Zion' syndrome. You are supposed to be perfect because Mrs. Smith across the street can do it and she has three more kids than you and her hair is always in place. I think the cultural issue is very real. There is the expectation that you should be happy, and if you're not happy, you're failing."

Some suggest that Utah's unique Mormon culture--70% of the state's population belongs to the church--requires perfection and the public presentation of a happy face, whatever may be happening privately. The argument goes that women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are beset by particular pressures and are not encouraged to acknowledge their struggles.

Utah's large families--the biggest in the nation according to the 2000 Census--are often cited as a contributing factor to depression, again, largely among women. Others call the "harried housewife" explanation the stuff of urban legend.

Utah also leads the nation in the use of narcotic painkillers such as codeine and morphine-based drugs, the study found, and is ranked seventh in total prescriptions overall. Kentucky ranked first.

State officials say the study's results could indicate that this is an enlightened society in which depression and mental illness are destigmatized. In such a social climate, they say, more people are willing to seek help and, eventually, are prescribed drugs.

Cindy Mann, who lives in Logan, said after 15 years of taking antidepressants and not feeling better, she finally quit in July. Today she encourages others to do likewise, but she's pessimistic.

"It's like Happy Valley here," she said, describing the Salt Lake Valley. "It's a scary place sometimes. People don't talk about their problems. Everything is always rosy. That's how we got ourselves into this mess--we're good at ignoring things."

*************************
And check this site. Great humorous and informative stories-- Wild Utah!

http://www.wildutah.net/2-12-02/htmldocs/Mormon.htm (http://www.wildutah.net/2-12-02/htmldocs/Mormon.htm)

3) Mormons won?t have any part of caffeine, cigarettes or drugs, except prescription drugs like Prozac (it?s depressing to be a Utah Mormon) or methamphetamine (diet drugs are big sellers because not only are Mormon women depressed, they are fat as well ? probably from a combina-tion of too many kids and too many gelatin salads). Mormon men find it?s easier to live with their depressed, fat wives if they take Prozac as well. Besides, if the prescriptions come from their friendly, Mormon physician, it?s OK to be a druggie.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/ ... 0918.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/eveningnews/main510918.shtml)
Utah is known as the "beehive state" because of its residents' proud record of productivity. But some here fear the pressure to achieve may be pushing people too far. And with the nation's ninth highest suicide rate, Utah is even getting the federal government's attention.

The U.S. Surgeon General's special assistant is tracking the problem ? made even more urgent by the latest youth suicide statistics, that found in 2000, 66 young people between the ages of 5 and 24 killed themselves in this sparsely populated state.

For many Utah teens, normal tension relievers, like after school sports, aren't working.

"A few of our friends take anti-depressants just because I think we're not good enough, like we don't think we're good enough, then we turn to other things," said high-schooler Lyndsay Anderson.

Other things can include dangerous drugs. The baseball team at Payson High School has a new starting line up because many of its stars were caught using and selling painkillers.

"I wasn't surprised, but I was disappointed when it started unraveling," says Payson principal Kay Smith. "It was much bigger than I thought it was going to be."

Smith admits her kids are stressed but no more, she says, than other high school students. Still, some teens say it's part of life in Utah.

"If they don't think they're quite living up to the standards that everybody has set for them, then I could see how that could lead to some problems," says high school student McCord Larsen.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 29, 2003, 07:18:00 PM
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/new ... 036372.htm (http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7036372.htm)
Excerpts:

Researchers at Baylor University have found traces of an antidepressant in the livers, muscles and brains of bluegills in a Denton County creek, raising concerns about the welfare of the fish and the people who eat them.

The chemical, fluoxetine hydrochloride, is the active ingredient in Prozac. It likely came from a city of Denton wastewater treatment plant, which discharges into Pecan Creek and flows into Lewisville Lake. Traces of the drug that are not absorbed into the body can flow down the toilet and through wastewater treatment plants, which are not designed to filter out pharmaceuticals.

Fluoxetine and other antidepressants affect fish in roughly the same ways they affect people, said Bryan Brooks, a Baylor toxicologist who led the study.

Eli Lilly and Co., which manufactures Prozac, has a material safety data sheet for fluoxetine hydrochloride on the company Web site. Under environmental information, the data sheet states that the chemical is "moderately toxic to fish and highly toxic to invertebrates and green algae" and can be considered persistent in the environment because of its low rate of biodegradation. The data sheet also states that the chemical has low potential to accumulate in aquatic organisms.

? Can these pharmaceuticals pollute drinking water supplies?

? What are the health effects of eating fish contaminated with pharmaceuticals?

? If fluoxetine is in the bluegills in Pecan Creek, might it also be in the tissues of other species in other waterways?

If it can be confirmed that pharmaceuticals are moving untreated through wastewater plants, sewer plant operators could be required to begin controlling these discharges. That could necessitate the addition of new technology costing millions of dollars and could have a tremendous impact in North Texas.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 30, 2003, 09:36:00 PM
Tomorrow night, Monday, December 1, the International Coalition for Drugawareness will be featured on the Jeff Rense Show. You can listen to this show online at http://www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com).

The show is set for 8-10 PM Pacific Time and will address the serious issue of SSRIs being given to children. This is the subject of the upcoming FDA
hearing on February 2 and all of the guests on the show are scheduled to speak to the FDA Advisory Committee at that February hearing.
 
Along with me several of our directors across the country will be interviewed
- Mark Miller from KS, Tom Woodward from PA, and Lisa Van Syckel from NJ.

Mark and his wife, Cheryl lost their son, Matt, to Zoloft. He began to show signs of mania and akathisia and hung himself after only seven days on the drug.

Tom and Kathy Woodward also lost their daugther after just a week on Zoloft. They had added Deseryl (Trazadone) just two days before. She too hung herself at home.

Lisa's daughter had very serious reactions to SSRIs and her story was featured in the October issue of Good Housekeeping.

Also on the show will be Amy Coburn from UT who just won the Miss Brigham City contest and is now running for Miss Utah. She has made the dangers of drugging of children with psychiatric drugs her platform.

If you miss this show you should know that it will be archived on http://www.rense.com (http://www.rense.com) so that you can play it at a later date or recommend it to others
interested in this issue.

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy,
Executive Director, International Coalition For Drug Awareness
& author of Prozac:  Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare
& tape on safe withdrawal "Help! I Can't Get Off My Antidepressant!"

Order Number: 1-800-280-0730
Website: http://www.drugawareness.org (http://www.drugawareness.org)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on December 11, 2003, 07:35:00 AM
How drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals
Antony Barnett
The Observer

Hundreds of articles in medical journals claiming to be written by academics or doctors have been penned by ghostwriters in the pay of drug companies, an Observer inquiry reveals. The journals, bibles of the profession, have huge
influence on which drugs doctors prescribe and the treatment hospitals provide.

But The Observer has uncovered evidence that many articles written by so-called independent academics may have been penned by writers working for agencies which receive huge sums from drug companies to plug their products.

Estimates suggest that almost half of all articles published in journals are by ghostwriters.

While doctors who have put their names to the papers can be paid handsomely for 'lending' their reputations, the ghostwriters remain hidden. They, and the involvement of the pharmaceutical firms, are rarely revealed.

These papers endorsing certain drugs are paraded in front of GPs as independent research to persuade them to prescribe the drugs.
....
Few within the industry are brave enough to break cover. However, Susanna Rees, an editorial assistant with a medical writing agency until 2002, was so concerned about what she witnessed that she posted a letter on the British Medical Journal website.

'Medical writing agencies go to great lengths to disguise the fact that the papers they ghostwrite and submit to journals and conferences are ghostwritten on behalf of pharmaceutical companies and not by the named authors,' she
wrote. 'There is a relatively high success rate for ghostwritten submissions - not outstanding, but consistent.'

Rees said part of her job had been to ensure that any article that was submitted electronically would give no clues as to the origin of the research.
....
One field where ghostwriting is becoming an increasing problem is psychiatry.

Dr David Healy, of the University of Wales, was doing research on the possible dangers of anti-depressants, when a drug manufacturer's representative emailed him with an offer of help.

The email, seen by The Observer, said: 'In order to reduce your workload to a minimum, we have had our ghostwriter produce a first draft based on your published work. I attach it here.'
 
The article was a 12-page review paper ready to be presented at an forthcoming conference. Healy's name appeared as the sole author, even though he had never seen a single word of it before. But he was unhappy with the glowing review of the drug in question, so he suggested some changes.

The company replied, saying he had missed some 'commercially important' points. In the end, the ghostwritten paper appeared at the conference and in a psychiatric journal in its original form - under another doctor's name.

Healy says such deception is becoming more frequent. 'I believe 50 per cent of articles on drugs in the major medical journals are not written in a way that the average person would expect them to be... the evidence I have seen would suggest there are grounds to think a significant proportion of the articles in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Lancet may be written with help from medical writing agencies,' he said. 'They are no more than infomercials paid for by drug firms.'

In the United States a legal case brought against drug firm Pfizer turned up internal company documents showing that it employed a New York medical writing agency. One document analyses articles about the anti-depressant Zoloft. Some
of the articles lacked only one thing: a doctor's name. In the margin the agency had put the initials TBD, which Healy assumes means 'to be determined'.

Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Journal of Medicine, admitted ghostwriting was a 'very big problem' .

'We are being hoodwinked by the drug companies. The articles come in with doctors' names on them and we often find some of them have little or no idea about what they have written,' he said.


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/stor ... 06,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1101706,00.html)


http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.p ... 10/7671896 (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/12/10/7671896)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on December 12, 2003, 09:42:00 PM
For what it's worth.....
If you took SSRIs as a youth and are interested in testifying before the FDA this Feb. in DC.
Interest in this issue is really building, now that the British have banned SSRIs for
youth. Info on how to get the guidelines
on how to testify, etc. below.
**********

The FDA has scheduled a hearing on Feb. 2, 2004, of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory committee and the Pediatric Subcommittee of the
Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
In order to testify at that hearing on the
adverse effects of antidepressants upon children and teens you must contact Anuja Patel at
301-827-6790 or e-mail her at [email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 05, 2004, 08:35:00 PM
June 3, 2004
New York State Official Sues Drug Maker Over Test Data
By GARDINER HARRIS

In a novel claim testing the way that the $400 billion worldwide pharmaceutical industry is regulated, the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, sued the British-based drug giant GlaxoSmithKline yesterday, accusing the company of fraud in concealing negative information about its popular antidepressant medicine Paxil.

The civil lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, contends that GlaxoSmithKline engaged in persistent fraud by failing to tell doctors that some studies of Paxil showed that the drug did not work in adolescents and might even lead to suicidal thoughts. Far from warning doctors, the suit contends, the company encouraged them to prescribe the drug for youngsters.

"The point of the lawsuit is to ensure that there is complete information to doctors for making decisions in prescribing," Mr. Spitzer said in an interview. "The record with Paxil, we believe, is a powerful one that shows that GSK was making selective disclosures and was not giving doctors the entirety of the evidence."

GlaxoSmithKline officials issued a statement yesterday saying in part that the company "has acted responsibly in conducting clinical studies in pediatric patients and disseminating data from those studies."

On Wall Street yesterday, the American depository receipts of GlaxoSmithKline fell $1.38, or 3.2 percent, to $41.39.

Mr. Spitzer filed his suit at a time that the tendency of many drug companies to publicize only studies with positive results has come under increasing criticism.

As he has done in actions involving the financial services and mutual fund industries, Mr. Spitzer is entering regulatory terrain that has been largely the preserve of the federal government, in this case the Food and Drug Administration. This time, though, he maintains that his suit is not a criticism of federal drug regulators.

"This isn't Harvey Pitt and the S.E.C.," he said, referring to the former chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission, whom Mr. Spitzer criticized as less than vigorous in enforcing federal securities laws. Instead, Mr. Spitzer said that the F.D.A. had been hamstrung by court rulings that have used free-speech arguments to limit the agency's power to regulate what drug companies can say to doctors. Such rulings do not limit his powers, Mr. Spitzer said.

"You cannot invoke free-speech arguments as a defense to fraud," he added.

Similar suits against other drug companies are likely, Mr. Spitzer said. "This is an area that we're interested in," he said, "and I think there are other cases out there that are analogous."

A spokeswoman for the F.D.A. would not comment on the lawsuit but noted that the agency required companies to submit all data related to the safety of their drugs. Because so much drug company data submitted is considered proprietary, it is up to the F.D.A. to decide when to disclose possible public safety concerns.

That is what it did last year, when it warned doctors on the use of Paxil for adolescents and children. Earlier this year, it required antidepressant makers to strengthen suicide warnings on labels.

British drug regulators have banned the use of all but Prozac for the treatment of depression in adolescents and children. Prozac, made by Eli Lilly & Company, received a major American endorsement this week when the widely anticipated results of a study sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health indicated that Prozac was superior to talk therapy alone or a placebo in treating depression among teenagers. The study did not address suicide risks.

Civil suits have been filed against Glaxo and some other makers of antidepressants by patients or surviving relatives, contending that the drugs caused violent or suicidal behavior. Some criminal defendants have contended that violent acts were a result of using the drugs.

Mr. Spitzer's lawsuit is part of a broad assault by prosecutors on the drug industry's marketing practices. Last month, for example, federal prosecutors in Boston announced a settlement with the world's largest drug maker, Pfizer; the company agreed to pay $430 million and to plead guilty to charges that its Warner-Lambert unit promoted the drug Neurontin to doctors for the treatment of conditions where no benefit had been proved.

TAP Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $800 million for inappropriate marketing practices, and its former executives are facing federal criminal charges in Boston. Schering-Plough has acknowledged in regulatory filings that it is likely to be indicted for improper marketing practices. Other companies are being investigated.

At issue in most of these investigations, including Mr. Spitzer's Paxil suit, is the marketing of approved drugs for off-label uses - those not specifically approved by the F.D.A. While doctors are free to prescribe an approved drug for any use, the manufacturers are supposed to limit their marketing to those uses with F.D.A. clearance.

The new wrinkle in Mr. Spitzer's suit is his argument that a drug maker is committing fraud if it does not tell doctors about trials of a medication that raise safety concerns.

"I'm certainly not the person to determine whether Paxil is appropriate or not for any given patient," Mr. Spitzer acknowledged. "But what I can do is ensure the information to doctors is fair and complete so that those equipped to make this determination can do so."

Dr. Barry Perlman, president of the New York State Psychiatric Association, said in an interview that his organization supported a crackdown on the failure to disclose negative information on drugs.

"Whenever we don't have the complete picture," he said, "we can't prescribe ethically and appropriately, and that's an enormous obstacle to good care."

Richard Merrill, a University of Virginia law professor and a former general counsel at the F.D.A, compared Mr. Spitzer's suit to product-liability lawsuits by individuals. He said the suit was the first by a public official against the drug industry.

Pharmaceutical companies sponsor most clinical trials of drugs and, in many cases, they jealously guard the data that results. If a test suggests that a drug is effective in treating a certain condition, the company will push to get its results published in a prestigious journal. If the results reflect poorly on the drug, they often never appear in public.

Experts have long criticized the tendency in the industry to publish only positive clinical trials, arguing that this distorts medical practice and undermines the scientific process. Some have suggested that the results of all clinical trials should be published in a federal registry.

But some say that doctors are unlikely to consult such a registry and will continue to be influenced by trial results published in leading journals.

Mr. Spitzer's suit is the first to suggest a way of resolving such matters. If a company's marketing message is at odds with the results of its own, suppressed clinical trial, he argues, the company is liable for damages under consumer fraud laws.

In the case of Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline sponsored five trials of the drug in adolescents suffering from major depression. The company undertook the trials to qualify for a six-month extension of Paxil's patent granted under a federal law that encourages the testing of drugs in children. But it published only one of the trials, which showed mixed effect. The unpublished trials failed to show any benefit for the drug and suggested that it might increase the risk of suicide.

An internal memo cited in the suit said the company should have "effectively managed the dissemination of these data in order to minimize any potential negative commercial impact."

And, according to the suit, the company told its sales representatives that "Paxil demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of adolescent depression." The suit contends that sales representatives passed this on to doctors.

The company's statement yesterday said the memo, written in 1998 - before the merger of SmithKline Beecham and Glaxo Wellcome of Britain that created the current company - "is inconsistent with the facts and does not reflect the company position."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 06, 2004, 11:04:00 PM
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... forum=22&0 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5645&forum=22&0)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2004, 11:03:00 PM
Green Party Canada is on the right track
The US should be ashamed.

http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/e ... .php?p=169 (http://www.greenparty.ca/platform2004/en/policies.php?p=169)

The Green Party supports mental health practices that are humane, empowering and voluntary.

The Green Party will:

Safeguard human dignity and human rights, respecting individual autonomy and protecting informed consent.
Recognize that social- and recovery-oriented models of care make the best scientific and economic sense.
Recognize that involuntary procedures are incompatible with the principle of self-determination.
Limit the use of any surgical, manipulative and electromagnetic disruptions that are found by the Health Protection Branch to be harmful to the health of Canadians.

The Green Party will:
Work with the provinces to create a National Mental Health Network that supports self-help groups, social service agencies, independent living centres and advocacy projects.
Research the effectiveness and safety of using long term pharmaceutical treatments for the mental and emotional health problems of children and adults.
Create new physician guidelines to limit the prescription of antidepressants and behavior-altering pharmaceuticals for children.
Involve mental health clients and psychiatric survivors in research planning, policy development, program evaluation and other decisions that affect their lives.
Increase research into the effectiveness of treatment alternatives, including community-based support programs, peer support, counseling, nutritional, herbal and traditional medicine practices ? such as yoga, massage and acupuncture.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 08, 2004, 07:07:00 AM
Um, I read yesterday in the news that the British have *not* banned SSRIs in youth.

They allow Prozac, based on recent studies showing it is safe and effective in pediatric cases of depression.

My understanding is that the British are concerned about off-label uses without (real, non-ghost-written) supporting research.

As they should be.

Just because some people try to pull a fast one with research that isn't, doesn't mean that genuine, replicable research that actually does follow the methods of good science can or should be ignored.

Also, many of these illnesses are genetic, and there is a touchstone that many psychiatrists have noticed for predicting adverse reactions or good responses.  If a same sex close relative does well on a medication, that is a very solid indicator that the patient will do well on that medication.

They aren't flying nearly as blind as your articles would make it sound.

People with moderate problems that aren't having serious adverse life consequences probably should be very cautious about taking psychotropic medication.

For those of us with major mental illnesses that are heavily genetic, the balance of risks and stakes are different.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 08, 2004, 12:03:00 PM
Timoclea,
We have opposing views on this issue and it would be futile to debate.
I would only ask you to post the proof that ANY 'mental illness' is genetic. If you can't, then it would seem more appropriate/accurate to say that certain 'mental illnesses' are ASSUMED to be genetic; rather than to make a declarative statement- Another problem with scientist and researchers, they present their assumptions as if they were the truth. Run a biased 'study' and present their 'results' as fact.
There's a good article below that gives insight into the British attitude, which is contrary to what you suggested, and compares and contrasts the US and Britian. The latter much more conservative. You think the US has more people with genetic defects? Or more profit-driven greedy people offering the latest and greatest quick fix?
As my friend said the other day, "Maybe the fascist establishment wants children to be quiet and docile. The government might want to pathologize people with certain temperaments."

That may seem far-fetched to you since you are learned in the school of psychiatry, but many see this outrageous drugging of our children as a form of eugenics. Have you stopped to contemplate what our culture will look like in 20-40 years? Matrixville. Will the children in future generations be able to produce their own brain chemicals, or be dependent on a pill, because their parents and their parents took SSRIs and the ability to produce brain chemicals was 'bred' out of them. What might that be like? You do know that continued use will inhibit the body's ability to produce? It creates dependence.

When I address this issue, I am not attacking your choice to take psych drugs. I will not sit back and listen to anyone suggest that 'mental illnesses' are genetic and a pill will fix them, when there is NO scientific data to PROVE either.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/mentalhea ... 22,00.html (http://society.guardian.co.uk/mentalhealth/story/0,8150,1103622,00.html)
Drugs for depressed children banned
The exception is Prozac, which is licensed for use in depressed children in the US. But the MHRA will warn that, at best, it helps only one child in 10.

Excellent database of related articles:
http://www.benzo.org.uk/ads.htm (http://www.benzo.org.uk/ads.htm)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 04dnnatsea (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051704dnnatsea)
tbelt.4be39.html
A 49 percent rise in the use of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs by children younger than 5 in the last three years contributed to a 23 percent increase in usage for all children.
"Behavioral medicines have eclipsed the other categories this year," said Dr. Robert Epstein, Medco's chief medical officer. Antibiotics still top the list of the most commonly used children's drugs, but parents are paying more for
behavioral drugs, such as stimulants or antidepressants, according to the analysis of drug use among 300,000 children.
The most startling change was a 369 percent increase in spending on attention deficit drugs for children younger than 5.
But the use of other behavioral drugs also jumped in the last three years. Antidepressant use rose 21 percent, and drugs for autism and behavior disorders jumped 71 percent, compared to a 4.3 percent rise in antibiotics.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 ... 61,00.html (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2112361,00.html)
http://www.ahrp.org (http://www.ahrp.org)
Under the guise of "screening for depression," a High School-based clinic in Denver operates much like a drug dispensing outpost for SSRI drug
manufacturers at taxpayer expense. The Denver Post reports that students who come in for a physical check up are "screened" for depression by use of a suggestive questionnaire. The  students invariably leave the clinic with an
antidepressant drug prescription:
"One benefit is that the program offers students one-stop shopping. They can be diagnosed and treated and, in some cases, even prescribed antidepressants without leaving school."

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living ... 799.htm?1c (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/living/health/8519799.htm?1c)
The use of antidepressants among children grew three- to tenfold between 1987 and 1996, data from various studies indicate, and a newer survey found a further 50 percent rise in prescriptions between 1998 and 2002. The explosion in antidepressant use occurred even though the vast majority of clinical trials
have failed to prove that the medicines help depressed children.
The spike in prescriptions over the last five years has been especially sharp among children younger than 6, even though there is virtually no clinical trial data on these youngest patients.

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmonton ... 9bd2-7faf- (http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=78649bd2-7faf-)
4bff-9214-b935936948ed
Children who took a placebo showed strong improvement and those who took the real drugs didn't do significantly better. Two small studies found no advantage for the antidepressants over the placebo.
None of the drugs has been approved in Canada for anyone under 18, but doctors are prescribing them "off-label" -- which they are allowed to do -- to children as young as three for depression, anxiety, social phobia, attention problems and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... rders.html (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/07/disorders.html)
Disorders Made to Order
Word of the hidden epidemic began spreading in the spring of 2001. Local newscasts around the country reported that as many as 10 million Americans suffered from an unrecognized disease. Viewers were urged to watch for the symptoms: restlessness, fatigue, irritability, muscle tension, nausea, diarrhea, and sweating, among others. Many of the segments featured sound bites from Sonja Burkett, a patient who'd finally received treatment after two years trapped at home by the illness, and from Dr. Jack Gorman, an esteemed psychiatrist at Columbia University. Their testimonials were intercut with peaceful images of a woman playing with a bird, and another woman taking pills.

The timing of the media frenzy was no accident. On April 16, 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved the antidepressant Paxil, made by British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. But GAD was a little-known ailment; according to a 1989 study, as few as 1.2 percent of the population merited the diagnosis in any given year. If GlaxoSmithKline hoped to capitalize on Paxil's new indication, it would have to raise GAD's profile.


New York Times, May 25, 2004
COMMENTARY
Two Countries, Two Views on Antidepressants
By SALLY SATEL, M.D.
Excerpts:
Where you stand depends on where you sit."
This saying usually applies to political issues, but it is also relevant to medicine. Consider the current controversy over the prescription of
antidepressants to children, and the different reactions of British and American regulators and physicians.

After examining a series of 13 clinical trials including more than 2,300 children and adolescents, drug regulators in Britain strongly urged doctors not to use certain antidepressants, among them Paxil, Luvox and Zoloft, for childhood depression because the risk of self-harm and suicidal thoughts was
judged to be too great.

In the United States, however, officials at the Food and Drug Administration, relying on the same clinical data, have yet to make up their minds on the safety issue, and doctors here continue to prescribe antidepressants to
children in volume.

In Britain, 40,000 patients under 19 years old are taking antidepressants, mostly those in the class known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or S.S.R.I.'s, according to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory
Agency. This compares with estimates of one million children and adolescents taking
such medication in this country.

Adjusted for population, that means that American doctors are five times as likely as British doctors to prescribe antidepressants to children. Most British physicians consider psychotherapy, not drugs, to be first-line
treatment for childhood and adolescent depression.

Why the different approaches? Much of the answer lies in contrasting medical cultures. "The British think we overdiagnose and overtreat children," said Dr. David G. Fassler, a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont College
of Medicine.

Prof. Frank Furedi, a sociologist at the University of Kent in England, agreed. "We are more cautious about medicalizing the problems of children," he said.

The same phenomenon can be seen in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Despite clear benefits, physicians in Britain were slow to use Ritalin and other stimulants, in part because hyperactivity itself was
considered very rare until well into the 1980's.

Meanwhile, American physicians were diagnosing hyperactivity in children in the late 1960's, and regarded stimulants as standard frontline treatment.

Americans' greater faith in medication in these situations may reflect an enthusiasm about technological progress.

"We in Britain are more skeptical of advances in general," said Dr. David Healy, a psychiatrist at the University of Wales College of Medicine and a critic of antidepressant use in  children. "For example, it took us longer to adopt imaging technology like CAT scans and M.R.I.'s as routine."

Unquestionably, antidepressants have saved countless lives, but they also reinforce the existence of the very disease they are meant to treat. As Dr. Healy argued in his new book, "Let Them Eat Prozac," when drugs are developed for a
specific condition, rather than for a general state like stress, pharmaceutical companies end up marketing mental illnesses, not just pills.

"It is no coincidence," he said, "that an explosive increase in diagnoses of depressive illness followed the development of S.S.R.I.'s."

In the United States, the tendency to sell diagnoses gets an extra boost from direct-to-consumer advertising, which is banned in Britain.

In addition, patients in Britain have less choice among medications than they do in the United States. As Dr. Steven A. Schroeder, a former president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who once studied medicine in London,
said, "Patients have less power in Britain than they do here."

Britain's National Health Service determines the medications that the government will purchase and that physicians will prescribe. Americans have more autonomy in choosing doctors and in negotiating treatments because they pay, either directly or through insurance.

The British, Dr. Schroeder said, seem to have a more modest sense of entitlement. "There, the population is less demanding of treatment for
behavioral and other problems," he said, "and are less likely to seek help for such things
as" attention deficit disorder, chronic fatigue and impotence.

At the same time, in the United States, managed care, with its strong emphasis on cost-saving, creates its own demands. Pills are cheaper than
psychotherapy, and so they are more popular.

"Initially, managed-care companies promoted psychopharmacology for depressed adults," Dr. Fassler said. "Now there's more pressure to treat children and adolescents with medication. And more and more of the prescribing is being
done by pediatricians as opposed to child and adolescent psychiatrists."

All these factors help explain why British health regulators have a lower tolerance for risk, especially when benefits may be minimal.

Practically no one disputes that antidepressants are only minimally effective in children. Some children appear to be helped enormously - hence the many doctors who swear by these medications - but the studies indicate that on average, the advantage over placebo treatment is small. (The British exempted Prozac from their warnings, because the regulators concluded that there was more evidence for its effectiveness and safety in children).

The important issue, then, is whether antidepressants truly worsen the potential for suicide. The F.D.A. says it does not yet know the answer because in the clinical trials, minor episodes of self-harm and more serious episodes
were lumped together under the umbrella  term "possibly suicide-related event."

No distinction, for example, was made between young patients who took large overdoses of the drugs or who tried to hang themselves, and those who made superficial scratches on their arms. There were no actual suicides in the studies.


The F.D.A. has asked researchers at Columbia to reclassify the cases of self-harm to clarify their nature. In the meantime, the agency has issued strong warnings to doctors to closely monitor patients they are treating with these
medications. This summer, the agency will weigh the potential risks of the drugs against the clinical benefits and presumably reach some conclusion.

In comparison, the British, through their different prism, see little need to pursue the question. Lacking a strong cultural investment in antidepressants, they have already decided that any risk of self-harm is too high.

Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 08, 2004, 01:18:00 PM
There is a link on the TAUSA website to a PBS interview with a leading pediatrics physician who shares his views on this very topic, seemingly in agreement with arguments made by both Timoclea and Deborah.

http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.c ... Ahome.html (http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/TAUSAhome.html)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 16, 2004, 01:07:00 PM
Was just thinking about the tune "In The Year 2525".
In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive they may find

In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do, or say
Is in the pill you took today

I think that reality may arrive before 3535. And the scienfic communities experiments with brain chips is really scarey.  :scared:
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2004, 01:56:00 PM
Deborah, I've read the proof that there is a genetic component to the major mental illnesses, in the form of twin studies.

I don't have any percentage in convincing you, and I've got work to do.  I am not going to go down to the University library and spend hours printing out the twin studies and scanning them in and then spend the bandwidth on my website uploading the studies---which I think *still* wouldn't persuade you because I don't think *any* amount of proof would persuade you that there's a heavy genetic component to major mental illness.

I don't think you would consider twin studies that showed a statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level or better) higher incidence of both identical twins having schizophrenia than both fraternal twins as proof of a genetic component to schizophrenia.

Likewise with the other major mental illnesses.

Most scientists *would* consider that proof.

Since I don't think you would, digging up whatever twin studies are out there on various illnesses, paying for the copies, and scanning it all in and uploading it would take at least several days of my time, considerable money in lunch out and parking fees and copying fees, etc., and would be a total waste of that time and effort.

I'm not going to do it.  I'm not going to spend that time and money trying to convince you against your will of something you obviously have a big personal stake of some sort in disbelieving.

It wouldn't do any good---you'd either not believe  it or find some excuse to blow it off.  At least, the risk of such is high and the costs to me tracking it all down are not trivial.

So I'll just put it this way.  My opinion is in the mainstream among professionals in the field and yours is far outside of it, for whatever that is worth.

I'd encourage other readers to make up their mind based on their own consultations with licensed psychiatrists OR based on looking up the research themselves, rather than believing *either* of us.

Timoclea
(Maybe after I've gotten out from under my current work crunch and have some leisure time I'll make a library run, but I won't have time for months, *minimum*.  And that's not for your sake, it's for the sake of people reading who otherwise might be unknowingly led off into a fringe belief that doesn't match the science and that could do them harm.  And I'm sorry I sound so miffed, but it's rather like being challenged to personally provide proof that the Earth is round rather than flat.)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2004, 02:08:00 PM
Timoclea, I'd like to visit your website!  Would you mind providing a link?  If not open to the general public, that's okay.  I am very interested in your perspective on many subjects and was just hoping to learn more.

Thanks!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 16, 2004, 07:36:00 PM
**And that's not for your sake, it's for the sake of people reading who otherwise might be unknowingly led off into a fringe belief that doesn't match the science and that could do them harm. And I'm sorry I sound so miffed, but it's rather like being challenged to personally provide proof that the Earth is round rather than flat.

That seems a bit extreme, but if that's the way you see it. Just a couple of web links would suffice. Now that I know which studies convinced you, I can do my own research, as time allows.

All I asked was for some documentation that might prove a genetic link, and if there was none, to phrase your comments in a more truthful way- there appears to some to be a genetic link.
To do otherwise would be to deceive.

It's about both sides of an issue being presented. Transparency. Making informed choices.

I don't think my opinion is a 'fringe belief'.
I don't perceive my 'stake in disbelieving' as any stronger than your stake in believing. I think it's more that we resonate with different opinions from the industry.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 16, 2004, 09:38:00 PM
That didn't take long.

http://www.allaboutdepression.com/cau_03.html (http://www.allaboutdepression.com/cau_03.html)

Much of what we know about the genetic influence of clinical depression is based upon research that has been done with identical twins. Identical twins are very helpful to researchers since they both have the exact same genetic code. It has been found that when one identical twin becomes depressed the other will also develop clinical depression approximately 76% of the time. When identical twins are raised apart from each other, they will both become depressed about 67% of the time. Because both twins become depressed at such a high rate, the IMPLICATION is that there is a strong genetic influence. If it happened that when one twin becomes clinically depressed the other always develops depression, then clinical depression would likely be entirely genetic. However because the rate of both identical twins developing depression is not closer to 100% this tells us   that THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT INFLUENCE A PERSON'S VULNERABILITY TO DEPRESSION. These may include environmental factors such as childhood experiences, current stressors, traumatic events, exposure to substances, medical illnesses, etc.

Research on the genetic causes of clinical depression has attempted to identify one or more specific genes that may lead to the development of a depressive illness. Although there have been a number of studies that APPEAR to name a particular gene as the culprit there has been LITTLE CONSISTENCY AMONG THEIR RESULTS. However, the outcome of some research has SUGGESTED that there may be specific genes that cause clinical depression to develop within certain families and not in others.

At this time there is much that we do not know about how genes may predispose a person to a depressive illness. Research has YET TO IDENTIFY A CLEAR LINK BETWEEN A SPECIFIC GENE AND A VULNERABILITY TO DEPRESSION in everyone. Rather than the possibility of only a single gene being responsible for the development of clinical depression, it APPEARS to be more likely that a number of genes acting together may cause a person to become vulnerable to depression.

Just because a person inherits a gene that predisposes him or her to a depressive illness, it does not mean that he or she is destined to develop major depression or bipolar disorder. It IS BELIEVED that a genetic influence is only partially responsible for causing depression. Other factors may also play a role.

http://www.allaboutdepression.com/cau_01.html (http://www.allaboutdepression.com/cau_01.html)
Unfortunately, it is NOT FULLY KNOWN WHAT EXACTLY CAUSES CLINICAL DEPRESSION. There are numerous THEORIES about causes such as biological and genetic factors, environmental influences, and childhood or developmental events.


That's my only point Timoclea. Until a genetic component is proven, it's all just suggestions and theories based on the interpretation of observations. I resent the deceptive language used by the industry that would lead someone to believe that is has been proven. Can we agree on that point?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2004, 10:07:00 PM
Timoclea, Deborah - curious what you think of the potential of this surgically implanted device to
treat "resistant" (or any kind of) depression?
==========================================

FDA Panel Backs Implant To Counter Depression
But Questions Linger About Manufacturer Data

Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004; Page A03

A surgical implant that stimulates the brain should get government approval to treat chronic depression, an expert panel of federal experts said yesterday -- marking the first time an implanted device has been recommended for the treatment of a psychiatric disorder.

Using a technique known as vagus nerve stimulation, the device uses electrodes implanted in the neck to activate brain regions that are believed to regulate mood.

The decision by an expert advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration came after a day of clashing scientific opinions about whether the data submitted by the manufacturer were adequate for approval. Proponents of the device prevailed, citing the desperate need of patients with chronic depression that does not respond to existing treatments.

"We lost four of these individuals in the last 2 1/2 hours," said A. John Rush, a psychiatrist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, basing that figure on the high suicide rate among patients with resistant depression.

The verdict by the advisory panel came after FDA scientists and some panel members argued the data presented by the manufacturer to show the device works were not convincing.

The agency is not required to follow the guidance of its advisory committee but usually does.

The device has been used in the United States since 1997 to control epileptic seizures. The manufacturer, Cyberonics Inc. of Houston, hopes to expand its market: Fifteen to 25 percent of the 19 million Americans with depression may not respond to available treatments, Rush said.

The implant involves connecting a wire to the left vagus nerve in the side of the neck; a battery is implanted high in the left chest or under the armpit, and the amount of current can be regulated externally. Typically, the implant sends a 30-second pulse of current followed by a five-minute pause, 24 hours a day.

Karmen McGuffee of Garland, Tex., told the panel she had tried virtually every antidepressant drug on the market before getting the device. Improvement came within weeks, she said.

"My mother said she wasn't looking into the eyes of a dead person anymore," she said. When people asked why she was willing to get an implant, she replied, "I had nothing to lose."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 17, 2004, 12:11:00 AM
No, Deborah, we can't.

The available evidence indicates that the major mental illnesses are caused, in most of the people that get them, by a combination of a genetic predisposition and some sort of environmental triggering event(s).

Just because they haven't identified the specific genes and mapped the exact mechanisms by which they operate on brain biology doesn't mean the existence of those genes is all just supposition.

A genetic component has been proved.

Sure, traumas damage people.  Traumatic stresses can make anyone's mental health worse.  We've seen that in the mere existence of PTSD.  Environment affects mental health.

Still, much of what happens to individual kids growing up happens by chance.  No matter how much we want to shield our children, we really don't have a lot of control over whether some other kid takes a sudden dislike to our kid and has the power to haze and traumatize the kid---by the time the parents find out, it's likely too late.

Heart disease and diabetes are heavily influenced by genes but can be triggered/affected by environment, too.

But if you've got high blood pressure you sure had better take your pills.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 17, 2004, 12:36:00 AM
There must be a problem with semantics or something. I didn't get that it had been proven. I read:

However because the rate of both identical twins developing depression is not closer to 100% this tells us that THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT INFLUENCE A PERSON'S VULNERABILITY TO DEPRESSION.

...studies that APPEAR to name a particular gene as the culprit there has been LITTLE CONSISTENCY AMONG THEIR RESULTS. However, the outcome of some research has SUGGESTED that there may be specific genes that cause clinical depression to develop within certain families and not in others.

Unfortunately, it is NOT FULLY KNOWN WHAT EXACTLY CAUSES CLINICAL DEPRESSION. There are numerous THEORIES about causes such as biological and genetic factors, environmental influences, and childhood or developmental events.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 17, 2004, 11:57:00 PM
Anon,
Hadn't heard of it before; only the implants that deliver drugs.
Sounds very costly and minimally effective, based on the little research I did.

The Vagus nerve is pretty import to make vital organs and systems. I'd want to thouroughly research this and what the possibly negative effects of continually stimulating that nerve could be.

Time will tell. In the meantime, might be a good stock to invest in according to the owner's projections.

What are your thoughts anon?

http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-17.htm (http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-17.htm)
The VNS device costs $12,000 and the cost of surgery to implant the device can run as high as $15,000. Insurance companies may find this is more cost-effective than antidepressant or talk therapy over the long term, and may one day pick up the tab.
The company expects $2.8 billion in sales to depressed patients by year six.

Sue (June 24, 2003):  Nice article. I just want to inform your readers of inflation. I had the VNS surgery as an outpatient for my epilepsy on May 1, 2003 and the total damage was $50,000.  Luckily for me the insurance co. picked up the whole tab!! You better check with yours first though. By the way, it is helping for my seizures. I have to wait and see for my depression. Good Luck!    

http://content.health.msn.com/content/a ... 5_nv_03#24 (http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/74/89401.htm?z=4224_00000_2505_nv_03#24)
Can I stop all my seizures with the magnet?
Each person experiences different results from magnet stimulation. Some people report that the magnet stops all or most of their seizures, lessens the intensity, or shortens the duration. For others, the magnet has limited or no effect.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 27, 2004, 10:50:00 AM
Recalling the conclusion of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) report published in Jan. 2004, that claimed the increase use of SSRIs appears to have lowered the risk of
suicide in youth, appears not to be the conclusion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  The below study suggests gun safety
and reduced stigma (labels) is the reasons for the reduction in youth suicide, not the increased usage of anti-depressants.
---------------------------------------------

Suicide rate falls 25 percent among American youth
Reduced stigma for gays, tighter access to guns are among reasons cited
By DANIEL YEE
Associated Press
ATLANTA -- The suicide rate among American children and teens fell about 25 percent in the last decade, reflecting a dramatic dropoff in
gun suicides, the government said Thursday.

In fact, a steep drop in self-inflicted shootings among 10- to 14-year-olds helped make suicides by hanging or other forms of suffocation more common than gun suicides in that age group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

CDC researchers did not immediately know why the overall rate dropped, but a specialist in adolescent medicine said restrictions on
children's access to firearms and decreased stigma about sexual orientation have played important roles.

Sexual orientation has been a factor in many suicides among young males, said Dr. Charles Wibbelsman, chief of The Teenage Clinic of
Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco.

"There are shows (concerning gays and lesbians) today that weren't on nine years ago," he said. "It's been much more `out' and in that
respect, we've saved a lot more people's lives."

The suicide rate for people ages 10 to 19 fell from 6.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 1992 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2001, the CDC said.

The number of suicides also fell in that period, from 2,151 to 1,883.

The decrease in gun suicides was most dramatic among children 10 to 14, dropping from 172 in 1992 to 90 in 2001.

Among those 15 to 19, deaths from self-inflicted shootings dropped from 1,251 to 838 during the same period, the CDC said.

Trigger locks, lock boxes and other measures for keeping guns out of youngsters' hands have become more common in recent years, but CDC officials said they did not know whether that accounts for the decrease in suicides.

The number of suicides by hanging or other forms of suffocation, meanwhile, rose among young people from 1992 to 2001.

Such methods of suicides -- including use of belts, ropes or plastic bags -- rose from 96 to 163 in that period among youngsters 10 to 14.

Among teens ages 15 to 19, suicides by suffocation rose from 333 deaths to 551.

The nation's suicide rate among all age groups also has dropped in recent years, although it rose from 10.44 deaths per 100,000 in 2000
to 10.69 per 100,000 in 2001.

http://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtml (http://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtml)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 27, 2004, 12:16:00 PM
Good article on how the US has gotten into the mind-altering drug advertisments.
10 million children on antidepressants.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-critser13jun13,1,6586146.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Officials Swallow Industry Claims
By Greg Critser
Greg Critser, the author of "Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World," is writing a book about the pharmaceuticals industry.

June 13, 2004

Antidepressants are back in the news, with Americans, as usual, being tormented by contradictory messages about the drugs, now prescribed to more than 10 million children and adolescents annually, largely without FDA approval.

Early this month, the National Institute of Mental Health issued a study showing that one member of the family of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, was effective for treating adolescent depression.

That was comforting.

The next day, the attorney general of New York sued GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of another SSRI, Paxil, for fraud, saying the firm had covered up unappealing safety problems in kids who took the medication, including some who had experienced suicidal thoughts or committed suicidal acts.

That wasn't so comforting.

The reasons behind these conflicting messages can and do fill millions of pages of legal briefs and clinical trial reports, with varying levels of clarity and veracity in both domains. But on the wider question - how did it become so easy for a drug firm to promote its wares for unapproved uses? - the answer is stunningly clear: Drug companies now enjoy the same license to promote their products that the food, beverage and, until recently, tobacco industries have enjoyed for decades. And for that we have two institutions to thank: the Supreme Court and the Food and Drug Administration.

Liberals and consumer activists might be surprised to learn that a series of court cases initiated by Ralph Nader in the 1970s gave rise to today's reigning legal notions about commercial speech, which supply the legal framework for such things as off-label promotion of drugs (the marketing to doctors of medications for uses other than those approved by the FDA) and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

In a 1976 case known as Virginia State Board of Pharmacy, Nader's attorneys argued that consumers were entitled to information about drug prices - to be able to shop for the best price - and that state laws that barred pharmacy advertising violated "the consumer's right to know."

Except for Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court agreed, establishing the consumer's right to know, or, more broadly, the listener's "right to hear" all information, commercial or political.

The doctrine slowly worked its way through business and regulatory agencies, but the FDA was still able to retain its control over claims made for a drug's safety and efficacy. And, under that umbrella, the agency fiercely protected its ability to regulate off-label promotion. The practice was - and still is - illegal, but what is and isn't legal has gotten murkier.

Should a drug company be able to distribute, via highly trained and restrained medical affairs people, studies showing that a drug approved for one purpose also "seems" to help kids with, say, end-stage brain cancer, an unapproved use? The average consumer would probably say yes. But the waters quickly get muddier. Should a drug company be allowed, as has been the case with antidepressants, to dispatch tens of thousands of young, barely trained sales reps, most just out of college, to give general practitioners - many with no experience in psychiatric medications - studies that "suggest" that adult antidepressants "might" help kids with depression? The FDA's traditional response was to come down hard on the latter but not on the former, and most of us would be likely to agree with that inclination.

But beginning in the early 1990s, a new generation of legal activists, many working for the broadcast and advertising industries, instituted a wave of commercial speech cases, which, though not specifically aimed at curtailing the FDA's power to regulate off-label promotion, had that effect.

One such case took aim at a Rhode Island law that prohibited advertising the price of liquor except at the point of purchase. Arguing a strict constructionist theory in front of an increasingly conservative, strict constructionist court, conservative activist attorney Daniel E. Troy, who once clerked for Judge Robert Bork, focused on the intentions of the founding fathers when it came to the 1st Amendment and advertising. Citing a range of colonial newspapers, their publishers and leading Revolutionary War-era thinkers, including Benjamin Franklin, Troy told the court that "colonial Americans plainly viewed the freedom of speech as protecting far more than just political speech."

This lack of distinction between commercial and political speech was important because most colonial newspapers were primarily vehicles for advertising, hardly the impartial beacons that modern papers are expected to be, but Troy did not dwell on that technicality. Instead, he told the court that "there is no evidence on the other side - nothing at all - to suggest that, as an original matter, commercial messages should be treated differently from other types of messages."

The court was unanimous in striking down the Rhode Island law, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing about his "aversion toward paternalistic governmental policies that prevent men and women from hearing facts that might not be good for them."

In 1999, the same doctrine was invoked in another action, this one in a district court case specifically involving off-label promotion of prescription drugs. The case had been brought by the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, which was partly funded by advertising trade groups. In this case, Troy, working beside attorneys for the foundation, argued the same line, but the key to the win was the anti-paternalism argument.

The government "cannot justify a restriction of truthful, non-misleading speech on the paternalistic assumption that such restriction is necessary to protect the listener from ignorantly or inadvertently misusing the information," the court wrote. With that ruling, the "consumer's right to know" - Nader's great triumph of the 1970s - became the corporation's right to "subtly encourage."

The FDA's response was to embrace the decision. Soon, advocating the regulation of anything but the most over-the-top and misleading drug promotion activity was viewed, internally, as a career-killing move. The Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, the tiny department charged with such regulation, was routinely underfunded and rife with institutional second-guessing. This year, a congressional report found that in 2003 the division issued drug makers 75% fewer warning letters, its chief enforcement device, than during the last two years of the Clinton administration. Even the pharmaceuticals trade press was stunned by the change, noting in one headline that "most medical promotion is out of sight of regulators."

The FDA's tolerance of drug company product promotion reached new heights under Bush appointee Mark McClellan, until March the agency's chief. McClellan made clear to the pharmaceutical industry immediately after his appointment that he intended to change the FDA's image. Under him, that image morphed from one of a tough, independent-minded regulatory body to a partner in nurturing pharmaceutical innovation. On the January 2004 cover of Medical Marketing & Media, for example, then-Commissioner McClellan could be found with Peter Pitts, his new public affairs director, alongside the headline, "We won't bite."

In an interview inside the magazine, Pitts bragged about how he had welcomed visiting drug representatives, even offering to edit advertising and communication proposals before the agency. Pitts and McClellan have since been ubiquitous on the (unpaid) pharmaceuticals industry speakers' circuits, appearing at marketing confabs that promise to teach attendees things like "how to push the promotional envelope." (McClellan is probably less desired nowadays because he has ended his once-virulent anti-imports stance since being named head of the Medicare agency.)

But even if a new commissioner decides to again get tough on off-label promotions, the agency would seem to have little leeway left to regulate commercial speech unless it's demonstrably false. And the agency's chief legal counsel is unlikely to push the envelope because the FDA's top lawyer is now . Dan Troy.

Will the responsibility of public life reshape Troy's thinking? Apparently not. One of his first acts in office was to file a "friend of the court" brief in two legal cases involving antidepressants. In both, he entered on the side of the industry.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 28, 2004, 10:40:00 AM
To whom it may concern,

Below find our mission statement and the announcement of the creation of the International Medical Veritas Association. The IMVA is an alliance that includes a range of participation--from individuals to entire organizations--working together in co-operation with professionals, parents and governments worldwide to expose and end unsafe and unnecessary medical practices and replace them with alternative strategies for ensuring the health of the world population, including healthy living environments, clean water, sustainable development, optimal nutrition and real health education untainted with commercial interests. What is now considered alternative must be thrust into the mainstream and what is false and harmful in orthodox medicine must be cast completely aside.

We invite you to our site and to please share the below with your associates and friends. We are open to creating strategic partnerships with others and if you are interested in more information please sign up on our site for the IMVA mailing list. If you would not like to receive further communications from us please return this message with unsubscribe pasted into the subject line. If you do not you will soon begin to receive our medical news commentaries which are untainted by commercial interests.

    Best Regards,

    Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
    Executive Director
    International Medical Veritas Association
    http://www.imva.info (http://www.imva.info)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The International Medical Veritas Association (IMVA) was formally launched May 30, 2004. Mandated to investigate and confront those medical and pharmaceutical interventions that are compromised by conflicts of interests, the IMVA takes an authoritative and compelling stand on diverse issues in the world of health and healthcare. For example, the IMVA will present ongoing objective scientific research, data and analyses with conclusions that challenge the recent positions of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on key aspects of the childhood immunization program.  

Serious errors exist in policies that permit:  inoculation of children with up to five vaccines during a single doctor visit; the use of mercury as a vaccine preservative; newborn inoculation with the Hepatitis B vaccine prior to discharge; and, all children 6 months and older to receive the flu vaccination every year. These publicly approved policies are leading to tragic consequences that include, in large part, the 700% increase in autism over the past 10 years. In reality, these so-called interventions are large-scale experiments conducted at the expense of our young children, who are showing an increase in childhood cancers and other chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes.

Why were these untoward policies authorized? In one word: greed. Dr. Kate Scannell recently reported that, "According to confidential documents recently acquired and reviewed by the New York Times, the U.S. drug company trade
association PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) intends to spend $150 million in the current year in hopes of influencing our domestic and foreign policy makers. The Times reports that PhRMA's budget for such lobbying activities during the fiscal year beginning July 1 represents a 23 percent increase over the prior year. The plan includes a $72.7 million allocation for lobbying at the federal level, $49.7 million for state lobbying efforts, and $4.9 million to lobby the Food and Drug Administration."

Medicine will never be safe as long as we tolerate the incursion of the power of pharmaceutical companies into the medical decision making process, since the profit motive interferes greatly with sound medical judgment. The IMVA recognizes that medical disasters are being perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry. Hardly a week goes by without news or another report on the corrupting influence of these companies on the medical community.  Instead of serving the interests of those who have entrusted them with their health, the medical establishment has become a legally sanctioned purveyor of death. Dr. Barbara Starfield estimates that there are approximately 250,000 avoidable deaths occurring at the hands of doctors each year, while Dr. Gary Null and his colleagues estimate the figure to be much higher -- 786,000 in the United States alone. Although these estimates have been published in reputable medical and health journals,  they do not touch upon the tragedy of infants found dead in their cribs, or other babies thought to be shaken to death by their parents ? outcomes that sometimes were later attributed to adverse vaccine reactions. These estimates also do not reflect the abominable situation in third world countries,
where immunization is forced on sick and malnourished children who already have
compromised immune systems.

The IMVA is also concerned about the dogmatic adherence to reductionistic paradigms that emphasize costly and dangerous surgical procedures that can only prognosticate minimal - if any - benefit.  With 8.9 million unnecessary
hospitalizations and 7.5 million unnecessary medical procedures per year, we have many individuals thrust into the unnecessary danger of a potentially fatal consequence. Thus, invasive and unnecessary medical procedures must be considered as part of the deaths due to iatrogenic causes. Of particular concern to the
IMVA, is the unnecessarily high C-section rate in the U.S. and other countries, and the entire medical process surrounding birth. The IMVA supports efforts toward achieving a more natural birthing process that minimizes the use of
medications and drugs.

National and international medical and health organizations are in sort of a "Catch 22" predicament -- unable to honestly publicize deleterious effects of vaccines and other medical procedures, since this would lower public trust and confidence, which in turn would, for example, decrease vaccination rates and profits. Interestingly, the IOM and the CDC publicly declare they are clueless as to what is causing the notable increase in autism -- with one U.S. child in 166 affected. Some have gone so far as describing this problem as a modern holocaust. The major health organizations have lost their objectivity and dedication to human welfare,  preferring to defend the interests of the pharmaceutical companies that flood these organizations with money and staff.

The long-standing use of mercury as a preservative in vaccines is perhaps the greatest medical nightmare -- a case in point screaming for dramatic changes in the medical establishment  -- and speaks of the need for the IMVA as an independent review body. It is here where the love affair of medical science and pharmaceuticals has abandoned all ability to reason. And, writes Sharyl Attkisson, in a recent CBS New report, ?the results could be devastating to vaccine makers and federal health officials who have steadfastly defended the use of mercury, a potent neurotoxin, in childhood vaccines.? We often worry about the terrorists abroad, but medical terrorism is discreet and cleverly disguised in a facade of short term "safety studies." The bottom line is that hundreds
of thousands of American children are living with the fallout. The cost to raise those surviving with late-onset learning disabilities and autism following childhood vaccination is staggering and has become an immense burden that is compromising school systems and impacting society in general. Medical authorities have chosen to ignore the documented observations of thousands of parents, whose children were previously noted at well-baby visits as developmentally normal, but then lost language, social contact, and regressed into autism following vaccination.    

The IOM, CDC, AMA, AAP, WHO, UNICEF and FDA are proving to be ineffective in gauging vaccine safety and other critical medical interventions. Either inadvertently or deliberately, public health organizations have endangered the health of the nation and the world with an arrogance that has led, step by tragic step, to the present situation: infants being bombarded with toxic viruses and other biological components, injected one after another in a brutal attack on their immature immunological and neurological systems. Such arrogance has locked the entire medical establishment around the world into a pre-emptive war:  injurious to children, yet threatening contemp -- or worse -- on any physician or scientist courageous enough to challenge the status quo. The void that once existed for an impartial international investigative group has now been filled in the IMVA.

Tragedies are evident in many areas including: food additives and preservatives, pesticides, water fluoridation, cancer and AIDS treatments, anti-depressive medications, and other drugs having only marginal, if any, benefit. The IMVA supports improving nutrition as a first line of defense against disease--it promotes wellness rather than continuous disease and treatment cycles.

The IMVA's  goal is to resolve the above problems by creating a new medical paradigm through a synthesis of all primary healthcare paths, eliminating aspects not standing up to close scrutiny.  The IMVA will continue to expand in
its  role as a truly independent body to public health, providing balanced information to parents, patients, and physicians. Our conviction is that better-informed people will have a great impact on better medical treatment.

    International Medical Veritas Association
    http://www.imva.info (http://www.imva.info)
                                         
    Gary Goldman, Ph.D.
    Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD
    Michael Primero, B.Sc., M.Sc.Soc
    Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati, Ph.D., DABT, DABVT
    Jewel Euto, Ed.D, Ph.D., N.D.
    Michael Godfrey, M.D., MB.BS, FACAM, FACNEM
    Boyd Haley, Ph.D.
    Viera Scheibner, Ph.D.
    John Parks Trowbridge, M. D., FACAM, Dipl. ABCMT
    Bob Dublin, DC
    Nancy Massotto, Ph.D.
    Sandra Desorgher, MA-FScN
    Maureen Fontaine, B.Ed, ECS
    Bronwyn Hancock, B.Sc., Cert. Nutr.
    Luciana Valentim, B.Sc Oc, B.Ed - Liason Brazil
    Sallye Wentz
    Dawn Winkler
    Joan Mootry
    Bob Flint - Liason Maine
    Edda West - VRAN - Canada
    Georgia Janisch
    Liam Scheff
    Ingri Cassell
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 06, 2004, 03:29:00 PM
Psychiatry and the Schools: Mental Hygiene in the 21st Century

By John Breeding, PhD

It was only about 70 years ago that the Nazis' final solution began with the extermination of an estimated 100,000 "mentally handicapped" Germans
considered unfit for living. Many today are unaware that the Nazis looked to the early 20th Century example of the United States eugenics movement for inspiration.

As the American Eugenics Records Office (ERO) proudly reported at the time, "the text of the German statute reads almost like the American
model sterilization Law." Upon receiving an honorary degree in 1936 from the University of Heidelberg for his devotion to racial biology, ERO
superintendent Harry Laughlin gave thanks to the university for validating "the common understanding of German and American scientists of the nature of eugenics." Largely because of the shameful excesses of the Holocaust, the
American eugenics experiment was gradually discontinued.

We all now decry the notion of eliminating life judged "unfit", and with less unanimity, we reject sterilization to prevent birth from unfit parents such as the mentally retarded or "mentally ill." A modern analogue remains,
however, in the form of our mental health system, as illustrated in how we deal with our school-age children today.

In 1970, alarmed by the fact that almost 200,000 American children were taking stimulant drugs, the U.S. Congress convened a special hearing on the issue. Despite the fact that these hearings resulted in the stimulant drugs being classified as Schedule 2 controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration because of their high addictive potential and risk of abuse, rates of administration to our children soared during the last 30 years.

Today, an estimated 6 million children are being prescribed stimulants and millions more are taking other psychotropic drugs such as the
antidepressants Zoloft and Paxil and the antipsychotics Thorazine and Zyprexa. Jessica Vascallero reports in the July 2nd Boston Globe that "About 11 million schoolchildren and adolescents took prescription drugs for mental
health in 2002, and the number is rising. That would be close to 20 percent of our nation's school-age children, which is about a 5,000 percent increase since 1970.

Many think the drugs represent a benevolent medical response to our hordes of mentally ill children. Others like myself consider the practice a shameful disgrace, a form of institutionalized child abuse. Regardless of
one's opinion, here are two significant facts:

1. No children's behavioral problem routinely seen by a psychiatrist or other physician has been scientifically demonstrated to be of biological or genetic causation. There is no objective test, no confirmatory physical or
chemical abnormality-for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, or any of the other childhood diagnoses popular among psychiatrists. These diagnoses are wholly subjective, based on judgments of what is and isn't normal behavior.

2. Psychiatric drugs are dangerous: they are toxic and potentially lethal. Consider these facts. There were 186 Ritalin-related heart deaths reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the 1990s. Because the
system of reporting is voluntary, experts believe that this figure represents only 1-10 percent of the actual number of deaths. In other words,
from this one drug alone, during a ten-year period, there were 1,800 to 18,000 deaths. In addition, because of evidence indicating their potential for inducing suicidal thinking and behavior in children, the United Kingdom has banned, for children, the use of all but one of the antidepressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI's such as Paxil,
Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor and Remeron). The FDA is investigating the matter, but thus far has issued only a warning.

That over 10 million of our nation's children are on these drugs is intensely disturbing. That parents are being cajoled, threatened and forced
to drug their children is no less troubling. People in the schools and in our Child Protective Service (CPS) agencies have become such true believers in the value of drugging our children that they are using coercion on parents. This helps explain why it was necessary for the 2003 Texas legislature to pass House Bills 1406 and 320 prohibiting schools and CPS employees, respectively, from pressuring parents to drug their children. Many other states have enacted similar legislation.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Child Medication Safety Act by a vote of 425-1. This Act would make it unlawful for a school to force children to take psychotropic drugs as a condition of attending school. The bill has been held up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee all year. The chair of the committee is Judd Gregg, and
according to the Boston Globe article mentioned above, it is Senator Edward Kennedy who is responsible for committee's failure to act.

As a graduate from a school psychology training program at the University of Texas, I am absolutely appalled that the National Association of School Psychologists is trying to kill the bill. The Association's lobbyist, Libby Nealis, says "it would deter schools from discussing crucial mental health information with parents" This is nonsense. All the law says is that drugs
cannot be required as a condition of attending school.

Incredibly enough, promoters of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry are not satisfied with drugging 15-20 percent of our nation's children. As Jeanne Lenzer reports in the June 19th issue of the British Medical Journal,
President Bush's New Freedom Commission (NFC) plans to unveil this month an initiative to screen for possible "mental illness" all 52 million children and 6 million adults in our nation's public schools. Not only that, but the
screening is linked to a policy which has been used in Texas and other states to require certain recommended drugs for treatment! For those who still believe that the schools are about academic education, it is time to wake up to the overwhelming presence of psychiatry in the schools and resolve to do something about it. The NFC's understanding of freedom is clearly not
freedom to be or think or do, but freedom to be "treated" with psychotropic drugs as the educational/psychiatric forces deem necessary.
*********************

If you are so inclined, send your thoughts to Sen Kennedy at:
[email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 11, 2004, 01:15:00 PM
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb148258.htm (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb148258.htm)


(PRWEB) August 11, 2004 -- In a bold move reminiscent of Ralph Nader's 1960's "Unsafe At Any Speed" campaign a consumer activist group which calls itself "SSRI Citizen" has launched a national awareness campaign designed to educate the general public about the serious health risks associated with the use of popular antidepressants such as Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and Prozac.

The group's web site (see http://www.ssriCitizen.org (http://www.ssriCitizen.org)) sells bumper stickers emblazoned with drug names followed by the warning 'Unsafe At Any Dose'. "Our hope is the proliferation of the stickers will help raise public awareness of the dangers these drugs present and encourage people to visit our web site where they will discover drug safety information and other resources which heretofore have not been readily available to the consumer," said Rob Robinson, the organization's founder and spokesperson.

"Given the lengths we know pharmaceutical companies will go to guard the commercial profile of multi-billion dollar profit generators like Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor or Prozac it is surprising we haven't been contacted by one of these companies."

The group is also challenging SSRI drug company promotions which position celebrities such as actress Delta Burke (Effexor) and former NFL star Terry Bradshaw (Paxil) as drug spokespersons. "These individuals, who are paid handsomely for the use of their name and influence, are not spelling out for the public the extraordinarily serious risks associated with their drug of choice," Robinson said. "Its 'Trojan horse' marketing . get the pills into medicine cabinets of America using glitzy ads and slick Hollywood stars. But don't tell the public what really might be lying-in-wait for them inside those innocent-looking pills."

"The bottom line is these drug companies are driven by shareholders to increase sales of these drugs and thus increase profits," Robinson said. "In the case of GlaxoSmithKline its 'If we can make three billion dollars a year off Paxil . why not four, five or more?' Its that kind of rationale that led to GSK's pivotal role in the creation of another 'Trojan horse' marketing stratagem called 'TMAP' or the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Through TMAP, GSK and other drug companies methodically compromised the decision making of elected and appointed public officials to gain access to captive populations of mentally ill individuals in prisons and state mental health hospitals." For more information see http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/07.html (http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/07/07.html)

In another marketing ploy GlaxoSmithKline is using Terry Bradshaw to lead the Paxil marketing charge in a program called 'The All-Stars at Work' which targets 'mental health in the workplace.' "The 'program' is supported by an unrestricted 'educational grant' from GlaxoSmithKline," Mr. Robinson said. "We considered sending Mr. Bradshaw a complimentary case of bumper stickers that say "Terry Brashaw Says Eat More Paxil" to hand out to workers. Maybe it would make him think twice about his continued promotion of the drug. At least, we'd like to think so."

Mr. Bradshaw is also traveling throughout the country under the aegis of GSK to promote the use of Paxil through a series of speeches, albeit without his former Paxil sidekick Ricky Williams. (Mr. Williams, another football star, parted company from GSK last year and was recently quoted in the press as saying 'Marijuana is 10 times better for me than Paxil.') The web site GSK formerly maintained for the duo at http://www.rickyandterry.com (http://www.rickyandterry.com) has vanished and been replaced by another dubbed http://www.terryinyourtown.com (http://www.terryinyourtown.com) All mention of Mr. Williams has been expunged from GSK's web site at http://www.gsk.com (http://www.gsk.com)

"Although Mr. Bradshaw claims his GSK-backed 'depression tour' is 'the coolest thing he's ever done in his life' his tour schedule is not posted at his web site. If you contact GSK or the public relations firm responsible for coordinating Mr. Bradshaw's appearances all you get is an answering machine asking you to leave your contact information. But no one ever calls back," Robinson said. "If Mr. Bradshaw's promotion of Paxil is, as he puts it - 'so cool' - wouldn't GSK want everyone in the world to know where Mr. Bradshaw is going to be, and when, so the public can have an opportunity to hear him talk about Paxil?"

SSRI Citizen is demonstrating against Mr. Bradshaw who is slated to speak in Chattanooga, Tennessee at the Trade Center on November 18th, 2004 from 6:00 p.m. E.S.T - 8:30 p.m. E.S.T. His topic will be "Why Not Be Your Best: The Winning Strategy of Conquering Depression." For more information contact Marianne Edwards at (423) 763-4626. Individual tickets are $65. A table for eight is $500. Paxil victims as well as families who lost a loved one to a Paxil-induced suicide are encouraged to attend and participate in the protest. Concerns over the planned protest have already caused the sponsor to cancel a book signing session that was to follow Mr. Bradshaw's speech.

The group's public awareness campaign follows the announcement of a suit filed in June, 2004 by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer which alleges Paxil's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, engaged in repeated and persistent fraud by concealing and failing to disclose to physicians critical information about Paxil's safety and efficacy relative to its use in the pediatric population. "Doctors should have access to all scientifically sound information so that they can prescribe appropriate medication for their patients," Spitzer said. "By concealing critically important scientific studies on Paxil, GSK impaired doctors' ability to make the appropriate prescribing decision for their patients and may have jeopardized their health and safety."

Other states may soon follow Spitizer's lead.

But Spitzer is late bringing Glaxo (et al) to the bar of justice. Previously, over 5,000 individuals in the United States and more than 2,500 in Britain have sued GlaxoSmithKline after they became addicted to Paxil - and then suffered what in many cases were severe and sometimes life-threatening drug withdrawals. "But for every individual represented by counsel there are probably a minimum of a hundred or more people who are not . but who should be. Many victims addicted to Paxil never grasp what has happened to them until they tried to stop taking the drug - and then could not do so without suffering severe withdrawal symptoms. And if they contacted GlaxoSmithKline for help they were advised the drug was not the problem," Mr. Robinson said. "Yet in Britain GSK has dropped the claim on its patient leaflet saying Paxil is not addictive. Logically, one can only conclude the company knows and concedes that Paxil can be addictive. Why else would they drop the claim?"

In July, 2004 in another civil action involving SSRIs a suit was filed in California by attorneys Karen Barth-Menzies and Ronald Goldman on behalf of Roberta Madison, a nurse and doctor of Public Health, acting as a Private Attorney General. That suit alleges Zoloft's maker, Pfizer, misled physicians and the public regarding Zoloft's safety and efficacy, particularly with regard to suicidality and withdrawal symptoms caused by the drug. Ms. Barth-Menzies said "We have been trying for years to raise public awareness about these issues. We believe that the truth has been suppressed for too long and as a result there has been an enormous waste of money, thousands of people have been harmed by these drugs and many lives have been shattered. We hope this lawsuit will be a significant step toward exposing the fraud."

For more information visit http://www.ssriCitizen.org (http://www.ssriCitizen.org)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on August 11, 2004, 02:32:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-07-06 12:29:00, Deborah wrote:

In 1970, alarmed by the fact that almost 200,000 American children were taking stimulant drugs, the U.S. Congress convened a special hearing on the issue. Despite the fact that these hearings resulted in the stimulant drugs being classified as Schedule 2 controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration because of their high addictive potential and risk of abuse, rates of administration to our children soared during the last 30 years.

Wow! This, I did not know! Here's the part of the story I have heard. Back in the late `70's, early `80's, methamphetamine was a favorite, easily accessed drug for graduate students cramming for exams as well as cross country truck drivers. Physicians were concerned about the side effects they were seeing in patients and that was the primary reason for rescheduling that class of stimulant drugs.

Cut to the present:

Quote

Today, an estimated 6 million children are being prescribed stimulants and millions more are taking other psychotropic drugs such as the
antidepressants Zoloft and Paxil and the antipsychotics Thorazine and Zyprexa.


Not only has the CDA legislation and DEA enforcement failed, utterly, to address the problem, but it has given us a violent black market in methamphetamine! Nice goin', folks!

Reminds me of something else. Watching ABC late last night (probably Nightline) I heard Richard Clark, backed by a pose of cronies, telling America that all we need to solve the problems in the mideast is MORE CIA covert activity!!!

I almost couldn't believe what I was hearing!

Doesn't anyone else in the audience remember how Sadam came to power? How, back when he was all chummy w/ Rummy, our hard earned tax dollars went to prop up his regime, even after he gassed a town or two of rebellious Kurds? Has everyone completely forgotten about when Osama BinLaden was a brave, Western-friendly freedom fighter against USSR agression?

Aparently, none of the anchors or commentators at ABC had the presense of mind to recal those minor details and ask "Isn't that pretty much what got us into this mess in the first place?"

I thought for about half a minute about sending my comments to Mr. Kennedy, as suggested at the foot of that article. But what would be the point? It's not asif these bastards don't know already everything I could possibly tell them and more.

Vote Libertarian, or for the most liberty minded candidate on your local ballot! The best and most peaceful way out that I can see is to shift enough political power to the local level so that we can collectively tell the NWO idiots to go fuck themselves and get real jobs.
 

A drug is neither moral nor immoral - it's a chemical compound. The compound itself is not a menace to society until a human being treats it as if consumption bestowed a temporary license to act like an asshole.
--Frank Zappa

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 12, 2004, 08:23:00 AM
Listen Live online Thursday, 8/12/04, 7:00 PM Pacific time at:
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/show.asp?sid=97 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/show.asp?sid=97)

Upcoming Shows:   8/12/2004
DANGERS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS - Part 1 (Series)

Special Guest: Cassandra Dawn Casey - President, Co-Founder of ASPIRE - The Alliance to Stop Psychiatry?s Influence in Religion and Education -at http://www.aspire.us (http://www.aspire.us).
Expert Guest: Karen Barth Menzies - Reputable partner in the national law firm of Baum Hedlund; lead attorney on dozens of antidepressant (SSRI)
suicide and violence cases involving Paxil and Zoloft. Ms. Menzies is spearheading the Paxil withdrawal/dependence cases in the United States.

Topic: ?DANGERS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS ? Part 1"

Annie Armen LIVE Special Tribute to Kevin Rider: Annie Armen dedicates today's program to the everlasting spirit of Kevin Rider! In the words of Kevin?s mother, Cassandra Dawn Casey, ?This child had not been suicidal. He was fun loving and quick-witted with a promising future, loving family and supportive community and church.? Therefore, why would a talented, fun loving, handsome, deeply loved child make a decision to end his life? This question has haunted, and
continues to torment his mother.

Stay tuned for this evening?s EXPLOSIVE program! Cassandra Dawn Casey, will speak of her journey in pursuit of truth to one day unravel the mystery behind her precious son?s death. Did Kevin die of suicide? Homicide? Whether suicide
or homicide, Cassandra states the following: ?? My son?s thoughts and his actions were influenced by a brain altering drug that should have never been prescribed to him. My son would still be alive if I had listened to him, rather than to our physician, and I will continue to warn others?.?
What brain altering drug you may ask? Tune in and find out! You may very well end up saving your child!

Expert Guest - Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. will be joining Annie Armen and Cassandra Dawn Casey, and sharing with us what we need to know about the perils of SSRI-s, and what is legally being done against this infectious drug disease, disguised behind what appears to be remedial, yet life endangering medical terms such as ?Prozac could correct the chemical imbalance causing depression in your child.? Karen filed the first Paxil withdrawal/dependence class action against the makers of Paxil, Glaxo SmithKline, in 2001 and has subsequently filed class actions, mass joinders, and individual death cases in over 25 states across the United States. Karen most recently testified at a hearing before the
California State Senate on August 4, 2004 regarding antidepressant drugs and suicide. More to be said about Karen, as she will be prescribing her legal AnnieBiotics during the AnnieBiotics segment of our program.

All child advocates, parents, children, friends, and loved ones: This is definitely one show you CANNOT AFFORD TO MISS!

5pm to 6pm Pacific Time
6pm to 7pm Mountain Time
7pm to 8pm Central Time
8pm to 9pm Eastern Time

Link to listen to the show on your computer:  

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/show.asp?sid=97 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/show.asp?sid=97)

[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-08-12 06:46 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 12, 2004, 12:51:00 PM
***Today, an estimated 6 million children are being prescribed stimulants and millions more are taking other psychotropic drugs such as the
antidepressants Zoloft and Paxil and the antipsychotics Thorazine and Zyprexa.

Anyone care to guess what that figure might be on the first anniversary of Bush's initiative to have all women and children screened for mental illness?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 12, 2004, 11:21:00 PM
My anecdotal experience of life has been that life was pure barely-adulterated hell from age 5 to 25, I barely lived through it at all, and since then I have had 12 good years of actually being happy, and productive, and successful, and actually not going into unpredictable rages and crying fits, and having it actually be *rare* that I think about suicide.

Thanks to Paxil and Welbutrin, and a good psychiatrist.

And the difference between that and the Programs is that I *chose* to go to a pdoc, I wanted his help, and I *wanted* and *want* to take the medication.

I appreciate that patients' response to different medications is very individual and that some patients' illnesses don't respond to medication well at all.

What concerns me is that you tell all the perceived bad as alarmistly as you can, Deborah, and none of the good.

Programs are forced on the unwilling by the unknowing based on the misleading.

Medications, including the SSRI's, have PDR write-ups that are basically correct.  If they're not perfect, well, when you find problems in the information and statistics, it needs to be fixed.  If the drug companies aren't all saints, *fine*.

But I choose for myself, and my life is infinitely better than it was.

I would hate for good medication responders to be turned off from taking things that would effectively control his/her illness and substantially improve his/her life because he/she was freaked out by unduly inflamatory things you post.

Yes, there are risks.  There are also benefits.  And that's why you can't walk into a pharmacy and buy these meds over the counter and prescribe them for yourself---they need to be taken, only for serious problems, under the ongoing supervision of a competent psychiatrist.

If you don't want to take medication, or don't need it, *fine*---don't take it.

But by evangelizing anti-medication for people who may well need it and be helped by it, understand that you are likely doing more harm than good.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on August 13, 2004, 12:01:00 AM
I don't really read Deborah's posts as evangelizing anti-medication for people who may well need it. I read it as evangelizing against psyche meds for hundreds of thousands of kids who probably don't need it and who can't give any sort of meaningful informed consent.

I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.

--Clarence Darrow

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 13, 2004, 12:13:00 AM
Look Timocleo,
I respect your right to take any drug you choose, legal or illegal.

I am not going to seek out and post information that is supportive of the industry to please you. It's on the TV all day long now. Problem is, just like programs, the public only hears the 'good' from them... and when that's the case... the other side has to be presented somewhere.

I don't understand your defensiveness. Has someone close to you shamed you about taking antidepressants? Must be, cause it sure wasn't me. Some of my closest friends take the things, and I still love them. You take my opinions and choice of what to post way too personally.

I don't appreciate your last comment about harming people. Particularly in light of how many people have been harmed by the psych industry. I'm simply sharing information that people will not get from their shrinkydink pusher. People deserve to have access to all information. That's what informed consent is all about.

Do you have a problem trusting that people can make their own decisions? I think they have a drug for that too.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2004, 10:38:00 PM
http://www.mercola.com/2004/aug/18/drug_industry.htm (http://www.mercola.com/2004/aug/18/drug_industry.htm)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: mom2three on August 19, 2004, 01:16:00 PM
The problem with medicating is that people think that it stops with the swallowing of a pill. Without proper therapy, there isn't much point in taking the medications in my humble opinion.

I too have a long family history with depression and have had treatment with medication and understand the role it can play. But it does not end with that, I have worked hard to rise above it. I am not currently on medication and haven't been for some time.

When I was younger my parents did not understand depression and it was hell on all of us. No doubt they did not understand what was wrong with me and they handled things the only way they knew how to.

Once I was an adult, I began treatment with a self administered "behavior modification" program with the assistance of a liscensed therapist that taught me about changing my thought processes.  It helped me to really work through my illness and gave me confidence that I was still in control.

THe SSRI helped with the biochemical aspect, the behavior modification helped me to learn to live with it and work with it. I sure wish these tools had been made available when I was a teenager, it may have made a difference then for all of us.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 19, 2004, 06:13:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-08-19 10:16:00, mom2three wrote:

"The problem with medicating is that people think that it stops with the swallowing of a pill. Without proper therapy, there isn't much point in taking the medications in my humble opinion.



I too have a long family history with depression and have had treatment with medication and understand the role it can play. But it does not end with that, I have worked hard to rise above it. I am not currently on medication and haven't been for some time.



When I was younger my parents did not understand depression and it was hell on all of us. No doubt they did not understand what was wrong with me and they handled things the only way they knew how to.



Once I was an adult, I began treatment with a self administered "behavior modification" program with the assistance of a liscensed therapist that taught me about changing my thought processes.  It helped me to really work through my illness and gave me confidence that I was still in control.



THe SSRI helped with the biochemical aspect, the behavior modification helped me to learn to live with it and work with it. I sure wish these tools had been made available when I was a teenager, it may have made a difference then for all of us.



"


And with major depression, serious as it is, it's still the "common cold of mental illness"---if you do well in therapy, particularly CBT type therapy, you may be able to do well off medication eventually--depending on your personal mental health situation.

However, with bipolar disorder and the non-reactive varieties of schizophrenia, it doesn't matter how much therapy you have, more likely than not you're going to *need* that medication, in varying combinations or dosages, for life.

Therapy is still essential, of course.  But once therapy has done all it can do and you *know* how to cope, thankyouverymuch, you may still be *unable* to sufficiently cope without medication.

It's hard to cope, regardless of how good your strategies are, when your brain chemistry is such that your perceptions of reality are flat out not accurate.

I agree with you that therapy is important.  Medication is important.  And it's all individual based on your life history and diagnosis.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 21, 2004, 12:00:00 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=64& (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=64&)
u=/fo/20040820/bs_fo/6fd966a3bbd7f3c511ec4152a7b4d08e&printer=1

Prozac Nation? Is the Party Over?
Fri Aug 20,11:53 AM ET
By Richard C. Morais

Nancy Hugo, a 57-year-old housewife in Corvallis, Ore., had recently been prescribed the antidepressant Zoloft by her internist when she found herself in the bathroom, looking at a Bic shaver and wondering if she could get the blade
out of its plastic. In the living room she zeroed in on a pair of long scissors she had inherited from her grandmother. "I kept on wanting to pick them up and gouge my eye out," she recalls. Trying to occupy her mind at the computer, she fought the "urge to slam the phone into the side of my head."
 
About to Crash?

America's top-selling antidepressants could soon experience a downturn. Now off-patent, Prozac is no longer a bestseller.

Top five antidepressants

Drug Manufacturer 2003 sales*($bil)

Zoloft Pfizer $2.9

XR Effexor Wyeth 2.1

Wellbutrin SR GlaxoSmithkline 1.8

Paxil GlaxoSmithkline 1.5

Celexa Forest Laboratories 1.4

*Wholesale prices of drugs, not including mail service. Source: IMS Health.

Hugo survived the weekend; her drug doses were reduced and she was switched to antidepressant Paxil. This time, however, she experienced akathisia'a medicine-induced agitation and restlessness that some patients on antidepressants describe as the feeling of bugs crawling through the skin'and an extreme bout of
mania. "What spooks me now is that I thought I'd recognize when I was having trouble with the medications," she says. "But it was a week later before I realized, 'Oh, my God, what have I done?'"

Both Zoloft and Paxil are Prozac-type drugs known as SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Do such drugs cause mania and violent obsessions? That question is now being debated in many a doctor's office, court of law and
legislature. Whatever the correct scientific answer, the mere fact that the question is being asked represents a new phase in the evolution of SSRI medications and a threat to the well-being of the companies that make the drugs.

Since SSRIs arrived 16 years ago with the introduction of Eli Lilly & Co.'s Prozac, the category has expanded into a collection of blockbusters for Lilly, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithkline and other manufacturers. All told, the antidepressants category accounts for $14 billion a year of wholesale revenues just in the
U.S., according to IMS Health. In the first five months of this year American doctors wrote 46 million prescriptions for antidepressants, up 5% over the same period last year, according to NDCHealth. Yes, this is a Prozac nation. Dr.
Mark Vanden Bosch, an anesthesiologist at the Berkshire Medical Center in Pittsfield, Mass., who must be alert to drugs that might interact with anesthesia, estimates that a third of the patients checking into his hospital, for a wide
range of operations, are on antidepressants.

When Prozac was new, it was heralded (in, for example, the 1993 hit Listening to Prozac) as a wonder drug with little in the way of side effects. The few naysayers were for the most part fringe sorts like Scientologists. Now a giant
pall of misgiving is descending on SSRIs: Tearful family members are telling their congressmen how the drugs caused their children to commit suicide; Britain has limited their use in children; a suit by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer claims GlaxoSmithkline suppressed evidence that the drugs don't work in children and can endanger them; and the Food & Drug Administration is studying whether it should mandate ominous warning labels.

It's a pattern we have seen before in psychiatric drugs, says Harvard Medical School (news - web sites) psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen. A new class of chemicals creates a wave of euphoria in the medical community, while a handful of
celebrities (such as, in the case of SSRIs, Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes) swear by the new pills. A decade later reports of side effects accumulate and doctors begin to have second thoughts. Another decade later the world discovers a new miracle drug and the old one is relegated to niche uses. It happened to the major tranquilizers (like Thorazine) introduced in the 1950s, and it happened to supposedly less addictive and relatively side-effect-free substitutes for morphine. Dr. Glenmullen made this point about the SSRIs five years ago in his
book Prozac Backlash. He looks prescient now.

The second-guessing about SSRIs comes just as the earliest patents have expired, or are about to. The combination of potentially dampened prescription volume and new price competition could bring a lot of disappointment to investors
in Pfizer and its competitors.

The touchiest issue is whether SSRIs provoke suicides in children. Eric Harris was on Solvay Pharmaceuticals' SSRI, Luvox, when he and Dylan Klebold went on their murder-suicide rampage through Columbine High School in Littleton,
Colo. in 1999. Did the powerful drug push him into a dangerous mental zone, like the one Hugo experienced, or was it unable to stop what was already there? It's hard to know. (A Columbine survivor's lawsuit against Solvay was settled out
of court, without any admission of liability, and resulted in a token contribution from Solvay to a charity.) The British health authorities have ruled that the side effects of SSRI antidepressants other than Prozac put children at
an unacceptable risk of suicide. The National Institute of Mental Health in the U.S., in contrast, says that "some research" points to a drop in suicides among children since the drugs were introduced, "but it is not known if SSRIs are directly responsible."

"The suicides under SSRIs are violent," says Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a group headquartered in New York City that is crusading for full disclosure of the drugs' side effects. "It's not like someone going into the bathroom and taking pills. It's jumping, knives, hanging. They're in pain. They're jumping out of their skins."

Glenmullen says he himself prescribes SSRIs when appropriate but is dismayed to see patients who have been prescribed antidepressants for every triviality, from nail-biting to boyfriend breakups. It is easy to see where overprescribing could become a habit. General practitioners, internists and family doctors are, at times, penalized by health insurers for making referrals to psychiatrists. These first-line doctors write 73% of all antidepressant scrips in America. Fact: We now spend more on mood-altering drugs for our children, including antidepressants, than we spend on antibiotics.

Harried GPs do not always discuss with their patients such possible problems as withdrawal symptoms on discontinuance or the need for ever-increasing doses as the drug's efficacy wears off. In 1997 C.W. Tillman, a county official in
Missouri, had an anxiety attack and was prescribed Paxil by his doctor; a few days later his adverse reactions included severe agitation, extreme sensitivity to light and noise, claustrophobia, diarrhea and vomiting. His doctor told him to stop taking the drug, let the symptoms clear up and start again. A month
later Tillman had descended into a deep depression and took an overdose. Tillman, subsequently diagnosed as bipolar and now the Web site editor of NAMI, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, in Arlington, Va.'is grateful for SSRIs for eventually helping him manage his illness, but says doctors are undertrained in recognizing side effects.

The brain runs on a cocktail of feel-good chemical transmitters, among them adrenaline, serotonin and dopamine. Basically, serotonin flows across a synapse briefly, from one nerve cell to another, after which the cell that sent it out mops up the excess. SSRIs work by blocking the sending cell's ability to reabsorb the excess serotonin. Result: The receptors in the second cell get a prolonged bath of the feel-good juice. The miracle in this class of drug is that SSRIs are better tolerated than earlier antidepressants and less likely to be fatal in an overdose.

Now the downside: The brain adjusts to the artificial increase in serotonin with a compensatory drop in dopamine. No one knows the long-term effect of this drop in dopamine in the brain. "The gaping loophole in our drug safety
system," says Glenmullen, "is long-term safety. It takes decades for enough consumers to have had ill effects for problems to come to the authorities' attention." Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft, says it carefully monitors safety after drugs are approved and shares that information with the FDA (news - web sites).

Doctors and patients have for some time been reporting mild tics and jerks in SSRI users. The tics are usually overlooked, but can develop into tardive dyskinesia (manifested by a freakish "involuntary tongue" that darts out of the mouth, twitching or "running" legs, jerking or wildly swinging arms and gagging). Do patients know they may be in for this? Knowing, they might, of course, still opt for medication. "A little discomfort is a small (price) to pay for a
normal level of happiness!" writes Archibald Hart in Unmasking Male Depression.

Thorazine, it turns out, creates similar side effects, but it was a while before doctors were aware of how frequently. Prescribed for everything from insomnia to anxiety, this type of tranquilizer was taken by an estimated 250
million worldwide. In 1973, at the 20-year mark, 2,000 cases of tics had been reported. Critics surfaced and were dismissed as alarmists. But by 1980 systematic studies using neurological screening tests discovered that 40% of all patients treated with the Thorazine class of tranquilizers had tics. Reclassified as
antipsychotics, the Thorazine-style drugs were given a long list of FDA warnings and are used today only for severe mental illness.

SSRI patients are also reporting memory loss. It's mostly anecdotal evidence at this point. But Harvard's Glenmullen says the reports of memory loss, tics and jerking side effects found in SSRI patients suggests to him the possibility of long-term brain damage. Is there a risk that, a decade hence, we will see an epidemic of Alzheimer's- or Parkinson's-like diseases? The regulators
haven't given enough thought to the possibility, he says.

Whatever the true hazards in SSRIs, there is no doubt that tort lawyers can make hay out of the situation. No overall litigation and settlement data are available on antidepressants (opponents claim pharma is settling cases quietly and sealing the records), and there are just the early signs of clustering activity'trial lawyers advertising for SSRI "victims," seminars and other legal teamwork'familiar to mass torts, but watch events gather pace.

"We went through a whole period of overprescribing SSRIs," says Jeffrey Kodroff, a Philadelphia lawyer suing Pfizer over Neurontin, an epilepsy drug. "When the market started getting to the point of saturation, the market started emphasizing juvenile use, also for the purpose of getting patent extensions. If the studies show they are not only not efficacious, but cause problems, you're going to see a big backlash in usage of SSRIs."

The New York Attorney General's suit against GlaxoSmithkline, filed in June, alleges that Glaxo committed fraud by suppressing or selectively quoting from clinical studies that showed Paxil to be no better, or even worse, than a dummy pill in treating children with depression. Spitzer has also requested documents from Forest Laboratories, maker of SSRIs Celexa and Lexapro. Glaxo says Spitzer's allegations are bunk; it never targeted kids.

To see what a successful Spitzer prosecution could provoke, look at what recently happened to Pfizer. Warner-Lambert's Neurontin was FDA approved for epilepsy, but the company, it was alleged, was encouraging doctors to prescribe it
for "off-label" uses like bipolar disorders. A whistle-blower triggered federal and state criminal investigations into the marketing, and this May Pfizer (which had subsequently acquired Warner-Lambert) settled with the government,
taking a $427 million pretax hit in criminal and civil fines.

Four days after the settlement the Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity, joined by Aetna and the Alaska State Employees Association health benefits trust, filed class actions against Pfizer alleging, among other
things, that Warner-Lambert suppressed a Harvard Bipolar Research Program study finding that "patients did worse on Neurontin than those who were on a sugar pill." Two years after the study was suppressed, the Teamsters suit alleges,
"Neurontin accounted for $1.3 billion in sales, with over 80% of its use coming from nonapproved uses, such as treatment of bipolar disorder." Pfizer says it will "vigorously defend" itself against any suits following its Neurontin
settlement, and says "it is worth noting that those investigations did not result in a charge of fraud by Warner-Lambert."

A user of SSRIs for almost a decade, who says she can't wean herself off the drugs and spoke to us on the condition of anonymity, recently wrote her former Park Avenue psychiatrist: "I simply pray Glaxo follows the path of (Dow) Corning, who endangered women's lives with silicone implants they knew were dangerous. Bankruptcy."

Even if Pfizer, Glaxo and Lilly are right about the science, they could be on the wrong end of a tort suit. Look at the breast implant cases. Scientific studies showed that there was no connection between silicone and the autoimmune
diseases supposedly caused by it. But still the implant manufacturers had to spend billions of dollars to settle lawsuits.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 23, 2004, 12:58:00 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/scien ... press.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/science/20depress.html)
Antidepressant Study Seen to Back Expert
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: August 20, 2004

A top government scientist who concluded last year that most antidepressants are too dangerous for children because of a suicide risk wrote in a memo this week that a new study confirms his findings.

The official, Dr. Andrew D. Mosholder, a senior epidemiologist at the Food and Drug Administration who assesses the safety of medicines, found last year that 22 studies showed that children given antidepressants were nearly twice as likely to become suicidal as those given placebos.

His bosses, however, strongly disagreed with his findings, kept his recommendations secret and initiated a new analysis.

In his memo, dated Monday, Dr. Mosholder said that the results of the new analysis, undertaken in part at Columbia University, matched his own. Though the two studies used different methods and different numbers, they came to similar conclusions, Dr. Mosholder wrote in the internal memo. A copy of the memo was made available to The New York Times.

In the new analysis, Paxil, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, and Effexor, made by Wyeth, have been found to be even more likely to lead children to become suicidal than Dr. Mosholder's original analysis found, his memo says.

The findings add to the debate over whether the government should ban prescribing the pills to children. Dr. Graham Emslie, a researcher whose studies of the drugs in depressed children have been paid for by both drug makers and the National Institutes of Health, said he still thinks the benefits of the medicines outweigh any risks.

"Limiting doctors' choices in treating depressed kids is not a good thing," Dr. Emslie said.

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration have struggled to explain why it has acted so differently from British health authorities, who last year banned the use of all antidepressants but Prozac in children.

The F.D.A. is scheduled to hold an advisory committee hearing on the issue next month. According to people inside and outside the agency, the F.D.A. may next week make public the results of the Columbia study.

The controversy had its start two years ago when Dr. Mosholder was reviewing data submitted by GlaxoSmithKline regarding studies of Paxil in children. Dr. Mosholder noticed that children given the pill suffered more emotional "lability" or vulnerability, than those given placebos. He asked the company for more specifics about what it meant by "lability."

In May 2003, the company submitted a new report showing that children given Paxil were more likely to become suicidal than those given placebos. Also, the drug did not improve their depression any better than the placebo.

Dr. Mosholder asked for similar data from other drug companies. By last fall, he was looking at the results of 22 studies involving 4,250 children. His analysis of the combined results suggested that children given the drugs were 1.89 times more likely to become suicidal than those given placebos. He recommended that the agency ban doctors from prescribing all but Prozac to children, the only pill that had proven beneficial against childhood depression.

His bosses, however, suppressed his report and hired researchers at Columbia to re-analyze the underlying data that Dr. Mosholder had used, saying that some events labeled by drug-company researchers as suicidal did not seem worrisome.

Though the original studies had identified just 108 suicidal-related adverse events, the Columbia researchers expanded their inquiry to include about 400 adverse events, many of which had been originally labeled as "accidental."

The risk of a suicidal event among those given antidepressants in the trials was 1.78, only slightly less than the risk Dr. Mosholder found.

A spokesman for the F.D.A. did not return phone messages. A spokesman for Wyeth said that Effexor is not approved for use in children. A spokeswoman for GlaxoSmithKline declined to comment.

Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, who has been pushing an investigation into the F.D.A.'s handling of the controversy, said through a spokeswoman that the new memo from Dr. Mosholder "underscores what my committee investigation is finding as far as the strength of Dr. Mosholder's original analysis about antidepressants and kids.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 31, 2004, 11:41:00 AM
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2769397 (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2769397)

Aug. 31, 2004, 1:01AM

Mom: My son isn't 'a homicidal maniac'
She says abuse, drug dosage may have driven boy to shoot his father
By ANDREW TILGHMAN and KEVIN MORAN
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Excerpts:
Sexual abuse by his father and an increased dosage of Prozac may have helped drive a 10-year-old boy to shoot and kill the father last week, the boy's mother and attorney contend.

"My son is not a homicidal maniac," said Deborah Geisler of Katy. ''I knew my son was angry with his father, but I never thought my son would see this as a way to handle the hopeless situation he thought he was in."

[Dr. Rick] Lohstroh, a 41-year-old emergency room doctor at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, was shot in the back Friday when he went to pick up his two sons at their mother's home in Katy.

Police say the 10-year-old boy climbed into the back of his father's sport utility vehicle, fired a pistol several times through the back of the driver's seat and then ran back inside the home.

Juvenile Court Judge Beverly Malazzo on Monday rejected a request from Geisler that the boy be released into her custody.

The judge ordered that the boy, whose name is not being released because of his age, remain in the Harris County juvenile detention facility at least until a hearing on Sept. 13.

A psychiatrist prescribed Prozac for the boy in early August after he was diagnosed with depression and anxiety, his mother said Sunday.

He started with a 10-milligram dose and gradually moved to higher doses, she said.

The week before the shooting, Geisler said, the boy started taking a once-a-week, time-release dosage of 90 milligrams. He took his second 90-milligram pill just hours before the shooting, she said.

The sexual abuse allegations could be central to the juvenile court case ahead, a lawyer for the 10-year-old said.

Attorney Chris Tritico said he also is looking into the possible impact of the medication.

"I don't know enough about the effects of Prozac on a 10-year-old to know what, if any, role it played," he said. "That will certainly be one of the things we'll be looking into."

Assistant District Attorney Helen Jackson said she urged the juvenile court judge to keep the older boy in a detention center because of the seriousness of the incident.

Under Texas law, children under 14 cannot be certified for trial as adults in criminal court.

Many juveniles are sentenced to incarceration with the Texas Youth Commission and released on their 18th birthdays. But even after reaching that point, Geisler's son could face up to 40 years in adult prison if he is convicted of murder and prosecutors seek to have him sentenced as an adult.

[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected]), peggy.o'[email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 31, 2004, 12:04:00 PM
Known side effect of *all* antidepressants.  If you're depressed and you have a violent plan to do something, and you just lack the energy to put your plan into action, when the antidepressant takes away your lack of energy and will to act, you can suddenly put your plan into action---and some do.

This is why antidepressants are not over the counter, and it's one of the things doctors are supposed to watch for *very* closely when they prescribe antidepressants to someone.

Killing someone who's raping you may actually be a semi-rational act, btw.  Too bad the kid didn't understand he had better choices to stop the abuse---or was boxed in to the point that he felt the people offering those "better choices" couldn't or wouldn't protect him if he came forward---I don't know which.

The point is that, yep, if you've got a plan to do violence to yourself or others and the only thing keeping you from doing it is the lack of will that comes with clinical depression, and your doctor gives you medicine that actually *works* to take away that depression, then yeah, you may go ahead and carry out your plan.

The drugs didn't "make you do it"---they just took away the depression that was keeping you from doing what you'd planned out or wanted to do already.

It's *very* important that someone who's depressed  who might have some kind of violent intent or plan be watched *very* closely in the first few weeks of taking *any* antidepressant to intercept these plans and work through what caused the plans.

Unfortunately, like any other violent plan people may form in their head and choose to do, you can't catch them all.  As long as he was being supervised closely by his pdoc, this slipped through the cracks.  If he *wasn't* being supervised closely, then the pdoc may have some liability.

If someone takes a bad fall and breaks some bones in their hands, are we going to *not* fix the hands because they might do something wrong with their hands when the bones have healed?

The only thing "wrong" with antidepressants in this case is that they actually *work*.

Unfortunately, not all things depression stops its  victims from doing are *good* things.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 01, 2004, 12:27:00 AM
I appreciate your opinion, but you are again presenting it as fact.

If I went in today and told the doctor I was having suicidal or homicidal thoughts I?d walk out with an rx for antidepressants. Now that tells me that there is an assumption, on the part of the consumer and the doctor, that these drugs are ?supposed? to ?cure? me of my ?depression? and ?dangerous? thoughts.

With all the homicides and suicides committed by people taking antidepressants, should we consider stiffer gun laws- no guns allowed in homes with a member who has suicidal or homicidal thoughts? And certainly not to any household with a member on antidepressants. Perhaps that will be the next phase in Bushs' initiative. It appears that the docs aren?t going to or physically can?t ?watch? their patients closely enough- the ol' 'window of loss' justification. You think patients, especially 10 year olds, tell their doctor, ?Oh by the way, I?ve been premeditating my father?s murder for a couple of months. He?s been raping me and no one seems to care or is willing to stop him?- assuming that is indeed the case.

Here's what doesn't make sense to me:

You seem to say that when you are 'depressed' you are somehow unable to carry out your wishes to kill yourself or others, but then with the miracle of drugs you can follow through with your suicide or a murder.

That it's the disease, not the drug. How do we know that the antidepressants don?t elevate some beyond rational thought to a state of extreme euphoria- to a ?I don?t? give a damn? state of mind. Or, somehow interfer with their sense of right and wrong? There are accounts of people waking up with blood on their hands asking where they are. I don't think anyone knows all the many ways these drugs can effect people. Seems like a crap shoot at best.

And was this child 'clinically depressed'? The article stated depression and anxiety. Well, how might a 10 year old respond to a hostile environment, a bitter divorce, an abusive father.
Were drugs really in order for his fear and grief? Did he have a tendency toward violence before the drugs? Did he really have a 'mental illness' or was he a 10 year old who wanted the pain to stop; and who apparently saw his dad as the source of that pain; and out of the desire to survive had the courage to stop it in the only way his immature and distressed mind could conjure up. If his dad was from Iraq the kid wouldn't be labeled with a dx, he'd be honored as a hero for killing another terrorist.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 01, 2004, 11:46:00 PM
This site is by-far the most middle of the road site I've found. I'm not in total agreement, but I like the way they think and combine common sense with scientific research. So far, I would include it as something any person who believes they are 'depressed' should read. I reserve the right to change my mind when I'm done reading it.

http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/ (http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 02, 2004, 10:33:00 AM
http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story ... 5610c.html (http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/3788492p-3395610c.html)

ABC show to discuss Pittman case
By Jason Cato The Herald
(Published September 2, 2004)

Excerpts:
Less than two weeks after landing on the front page of The New York Times, the story of a boy charged with murdering his grandparents in Chester County will be told Friday on "Good Morning America." The show can be seen locally on cable Channel 4 from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. An ABC employee said the segment could be four to five minutes long and should appear around 7:30 a.m., barring any major breaking news that could pre-empt the appearance.

The trio plans to discuss what they believe, and will try to prove in court, is that an adverse reaction to antidepressant medication caused Pittman to allegedly shoot and kill his grandparents in their rural Chester County home in November 2001. Police say the boy shot Joe Frank Pittman and Joy Roberts Pittman both in the head while they were in bed and then set the house on fire before fleeing in a family vehicle. He was 12 at the time, but will be tried as an adult and could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.

Over a five-week period prior to the killings, Pittman had been on Paxil and then Zoloft -- both of which are prescription antidepressants classified as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

Duprey said she's making the trip in order to get the word out about what the drugs did to her grandson.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a two-day hearing this month to release the findings of a months-long review of SSRIs and their potential to cause children and teens to become suicidal. It has been widely reported in recent weeks that the FDA's review will conclude that there is an increased risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior in children taking these drugs during company-sponsored clinical trials compared to children given a placebo.

Pittman's attorneys are seeking confidential Pfizer documents they say will help prove that Zoloft can produce side effects that include violence. The drug company denies this and is fighting the effort to have these materials made available. A hearing on the matter has not been scheduled.

Duprey believes the documents will prove that such problems exist with the drug and thinks it's unfair that the public has not been informed.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 02, 2004, 03:05:00 PM
Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials of Mental Health Interventions
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/con ... 161/9/1692 (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/9/1692)

Panagiotis N. Papanikolaou, M.D., Rachel Churchill, M.Sc., Kristian Wahlbeck, M.D., Ph.D., and John P.A. Ioannidis, M.D. The EU-PSI Project

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the reporting of safety information in publications of randomized trials of
mental-health-related interventions.

METHOD: The authors randomly selected 200 entries from the PsiTri registry of mental-health-related controlled trials. This yielded 142 randomized
trials that were analyzed for adequacy and relative emphasis of their content on safety issues. They examined drug trials as well as trials of other types of interventions.

RESULTS: Across the 142 eligible trials, 103 involved drugs. Twenty-five of the 142 trials had at least 100 randomly chosen subjects and at least 50 subjects in a study arm. Among drug trials, only 21.4% had adequate reporting of clinical adverse events, and only 16.5% had adequate reporting of laboratory-determined toxicity, while 32.0% reported both the numbers and the reasons for withdrawals due to toxicity in each arm.

On average, drug trials devoted 1/10 of a page in their results sections to safety, and 58.3% devoted more space to the names and affiliations of authors than to safety. None of the trials of nondrug interventions had adequate or even partially adequate reporting of either clinical adverse events or laboratory-determined toxicity. In multivariate modeling, long-term trials and trials conducted in the United States devoted even less space to safety, while schizophrenia trials devoted more space to safety than did trials in other areas.

CONCLUSIONS: Safety reporting is largely neglected across trials of mental-health-related interventions, thus hindering the assessment of
risk-benefit ratios for rational decision making in mental health care.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 06, 2004, 12:23:00 PM
Excerpts:
FDA considers drugging healthy kids for science

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Is it ethical in the name of science to give a healthy child as young as 9 a controlled substance? That's the dilemma facing the Food and Drug Administration's Pediatric Ethics subcommittee at its first-ever meeting on Sept. 10. The research, proposed by the National Institute of Mental Health, includes healthy children among 9- to 18-year-olds who would receive a single 10 mg. dose of dextroamphetamine.

The hoped-for payoff for research: A better understanding of how healthy brains work differently from those of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

The payoff for families: $570.

Dextroamphetamine, the active ingredient in such drugs as Dexedrine and Adderall, is prescribed commonly to increase attention span and calm restlessness. Doses vary with children's needs, with daily doses as little as 5 mg. or as much as 30 mg.

Judith L. Rapoport, chief of child psychology at NIMH, within the National Institutes of Health, conducted a similar trial 20 years ago. The same stimulant was given to children at a higher dose. Researchers looked only at how the stimulant changed children's behavior as they performed tasks. The stimulant improved attention span in the children, regardless of whether they had ADHD.

The new trial would add magnetic resonance images to map potential differences in brain activation patterns.

While Rapoport's trial is little different from the earlier one, review boards that balance risk vs. scientific gain have changed dramatically in 20 years.

Indeed, an NIH review panel met twice and was unable to reach a consensus whether risk to healthy volunteers would be too high in the new study. They kicked the sensitive matter over the FDA's new pediatrics ethics subcommittee.

The study would involve 14 children with ADHD, 14 healthy children, 12 pairs of identical twins and 12 pairs of fraternal twins. As the children completed specified tasks, their brain activity would be captured by MRIs.

Comparing twins ? one with ADHD, the other normal ? helps researchers tease out genetic explanations of differences in response to treatment.

In September 2003, an NIMH panel that reviewed the proposal's scientific merit called the program an excellent submission. The panel noted that it would be the first ADHD study to compare twins, which has been useful in past studies on schizophrenia.

The panel that considers a safety of human subjects, however, was troubled by the youngest tested children's age and the potential for coercion because each participant would be paid $570 for the 11-hour study.

The major stumbling block was determined to be the risk of giving a class 2 controlled substance to healthy children, which some fretted might breed future substance abuse.

Children in the 1980 NIH trial had no increased risk of drug abuse in the five years after the trial ended, researchers say in the study protocol.

The most common side effects among healthy children given a single dose of the stimulant in past experiments was temporary insomnia and poor appetite. One brain-damaged child exposed to the medication suffered hallucinations.

Many ethicists expect the FDA subcommittee to use a primary litmus test: Does taking the stimulant pose more than a minimal increase to risks that healthy children face in everyday life?

Pearl O'Rourke, who oversees human research affairs, interviewed the heads of six review boards at Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospital.

"Five said they would not approve this study. And all five said, 'But we wish we could,'" O'Rourke said during a March 3 NIH discussion.

O'Rourke acknowledged that the review boards struggle with murky federal regulations, tightening case law, financing agencies that prefer pediatric studies and the threat of negative media coverage.

"I live in dread fear of what's going to be on the front page of the paper," she told the audience. "So, when I heard this, three things hit my mind: Kids, ohmigod! Psychiatric disease. And a class 2 drug."

The FDA panel could simply approve the plan if it should find it carried great scientific weight, said Dr. Douglas Diekema, director of medical ethics at Children's Hospital in Seattle.

New Jersey attorney Alan Milstein said that would be the wrong call.

Milstein, who represented the family of an 18-year-old whose death in 1999 spurred greater federal oversight of gene therapy trials, pointed to a recent Maryland Supreme Court ruling. The court held that exposing healthy children to
higher-than-minimum risk in a medical study is unethical.

"They can't do this study. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why they can't do it," Milstein said. "I can't believe that anybody is going to say it's ethical to do this. It's not even a close call."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 08, 2004, 01:02:00 PM
unfortunately this issue of prozac and anger with the child that shot his dad is not a prozac issue.  the dad was shot by the mom through the manipulation of the child.  she wanted the father dead.  the child was not abused by the father.  he was emotionally abused by the mother.  she abused him over a long period of time and put him on prozac as a defense for the senseless crime she had him pull off.  it is a shame to waste all the discussion about prozac in this case because  so much is yet to come out that the public is not aware of.  wait and see and the truth will come out.  the mother is not a fit mother for pitting her own children against the dad for so long.  it is sad story, but dont think that the boys were abused by the dad. it simply is not true.  two police depts and CPS investigated and didnt even press charges.  they found the boys to say that the mom had told them to say it.  what awful things to put your children through.  dont waste your time thinking the prozac provoked this child to kill.  it was careful, thought out, calculated manipulation on the part of the mother.  she knows what she has done - it is just a matter of time before everyone else will too.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 08, 2004, 05:05:00 PM
How is it that you have the 'inside' scoop? Family, friend, CPS worker...dad....
Are there any newspaper articles to support your comments? Particularly:

"it simply is not true. two police depts and CPS investigated and didnt even press charges. they found the boys to say that the mom had told them to say it."

So, dad was investigated for abuse, but no one thought it might be a good idea to check mom out, if indeed the boys reported that she had told them to say they were abused? The dad never tried to have that established and/or seek custody?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 09, 2004, 10:49:00 AM
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hea ... earing.htm (http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/09092004hearing1351/hearing.htm)

Publication and Disclosure Issues in Anti-Depressant Pediatric Clinical Trials
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
September 9, 2004
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
11:00 AM

Hearing Webcast: Pending

The hearing will begin at approximately 11:00 AM. The link to the broadcast will become active 10 minutes prior to the start of the hearing. Refresh your browser for the latest information.

Committee web casts require the free Real Player.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 10, 2004, 01:07:00 PM
DRUG Firms Blasted for Hiding Antidepressant Data
NPR (audio) - USA
http://npr.streamsage.com/google/progra ... id=3910628 (http://npr.streamsage.com/google/programlist/srfeature.php?wfid=3910628)

In Capitol Hill hearings, lawmakers criticize drug manufacturers for failing to fully disclose data on the use of antidepressants by children ...

See all stories on this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/6nqp4 (http://tinyurl.com/6nqp4)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 16, 2004, 11:15:00 AM
Don't miss this interview if your child is taking or you are considering antidepressants for your child. A bluntly honest and articulate parent- witness at the FDA hearings- speaks about the fraud that resulted in her daughter's death.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5989348/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5989348/)

From the text at that page:
Dr. Matthew Rudorfer, a mood disorder specialist at the National Institute of Mental Health, voted against the black box warning. The 2 percent to 3 percent increased risk of suicidal thoughts that alarmed the panel was overshadowed by the 15 percent risk of suicides by children with untreated depression. "I fear the black box would impede access to treatment," Rudorfer said.

And from another article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/healt ... ss.html?th (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/health/14depress.html?th)

In 2002, nearly 11 million children and teenagers were prescribed antidepressants. The risk of suicide among patients given the pills is very small.  If 100 children and teenagers are given antidepressants, 2 or 3 will become suicidal who otherwise would not have had they been given placebos, agency officials said.  None of the children in the trials committed suicide, but some thought about or attempted suicide, researchers found.
***

First, no one committed suicide in trials? What about Traci Johnson? Any others? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... 2B+suicide (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Traci+Johnson%22+%2B+suicide))

Question- Is it two or three? Or 2.5, or 2.3, or 2.9?
"15% risk of suicides by children with untreated depression"? What exactly is Rudorfer saying?  15% of untreated kids are at risk; OR untreated kids are 15% more likely to commit suicide? I assume the former.  How was this determined? How do they know how many children have 'untreated depression' and what the percentage is who are at risk of suicide?

So, if 15% of untreated kids are at risk, how many kids are depressed? Good luck finding that information. The percentages I found ranged from 2-10%. Who's counting? Can't they get more accurate?
This one says 1 in 12 adolescence and 5% of  9- 17 yr olds.
http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/teens/depression.asp (http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/teens/depression.asp)

Given there were 60,000,000 kids between the ages of 5-18 in 2000;  2-10% of 60mil would be 1,200,000 - 6,000,000 who are presumed to be depressed. Those are quiet large numbers and a significant gap. Oh well, so it goes in the world of make believe.

If 15%, as Rudorfer claims, of those untreated kids are at risk, that would be 180,000- 900,000 kids who are at risk of suicide from 'untreated depression'.

Interestingly enough, according to the CDC, out of 60 million children between the ages of 5- 18 in the US (in 2000), there were 1493 suicides- .000025- or 25 suicides per million.  And how many of those were taking antidepressants at the time of their suicide?

This healthcare website states that 5,000 teens commit suicide each year. Where do they get their stats?
http://www.srhs.org/betterhealth3.asp?StoryID=296 (http://www.srhs.org/betterhealth3.asp?StoryID=296)

An important consideration:
As the above article stated that 2 to 3% of teens on antidepressants think about or attempt suicide.  Did that grab your attention? No- sounds like a pretty small, and insignificant number; and according to Rudorfer, pales in comparison to the 15% at risk who are 'untreated'.  But, with 11,000,000 kids on antidepressants that means 220,000 to 330,000 of them will consider or attempt suicide.

Do the benefits really outweigh the risks? Is the window of loss acceptable?

Are there really 180- 900,000 kids at risk of suicide from untreated depression? I'm more inclined to imagine that to be the number of kids the drug companies project will be placed on antidepressants with the Bush 'mental health' screening initiative. Another excellently executed BushCo business plan.

Does it really make sense to subject 220-330,000 kids to thoughts of or attempts at suicide when the current stats show that only 25 per million 5-18 year olds actually commit suicide?

Particularly when, Dr. Andrew D. Mosholder, a senior epidemiologist at the FDA who assesses the safety of medicines, found last year that 22 studies showed that children given antidepressants were nearly twice as likely to become suicidal as those given placebos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/scien ... press.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/science/20depress.html)

And, studies such as this have shown that children who took sugar pills (placebo) children showed strong improvement and those who took the real drugs didn't do significantly better. Two small studies found no advantage for the antidepressants over the placebo.
http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmonton ... 35936948ed (http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=78649bd2-7faf-4bff-9214-b935936948ed)
***

Unfortunately, The ANTI forced "mental health screening" Amendment offered by Congressman Ron Paul [Texas] failed by a vote of 95-315.

Sign the petition to oppose mandatory mental health screening at:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/9/prweb156052.php (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/9/prweb156052.php)

TeenScreen has the state goal to "Screen 40,000+ teens and refer more than 10,000 for treatment:
http://www.teenscreen.org (http://www.teenscreen.org)

Other news
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT001672.htm (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT001672.htm)
Excerpt:
A U.S. advisory panel urged regulators on Tuesday to require a "black box" warning on antidepressant labels about the increased risk of suicidal behavior in youth who take the drugs.
A black box is the strongest type of warning the Food and Drug Administration uses for prescription drugs. The FDA will consider the panel's recommendation, which passed 15-8 in favor of the boxes
***

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Sep9.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9802-2004Sep9.html)
Excerpt:
The Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly urged antidepressant manufacturers not to disclose to physicians and the public that some clinical trials of the medications in children found the drugs were no better than sugar pills, according to documents and testimony released at a congressional hearing yesterday.
Regulators suppressed the negative information on the grounds that it might scare families and physicians away from the drugs, according to testimony by drug company executives.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 16, 2004, 12:32:00 PM
If you miss the show, it can be found in the archives at the link below.

TONIGHT, September 16, 2004 @ 5pm Pacific Standard Time:  DANGERS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS - PART 3:
   
Topic:    Post FDA / Congressional Hearings on Suicide Induced SSRI-s in Children and Adolescents.

http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2260 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2260)

Joining Annie Armen on AAL tonight:

Legal Expert Guest: Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. - Reputable partner in the national law firm of Baum Hedlund; lead attorney on dozens of antidepressant (SSRI) suicide and violence cases involving Paxil and Zoloft.

Expert Guest: Karen Effrem, M.D., - Pediatrician, researcher, conference speaker, and leading opponent of mandatory screening who serves on the boards of three national organizations: EdWatch, ICSPP, and the National Physicians Center.  

Special Guest: Patricia Weathers ? President & Founder of Ablechild.org, Parents for Label and Drug Free Education who fights for parental and children?s rights!

Expert Guest, Author: Fred Baughman, Jr., M.D., has been an adult and child neurologist in private practice for 35 years. Dr. Baughman has testified for victimized parents and children in ADHD/Ritalin legal cases, and writes powerful,
resourceful articles in exposing the fraud of ADD / ADHD.

This show is sponsored in part by ISAC Corporation.  
Check out ISAC's New Company Distinguished Guest Page on Annie Armen Live by visiting http://www.worldtalkradio.com/guests.asp?sid=97 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/guests.asp?sid=97),
and please show your support by visiting http://www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org).
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 22, 2004, 07:46:00 PM
http://www.click2houston.com/news/3750858/detail.html (http://www.click2houston.com/news/3750858/detail.html)
 
Slain Doctor's Parents Sue Drug Maker, Ex-Wife
Lohstroh's Parents, Friends Say Father Did Not Want Son, 10, On Prozac
POSTED: 8:04 am CDT September 22, 2004
UPDATED: 5:10 pm CDT September 22, 2004

HOUSTON -- The parents of a murdered doctor filed a wrongful death lawsuit Wednesday afternoon against their former daughter-in-law and a pharmaceutical company, Local 2 reported.  

Police said Rick Lohstroh's 10-year-old son fatally shot him outside his ex-wife's Katy home on Aug. 27 as he picked him and his 8-year-old brother up as part of a joint custody agreement. Lohstroh's parents -- Richard and Joanne Greene -- filed a lawsuit against Deborah Geisler, the boy's mother, and the maker of Prozac, Ely Lilly and Co. "Today we are filing suit on behalf of Dick and Joanne Greene for the tragic death of their son, Rick," said David Matthews, an attorney. Lohstroh's parents and friends said Rick Lohstroh was upset with Geisler for putting their son on Prozac, which happened one month before his death. "In the week prior to the shooting, the boy's doctor increased his dosage of Prozac. This is really important for two reasons," Matthews said.

Matthews said studies show a change in dosage can lead to violence and the drug's adverse effects are more severe in children. The 12-page lawsuit argues that Ely Lilly and Co. is to blame for Lohstroh's murder.

The Harris County Sheriff's Department said the 10-year-old retrieved a gun, climbed in the back seat and began shooting "through the back of the driver's seat, striking his father." Deputies said the boy got out of the vehicle and continued firing before going inside the home, where his mother took the gun from him. Investigators said it is still a mystery as to why the boy would kill his father, a 41-year-old physician at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

During the couple's divorce trial, Geisler accused Lohstroh of sexually abusing their two sons. Two separate police agencies investigated the claims, but neither filed charges. People close to Lohstroh and his children say Geisler used a form of brainwashing, known as Parental Alienation Syndrome, during the couple's contentious breakup that they believe possibly led to the father's death.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 24, 2004, 01:14:00 PM
This Houston news clip states that the mom was named in the lawsuit (1 page vs 12 for Ely Lilly) not for manipulating the boy, but for not keeping her gun more secured,and as an RN, for not 'monitoring' her child's medication more closely.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/3750858/detail.html (http://www.click2houston.com/news/3750858/detail.html)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 25, 2004, 10:57:00 PM
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/health/ne ... ryid=24746 (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/health/news-article.aspx?storyid=24746)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government epidemiologist said Thursday that his bosses asked him to soften his recommendation that antidepressant use by children be discouraged because of increased suicidal behavior among young people who took the drugs.
During discussions with his managers at the Food and Drug Administration in March, "alternative conclusions were offered to me, which I declined to incorporate into my written document," said Andrew Mosholder, who works in the FDA's Division of Drug Risk Evaluation.
Instead of discouraging the use of all but one antidepressant, Prozac, for children, he was told to suggest that children use such  medication "with caution," Mosholder told a House subcommittee.
Mosholder said his reviews showed that Prozac, the only drug approved to treat depressed children, also posed the least risk for depressed children.
It's standard for superiors to review conclusions to ensure they're supported by the evidence, countered Dr. Paul Seligman, acting director of the agency's Office of Drug Safety, outside the hearing room.
"That was done in this case. There was never any pressure to change what he wrote," Seligman said. He termed managers' comments as "suggested language" that Mosholder could adopt or ignore. "He chose not to use it."
As is normal, the managers voiced their dissenting views in a cover letter, Seligman said.
An FDA advisory committee recommended last week that all antidepressants come with the agency's strongest warning, in a black box on the label, that the drugs increase suicidal behavior in children and teenagers. Among other suggestions, it said parents should be given detailed guidance on how to balance that risk with the benefit of treating depression.
The FDA often follows its advisers' recommendations but is not bound by them.
On Thursday, some members of the House subcommittee accused the FDA of a pattern of deception.
"No agency charged with protecting the public health should have behaved with such indifference to the public safety as is evidenced in this case," said Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Fla.
Mosholder told the panel that by last December his work confirmed his preliminary analysis that found that children taking Paxil and seven other antidepressants suffered increased suicidal behavior more often than children taking sugar pills.
That finding was confirmed by an FDA senior reviewer who found that for every 100 children taking antidepressants in controlled clinical trials, an additional two to three experienced increased suicidal tendencies.
Mosholder said the FDA deferred action on his recommendations so it could confirm, through internal and external analyses, that the warning signs were legitimate.
At the same time, British regulators acted swiftly, strongly cautioning against prescribing antidepressants other than Prozac to children. That alarmed the investigative panel, which is looking into whether the agency squelched damaging information about the drugs.
Mosholder told the subcommittee that he was not allowed to present his findings at an FDA advisory meeting last February, and that he found himself the target of an internal affairs investigation seeking the source of a leak to the media about those findings.
Deutsch said the FDA attempted, without success, to force Mosholder to sign a document that eliminated all mention of the investigation. Contradicting Deutsch's statement, Mosholder testified he was not asked to sign the statement, but to simply present the edited document to the Senate. Acting on the advice of his attorney,
Mosholder used his own summary.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chair of the investigative panel, said the agency's actions with Mosholder continued a pattern of deception that began as early as eight years ago. In 1996, Dr. James Knudsen, an FDA medical reviewer, linked Zoloft with increased suicidal thoughts and actions by suicidal children. In 1997, Mosholder raised concerns that Luvox heightened hostility among just depressed children, not adults taking it, Barton said.

"This hearing illustrates a larger problem at FDA, where too often drug companies trump parents, where medical evidence is suppressed and where expert opinion is silenced," added Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 28, 2004, 11:44:00 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... rders.html (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/07/disorders.html)

This lengthy and indepth look at the industry will make it painfully obvious what's behind Bushs' initiative to screen the entire population for mental illness. These are but a few of the highlights:

  Disorders Made to Order

  Pharmaceutical companies have come up with a new strategy to market their drugs: First go out and find a new mental illness, then push the pills to cure it.
  By Brendan I. Koerner
  July/August 2002 Issue  

  Word of the hidden epidemic began spreading in the spring of 2001. Local newscasts around the country reported that as many as 10 million Americans suffered from an unrecognized disease. Viewers were urged to watch for the symptoms: restlessness, fatigue, irritability, muscle tension, nausea, diarrhea, and sweating, among others.  The disease was generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), a condition that, according to the reports, left sufferers paralyzed with irrational fears. Mental-health advocates called it "the forgotten illness." Print periodicals were awash in stories of young women plagued by worries over money and men. "Everything took 10 times more effort for me than it did for anyone else," one woman told the Chicago Tribune. "The thing about GAD is that worry can be a full-time job. So if you add that up with what I was doing, which was being a full-time achiever, I was exhausted, constantly exhausted."
   GlaxoSmithKline's modus operandi-marketing a disease rather than selling a drug-is typical of the post-Prozac era. "The strategy [companies] use-it's almost mechanized by now," says Dr. Loren Mosher, a San Diego psychiatrist and former official at the National Institute of Mental Health. Typically, a corporate-sponsored "disease awareness" campaign focuses on a mild psychiatric condition with a large pool of potential sufferers. Companies fund studies that prove the drug's efficacy in treating the affliction, a necessary step in obtaining FDA approval for a new use, or "indication." Prominent doctors are enlisted to publicly affirm the malady's ubiquity. Public-relations firms launch campaigns to promote the new disease, using dramatic statistics from corporate-sponsored studies. Finally, patient groups are recruited to serve as the "public face" for the condition, supplying quotes and compelling human stories for the media; many of the groups are heavily subsidized by drugmakers, and some operate directly out of the offices of drug companies' P.R. firms.
  The strategy has enabled the pharmaceutical industry to squeeze millions in additional revenue from the blockbuster drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a family of pharmaceuticals that includes Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa, and Luvox. Originally approved solely as antidepressants, the SSRIs are now prescribed for a wide array of heretofore obscure afflictions-GAD, social anxiety disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder. The proliferation of diagnoses has contributed to a dramatic rise in antidepressant sales, which increased eightfold between 1990 and 2000. Prozac alone has been used by more than 22 million Americans since it first came to market in 1988.
"You often hear: 'There are 10 million Americans with this, 3 million Americans with that,'" says Barbara Mintzes, an epidemiologist at the University of British Columbia's Centre for Health Services and Policy Research. "If you start adding up all those millions, eventually you'll be hard put to find some Americans who don't have such diagnoses."
  SmithKline's first forays into the anxiety market involved two fairly well-known illnesses-panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Then, in 1998, the company applied for FDA approval to market Paxil for something called social phobia or "social anxiety disorder" (SAD), a debilitating form of shyness the DSM characterized as "extremely rare."
  With FDA approval for Paxil's new use virtually guaranteed, SmithKline turned to the task of promoting the disease itself. To "position social anxiety disorder as a severe condition," as the trade journal PR News put it, the company retained the New York-based public-relations firm Cohn & Wolfe. (Representatives of GlaxoSmithKline and Cohn & Wolfe did not return phone calls.)
  By early 1999 the firm had created a slogan, "Imagine Being Allergic to People," and wallpapered bus shelters nationwide with pictures of a dejected-looking man vacantly playing with a "If you are carrying out a disease-awareness campaign, legally the company doesn't have to list the product risks," notes Mintzes, the University of British Columbia researcher. Because the "Imagine Being Allergic to People" posters did not name a product, they didn't have to mention Paxil's side effects, which can include nausea, decreased appetite, decreased libido, and tremors.
 Journalists were given a press packet stating that SAD "affects up to 13.3 percent of the population," or 1 in 8 Americans, and is "the third most common psychiatric disorder in the United States, after depression and alcoholism."
Jack Gorman, the Columbia University professor who would later make the rounds on Paxil's behalf during the GAD media campaign. Gorman appeared on numerous television shows, including ABC's Good Morning America. "It is our hope that patients will now know that they are not alone, that their disease has a name, and it is treatable," he said in a Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition press release.
  Dr. Gorman was not a disinterested party in Paxil's promotion. He has served as a paid consultant to at least 13 pharmaceutical firms, including SmithKline Beecham, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer
  The lessons of "Imagine Being Allergic to People" were also not lost on Zoloft's manufacturer, Pfizer. In 1999, Pfizer gained FDA approval to market Zoloft as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Until then, the condition had been associated almost exclusively with combat veterans and victims of violent crime; now, Pfizer set out to convince Americans that PTSD could, in fact, afflict almost anyone.
   In the months following the launch of Pfizer's campaign, media mentions of PTSD skyrocketed. Just weeks after the Alliance's founding in 2000, for example, the New York Times ran a story citing Pfizer-supplied statistics on childhood PTSD, according to which 1 in 6 minors who experience the "sudden death of a close friend or relative" will develop the disorder. Other stories highlighted studies promoted by the alliance according to which 1 in 13 Americans will suffer from PTSD at some point in their lives.
   Many of the statistics used to promote new disorders are taken from studies published in second-tier journals, which frequently depend on direct corporate support. One publication that has drawn fire is the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, whose major funders include GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly. In 1993, the journal published a study claiming that anxiety disorders cost the United States $46.6 billion per year, primarily due to lost productivity. That figure was repeated in countless press releases and made its way into articles in the Washington Post and USA Today.
  The study was produced by the Institute for Behavior and Health, a research firm headed by Dr. Robert DuPont, who served as President Ford's drug czar.
  Drug companies are understandably eager to help physicians identify conditions that can be treated with their products. One widely distributed diagnostic checklist, a 15-minute test that promises to screen for 17 different disorders using special software, was developed by GlaxoSmithKline. Pfizer has funded a test designed to help obstetricians and gynecologists identify women with mental-health problems. According to a 2000 study, sponsored by Pfizer and published in the American Journal of Obstetrics, a full 20 percent of all ob-gyn patients may need psychiatric treatment for anything from depression and anxiety to eating disorders.
 In 2000, the company gained FDA approval to market Prozac as a treatment for the condition; Eli Lilly promptly re-packaged Prozac as a pink-coated pill called Sarafem and launched a P.R. campaign warning that "millions of menstruating women" suffer from PMDD. "Does juggling work, family and personal commitments leave you feeling frazzled and stressed out?" the Sarafem Web site asks. "We have some tools to help."
 
  No such malady is yet listed in the DSM. But the quest for new uses for the SSRIs is continuing. At last year's annual convention of the American Psychiatric Association, researchers presented a major study on a new "hidden epidemic"-compulsive shop- ping. Jack Gorman, the Columbia psychiatrist who had earlier helped publicize anxiety disorders, made another appearance on Good Morning America to discuss the new condition, which host Charles Gibson told viewers could affect as many as 20 million Americans, 90 percent of them women. In the wake of the new study, Gorman said, scientists would "almost certainly" look into treating the disease with SSRIs.
  The study in question was funded by Forest Laboratories, for which Gorman has served as a consultant. A laggard in the SSRI business, the company hopes to carve out the compulsive-shopping niche for its pill, Celexa. Expect the publicity machine for something akin to "persistent purchasing disorder" to rev up soon.  What do you think?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on October 04, 2004, 03:10:00 PM
Although the grandparents did file the lawsuit it's not what you may think. The lawsuit was filed so that the grandparents would not have to spend their money prosecuting the mother. Ely Lilly will spend at least a million defending this case, and they will point the finger at mom.

Parental Alienation Syndrome was a major factor in this case. If you want more information go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lohstroh/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lohstroh/)

There is a copy of the actual suit filed along with other information. Someone is making a new web site for posting more info http://www.helpstoppas.com (http://www.helpstoppas.com).
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on October 04, 2004, 05:48:00 PM
I wonder when they're going to come up w/ a pill for GED; generalized euphorea disorder. Ya' know, for people who, despite the economy, crime, terror alerts, perpetual war and all the rest are perversely unconcerned.

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
Tacitus, Roman senator and historian (A.D. c.56- c.115)

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on October 04, 2004, 11:38:00 PM
In that case you would first be suspect of being a stoner. The label would come only if your piss test came out negative.
If you weren't so lucky, then you'd have to give up your illegal 'drugs' and take their mind benders. Not to worry about a label, you can walk up and spin the wheel of fortune- there are no free spots. Everybody gets a label, they don't intend to leave anyone behind.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on October 07, 2004, 11:46:00 AM
TONIGHT, October 07, 2004 @ 5pm Pacific Standard Time:  DANGERS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS - PART 4:

Topic: ?Mental Health Screenings ? A Widespread Epidemic that MUST BE STOPPED!?   http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2479 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2479)

Tonight's AAL Show is sponsored in part by Isac Corporation and BNI - Business Network International.  
Please show your support to AAL sponsors by visiting http://www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org), and http://www.bni.com (http://www.bni.com).  Details below.

Joining Annie Armen on AAL tonight:  

Guest Expert, Author: Fred Baughman, Jr., M.D., has been an adult and child neurologist in private practice for 35 years. Dr. Baughman has testified for victimized parents and children in ADHD/Ritalin legal cases, and writes powerful,
resourceful articles in exposing the fraud of ADD / ADHD.  
Guest Expert: Karen Effrem, M.D., - Pediatrician, researcher, conference speaker, and leading opponent of mandatory screening who serves on the boards of three national organizations: EdWatch, ICSPP, and the National Physicians Center.  
Special Guest: Patricia Weathers ? President & Founder of Ablechild.org, Parents for Label and Drug Free Education who fights for parental and children?s rights!
Guest Expert: Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D., a psychiatrist since 1947, is the Retired Clinical Director of Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn, NY and former faculty member of the Albert Einstein and Downstate Medical Schools.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: turbinekat on October 07, 2004, 01:35:00 PM
Just curious & have been recently researching homeopathy medical practices;

DID YOU KNOW THAT...

? ADHD is a psychiatric diagnosis with no valid test to prove it exists.

? ADHD was voted into existence by a show of hands.

? Side-effects of the drugs used for ADHD include psychosis, paranoia, aggression, heart attack, cardiac arrhythmias  and high blood pressure.

? Ritalin has the same dependency profile as cocaine.

? Ritalin treatment predisposes takers to cocaine's reinforcing effects.

? The United States uses 90% of the world's Ritalin supply.

Regards,

Lee
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on October 07, 2004, 07:11:00 PM
Yes, I do know those things.
For those who don't, here are some good links.
http://www.ablechild.org/ (http://www.ablechild.org/)
http://www.adhdfraud.com/ (http://www.adhdfraud.com/)
http://www.parental-intelligence.com/au ... y2004.html (http://www.parental-intelligence.com/australianparents1July2004.html)
http://www.ritalindeath.com/ (http://www.ritalindeath.com/)
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/issues/is-siss.htm (http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/issues/is-siss.htm)
http://www.wildestcolts.com/ (http://www.wildestcolts.com/)

A few good sites for alternative mental health:
http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/ ... manual.htm (http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/articles/fieldmanual.htm)
http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/De ... causes.htm (http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk/Depression_Information/causes.htm)
http://www.caer.com/ (http://www.caer.com/)

And this: A link to view online the latest excellent Panorama show by BBC - "Taken on Trust" detailing the problems with SSRI antidepressants in the UK - Paxil [Seroxat] in particular.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs ... latest.ram (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/panorama/latest.ram)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on October 14, 2004, 01:29:00 PM
TONIGHT, October 14, 2004 @ 5pm Pacific Standard Time:  DANGERS OF
PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS - PART 5:

Topic:  ?Prozac Exposed ? Your Wonder Drug to Hell!?  
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2480 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=2480)

Tonight's AAL Show is sponsored in part by Isac Corporation, BNI - Business
Network International, and Dyslexia.com.  
Please show your support to AAL sponsors by visiting http://www.isaccorp.org (http://www.isaccorp.org),
http://www.bni.com (http://www.bni.com), and http://www.dyslexia.com (http://www.dyslexia.com)   Details below.

Joining Annie Armen on AAL tonight:  

Special Guest: Charly Groenendijk, Prozac Survivor, Founder of
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com (http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com)
AAL Dream Teens as Support Guests: 13 year old Andrew Workman and 15 year old Christine Hall
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on October 22, 2004, 10:22:00 PM
http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/hsi/prozac/ (http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/hsi/prozac/)
Excerpts:
"A complicated web of money, emotion, science and regulation."

That's how a reporter for National Public Radio (NPR) described the recent hearing conducted by an FDA advisory panel, convened to examine the negative effects that antidepressant drugs have on children.

No comment was expected from the panel until summer. So it came as a surprise when the panel issued a statement last week recommending that warnings are needed immediately to elevate the level of concern for doctors who might prescribe antidepressants to treat young patients.

But any doctor who's not already concerned - who hasn't been aware, for instance, of the disturbing number of young people who have committed suicide while taking these drugs - simply hasn't been paying attention.

Advocates of SSRI use in children (and there are many) say that the number of suicides by users of the drugs are offset by the number of kids who would commit suicide without the drugs. But this argument only holds water if you completely ignore the natural alternatives to treating depression.

Prescribing drugs to address depression has become so common that the idea of giving SSRIs to kids makes perfect sense to doctors with pharmaceutical tunnel vision. Apparently, most of them never imagine that nutritional changes can often provide effective treatment for depression in young and old alike.

In the e-Alert "Omega Delta Blues" (10/28/02), I told you how those who experience mild to moderate depression often find relief with an increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids (in fish or fish oil supplements). And people who are depressed are often deficient in magnesium, which is found in whole grains, nuts and leafy green vegetables. Herbal supplements like valerian root, chamomile, black cohosh, and rosemary may also help manage depression. And the standout among the herbs for mild to moderate depression is, of course, St. John's wort, which is sometimes called the "natural Prozac" for its apparent ability to help manage the proper functioning of seratonin in the brain.

High levels of B vitamins have also been shown to relieve symptoms of depression. In addition to supplements, good dietary sources of vitamin B are: tuna, salmon, avocados, bananas, mangoes, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, poultry and meat. Note that stress (which often goes hand in hand with depression) is believed to deplete the body's store of B vitamins.

If you're the parent or grandparent of a child who's struggling with depression, I urge you to explore the dietary and supplement options before you choose to medicate with a powerful drug whose effects in children have been studied, but not completely revealed.  
 
Now imagine if instead of HRT they were studying, let's say, the herb black cohosh (a natural alternative to HRT), and had found, again and again, that it increased the risk of a specific type of cancer. You can be sure the medical establishment drums would be pounding loud and long with demands to ban the herb worldwide. Would any treatment that wasn't a pharmaceutical be tolerated like this? It's inconceivable.
****

Remember Ephedra?
FDA claims 100 deaths....and it's banned.
SSRIs will get a 'black box label'.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 22, 2004, 07:12:00 PM
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104189.htm (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/97/104189.htm)
Excerpts:
Antidepressants May Cause Abnormal Bleeding
Increased Uterine, Gastrointestinal Bleeding Noted Among New Users

By Kelli Miller Stacy
WebMD Medical News  Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MD on Monday, November 22, 2004
More From WebMD

FDA Orders Strict Antidepressant Warnings
Special Report: Is Your Child Depressed?
Sign Up for the Emotional Wellness Newsletter

Nov. 22, 2004 --
Most antidepressants affect serotonin. Some antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, including Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft, affect this chemical more strongly than other antidepressants.

In addition to affecting mood, serotonin also plays a role in blood clotting. Previous studies have shown an association between the use of
SSRIs and abnormal bleeding, particularly excessive uterine bleeding and stomach and intestine bleeding. But the evidence has been considered inconclusive.

For the new study, Welmoed E. E. Meijer, PhD, and colleagues in The Netherlands examined 64,000 medical records of patients that had taken
antidepressants. Patients were considered "new" users if they had a prescription for at least a year but no history of prior antidepressant use.

There were 196 cases of abnormal bleeding. Nearly half were hospitalized for abnormal uterine bleeding. Stomach and intestinal bleeding accounted for 16%, brain hemorrhages accounted for 10%, and abnormal bleeding in joints, nose bleeds, and bleeding within the bladder,  accounted for almost one-fifth of bleeding requiring hospitalizations.

Those patients taking antidepressants with the strongest affect on serotonin had a 2.6-fold higher risk of abnormal bleeding compared with those taking antidepressants with the lowest effect. Antidepressants with an intermediate
effect nearly doubled the risk.

SSRI antidepressants with the greatest serotonin effect include Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil. Anafranil, another type of antidepressant used to treat obsessive compulsive disorder, also has a strong effect. Antidepressants with an intermediate serotonin effect include Effexor and the SSRI antidepressant Celexa. Remeron, Serzone, Doxepin, and Wellbutrin have a low affect on serotonin.

If you are taking an antidepressant, talk with your health care provider to discuss the benefits and any risks of your medication. Do not stop taking your antidepressant without first talking to your health care provider.

SOURCES: Meijer, W. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2004; vo 164: pp 2367-2370. News release, JAMA.
****************

Western Ills Invade China
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/a ... 2003212098 (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/11/22/2003212098)
Suicides among women in rural China on the rise
THE OBSERVER , Beijing
Monday, Nov 22, 2004,Page 5
The old peasant woman spoke in a hushed voice as her grandson cowered behind her back: "My daughter-in-law killed herself with rat poison. Nobody knows why. It was one of those things."

The scene, in a small, poor village in Anhui Province last week, is common in China, where suicide rates are almost as high as ignorance about depression.

For years, psychological disorders were ignored or treated as the product of decadent foreign societies, but a flood of studies has revealed that China has some of the biggest mental health problems in the world, particularly among rural women and urban school children.
[That's something that should be more closely researched. Think those two particular have anything in common???? Or, just coincidence?]

Last week the Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center reported that China had 22 suicides for every 100,000 people, almost 50 percent higher than the global average.

The rate in the countryside was three times higher than in urban centers, reflecting a growing gap between poor inland farms and rich coastal cities. With more men leaving villages to work as migrant laborers, women have less support in dealing with the pressures of motherhood, farming and moving out of their home villages to marry.

In rural areas, 30 women in every 100,000 take their own lives. More than half use PESTICIDES. Those that want REVEMGE ON THEIR COMMUNITIES THROW THEMSELVES DOWN THE VILLAGE WELL, polluting the water supply.

More women attempt suicide than men in every country in the world -- but only in China do they succeed more often. That is because rural doctors and nurses are not adequately trained or equipped to save them. More than 60 percent of suicide victims die after failed attempts to resuscitate them.

The social and financial impact is only starting to be understood. Last month researchers estimated the annual cost of depression at US$4 billion, the highest in the world after the US. The study was undertaken by Chinese health officials and the Social and Economic Burden of Depression Initiative -- an organization PARTLY FUNDED BY MULTINATIONAL FIRM   WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, WHICH SEES CHINA AS A HUGE POTENTIAL MARKET for its anti-depressant drugs.

There are not likely to be many buyers among the 800 million rural population, more than a quarter of whom live on less than US$4 a day. The government has acknowledged that more than half the country's peasants cannot afford to visit a hospital, even with a physical illness or injury.
Mental health is less of a priority -- often a source of shame and harder to diagnose. Foreign researchers say 60 percent of farmers had never heard of the Chinese word for depression.

But in the cities there is a growing awareness of mental health issues, particularly among a "one-child" generation BROUGHT UP WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF SIBLINGS BUT UNDER EXTRA PRESSURE TO SATISFY EXPECTATIONS OF PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS. [Might take a look at that too, although its not profitable to identify and change unsustainable social policies... Just take the drugs and keep working.]

Nationwide, there has been an 80 percent rise in reports of emotional and behavioral problems, such as truancy and theft, among pupils, say
researchers at Beijing University. Most of the 30 to 50 million children affected are from families with absent parents.
[Uh, duh... so are drugs the answer to that social ill. Will the drug suddenly give them a sense of being loved and valued?]

"There is a change in patterns of social stress," said Michael Phillips, director of the Beijing Suicide Research and Prevention Center.

"There is more divorce, more villagers are leaving to work in the cities and there is more competition in school," he said.
[Wow, where have we seen this before?]

"Yet there has been a decrease in poverty, which should decrease depression and suicide. One seems to have cancelled out the gains of the other," he
added. [ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-11-22 17:14 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 23, 2004, 08:06:00 PM
Drugged, post partum mom severs 11 month old daughters arms.

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/con ... 10094.html (http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/metro_state_142afe06172ab0e10094.html)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6561617/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6561617/)
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/new ... 796.htm?1c (http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/10248796.htm?1c)

Another case of a person on the WRONG drugs? Or, not monitored closely enough by her pdoc? Or, 'hey, now I feel better and have the energy to kill my daughter'?

When you read that CPS was called out because the woman was running down the street with her daughter biking behind her, you might wonder as I did.... What law did that violate? Rumor has it that she was running in her birthday suit.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 25, 2004, 12:12:00 AM
Risperdal, an antipsychotic, in large doses can make young children, boys and girls, develop lactating breasts.
Within the industry, among the sales force for these drugs, this phenomena is jokingly called "RisperTits".
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 25, 2004, 12:41:00 AM
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/new ... 262034.htm (http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/10262034.htm)

Posted on Wed, Nov. 24, 2004
Police: Mom hinted at plan to kill
By Nathaniel Jones
Star-Telegram Dallas Bureau
Excerpts:
PLANO - On Sunday night, Dena Schlosser referenced a Bible passage and told her husband, John, that she wanted to give her child to God, according to a police affidavit filed in a Collin County court.

John Schlosser, 35, told an investigator about what his wife said. The affidavit states: "He [John] did not appear to be alarmed by the comment or see it as sign that Mrs. Schlosser would harm their children."

Now, state Child Protective Services officials have temporary custody of the couple's two other children and have asked a judge to terminate parental rights, saying that John Schlosser failed to protect Margaret from her mother.

John Schlosser told police that his wife called him Monday and told him that she had cut off their daughter's arms, the affidavit states. Then as he drove home from Arlington, Schlosser called the Children's World Learning Center in Plano and told a friend employed there to go to the apartment and check on his wife. The employee called Dena Schlosser, then told a supervisor, who called 911.

An officer who responded to the call had to take a knife from Dena Schlosser's hand, the affidavit states. Police also took Bibles and a CPS letter from the apartment, the affidavit stated.

CPS officials said Dena Schlosser, a stay-at-home mother, is believed to have been suffering from postpartum depression. She is being held in the Collin County Jail.

CPS became involved and opened an Intensive Family Based Safety Services case, monitoring the family for six months. CPS officials said they visited with the family to ensure that Dena Schlosser was following up with mental health professionals.

There was no justification for removing the children from the home on Jan. 9 because they looked protected, had a father at home and none of the children were injured, said Geoffrey Wool, a CPS spokesman in Austin.

"We thought we could work with Mom and the family," Wool said.

Wool declined to discuss the specifics of the medication Dena Schlosser had taken but said CPS last visited with the family on July 29 and closed the case in August.

"At the time, we closed the case because we felt comfortable, in light of mental health professionals telling us that Mom was stabilized, we felt that the family was in a good situation."


Nathaniel Jones, (972) 263-4448 [email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 29, 2004, 04:22:00 PM
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9517-Ma ... _baby.html (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9517-Man_worried_how_God_will_judge_wife_who_killed_baby.html)

Excerpts:
The minister of a woman who admitted killing her baby daughter by severing the child's arms said Wednesday that her husband seemed emotionally stable but was searching for answers and concerned about how God will judge his wife.

Davidson, who started Water of Life Church in 1980, said he believes God uses the courts to work His will. He said he told Schlosser that although the Bible instructs not to kill, God also forgives.

"God will forgive every sin and he will forgive this woman," Davidson said. "My basic thing will be simply to pray that Dena will be brought to repentance to God and acknowledge her sin and then she'll be free."

But a friend of Schlosser's mother, Connie Macaulay, told The AP that Macaulay opposed her daughter's involvement in Davidson's church, and feared her grandchildren were being exposed to a cult-like environment.

"She didn't feel the atmosphere they were growing up in was safe and I think she was concerned the husband was too controlling," Lore Fichtner, a 57-year-old real estate agent, said from her home in Illinois, where Macaulay lived across the street for nearly a decade.

Fichtner said Macaulay was also concerned that her daughter and son-in-law were giving too much money to Davidson's church and spending too many long hours at services. Macaulay, who had always been close with her daughter, traveled to Texas more than once to try and persuade her to leave Davidson's church, Fichtner said.

"Connie contacted him to try to get him to back away from her daughter," she said, but "Dena stuck to this preacher and her husband."

Davidson said he remembered an unpleasant encounter with Macaulay more than a year ago but rejected notions of impropriety at the church. He said he doesn't pass a collection plate and services generally last under two hours.

"I believe Dena and John once told me that her mother didn't like me," the 72-year-old minister said. "Dena's mother came here once and, you know, she didn't like the things I said, but that's not unusual. I just say what's in the Bible."
***

Local news reported that Schlosser had had three invasive brain surgeries between the age of 8-13 to place stints. No details as to why.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2004, 10:25:00 AM
http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=2 ... .oggitalia (http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200412132054-1273-RT1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggitalia)


Today in Italy
Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's office


PROLONGED RITALIN USE MAY CAUSE DEPRESSION
(AGI) - San Juan Â- A wrong diagnosis of ADHD, the attention deficit and hyperactivity syndrome, together with the prescribing of Ritalin (a mind drug known as the "obedience pill") could bring a higher risk of depression in adult age. The alarm was raised in the course of the annual Conference f the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology being held these days in San Juan (Puerto Rico). "An accurate diagnosis of the disease is fundamental, bearing in mind that the effects of the drug can last until adult age", explained William Carlezon, psychiatry professor at the Harvard Medical School. According to some studies carried out on mice, in fact, to give Ritalin at a very young age could affect later behaviour and cerebral functions which will reappear in adult age. The mice studied after two doses of Ritalin a day for a period equivalent to eight years in humans showed a reduced ability to appreciate prizes and perceive pleasure and had a greater probability of showing desperation in stressful situations. According to researchers, this data shows that the obedience pill may have prolonged effects. Furthermore, they highlight a worrying situation: About 90 percent of children diagnosed with ADHD are cured with Ritalin, notwithstanding the fact that diagnoses are not so accurate.
   -
132054 DIC 04
COPYRIGHTS 2002-2003 AGI S.p.A.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on December 16, 2004, 07:00:00 PM
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25724 (http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25724)

HEALTH:
Drug Industry Scandal a 'Crisis'
Ritt Goldstein

Vast numbers of dead, the compromising of key elements within  the medical community and its regulatory structures, the blind pursuit of billions of dollars in corporate profits -- all have surfaced in a detonating pharmaceutical industry scandal of global dimension.

The suicide deaths of numerous young people, despite the existence of information that could have precluded them, sparked the revelations. But a far broader, systemic and devastating problem has emerged regarding the full spectrum of newer prescription medications. "It's a general healthcare crisis, I think, at this point in time," famed British drug scientist and psychiatrist David Healy said in an interview.  "If the pharmaceutical companies in this area -- in the area of a hazard like a child being made suicidal by these drugs -- if they're prepared to sweep a thing like this under the carpet, then there isn't anyone taking any other drugs who can really be confident."

On Sep. 29 Merck & Co withdrew its popular arthritis drug Vioxx from the market, acknowledging it caused increased risk of stroke and heart attack. Just a month earlier the firm had strongly disagreed with a study by U.S.
regulatory agency the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that had revealed such problems, reported the Associated Press.

Since the late 1990s, the number of drugs either pulled from the U.S. market or given a "black box" label (a warning of side-effects that could lead to death or serious injury)has "mushroomed," according to Dr Joel Lexchin,professor in the School of Public Health Policy and Management at Toronto's York University. "A lot of people, including me, are attributing that to faster approvals in the U.S. à faster reviews by FDA officials have resulted in drugs getting onto the market which shouldn't have," Lexchin told IPS, commenting on newer medicines generally.

On Sep. 30 business magazine 'Forbes' noted that in Vioxx's five years on the market, 84 million people have used it, four million are presently
taking it, and that safety concerns first emerged in 2001. "Is there equivalent data on other drugs? It's not clear," 'Forbes' added. Death
estimates and resurfacing medical studies are now providing another kind of clarity, one of horrific proportion.

The highly respected British medical journal, 'The Lancet', published a 1998 study by University of Toronto researchers showing that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are "a leading cause of death." It noted the study examined
"only ADRs attributed to drugs that were 'properly prescribed and administered'." The study's authors suggested, "many adverse reactions
result from the use of drugs with unavoidably high toxicity," and that medicine "cannot expect to reduce this burden until drug-induced illness is actually defined as a problem."

In the May 1 2002 issue of the 'Journal of the American Medical Association'(JAMA), five physicians from Harvard Medical School reported adverse drug reactions "are believed to be a leading cause of death in the United States." The authors urged the FDA to raise "its threshold for approving new drugs when safe, effective therapies already exist, or when the new drug
treats a benign condition", citing the "frequent introduction" of drugs where serious side-effects occur. And they emphatically advised that
"clinicians should avoid using new drugs when older, similarly efficacious agents are available."

Lexchin, who consults on pharmaceutical policy for groups such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and governments including Australia and Canada, estimated that in the last five years, "biased research, suppression of negative studies, over-publication of positive studies and, all their (the pharmaceutical industry's) promotional activities, which includes their
funding of continuing medical education," has meant, yearly, "one death per 1,500 people" in the general population.

That translates into 6,670 deaths a year for every 10 million of a nation's populace. For perspective, about 3,000 people died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. In contrast, the 1998 'Lancet' article viewed it likely that adverse drug reactions "could account for more than 100,000 (in-hospital alone) deaths in the USA each year, making them the fourth commonest cause of death."

The figures are likely "much the same" throughout the developed world, it added. On Sep. 9 the 'Washington Post' reported that the U.S. House of Representatives energy and commerce subcommittee for oversight and investigations was holding hearings on the pharmaceutical industry, in response to "the growing outcry over  suppressed medical studies."

The California legislature held a hearing in August on the potential link between anti-depressant drugs and suicide. According to State Senator Tom Torlakson, "our offices were deluged with requests to testify from family members of suicide victims." Speaking to the questions surrounding clinical trials, which test a medication's effectiveness and safety, the group
representing the U.S. drug industry, the Pharmaceutical Research And Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), noted on Sep. 9 that its board had approved principles to be used in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials two years ago. "These principles express the commitment of PhRMA member companies to communicate the results of all hypothesis-testing clinical trials, both positive and negative, for drugs that are on the
market," a PhRMA vice president said.

PhRMA represents industry firms "which are  devoted to inventing medicines that allow patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives," added the prepared statement. No one from PhRMA was immediately available for comment for this article.

Similar to the Enron accounting scandal in the United States, the present prescription-drug debacle appears to be a matter of systemic corruption, including a gross and widespread failure within the regulatory process. Unlike Enron, enormous fatalities have resulted, though no criminal charges regarding these deaths have yet been announced.

On Sep. 21, UK newspaper 'The Guardian' reported that the drugs Seroxat and Prozac "can make people homicidal," according to results of drug trials revealed by Healy. The paper described him as "an expert on psychiatric drugs from north Wales whose warnings that the drugs (SSRI antidepressants) could cause suicide led to the entire class of drugs, except Prozac, being
banned last year (in the UK) from use in  children." Healy's recent book, 'Let Them Eat Prozac,' examines the "divide between the research" and what "'spin' that the marketing divisions of the pharmaceutical companies put
on."

Speaking to antidepressants, he added, "the published data for Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft all claim that these drugs reduce the likelihood of people going on to harm themselves the raw data from these clinical trials indicates that the drugs are more linked to people going on to harm themselves," the exact opposite of what had been claimed.

On Sep. 14 the FDA's medical advisory group decided that antidepressants should come with a "black box warning" that they can "spur suicidal
behaviour in children and teenagers."  Psychiatric medications are leading drug industry money makers. Last year, U.S. sales of just the class of antidepressants known as SSRIs (including Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Seroxat) were reported at 10.9 billion dollars. In 2002 the Fortune 500's 10 drug companies' combined profits of  35.9 billion dollars surpassed the combined
profits of the remaining 490 firms together, (33.7 billion dollars), according to MSNBC.

"The regulators aren't showing themselves to be on the side of the patient," said Healy. "If they think they are on the side of the patient, the way
they've generally handled the issues has come close to being incompetent." Of particular note, the Sep. 9 'Washington Post' article reported, "In
February, an internal agency report found that the medications (certain antidepressants) were associated with an increased risk of suicidal
behaviour. Top FDA officials played down the report at the time and refused to make it public until recently." A day later the paper reported that the FDA "repeatedly urged antidepressant manufacturers not to disclose to physicians and the public that some clinical trials of the medications in children found the drugs were no  better than sugar pills."

According to Lexchin, "this is a reflection of the fact that the FDA seems to have been captured by the industry it's supposed to be regulating." He sees the FDA as "looking after the interests of the pharmaceutical companies, putting their interests above the interests of the general
public."

During the 1990s, when the new wave of anti-psychotic drugs (including Risperdal and Zyprexa) was approved by the FDA, it did so with the proviso the drugs could not be marketed as superior to any existing anti-psychotic medication in terms of "safety or effectiveness," according to Dr John Read, one of the Pacific's leading authorities on psychiatric medication, author of 'Models of Madness' and director of clinical psychology at the University of Auckland.

The drug companies "proceeded to totally ignore that and to market their drugs at six to nine times the cost of the older drugs," managing to "pull off this incredible scam  internationally," Read added in an interview.
"There's a very powerful mythology out there that these drugs are used quite rarely, and that they're only used on people diagnosed schizophrenic," he added. But, warned Read, the pharmaceutical companies have "actually pushed
the market into younger people, ages five-10 into old-age facilities to people who do not have the diagnosis of schizophrenia."

Critics charge these drugs are often used as "chemical restraints," to subdue those who take them. Read added caustically: "And why wouldn't they do that (expand the market for their medications) -- the purpose of a company is to write a good return for their shareholders. (END/2004)

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 19, 2004, 08:17:00 PM
Can you give me even ONE reference showing that there are any observable brain structural differences in bipolars or schizophrenics that are NOT confounded by the person having taken psychiatric medications?

On the whole "chemical imbalance" theory - it is just a THEORY. Cite one study of actually testing these chemicals in living brains. Those cartoons on the Zoloft commercial are not science.

There may be some chemical abnormalities in some mental disturbances. We understand very little of how the brain operates. Changing the balance of one or two of these neurotransmitters WILL cause a chemical imbalance.

The only SSRI approved for use on children under 18 is Prozac. Some children become suicidal while taking SSRIs who were not suicidal before.

There are safe and effective treatments that work for many people for many mental conditions. Diet and exercise are among them. Consider the fast food diet that is eaten by many people - including families with children, or the foods that are often available in school cafeterias these days. We are simultaneously becoming obese and having MANY nutritional deficiencies. For instance, a magnesium deficiency can have anxiety as one of its symptoms. One effect of low vitamin C is depression. IMO, and I'm not a medical professional, it is better to get all of the nutritional needs taken care of BEFORE trying to "bandaid" over it with an SSRI.

The SSRIs can be beneficial for a time, at least in some cases.

For others, there is a psychological cause, because of something that did or did not happen to them. Address these underlying causes, and you'll address the "disorder".
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 19, 2004, 08:43:00 PM
Quote
 Also, the subgroup of depressives with low serotonin in their spinal fluids were more likely to complete suicide, and more likely to choose a violent (knife, gun)--and therefore highly likely to actually be fatal---method than normal serotonin depressive patients.  Normal serotonin depressive patients were just as likely to have attempted suicide, but they chose methods (like pills) that had low rates of suicide completion (actual death).


The thing about the lethality of the method chosen to attempt suicide has to do with the amount of ambiguity the person feels about dying. If someone REALLY wants to die, they are more likely to choose a highly lethal method such as a knife or gun. If they are ambiguous about death, they will likely choose a less fatal method. Also, if they are doing it with high ambiguity and a sense that they want to "show them" or using the suicide attempt (partly) for manipulation, the method will not only be one of the less fatal ones, but will be set up in a way to (almost) ensure discovery and "rescue" in time.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 19, 2004, 08:50:00 PM
Quote
And as someone who has mourned while on antidepressants, trust me, they don't take away the pain.  Those of my siblings who were on meds at funeral were indistinguishable by med status from those who were off.

I agree with most of what you've said.

However, mourning while on antidepressants can SEEM the same as "normal" mourning, it may not be.

People I know who were taken off of multiple psychiatric drugs after having taken them since childhood, for reasons such as kidney and liver failure, suddenly discovered that they had MANY issues left over from their entire life which they hadn't successfully dealt with, and had to deal with them all at once, and without medications.

It would seem similar to "drinking away the pain" of some loss or other. Sure, the problems can swim, and the person still feels bad. If the person then continues to be alcoholic, and eventually stops drinking, he/she will have to restart where he/she left off.

There are many studies showing this for alcohol and other mind-altering drugs. How could it be any different because a particular mind-altering drug was prescribe? It's not. It still interferes with feelings and processing feelings and stages of grieving.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 19, 2004, 09:58:00 PM
I hope anyone reading this will keep in mind that the anti-medication views posted in this forum are fringe beliefs not supported by the majority of physicians, let alone the majority of licensed psychiatrists and licensed psychologists.

Anyone who's ever had a loved one killed by a psychotic bipolar or schizophrenic who had gone off his or her meds would thank you to comply with doctor's orders if you have a major mental illness, or to support anyone you know who has a major mental illness in *their* complying with doctor's orders.

Please do not take medical advice from random people who post on the internet, no matter how sincere they may be or how reasonable their case sounds.  There's a reason we make people go through several years of very intense, specialized schooling, and several years residency in a hospital, before we license them to practice medicine.

Sure, if you have a phobia or a brief one-off brush with depression, perhaps you have more leeway.

But bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are too dangerous, both to the patient and to the people around him or her, to leave their treatment to people who are not licensed to practice medicine.

When in doubt, see your doctor.  If you're still in doubt, get a second opinion from a different doctor.  If you're still in doubt, get a third opinion from yet another doctor.

But don't let ideologues play around with your health or your family's health over the internet.  Your life, or your family member's life, is too precious to entrust to the care of people essentially handing out medical advice they want others to act on, without a license.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on December 20, 2004, 03:42:00 PM
The 'truth' often comes out of the 'fringe', the 'edge', as some call it. The edge, where all vital, creative activity happens.

Forward and excellent article by PhD

...many normal people have "enlarged ventricles." Thus this sign is not OBJECTIVE evidence of brain disorder. Ted Sarbin and James Mancuso prove in their 1980 classic book on "schizophrenia" that 20 yrs of research is characterized by these aforementioned flaws.(See the bibliography in my
article listed below.)  "Schizophrenics" in my experience as a psychologist do not suffer from any kind of "defect." One might plausibly posit that individuals who are branded with this label
are more sensitive (superior in some respects) than "normals" and thus more troubled by the dysfunctional families they may live with, or by the dysfunctional world we live in.As RD Laing argued, normality with its characteristic
obliviousness to the destruction of the environment by mega-corporations is a far more biologically maladaptive state--for the species-- than schizophrenia. As he put it during the war in Vietnam war, " THe perfectly adjusted bomber
pilot is a greater threat to the survival of the species than the 'schizophrenic' who thinks the Bomb is inside him." Alternatively--or complementarily-- one could posit that in some cases "schizophrenics' response to stress leads to the triggering of a natural death-rebirth process--aborted invariably by the practices of "mental health" system. RD Laing argued this in  The Politics of Experience in 1967. John Weir Perry also argued this in many books. I provided confirming reports in my 1993 book, Madness, Heresy and the Rumor of Angels which is still in print..
  In the meantime one of my essays was posted online a year ago. It discusses some germane issues in greater detail.

http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/farber.htm (http://www.academyanalyticarts.org/farber.htm)

Institutional Mental Health and Social Control: The Ravages of Epistemological Hubris
by Seth Farber, Ph.D.
Network Against Coercive Psychiatry, NYC
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 20, 2004, 05:03:00 PM
Look, I have no beef with agreeing to disagree, I just *strongly* believe that people should get medical advice from licensed physicians instead of over the internet, including 2nd and 3rd opinions from licensed physicians.

There are all sorts of licensed physicians out there who approach treatments from various philosophies and have other individual differences, like bedside manner, in the way they practice medicine *while still practicing in a competent, ethical way*.

Reasonable physicians can disagree, just like any other reasonable people.

By all means, people should seek out physicians whose style and treatment philosophy makes them most comfortable.

I've just seen people get themselves in a terrible fix by following hearsay other than competent medical advice.  Even where the hearsay is *good* hearsay, it's impossible to be certain the patient is understanding it accurately and not completely misunderstanding vital bits of it.

By all means people should shop around and get multiple opinions and find a doctor that fits their own criteria for a "good" doctor.

Look, we disagree.  One or both of us is wrong about at least *some* of it.  Rather than taking the risk of someone's health being compromised by them reading and possibly misinterpreting *any* of this by *either* of us, I'd just far rather tell them to take their concerns to a doctor they feel comfortable with and get a competent, ethical opinion on their own, personal state of health or course of treatment (if they even need any).

Some medical important medical positions that started out fringe have gone on to become mainstream.  That *doesn't* mean that any fringe opinion is automatically more likely to be right than the mainstream opinion.  In any case, a licensed medical doctor, whether on the fringe or in the mainstream, is more likely to *apply* his or her philosophy of medicine in a unified whole that is sensitive to the specific patient's specific needs than the patient could do for himself out of a patchwork of advice gleaned from the internet.

I'm not saying patients shouldn't be informed and take the information to the doctors they find and ask the doctors detailed and searching questions to be sure they understand their diagnoses and courses of treatment for anything that involves their health.  I'm all in favor of patients finding out everything they can about their problems.

I just think it's foolhardy to make major health decisions without the active involvement of a licensed MD that you like and trust.

Whichever one of us is right or wrong about whichever bits, can't we at least agree on that?

If we can't agree on "see your doctor," then I'm afraid we have *no* common ground on mental health.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 20, 2004, 07:25:00 PM
Timocleo,
I am really fine with disagreeing- we ARE coming from opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't have a need for one of us to be 'right' or 'wrong'. I would never advise a family member to go to an MD or Psychiatrist for 'mental health' concerns. EVER.
If I were going to make any recommendation, I'd send them to someone like the dr quoted in my previous message. I understand that you have made other choices for yourself and your child, and I respect that.

I am not giving advice. I am sharing information. What I consider vital information from reputable sources, that is necessary in order for one to make an informed decision.

People are not necessarily safe with 'medical professionals'. Doctors prescribe drugs that the manufacturer and the FDA have told them are safe. Both are in serious hot water right now, in case you don't follow the news, in regards to concealing negative studies. They are seriously failing and deceiving Americans. There are a large number of people who have trusted the system only to find themselves in a worse 'fix' by following the advice of their doctor. Some have lost a child or loved one.

I have no judgment about people making their own choices, even if those choices are illegal (pot, shrooms, etc). Whatever the mind altering substance, I don't believe they're healing/curing anything. They are 'managing' symptoms and possibly crippling their ability to genuinely heal. That is their right. I believe Farber presents a valuable explanation of this, and how a 'mental illness' dx puts a stop to any further growth and improvement, in his essay. I found it to be a brilliant insight from someone with years inside the industry.

Many people are unaware of the dangers inherent with psych drugs. If they don't look at the whole picture, they aren't making an informed decision. Period. Most feel that by getting 2nd and 3rd opinions, they are viewing the whole picture. Wrong.

Sharing information is more important to me than the very vague possibility that some 'foolhardy' might 'make major health decisions without the active involvement of a licensed MD'.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 21, 2004, 01:08:00 AM
This is where we part company, then.

There are mental health concerns that *definitely* relate to serious confirmedly medical problems.

Someone may be depressed because there's something wrong with their thyroid gland.  That can have serious health consequences.

Someone may be violently irritable because they're hypoglycemic in a pre-diabetic way, develop diabetes, have a stroke, and be crippled and die.

Someone may be psychotic because they got syphillis and didn't know they had it, then came down with general paresis.

Someone may have personality changes and erratic behavior indicating a *brain tumor*---and going to the doctor early may catch it in an operable and curable state, instead of later when it's spread and is terminal and nothing can be done for the patient.

Someone may be experiencing mental symptoms because they're having micro-strokes which could be an early warning sign of all sorts of serious medical problems.

Sure, maybe someone having mental health symptoms is schizophrenic or bipolar or has any one of a number of other conditions.

Then again, maybe they're sick with something that's going to kill them dead if it isn't found and treated, and quickly.

My great grandmother was chained to a tree in a yard like a dog when she had her manic phases and became violent, because she lived before the uses of lithium were discovered.

Lack of a doctor and modern medicine sure did her a hell of a lot of good.

You're entitled to your opinion---but I hope everyone *else* sees their doctor and at least listens carefully to his or her educated opinion before making up their mind.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2004, 08:25:00 PM
http://www.newstarget.com/003021.html (http://www.newstarget.com/003021.html)
Omega-3 fatty acids and DHA shown to treat, prevent depression

News summary:
Source: http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov04/omega-3.html (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov04/omega-3.html)

a.. There is mounting evidence that a diet containing omega-3 fatty acids, already known to help prevent cardiovascular disease, may also prevent depression.
b.. Dr. Levine has been studying DHA (docosahexaenoic acid -- a component of omega-3s) and its effects on lowering triglycerides and raising HDL (high-density lipoproteins) in overweight and obese patients with metabolic
syndrome.
c.. In a large Finnish study of fish consumption and depressive symptoms, published in Psychiatric Services in April 2001, Tanskanen, et al.
demonstrated that the likelihood of having depressive symptoms was significantly higher among infrequent fish consumers than among frequent fish consumers.
d.. They theorized that the human brain is adapted to Paleolithic diets of our ancient ancestors, whose diet comprised equal proportions of omega-3 fatty acids and omega-6 fats (found in corn and soy seed oils).
e.. In the past 100 years, Western diets have lowered the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 to about 1:25; simultaneously, the prevalence of major depression has increased.
f.. Percentages of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) were significantly lower, and the ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 PUFAs were significantly higher in subjects with depressive disorders than in control subjects.
g.. In a letter published in The Lancet in April 1998, he reported that among healthy volunteers, low plasma concentrations of DHA predict low
concentrations of a marker of brain serotonin turnover.
h.. As a result of the hearings and recommendations by the joint committees, on Friday, Oct. 15, the FDA announced that it will direct manufacturers to add a "black box" warning to the health professional labeling of all SSRI antidepressant medications to describe this risk and emphasize the need for close monitoring of patients started on these medications.

Related Articles:
Drug racket exposed! The real reason why the FDA wants to shut down websites selling prescription drugs from Canada...

Yet more evidence showing the FDA to be asleep at the wheel... it takes a separate government department to actually investigate drug companies!

The truth about the FDA's mob-like behavior: the agency is acting like Al Capone!

Antidepressant drug kills patients, causes severe liver damage (but FDA won't ban it)...

The schocking truth about how prescription drugs kill thousands of times as many people each year as ephedra, yet the FDA bans the herb!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on December 30, 2004, 08:42:00 PM
http://www.hempoilcan.com/compo.html (http://www.hempoilcan.com/compo.html)


Hemp Seed Oil
Fatty Acid Analysis
Saturated Fatty Acidsin % of total fatty acids
Palmitic acid (16:0)
Margaric acid (17:0)
Stearic acid (18:0)
Arachidic acid (20:0)
Behenic acid (22:0)
Lignoceric (24:0)
6.50%
0.03%
2.50%
0.40%
0.20%
0.06%
Total saturated fatty acids9.7%
 
Unsaturated fatty acidsin % of total fatty acids
Palmitoleic (16:1)
Oleic acid (18:1 omega-9)
Linoleic acid (18:2 omega-6)
gamma-Linolenic acid (18:3 omega-6)
alpha-Linolenic acid (18:3 omega-3)
Stearidonic acid (18:4 omega-3)
Eicosaenoic acid (20:1)
0.12%
10.50%
55.20%
3.10%
20.00%
1.20%
0.50%
Total unsaturated fatty acids90.20%
 
Chemical Analysis
Vitamin E100-150 mg/100g (mostly
 gamma-tocopherol) 13-20 IU/100g (as alpha-tocopherol equivalents)
Chlorophyll
THC content
Specific gravity
Iodine value
Peroxide value
Free Fatty Acids
Phosphatides
Smoke Point
Melting Point
Cholesterol
50-20 ppm
None Detected
0.92 kg/l
110
0.3 meg/kg
1.50% (as oleic acid)
100-400 ppm
330 °F (165 °C)
18 °F (-8 °C)
none
Note: 1 ppm (part per million) = 1 mg/kg = 1 mcg/g


To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a little better; whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is the meaning of success.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on December 30, 2004, 08:47:00 PM
It costs roughly $800,000,000 to sponsor a drug through the FDA process. If there isn't $800,000,000 in profit available from that sector of the market that requires a standardized, normalized product, the FDA will never do their job as regards that drug.

The fish industry might advertise that fish is good brain food (as they used to), but then they'd have to offset the news that most of our good fish is tainted w/ mercury.

The moral of the story is this, do your own homework.

As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson, American essayist, poet, philosopher

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: miseducated on December 30, 2004, 09:28:00 PM
Maybe someone has already mentioned this site:
http://http://brainplace.com/bp/atlas/

It shows brain spectrographic pictures of various things like ADD, schizophrenia, depression and bipolar, including before and after pictures when they started taking meds. It also shows the effects of alcohol & other drugs and then how the pictures change when a person gets off the drugs.

I happen to be drinking alcohol as I write this! Alas, how dumb I am, yet how relaxed. :smile: And I hope to find some marijuana to bring in the new year tomorrow! Fool! Will you never learn!

Having been on the other side -- go natural, figure out the "cause" -- I have to say that these days I agree with Timoclea. I tried and tried to fix emotional problems with diet and exercise, and those things really do help, but it is not enough. I eat an excellent diet and exercise a lot. Yet, I am having to seek out the assistance of professionals with regards to whatever psych difficulties I might be having. I can't fix it myself, and if it doesn't get fixed, my life will not work.

I also agree with the sentiment "educate yourself". I have already turned down one prescription because the doctor was incautious in prescribing it and I have one or two of the  contraindications to it, which I learned by researching it on my own. They should not be handing the pills out like candy.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2004, 10:17:00 PM
CHRISTMAS CAROLS FOR THE DYSFUNCTIONAL:

Schizophrenia --- Do You Hear What I Hear?

Multiple Personality Disorder --- We Three Queens Disoriented Are

Amnesia --- I Don't Know if I'll be Home for Christmas

Narcissistic Personality Disorder  --- Hark the Herald Angels Sing About Me

Manic --- Deck the Halls and Walls and House and Lawn and Streets and Stores and Office and Town and Cars and Buses and Trucks and Trees and Fire Hydrants and ...

Paranoid --- Santa Claus is Coming to Get Me

Borderline Personality Disorder --- Thoughts of Roasting You on an Open Fire

Personality Disorder --- You Better Watch Out, I'm Gonna Cry, I'm Gonna Pout, Maybe I'll tell You Why

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ---Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells ...

Agoraphobia --- I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day But I Would Not Leave My House

Autism --- Jingle Bell Rock and Rock and Rock and Rock and Rock and Rock.

Senile Dementia --- Walking in a Winter Wonderland, Miles From My House in My Slippers and Robe

Oppositional Defiant Disorder --- I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus So I Burned Down the House

Social Anxiety Disorder ---  Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas While I Sit Here and Hyperventilate.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 03, 2005, 02:50:00 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050110fa_fact (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050110fa_fact)
THE PEDIATRIC GAP
by JEROME GROOPMAN
Why have most medications never been properly tested on kids?
Excerpts"
Strafford told me that the surgeon's decision to improvise with bupivacaine was not unusual. Although the Food and Drug Administration has long required that medications be screened for safety in adults, approximately seventy-five per cent of drugs approved for use in the United States have never been subjected to comprehensive pediatric studies. A physician, however, is allowed to use any F.D.A.-approved drug in whatever way he deems beneficial, and he isn't required to inform parents if it hasn't been
specifically tested on children. There is no single official repository of information about how to calibrate drug dosages for children. Since
pharmaceutical companies rarely collect data about the effects of their drugs on minors, there is scant information about pediatric dosing in the
Physicians' Desk Reference, a compendium of guidelines and warnings supplied by drug companies; pediatric handbooks are published by private companies, but they are not comprehensive and their data are not obtained through a
consistent methodology. In the absence of reliable information, doctors are frequently forced to engage in guesswork when administering drugs. Speaking of the three-year-old boy, Strafford said, "This is a perfect example of
what can happen to a healthy kid."

Children with certain illnesses can be especially sensitive to the side effects of a drug. For example, infants with meningitis are much more likely than adults to react poorly to chloramphenicol, an antibiotic that is a
common medication for the disease; newborns, especially premature babies, do not have the necessary enzyme in the liver to metabolize the drug. Symptoms such as vomiting, refusal to suck on a breast or a bottle, and diarrhea usually appear two to nine days after the initial treatment. When chloramphenicol accumulates at toxic levels, blood pressure drops precipitately, and the lack of oxygen in the blood causes the baby's lips and skin to take on a bluish tint. Ultimately, body temperature plummets and
the baby turns ashen. "Gray-baby syndrome" can be fatal unless the infant receives a blood transfusion.

In recent years, federal legislation has sought to give pharmaceutical firms financial incentives to pay for clinical studies targeted to children. Since 1997, a company that agrees to set up a pediatric trial to screen a new drug has received a six-month extension of market exclusivity for the medication. Yet such reforms don't address the larger problem of old drugs that have never been tested on children. Children's health advocates also complain that the F.D.A. does not require manufacturers of medical devices to create
variants that are designed for children; consequently, pediatric surgeons and cardiologists must perform procedures on children using equipment that was developed for  adults. "It's what I call the reverse lifeboat
phenomenon," Maureen Strafford told me. "In medicine, children come last."

Testing drugs on children used to be a priority. Stuart Siegel, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist and the director of the Children's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, told me that in the nineteen-fifties and sixties children with cancer were typically given experimental drugs before adults. The logic was that sick children deserved to be the first to receive the latest treatments. These days, the situation is often reversed; important new therapies-for example, Gleevec and Avastin-have been tested on adults first. Siegel attributes this shift to "an ethical change in society." Doctors and parents are increasingly concerned about whether children can truly give informed consent to participate in potentially harmful research. Drug companies have equally strong misgivings; they fear legal liability and negative publicity. If a child dies during a clinical study and the parents sue, jury awards can be very high.

"I've had discussions with some leaders in the pharmaceutical industry," Siegel said. "The feedback is consistent. They'll cite the cost and then they'll also cite the risk, in terms of an adverse event and what that would do to their profits and their stock."

Indeed, Eli Lilly and Company recently received a tremendous amount of bad press when Traci Johnson, an Indiana college student, committed suicide during a clinical trial of Cymbalta, an antidepressant. She had initially been given high doses of Cymbalta, but a few days before her death she had been switched to a placebo. Scientists have found that hallucinations and
paranoid delusions can occur when a patient is in withdrawal from an antidepressant. A spokesman for Lilly has stated that it is unclear what led
to the girl's suicide; the F.D.A. officially cleared the company of wrongdoing and approved the drug.

Johnson's death occurred at the same time that the F.D.A. was analyzing a large set of data compiled from multiple clinical trials. The results, which were released in October, indicated that twice as many children taking
antidepressants in clinical trials considered or attempted suicide as children taking placebos. The agency will require pharmacists to include a
warning, to be released later this month, that cites this study when dispensing packages of antidepressants. Although antidepressants can still be legally administered to children, the children must now be stringently monitored by doctors.

One reason the F.D.A. was slow to identify this danger, critics say, is that individual clinical trials sponsored by drug companies involved small
numbers of children. (The more subjects involved in a study, the costlier it is.) Pfizer's pediatric studies of Zoloft, for example, involved fewer than four hundred children; according to Lawrence Scahill, a researcher in
pediatric psychopharmacology at the Yale Child Study Center, thousands of depressed children would need to be studied before researchers could
pinpoint a subtle difference in behavior, such as increased suicidal thoughts. The F.D.A. extended Pfizer's patent on Zoloft for six months because it conducted the trial, which will allow it to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in added revenue.

In 2003, Congress passed legislation that codified what is known as the Pediatric Rule. A drug company working on a new treatment for a disease that affects both adults and children is now required to conduct pediatric studies. (The rule does not slow the process of approving new drugs for adult use.) To make this regulation palatable, the F.D.A. continues to offer a six-month extension of market exclusivity for drug companies that perform pediatric studies.

Children's health advocates, who had fought for years to help pass this legislation, were dismayed to discover that there were significant loopholes in the 2003 law, as well as in other recent reforms. For example, Congress did not set a timetable for the completion of pediatric studies. Moreover, the reforms include a "sunset clause" that will cause them to expire in 2007. (This clause was added as a result of pressure from drug companies and groups that oppose government regulation.) Advocates worry that many drug companies will exploit the clause by agreeing to conduct a trial but allowing the study to languish until 2007, when a different Congress may decline to renew the reforms.
***
Much more at the link. Educate yourself about your government, doctors, and big pharm. It's worth your time and effort.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 06, 2005, 09:01:00 PM
More about Teen Screen from page 14 of this thread- It's connection to Straight:

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=80#74555 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9&start=80#74555)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 22, 2005, 09:25:00 PM
http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/arti ... 54526.html (http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/1354526.html)

Bush offers to let nation's drug firms off the hook

With the possibility of punitive damages eliminated, companies will be even less vigilant about problems with products. By Bob Herbert

With all the problems and the bad publicity that drug companies have been facing recently, you might think that this would not be a good time for the Bush administration to toss yet another bonanza their way.

But the administration is like an ardent lover in its zeal to shower the rich and powerful with every imaginable benefit. So tucked like a gleaming diamond in proposed legislation to curb malpractice lawsuits is a provision that would give an unconscionable degree of protection to firms responsible for drugs or medical devices that turn out to be harmful.

The provision would go beyond caps on certain damages. It would actually prohibit punitive damages in cases in which the drug or medical device had received Food and Drug Administration approval. We know the FDA has failed time and again to ensure that unsafe drugs are kept off the market. To provide blanket legal protection against punitive damages in such cases is both unwarranted and dangerous.

We just learned that Celebrex, the phenomenally popular painkiller from Pfizer, more than tripled the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death among
those taking high doses in a national trial.  Those findings, as noted in an article in The New York Times, "raised new questions about how well federal drug regulators protect the public and worsened drug makers' already dismal image."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who held hearings on recent FDA actions, said, "At this point, no one can say with confidence whether the worst drug safety problems are behind us or ahead of us."

The Celebrex disclosure came on the heels of a decision by Merck to withdraw its arthritis drug Vioxx from the market after a study showed a link between long-term use of the drug and an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Two weeks ago, an article in The British Medical Journal suggested that Eli Lilly & Co. had long concealed evidence that the antidepressant
Prozac could cause violent and suicidal behavior.

If the malpractice legislation so relentlessly touted by President Bush became law, Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly would be immunized against even the possibility of punitive damages arising from any harm to patients that resulted from use of these drugs -- as long as the companies followed FDA rules. All three drugs were approved by the FDA.

The whole idea behind punitive damages is to punish severely the most egregious offenders. Huge punitive damage awards are supposed to serve as a deterrent to extremely bad behavior.

If Bush has his way, that line of defense will be substantially weakened. With the possibility of punitive damages eliminated, drug companies will be even less vigilant than they are now about problems with products that pose a serious -- even fatal -- threat to patients.

The drug companies have an incredible racket going, as Marcia Angell, the former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, documents in her book, The Truth About the Drug Companies.

"Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit," she wrote, "this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug
Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since
they must write the prescriptions.)"

Among those co-opted is the president himself. Nothing's too good for the drug companies. If only ordinary Americans got the same sweet treatment from this administration as the great pharmaceutical houses.

Bob Herbert is a columnist for The New York Times.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 22, 2005, 09:35:00 PM
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/10660556.htm (http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/10660556.htm)
Posted on Sun, Jan. 16, 2005
Descent into darkness
Teen-ager's family blames her suicide attempt on antidepressant
By Mark Horvit
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

It's been eight months since Tonya Brooks sat in an empty bathtub late one night and meticulously dug a gaping hole in her left leg. That was the
same week she decided she didn't want to live anymore and swallowed a handful of pills.

Her family blames the antidepressant she was taking. Whether the medicine was actually at fault may ultimately be determined in court.

Tonya was a 16-year-old high school junior in Pflugerville when her mom became increasingly worried about her behavior. Tonya hated going out
alone. She once left a Subway restaurant without picking up dinner because there were kids in the restaurant she didn't know and she didn't want them to see her.

So Cheryl Brooks took her daughter to the doctor, expecting a referral to a psychologist. Instead she got a bottle of pills.

After talking to Tonya for a few minutes, the doctor diagnosed her with social anxiety disorder. The answer, the doctor said, was Paxil.

Tonya started taking the drug in January 2004. The dosage was doubled in February, and relatives soon noticed a change. She had become more
outgoing and was often away from home. She cut her long blond hair short and dyed it a striking orange-red.

What they didn't notice was the cutting.

Tonya would stick an Exacto knife into her left wrist, making a deep cut small enough that her watch could cover it. When she did it, she could
focus on the blade and forget everything bothering her.

She also started having trouble falling asleep, so her doctor prescribed a sleeping pill.

Tonya began to struggle in math class and became increasingly worried about what her parents would think. One night she came to a dark conclusion:
It would be better if she wasn't there.

She took a handful of Paxil and sleeping pills and crawled into her parents' bed. Paxil doesn't pose the same overdose risks as older antidepressants -- that's one of the drug's advantages. But she threw up most of the night.

Tonya told her parents she'd taken the pills by accident.

A couple of nights later, Tonya grabbed a needle, plopped onto her bed and began probing her left calf. Then she tried an old pair of cuticle
scissors, but the blades were dull.

She grabbed a paring knife, climbed into the bathtub in her pajamas and methodically cut out small pieces of her calf.

Around 2 a.m., when she had dug a gash about 3 inches long, she realized there was a lot of blood. She knocked on her parents' bedroom door,
then returned to the bathroom. Cheryl Brooks walked in, took one look and started screaming.

Tonya's parents raced to the emergency room. The next day they took her to a mental hospital, where doctors took her off the medication. They
wanted to try something else, but Tonya's father refused.

Cheryl Brooks concedes that she didn't read all the warnings in the package inserts. But the doctor recommended the pills, and the only side
effects she and Tonya remember being warned about were physical things, like nausea.

A few months after Tonya attempted suicide and maimed herself, the federal Food and Drug Administration ruled that Paxil and other
antidepressants must feature prominent warnings stating that there is a risk of suicidal behavior among a small percentage of users.

The Brookses have hired Baum Hedlund, a California law firm that has represented numerous families in legal action over antidepressants. There have been a series of cases where suicidal behavior has been blamed on the drugs, but some believe they are being unfairly targeted.

Today, Tonya and her folks say she's doing better. The cutting has stopped, they say.

A stabbing pain sometimes shoots through her calf muscle, as if the needle is still in there. But when the high school senior runs a finger along the thick line of scar tissue, she feels nothing.

--------------------------------------------------Mark Horvit, (817) 390-7087 [email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 27, 2005, 07:28:00 PM
http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife ... 7757c.html (http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/4480722p-4217757c.html)

Cause of depression remains a mystery
Think depression is just a chemical imbalance? Think again.

M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune
Last updated: January 26th, 2005 10:51 AM

So why do some people react so badly to anti-depressants that they kill themselves or someone else? A genetic glitch in liver enzymes might make them poor metabolizers, so the drugs build up to toxic levels and derange their minds.

But if that's true, it isn't the whole picture. Sometimes anti-depressant-triggered suicides have normal blood levels.

In fact, despite all the talk of "chemical imbalances," no one really knows how the drugs work.

That the brain can break down like a car and be fixed as easily is an idea so seductive in its simplicity that it's hard to resist.

With something as fraught with uncertainty as mental health - or health in general - reassuring notions give a much-needed sense of control. At least you know what's going on, if nothing else.

A good story helps sell drugs, too, by giving them scientific legitimacy.

So it's no surprise drug companies have been the biggest pushers of the idea that depression is caused by a dip in the brain chemical serotonin and that "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" make everything OK by restoring normal levels.

But the history of medicine is full of convincing ideas that were just plain wrong. Centuries ago, medical authorities assured sick people that their
humours were out of whack, and then accidently bled some to death. More recently, postmenopausal women were told they had to take hormones to stay
healthy. But then it was realized doing so caused heart attacks and cancer.

The serotonin theory might head to the dust bin of medical history, too.

One of the major supports of the idea is that when the brains of rats given anti-depressants are ground up in a blender, nerve cell serotonin channels act a little different than when normal rat brains are ground up. "What that has to do with people I don't know," said Harvard University
psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, an expert on the drugs.

Though serotonin levels might or might not have something to do with depression, the drugs alter levels of all kinds of nerve chemicals.

That's why they can trigger body-wide side effects like impotence, constipation, yawning and additional psychiatric difficulties.

Scientists think there's actually many biological mechanisms behind depression, said University of Washington pharmacy professor Dr. Stanley
Weber.

At this point, the chemical imbalance/serotonin theory of depression is so suspect that Ireland forbids drug companies from promoting the idea.

Until more is known, there is no way to tell who will have a violent reaction to an anti-depressant. The best way to prevent tragedy is to
recognize the warning signs.

M. Alexander Otto 253-597-8616
[email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2005, 09:55:00 AM
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/ ... 613.htm?1c (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/health/10773613.htm?1c)
Posted on Sun, Jan. 30, 2005
Zoloft on trial as teen faces murder charges
Outcome could impact drug's use with youths
NICHOLE MONROE BELL
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2005, 10:06:00 AM
How many teens (and adults) are put on antidepressants for 'depression' caused by a drug they are taking?

Hoffman LaRoche Rebuffed Call to Monitor Accutane Users - USA Today
Tue, 7 Dec 2004

An investigative cover story in USA Today - Drugmaker Rebuffed Call to Monitor Users--affirms the indispensable role of litigation in bringing the facts about adverse drug effects to public knowledge. Lawsuits against Hoffman-La Roche, manufacturer of the acne drug, Accutane, uncovered internal company memos by Roche's safety experts who recommended changing the US label to reflect the evidence that Accutane "probably caused" depression and other psychiatric illnesses in some patients. Dr. Peter Schiferdecker analyzed the data in 1997, recommended that the Accutane label should indicate that users of the drug "should be supervised for signs of depression during therapy and, if necessary, referred for appropriate treatment." But Daniel Zabrowski, Hoffman-LaRoche's global head of drug regulatory affairs, testified in a court deposition that the marketing division prevailed, by arguing that such a warning would "impact on marketing strategy and product liability."

In 1999, Roche told the FDA that none of the 168 reports of suicidal behavior can be directly linked to Accutane.

In 2000, during an FDA dermatology committee meeting, the agency confirmed that 147 suicides were linked to patients taking Accutane.

In 2002, Janet Woodcock, director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, told a congressional committee that the agency had received reports of 3,104 adverse psychiatric events involving Accutane and that the FDA knew of 173 suicide reports associated with Accutane.

USA Today reports that in 1988, Godfrey Oakley, director of the Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control, wrote that "40 infants born alive after first trimester exposure to Accutane have died ... because of the developmental errors that Accutane caused." Oakley argued that "we simply need to remove the drug from the market."

In 2004, The Alliance for Human Research Protection asked Keith Altman, Adverse Drug Reaction Statistics Analyst, to analyze FDA's Medwatch database for drug-linked suicides by children under 18 years of age.

He found that between 1989 and June 2003, there were 216 reported drug-linked suicides in under 18 year olds. Of these, 72 suicides were linked to Accutane. The next highest number of suicides - 55--involved Prozac.

Since MedWatch reflects approximately 1% of actual adverse drug events, 72 Accutane suicide reports represent 7,200 suicides. And 55 Prozac-related suicide reports represent 5,500 suicides.

The Accutane tragic consequences underscore, yet once again, FDA's impotence in regulating drug marketing to protect public safety. The case also underscores pharmaceutical company manipulation of and jubilation at the FDA's ineffectualness. A memo from Roche's Vice president to the company's US CEO said the firm should "CELEBRATE" the FDA's non-action in the matter of an Accutane registry to keep the drug away from pregnant women.

Drugs are not like other industries - they need MORE rather than less regulatory interference. The current climate encourages companies to put profits above all other considerations - including causing preventable disability and deaths. Shouldn't they be tried criminally for reckless endangerment to human lives?

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974
 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... over_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2004-12-06-accutane-cover_x.htm)
USA TODAY
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on February 10, 2005, 11:02:00 AM
Friends,

If you are aware of a parent who tried Ritalin - either prescribed for themself, or by trying their child's prescription and found they really liked the effect they got from it - to the point of becoming addicted, please write to me directly and I will put you in touch with a team member from television's "Inside Edition" who wants to
talk to you.

Cassandra Casey
Owner - SSRI Crusaders Activist Group

email me directly at: israelswarrior@h...

Thank you.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on April 24, 2005, 02:21:00 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... a_warning/ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/23/screams_blood_a_warning/)

Screams, blood, a warning
Details of mother's slaying surface

By Caroline Louise Cole and Kathleen Burge, Globe Correspondent, Staff
|  April 23, 2005

Excerpts:
NEWBURYPORT -- The teenage daughter, awakened in the early-morning darkness by the terrible sound of her mother's screams, ran downstairs to see her bleeding from a shoulder and struggling to hold down the girl's older brother, the police report said.

''Your brother is going insane," Nickoletta Staszewski yelled to her daughter, telling her to flee the house and call 911, according to the
report. Police arrived at the Brentwood, N.H. house at about 5 a.m. Thursday to find the 47-year-old teacher lying dead in a pool of blood
on the dining room floor. Her son, Richard, 21, was wandering the neighborhood naked, blood dripping from his arms.

Yesterday, as he was arraigned on a murder charge, students and friends seemed shaken by the death of the popular teacher with more than 20 years' tenure, who felt called to her profession by a brother born with Down syndrome. Nickoletta Staszewski was inspired by her brother, Jimmy, who died a decade ago, to become a special needs
teacher, said her sister, Mary Fordham.

Richard Staszewski first told police on Thursday that he had killed his mother after an argument. She told him he needed to get a job and to ''stop being a leech," he reportedly told police.

But the son later changed his story, authorities said, telling them he first tried to kill himself and then stabbed his mother without provocation. Richard Staszewski's younger sister, Calandra, told police that he had been taking antidepressants.

Yesterday, Richard Staszewski was arraigned on a charge of second-degree murder in Exeter (N.H.) District Court and held without bail.

He appeared for his brief court appearance wearing an orange jumpsuit, his right eye swollen shut, his face badly bruised, and his hands
wrapped in gauze.

He had been treated Thursday at Exeter Hospital's emergency room for cuts across his hands and fingers so deep that they sliced into the tendons, according to a police report. Staszewski also had shallower cuts on his thighs and chest.

When a Brentwood police officer arrived, he saw Richard Staszewski walking down the street naked, yelling, ''Just shoot me," according to a police report. Staszewski told the officers that he had stabbed his mother and that she was dead, the report said.

Police later found Nickoletta Staszewski's body, a kitchen knife nearby.

The son first told police that he had spent Wednesday driving around with friends, smoking marijuana, and returned home early Thursday
morning. His mother was watching television, he said, and an argument broke out. When she pushed him, he told police, he grabbed a knife and
stabbed her in the throat.

But later he told police that he wanted to correct his story. When he returned home at about 4 a.m. Thursday, he said, he tried unsuccessfully to kill himself with a knife. When he went downstairs to get a larger knife from the kitchen, he saw his mother lying on the couch, watching television, he said.

When his mother asked him what he was doing, he did not answer but stabbed her in the throat, he told police.

One of Richard's friends, Jordan Sandman, who also once attended Nock Middle School and knew the victim, was drawn to the school's makeshift
memorial for the teacher. Like many in town, Sandman said he was startled by his friend's arrest.

''He didn't seem like the type of person who would want to hurt anyone," Sandman said. ''I can't imagine that he could do this."

John Ellement of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Kathleen Burge can be reached at [email protected].
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on April 24, 2005, 01:33:00 PM
I am writing an article for a national magazine and am looking for families with a child who has been harmed or had an otherwise adverse reaction to prescription drugs.  Ideally a case where a child was give a wrong dosage or wrong type of medicine that is normally geared toward adults.  

If you or someone you know would want to be interviewed and possibly photographed, please let me know by email or at (212) 445-4379.

Thanks in advance,

Dan Brillman
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on May 03, 2005, 04:26:00 PM
Army Recruiters Say They Feel Pressure to Bend Rules
    By Damien Cave
    The New York Times

    Tuesday 03 May 2005

    It was late September when the 21-year-old man, fresh from a three-week commitment in a psychiatric ward, showed up at an Army recruiting station in southern Ohio. The two recruiters there wasted no time signing him up, and even after the man's parents told them he had bipolar disorder - a diagnosis that would disqualify him - he was all set to be shipped to boot camp, and perhaps Iraq after that, before senior officers found out and canceled the enlistment.

    Despite an Army investigation, the recruiters were not punished and were still working in the area late last month.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050305Y.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050305Y.shtml)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on May 19, 2005, 02:10:00 PM
Not Guilty by Involuntary Intoxication. I like that language.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/n ... 682300.htm (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/11682300.htm)
Posted on Thu, May. 19, 2005
Jury to decide if mom planned killing of son
Defense says illness worsened by drugs
GREG LACOUR
Staff Writer

LENOIR - Late on the snowy morning of Feb. 26, 2004, Janet Bell Hall shot and killed her 11-year-old son, Eric, and shot and beat her then-16-year-old daughter, Ashley, who survived, in their home in Granite Falls. The attorneys defending the 38-year-old Hall during her murder trial in Superior Court don't dispute this.

But, they argue, Hall was struggling with chronic depression and problems with the medication that was supposed to treat it, and she wasn't in her
right mind when she attacked her children.

State prosecutors, though, contend Hall was, in Assistant District Attorney Tom Rusher's words, "a loveless, self-centered woman" who knew precisely what she was doing when she shot her son execution-style in the back of his head and beat her daughter with an aluminum baseball bat before shooting her twice.

Today, after nearly a month of testimony, jurors will get the case. Hall is charged with first-degree murder in Eric's death and the attempted
first-degree murder of Ashley.

Both sides offered their closing arguments Wednesday, and Judge Beverly Beal will issue instructions to jurors beginning at 9:30 a.m. They'll deliberate after that, and if they convict Hall of first-degree murder, as the state
has asked, the trial would move into its penalty phase. Prosecutors would then ask jurors to sentence Hall to death.

But those aren't the only options. If they determine Hall acted without thinking or planning sufficiently beforehand, jurors could also find Hall guilty of second-degree murder, in which case Beal would impose a lesser sentence. Jurors could also find Hall not guilty by reason of insanity, which would commit her to a state psychiatric hospital, or not guilty by involuntary intoxication, in which case she'd be set free. If she's acquitted for both reasons, she would be committed.

On Wednesday, prosecutors tried to remind jurors of evidence that indicates Hall planned -- however quickly or sloppily -- everything she did.

Ashley, now 18, testified early in the trial that she was awakened that morning by the shock of her mother beating her in the head with the bat,
said Assistant District Attorney Eric Bellas.

And Hall didn't stop there, indicating this wasn't a rash, heat-of-passion beating, Bellas said. She beat her daughter on the head, "not just once but over and over again," he said, then chased her throughout the house, eventually shooting Ashley once in the collarbone and again in the chest with a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol.

Mother and daughter didn't always get along, Bellas said, but "Ashley didn't provoke her mother. She hadn't even spoken to her. She hadn't even seen her. She was sleeping."

As for Eric, he said, Hall shot her son deliberately, once in the abdomen, another time in the back of the head, severing his spinal cord. Residue on the boy's body indicates it was a contact wound -- the gun was pressed to
skin.

"Ladies and gentlemen, he knew what was happening. He'd already been shot in the belly," Bellas said. "Eric Hall's last act on earth was to try to get away from his mother."

But it was a mother who had established mental and emotional problems, and a change in medication three weeks before had worsened rather than solved the problems, argued defense attorneys Robert Campbell and Lisa Dubs.

The depression started in 1996 after Hall's father died, Campbell told jurors. She sought help from a psychiatrist, who prescribed, in succession, high doses of the antidepressants Luvox, Lexapro and Zoloft. Hall's husband,
Jimmy, testified that after his wife started taking Zoloft on Feb. 3, 2004, she began sleeping during the day and cleaning the house in manic bursts in the middle of the night.

The morning of the shootings, Campbell said, Hall even took out hamburger buns to prepare for dinner later -- hardly the actions of a woman planning to kill her children.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "mamas don't kill their children unless something is wrong."

Greg Lacour: (828) 324-0055; [email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Timoclea on May 20, 2005, 01:55:00 PM
(For everyone but you, Deborah, because you seem like a nice enough lady, but we're just never going to agree on anything remotely related to modern psychiatry.)

This tragedy was caused by:

Malpractice by the pshrink, or negligence bythe patient *before* she became manic, or negligence by the spouse.

Anyone taking any antidepressant should be warned of what the symptoms of mania are and should be told to call their doctor *immediately* if they notice any.

This woman had *multiple* nights of sleeping through the day and cleaning the house in manic bursts at night?

*ONE* manic night should have triggered immediate action by her pshrink to do absolutely whatever was necessary control the mania, to assess her for immediate risks to self and others, etc.

It also should have triggered her shrink evaluating her for bipolar disorder.

Either the doctor didn't address the potential side effects with the patient and ensure she had someone watching her who knew what to watch for and who to call in case of problems, or the patient didn't take the information at the beginning to her spouse, or the spouse ignored it, or the doctor did not respond correctly when told the patient was having side effects.

Chainsaws can be incredibly useful for doing things like removing fallen trees safely from downed power lines--by qualified personnel only, of course.

If you cut off your leg with a chainsaw, the problem is not that chainsaws are bad and evil, the problem is that you or someone else didn't follow the appropriate safety rules for using a chainsaw (which include knowing what you're doing before using one at all).

Psychiatric drugs are not bad and evil.

When the safety rules for using them are followed, they are powerful, useful, necessary, and safe.

When the safety rules for using them are not followed, they're every bit as dangerous as a chainsaw in the hands of a 25 year old man with the mind of a six year old.

The problem is not that the drug is bad, any more than the problem in chainsaw accidents is that chainsaws are bad.

The problem is that the *sane* people did not follow the appropriate safety rules for handling a powerful, necessary, but potentially very dangerous tool.

The doctor *should* have provided the patient with a handout on the warning signs for all of the serious possible side effects, including mania.  The doctor should have carefully explained everything on the handout and made sure the patient knew when to call the doctor immediately and when to call 911.  The doctor should have required the patient to provide the handout to a friend or responsible third party--usually but not necessarily the spouse--with the offer to have his nurse explain anything on the sheet that the friend didn't understand.  The doctor should have followed up with the patient to ensure this had been done and gotten a signed acknowledgement of informed consent for the patient's files.

When you go in for surgery and they drug you so you mustn't drive for a certain length of time, they *make* you bring a friend to drive you home.  If you're going to take psychiatric medications, they should make you have a friend to keep an eye on you *at least* whenever you're making a major change.

Most pshrinks that I've encountered *do* carefully explain possible side effects, but they aren't as careful as I've recommended above at *documenting* that they have done so.  I think they should document it.  That's a procedural change I'd like to see made.

If this woman had had her dose(s) lowered, and specific problem drugs (problems *for her personally*) removed, and had had a mood stabilizer added if necessary to bring the mania under control, the violence would have never happened.

Just like if you learn what you're doing first and follow the safety rules for using a chainsaw properly you're going to cut off the log, not your leg.

Does malpractice happen?  Yes, it sometimes does.

Does criminal negligence happen even when malpractice does not?  Yes, it sometimes does.

So do serious chainsaw accidents, or other serious or fatal accidents among people operating power tools or heavy equipment.

Psychiatric drugs are powerful, dangerous, necessary tools.

Someone not careful and conscientious enough to be a heart surgeon or a brain surgeon shouldn't be a psychiatrist, either.  Practice of any branch of medicine is one of the most serious responsibilities there is.

We have procedures to screen out poor candidates before they become doctors.  We have medical licensing boards to yank the licenses of bad doctors who slip through the cracks.

We have criminal negligence laws for when people are told how to handle something dangerous and they don't pay attention.

The doctor should have explained about mania and psychosis risks.  Her husband had noticed what he should have known was mania.  He should have reported it to the doctor.  The doctor should have immediately acted to control the mania or hospitalized the woman until they could get it controlled.

Somebody along that whole chain of events failed in a major responsibility.  The first person in that chain of failure needs to go to jail for it.

If it was the pshrink's fault, his license needs to be yanked.

If the woman told the pshrink, when she was in a responsible state of mind, that she had told her husband what to watch for and she lied, then it wasn't "involuntary"---it was negligent, and she's responsible for it.

If I was the pshrink, I would have insisted on the husband knowing since they were both in the house with kids and he was the other custodial parent.

If the husband had been told and just blew it off, he was criminally negligent.

Somebody belongs in jail, and the pshrink *probably*, looking at the whole chain of events, was negligent and needs to lose his license.  But it's not the drug company, or the drug, or the drug rep that belongs in jail.

This comes down to the pshrink, the woman, and her husband.  One or all of them didn't do something vital that they absolutely had a responsibility to do and people died from the negligence.

It's nice and comfortable to blame the drug and say, "Oh, it's nobody's fault, it was just that big bad old evil nasty mean chemical."

The problem is, it's letting someone off the hoook whose *personal* criminal negligence caused deaths.

I don't know if it's the woman, the husband, or the doctor who's the guilty party here, or some combination of the three, but I know *at least* one of them is.

We don't like to call other people stupid, or socially obnoxious, or ignorant, or criminally negligent.  It's embarrassing.  It's "not nice."

It's "rude."

And it's a lot less socially unpleasant to blame an inanimate object or a big corporation when someone does something bad or a horrible accident happens.

Even when you have three people where at least one of them was clearly horribly criminally negligent and whose horrible criminal negligence *is* what caused the bad thing to happen.

"Nice" and "polite"---but wrong.

It's a terrible thing that the woman did.

A terrible thing that was the direct, personal, criminal fault of the doctor, the woman, and/or her husband.

Bad ol' me for saying so, but hell yes it was that person(s)' personal fault and not the fault of an inanimate chemical, or the company that makes and sells it, or the FDA.

Individuals personally close to the events failed to follow vital safety rules and people died.

Some people hate corporations so much they like to blame them for anything they can.  Some people hate "chemicals" or things that are "unnatural" so much they like to blame them for anything they can.  Some people just think it's "mean" or "rude" to blame anyone who's "suffered a loss" for things they screwed up that caused it to happen.

I guess people can have a lot of motivations to let someone off the hook for something they did.

But, hey, look, the emperor over there ain't got no clothes on!

It was their fault.

Timoclea


The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us, and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Cannabis on May 20, 2005, 03:15:00 PM
Your arguments sound reasonable except if the only people responsible for drug side effects are the doctors and patients then why is there a need for the FDA? I don't agree that any person can predict that they are about to enter a drug induced psychotic episode.

Psychiatry is the top profession to work in where you get paid even if you're not achieving any positive results over a period of years. Pharmaceutical companies are also culpable because they sell the fairytale to doctors that their pills will work if they only use the right one.

Fuck pharmaceutical companies and their Nazi collaborators, whoever they are.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on May 20, 2005, 03:20:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-05-20 10:55:00, Timoclea wrote:

When the safety rules for using them are not followed, they're every bit as dangerous as a chainsaw in the hands of a 25 year old man with the mind of a six year old.


That's the problem, Julie. The safety rules for all these new drugs are still in the earliest stages of development and based largely on faulty info from FDA and the pharmacos. Until recently, pshrinks were telling patients that Prozac is non-habit forming. I guess they believed it, why not? That's what the FDA told them. Now we know better.

The trouble is that the psyche industry is handing this shit out like candy w/ little, if any, regard to the consequences of their "treatment". I know a girl who threatened to fight back when a school administrator threatened to put her through a wall. In my view, that's a pretty normal, healthy response to a threat of violence and well within the kid's right to self defense. But the schoolpeople didn't see it that way. They arrested the girl, took her down to Broward County Juvenile Intervention Facility (JIF), assessed her as having anger management problems and gave her Welbutrin all before ever notifying the parent.

These are not just isolated incidents. It's happening all over the damned place! People need to understand that a drug can only do something for you to the exact extent that it does something to you! You should never take psyche drugs w/o trying every other reasonable option, knowing all you can know about the drug and carefully weighing the risks against the benefits. If some quack tries to hand you pills as a first line treatment run!

The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with a Liberal Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
--Anonymous

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 09, 2005, 08:17:00 AM
*Thursday Evenings 5-6pm PST: Annie Armen Live on World Talk Radio*

Tonight: June 09, 2005 From 5-6pm PST
AAL Series: Dangers of Psychiatric Drugs Part 12

Topic: Psychiatric Drugs Survivor of 36 years SPEAKS OUT WITH DRUG FREE HEALING ACTION NATIONWIDE!

Featured Guest: "DOC" MIKE

For AAL Program Details, Please Visit:
http://www.anniearmenlive.org/psychiatric_drugs.htm (http://www.anniearmenlive.org/psychiatric_drugs.htm)

Toll Free Call in Number: 888/514-2100

To Listen LIVE tonight from 5-6pm PST (8-9pm ET)
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=4251 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=4251)
and click on LISTEN NOW - top right hand corner.

THIS SHOW IS SPONSORED BY "DOC" MIKE.
Check out his website at http://www.docmike.com (http://www.docmike.com)
LIFE SAVING INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGER TIPS!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 09, 2005, 08:47:00 AM
[I was able to find this in the archives, but unable to pull up the article. If someone could post the whole article I would appreciate it = Paul]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/ (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/)
[then search archive with her name]

GRANITE FALLS MOTHER GETS LIFE SENTENCE

Source: GREG LACOUR, STAFF WRITER
Janet Bell Hall began her life sentence in prison at precisely 5 p.m. Tuesday, as a Caldwell County sheriff's deputy led her from the back of the courthouse to a waiting patrol car.A few feet away, two of her sisters, a niece and a nephew watched. Just before Hall ducked into the car, she turned to them and, with an almost imperceptible flick of her fingers, waved goodbye.Jurors in Hall's first-degree murder trial in Superior Court had just sentenced her to life in prison

Published on May 25, 2005, Page 1B, Charlotte Observer, The (NC)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 09, 2005, 08:54:00 AM
[I found this via a Google search, instead of searching via the newspapers archives]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/ ... 692247.htm (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/11692247.htm)
Posted on Fri, May. 20, 2005
Click here to find out more!

Mom is guilty in murder of 11-year-old

Woman also awaits sentence in shooting of 16-year-old daughter

GREG LACOUR

Staff Writer

LENOIR - Janet Bell Hall may die of lethal injection. She may spend years on death row, or the rest of her life in prison. It doesn't matter to her brother-in-law, Ricky Shelton.

"The family's happy it came out as convictions in both cases. We know she's going to stay in jail," Shelton said Thursday, after a jury in Superior Court convicted Hall of shooting and killing her 11-year-old son, Eric, and beating and shooting her then-16-year-old daughter, Ashley, in their Granite Falls home last year.

"We don't care one way or the other whether she's on death row or serves life in prison," Shelton said. "As long as she spends the rest of her life in prison."

Beginning Monday, the jury that convicted her after a nearly monthlong trial will have to determine her fate. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Hall, and her conviction of first-degree murder in Eric's death guaranteed a penalty phase in which jurors will decide whether Hall should be executed.

Jurors on Thursday also convicted Hall, 38, of the attempted first-degree murder of Ashley, who survived. Judge Beverly Beal will sentence Hall for that crime after jurors determine the sentence for the murder.

Shelton, 40, of Granite Falls, said he's spoken recently with Ashley, who he said lives in the area and is still trying to cope emotionally with the fact that her mother tried to kill her. Ashley, now 18, was beaten numerous times in the head and shot in the collarbone and chest.

"She is so lucky to be here herself, it's unbelievable," Shelton said. "She's going to be happy to hear her mother's not going to be around her no more."

For reasons that still aren't clear, Hall attacked her children on the morning of Feb. 26, 2004. In addition to beating and shooting Ashley, she shot Eric once in the abdomen and once in the back of the head.

Then, when her husband Jimmy got home, Hall fled in her car. She wasn't captured until the next night, when she was in an accident at the intersection of Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and U.S. 70 in Hickory.

Hall's attorneys didn't dispute what she did, but they tried to convince jurors that she was suffering from severe depression and side effects from the medication she was taking to treat it. Had jurors acquitted her on grounds of insanity, Hall would have been committed to a state psychiatric hospital; had they acquitted her on grounds of involuntary intoxication, she would have gone free.

Although jurors in this case didn't hear about it, Hall has been accused of killing a family member before. She was charged in 2001 with voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of her brother in Caldwell County.

But after she claimed self-defense, prosecutors dismissed the charges because they didn't think they had enough evidence to convict. Beal ruled that details about the shooting were inadmissible during the trial.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 09, 2005, 09:24:00 AM
Deborah,

I am curious as to why you are posting
this information for your Fornits
contribution, but when I mentioned
Safe Harbor's recent Non-Pharma
conference you ignored it?

Paul
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2005, 11:25:00 AM
Yeah, Prozac made her do it---twice.  It reached right back in time and made her do it a couple of years before she was on it.  What a nasty unnatural evil *chemical*.

*sigh*

Psychiatric medications are reasonable and necessary as a first line treatment for: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder with command hallucinations, and major depression or BPD where the specific patient is a danger to herself.

Patients on psychiatric drugs should always have their condition followed very carefully by a competent, licensed psychiatrist.

Anything else is negotiable.

Julie
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 09, 2005, 01:19:00 PM
Involuntary Intoxication?
Drug Induced Mania?

Standoff Suspect Described As Family Man 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - The Alabama man accused of trying to kidnap a woman and engaging police in a four-hour standoff on a major highway was described by those who know him as a peaceful family man and school volunteer.
     
Police say they don't know what might have motivated Dennis Elliot Shellhouse, who was visiting Southern California from Phenix City, Ala., on business.

Shellhouse, 45, remained hospitalized with dog bite and gunshot wounds Thursday, two days after the highway chase and standoff that backed up traffic for miles.

Shellhouse's mother said he was taking diet pills and antidepressants but was otherwise healthy.

"He may have gone crazy," Jane Shellhouse, 67, told the Daily News of Los Angeles by phone. "It is not like him to do something like this."

She said he is an industrial trainer who owns his own company, attends church with his family and mentors his 14-year-old son's high school robotics team. He was a Phenix City Schools Heart of the Community Volunteer in 2004 and 2005.

South Girard School Assistant Principal Joshua Laney said he could only believe the case was one of mistaken identity.

"There's no way that the guy that I know would ever attempt to take anybody hostage for money," Laney said.

Upon release from the hospital, Shellhouse is expected to be booked in Los Angeles on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, authorities said. He also faces charges related to the attempted kidnapping in Ventura County, a sheriff's spokesman said.

Shellhouse has no criminal record in his hometown, said Lee County, Ala., Sheriff Jay Jones.

Tuesday's chase began after an armed man posing as a delivery courier tried to kidnap a woman from her porch. The woman got away, and he fled in a van, leading officers on a 75-mile chase. They got him to stop by ramming the vehicle, but he held them at bay for hours before they shot out a window and shoved a tear gas grenade inside.

He was wounded by a deputy after he allegedly pointed a gun, and was bit by a dog sent to drag him out of the van.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 09, 2005, 02:52:00 PM
Paul, can you elaborate? I don't know what you're trying to say.

***I am curious as to why you are posting
this information for your Fornits
contribution, but when I mentioned
Safe Harbor's recent Non-Pharma
conference you ignored it?***

Apparently you haven't read this thread or you wouldn't need to ask the first part of the question.

If you are talking about:
Safe Harbor is having a non medication conference
in June.
I offered to get the folks at Safe Harbor going
with the Mental Health Services Act for funding,
but they where not interested. I tried ...
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =40#102890 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9581&forum=9&start=40#102890)

Did it ever occur to you that Safe Harbor doesn't want/need your "help" or dirty money from MHSA?
I really don't know the politics or specifically what MHSA is, but it seems you should be posing your comments/questions to Safe Harbor, not me. If they don't want to talk to you, nothing I can do about it.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 09, 2005, 03:21:00 PM
***Yeah, Prozac made her do it---twice. It reached right back in time and made her do it a couple of years before she was on it. What a nasty unnatural evil *chemical*.

Tim,
Are you following this thread or just dropping in to share your assumptions? Either way, you missed an important piece- quoted from the original article:

The depression started in 1996 after Hall's father died, Campbell told jurors. She sought help from a psychiatrist, who prescribed, in succession, high doses of the antidepressants Luvox, Lexapro and Zoloft. Hall's husband,
Jimmy, testified that after his wife started taking Zoloft on Feb. 3, 2004, she began sleeping during the day and cleaning the house in manic bursts in the middle of the night.

A violent person, drug induced mania? Either way, so much for the efficacy of the drugs and 'less is better' treatment model and 'being monitored closely by a pdoc".

That's all good, truth is, it ain't happenin' for the average Joe- people who didn't become psychology graduates in search of an explanation for their mental state and formulate good questions for their doctors and monitor their own symptoms.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 10, 2005, 06:10:00 AM
Deborah,

You where comfortable posting:

Posted: 2005-06-09 05:17:00    *Thursday Evenings 5-6pm PST: Annie Armen Live on World Talk Radio*

Tonight: June 09, 2005 From 5-6pm PST
AAL Series: Dangers of Psychiatric Drugs Part 12

Topic: Psychiatric Drugs Survivor of 36 years SPEAKS OUT WITH DRUG FREE HEALING ACTION NATIONWIDE!

Featured Guest: "DOC" MIKE

For AAL Program Details, Please Visit:
http://www.anniearmenlive.org/psychiatric_drugs.htm (http://www.anniearmenlive.org/psychiatric_drugs.htm)

Toll Frin ee Call in Number: 888/514-2100

To Listen LIVE tonight from 5-6pm PST (8-9pm ET)
http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=4251 (http://www.worldtalkradio.com/archive.asp?aid=4251)
and click on LISTEN NOW - top right hand corner.

THIS SHOW IS SPONSORED BY "DOC" MIKE.
Check out his website at http://www.docmike.com (http://www.docmike.com)
LIFE SAVING INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGER TIPS!

---

When I mentioned Safe Harbor in the past you
ignored it. This is why I asked the question.

You are either advocating chaos, or not. If
you are anti medication then you should be
supporting those that are trying to heal
mental illness with non medications.

You appear to selectively support certain
people. In general you just put down anything
organized in mental health. You apparently
have made a decision not to involve yourself
in the administration of public mental health,
and perhaps private insurance mental health
programs.

You have Antigen fooled that you are knowledgeble
regarding mental health but really you just
put down treatments and put down professionals.

You are quick to research gadflies and fringe
experts. You are comfortable in calling Scientology a religion, when the rest of the
population here and abroad refer to Scientology as a cult.

Your solutions to mental health are to criticize
treatments that have helped many.

To me, it appears you have no involvment with the seriously and persistantly mentally ill. If you did you wouldn't be making your lame comments.

Anarchy is easy, helping the systems that are designed to help people is work. Your are just a useless gadfly that have people like Antigen fooled because you present yourself as knowledgeble.

If someone followed your advice, or lack thereof they would probable become one of the jailed mentally ill, or reinstitutionalized, that should be in recovery instead.

Stating what your agenda really is would stop hurting those that are unsure of making informed choices.

Buying into conspiracy theories is easy, it is not knowledge. Listening to "coast to coast" at night doesn't make someone a consultant.

Picking apart little problems in a big system is not helping it is just cherry picking, not solution based.

Safe Harbor was interested in the taxpayer approved fund for improving the mental health system in California. I spoke to the president and one of the board members. They declined furthur help when I let them know that only evidence based practices are to be funded. Apparently they did not have proof that their non-pharma solutions worked or they would have asked for money.

If you don't understand what I am saying to you, please ask for clarifications. If you want to flame my comments then you will just be revealing yourself as a pseudo expert.

I think Timoclea has taken the time, over and over, again to explain to you the benefits of the standard protocols for treating serious and persistant mental illness.

It is all about choice. Participate and you will find out. 87% of the patients in San Diego County mental health programs are on meds, the other 13% are not, by choice. They receive other treatments by their own choice, it is as simple and as non-conspiracy based as that.

Your are either going to help people, or not.

Frankly I don't see your contributions here as valuable. That is a bummer since you have the host recommending you as knowing about mental health. This makes you influencial, it does come with responsibility. Please use your responsibility wisely, or say nothing more.

Paul
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 10, 2005, 11:15:00 AM
Bless your heart Paul. You put together a pretty decent argument? If any of it were accurate, that is. I post from many sources but here?s two that mention Safe Harbor..

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#15726 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2539&forum=9&start=20#15726)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#95178 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9129&forum=9&start=20#95178)

Would it please you if I posted all their newsletters and press releases?

***You are either advocating chaos, or not. If
you are anti medication then you should be
supporting those that are trying to heal
mental illness with non medications.

Paul, look through these threads and then explain what you based that comment on

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... art=0#5474 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=903&forum=9&start=0#5474)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#15144 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2510&forum=9&start=20#15144)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#15250 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2510&forum=9&start=30#15250)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#15260 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2539&forum=9&start=0#15260)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#26074 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3572&forum=9&start=0#26074)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=40#26084 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=40#26084)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#28420 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3842&forum=9&start=0#28420)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =110#31298 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3865&forum=9&start=110#31298)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#53396 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9&start=10#53396)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#64392 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6901&forum=9&start=0#64392)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#86638 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8608&forum=9&start=0#86638)

***You appear to selectively support certain
people.

And you appear to do piss-poor research and make unfounded claims. In case you didn?t read the links I provided, I cite MANY sources.

You are accurate. I have  ?made a decision not to involve yourself in the administration of public mental health, and perhaps private insurance mental health programs?. Rather, I am not interested in PUBLIC mental health.

***You have Antigen fooled that you are knowledgeble regarding mental health but really you just put down treatments and put down professionals.

I?ll let Ginger speak to that, but I will ask, are you suggesting that we?re in competition to ?convince? Ginger, one way or another? LMAO  Are you vested in swaying HER opinion? What do you think would change?

***You are quick to research gadflies and fringe
experts.

Most of the information I share is from degreed professionals in the field that have chosen to speak out about the fraudulent nature of the industry. Who better qualified than insiders?

***You are comfortable in calling Scientology a religion, when the rest of the population here and abroad refer to Scientology as a cult.

Paul, the government gave them their religious status, not I. Work in the ?system? to change that if you don?t like it. In the meantime, I suppose they will act as and have all the benefits allowed other religions. Personally, I don?t subscribe to any organized religion, and feel they?re all cults- in the broad definition of the word- all selling their personal brand of fear, whether that be hell or space aliens or evil entities. They should all pay taxes like any other business.

***Your solutions to mental health are to criticize treatments that have helped many.

Now, did you think before you wrote that? Or just another comment with no basis in reality? Truth being, we don?t know HOW many have been ?helped?. We?re beginning to see how many have been harmed.

***To me, it appears you have no involvment with
the seriously and persistantly mentally ill. If you did you wouldn't be making your lame comments.

No. I don?t, and don?t care to. But, many that I have cited do or have, and I value their opinions and insight.

***Anarchy is easy, helping the systems that are
designed to help people is work. Your are just a
useless gadfly that have people like Antigen fooled because you present yourself as knowledgeble.

And you are a mindless idiot with no original thought. I present information, and sometimes my opinion. I opposed ANY form of forced screening or treatment for ANYTHING. I respect people?s right to choose to use drugs or not.  I trust that people can read, analyze, and form their own opinions. YOU apparently don?t.

***If someone followed your advice, or lack thereof they would probable become one of the jailed mentally ill, or reinstitutionalized, that should be in recovery instead.

What advice, specifically Paul, are you referring to? Are you implying that I have ?practiced without a license??  If you review the info I?ve shared you?ll see that I do not promote any one type of alternative. When I find something that sounds reasonable or that has been helpful, I share it.

***Stating what your agenda really is would stop hurting those that are unsure of making informed choices.

Get over it Paul. Stop obsessing about me having a hidden agenda. I have stated numerous times (and this will be the last time I say it to you- I have better ways to spend my time). I advocate full disclosure, access to alternatives, and FULLY informed decisions.

***Buying into conspiracy theories is easy, it is not knowledge. Listening to "coast to coast" at night doesn't make someone a consultant.

Paul, opponents are not ?conspiracists?. That?s propaganda and what you?d like others to believe.

***Picking apart little problems in a big system is not helping it is just cherry picking, not solution based.

Look Paul, You may not be aware of this, because all you hear, or listen to, is what the APA etal has to say, but many have (and still do) try to make changes in the system. But, that?s like trying to encourage the government to implement pro-human policies OR telling survivors that they can work with programs to make them better. LOL

***Safe Harbor was interested in the taxpayer approved fund for improving the mental health system in California. I spoke to the president and one of the board members. They declined furthur help when I let them know that only
evidence based practices are to be funded. Apparently they did not have proof that their non-pharma solutions worked or they would have asked for money.

Well, what can I say, except that I don?t feel like there is any evidence that drugs ?cure? anything, that ?mental illness? is genetic, that drugs are necessary to live a good life. And there is so much fraud occurring in drug research and at the FDA, that I personally wouldn?t believe any results (evidence?) of those studies. Studies are not objective or unbiased.
So, It?s still not clear to me why you asked the original question:
?I am curious as to why you are posting this information for your Fornits contribution, but when I mentioned Safe Harbor's recent Non-Pharma conference you ignored it??

Let me ask it this way- how did you EXPECT me to respond? Did you feel you needed a particular response from me in order to share what you finally divulged? There won?t be any ?evidence? (or very little) for alternatives because those who have the money to fund research don?t stand to gain from the results.

***If you don't understand what I am saying to you, please ask for clarifications. If you want to flame my comments then you will just be revealing yourself as a pseudo expert.

Pauly, only YOU perceive me as presenting myself as a ?pseudo expert?. I do think it says something that you are so viciously attacking and slandering a person who is sharing information and has formulated her own opinions.
 
***I think Timoclea has taken the time, over and
over, again to explain to you the benefits of the
standard protocols for treating serious and persistant mental illness.

And unnecessarily. I was a psych student, but lost interest. I am well aware of the drill. I happen to be a target because I have presented opposing information for others to consider. You both seem terrified of people considering anything but the status quo, and have a vested interest in people considering only what you believe.

***It is all about choice. Participate and you will find out. 87% of the patients in San Diego County mental health programs are on meds, the other 13% are not, by choice. They receive other treatments by their own choice, it is as simple and as non-conspiracy based as that.

Only in your dreams Pauly,  is it ?about choice? for the average person. No, the average person does not know they have choices and are not told the truth about research or the potential side effects of the drugs their prescribed. Heard the latest.. not a psych drug (specifically anyway)? it?s coming out that VIAGRA has caused some folks to go blind. Lordy, lordy. Hope the good sex they had in the interim was worth it.

***Frankly I don't see your contributions here as valuable.

You?re entitled to that opinion, and to attempt to discredit the information I have shared. If you want to be effective, why not attack the opinions of the ?pros? I have cited, instead of me?

***That is a bummer since you have the host
recommending you as knowing about mental health.

She might have a few choice words for your assumption, or not. I think the only thing she?s said remotely related to that is to appreciate the info I shared. And, what of it. Do you think she?d delete the info I?ve shared if she disagreed? Not here.

***This makes you influencial, it does come with
responsibility. Please use your responsibility wisely, or say nothing more.

LMAO  Paul, you can?t be serious!?  And from what authority do you make that demand and expect me to comply? You are not my authority buddy. Talk about delusions! I?ve known all along that it was YOUR agenda to silence me. Oh well, that?s not how it works here or in the real world Pauly. Deal.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 10, 2005, 12:23:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-09 12:21:00, Deborah wrote:

"***Yeah, Prozac made her do it---twice. It reached right back in time and made her do it a couple of years before she was on it. What a nasty unnatural evil *chemical*.



Tim,

Are you following this thread or just dropping in to share your assumptions? Either way, you missed an important piece- quoted from the original article:



The depression started in 1996 after Hall's father died, Campbell told jurors. She sought help from a psychiatrist, who prescribed, in succession, high doses of the antidepressants Luvox, Lexapro and Zoloft. Hall's husband,

Jimmy, testified that after his wife started taking Zoloft on Feb. 3, 2004, she began sleeping during the day and cleaning the house in manic bursts in the middle of the night.



A violent person, drug induced mania? Either way, so much for the efficacy of the drugs and 'less is better' treatment model and 'being monitored closely by a pdoc".



That's all good, truth is, it ain't happenin' for the average Joe- people who didn't become psychology graduates in search of an explanation for their mental state and formulate good questions for their doctors and monitor their own symptoms.

"


I've followed it.  She had preexisting violent tendencies and *someone*--whether her, her husband, or her pdoc, or all three--was criminally negligent.

Many people are mentally ill.  Few of those are violent.  Even among the psychotic, the violent are a minority--and the psychotic are a small minority of the mentally ill.  This woman's history of violence was something *about her*.  Did her pdoc know, I wonder, or was that kept from him?  Again, malpractice, or negligence--on the part of *someone*.

Look at the number of successful medical malpractice suits annually in the US.

Look at the number of people who get bad results and *don't* win their malpractice lawsuit either because their bad result came from being the sad statistic (a bad roll of the dice), or because they were negligent or did something grossly stupid.

There will always be a statistical percentage of bad doctors, bad rolls of the dice, or stupid people.

No treatment has a zero rate of serious adverse effects.  The rate can be very small, but it won't be zero.

If you demand zero incidents of medical malpractice for all other doctors, as you do for the doctors who specialize in psychiatry, then we will have zero doctors---it's the only way to reduce incidents of malpractice to zero.

You demand zero incidence of pdoc malpractice because you're an extremist on this issue, I've referred people to the thread where we had this out to demonstrate you're an extremist on this issue, and don't need to say anymore.

The problem with Utopian visions is that they make the perfect the enemy of the good.  Which is precisely what you do on this issue.

Yes, I've followed the case, referring people to our thread still applies.

You're going to say you *don't* demand zero incidents of pdoc malpractice---but your history shows that that's exactly what you do.  I'll let readers search your posts on this and judge for themselves whether I'm exaggerating or being fair.

I really only dropped back in to say that yes, I've followed the case---as my earlier posts in threads about it show.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 10, 2005, 04:54:00 PM
I did a Fornits search using Safe Harbor. I didn't think it necessary to use their URL. I am wrong,
sorry. I am glad you post their info.

I am glad you have no experience personally with mental illness. It shows.

Lots of people took some psych clases, get over it.

I have two mentally ill roomates. I chose them. One on meds, the other still on the couch since
Jan. 1st, out of fear of sleeping in bedrooms. She asked to live with me because I don't influence people on way or the other. I just give them the most legitimate info on any choice, or all choice,  that they are interested in, and that I know to provide.

If you don't think Ginger is influencial on Fornits then that is your opinion, nothing else.

What I do must be pretty obvious by now.

When I scanned your responses to Timoclea I just got fed up with your slandering other potential treatments. That is what bothers me. You are not impartial. Period!

That is what hurts people on making choices.

I am tired of your biased posts, period.

Ginger, or Antigen, does not prevent anyone from posting and that is wonderful ... I hope for an unbiased quest for knowledge for all. Furthurmore I hope that all inherint biases are either obvious, understood or explained and that the bottom line is no slander and no influencing anyone deciding on any medical treatment.

It is all just information, isn't it?


I did not think to put Bless your heart Paul. You put together a pretty decent argument? If any of it were accurate, that is. I post from many sources but here?s two that mention Safe Harbor..

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#15726 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2539&forum=9&start=20#15726)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#95178 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9129&forum=9&start=20#95178)

Would it please you if I posted all their newsletters and press releases?

***You are either advocating chaos, or not. If
you are anti medication then you should be
supporting those that are trying to heal
mental illness with non medications.

Paul, look through these threads and then explain what you based that comment on

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... art=0#5474 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=903&forum=9&start=0#5474)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#15144 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2510&forum=9&start=20#15144)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#15250 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2510&forum=9&start=30#15250)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#15260 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2539&forum=9&start=0#15260)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#26074 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3572&forum=9&start=0#26074)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=40#26084 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=40#26084)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#28420 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3842&forum=9&start=0#28420)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =110#31298 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3865&forum=9&start=110#31298)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#53396 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9&start=10#53396)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#64392 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6901&forum=9&start=0#64392)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#86638 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8608&forum=9&start=0#86638)

***You appear to selectively support certain
people.

And you appear to do piss-poor research and make unfounded claims. In case you didn?t read the links I provided, I cite MANY sources.

You are accurate. I have ?made a decision not to involve yourself in the administration of public mental health, and perhaps private insurance mental health programs?. Rather, I am not interested in PUBLIC mental health.

***You have Antigen fooled that you are knowledgeble regarding mental health but really you just put down treatments and put down professionals.

I?ll let Ginger speak to that, but I will ask, are you suggesting that we?re in competition to ?convince? Ginger, one way or another? LMAO Are you vested in swaying HER opinion? What do you think would change?

***You are quick to research gadflies and fringe
experts.

Most of the information I share is from degreed professionals in the field that have chosen to speak out about the fraudulent nature of the industry. Who better qualified than insiders?

***You are comfortable in calling Scientology a religion, when the rest of the population here and abroad refer to Scientology as a cult.

Paul, the government gave them their religious status, not I. Work in the ?system? to change that if you don?t like it. In the meantime, I suppose they will act as and have all the benefits allowed other religions. Personally, I don?t subscribe to any organized religion, and feel they?re all cults- in the broad definition of the word- all selling their personal brand of fear, whether that be hell or space aliens or evil entities. They should all pay taxes like any other business.

***Your solutions to mental health are to criticize treatments that have helped many.

Now, did you think before you wrote that? Or just another comment with no basis in reality? Truth being, we don?t know HOW many have been ?helped?. We?re beginning to see how many have been harmed.

***To me, it appears you have no involvment with
the seriously and persistantly mentally ill. If you did you wouldn't be making your lame comments.

No. I don?t, and don?t care to. But, many that I have cited do or have, and I value their opinions and insight.

***Anarchy is easy, helping the systems that are
designed to help people is work. Your are just a
useless gadfly that have people like Antigen fooled because you present yourself as knowledgeble.

And you are a mindless idiot with no original thought. I present information, and sometimes my opinion. I opposed ANY form of forced screening or treatment for ANYTHING. I respect people?s right to choose to use drugs or not. I trust that people can read, analyze, and form their own opinions. YOU apparently don?t.

***If someone followed your advice, or lack thereof they would probable become one of the jailed mentally ill, or reinstitutionalized, that should be in recovery instead.

What advice, specifically Paul, are you referring to? Are you implying that I have ?practiced without a license?? If you review the info I?ve shared you?ll see that I do not promote any one type of alternative. When I find something that sounds reasonable or that has been helpful, I share it.

***Stating what your agenda really is would stop hurting those that are unsure of making informed choices.

Get over it Paul. Stop obsessing about me having a hidden agenda. I have stated numerous times (and this will be the last time I say it to you- I have better ways to spend my time). I advocate full disclosure, access to alternatives, and FULLY informed decisions.

***Buying into conspiracy theories is easy, it is not knowledge. Listening to "coast to coast" at night doesn't make someone a consultant.

Paul, opponents are not ?conspiracists?. That?s propaganda and what you?d like others to believe.

***Picking apart little problems in a big system is not helping it is just cherry picking, not solution based.

Look Paul, You may not be aware of this, because all you hear, or listen to, is what the APA etal has to say, but many have (and still do) try to make changes in the system. But, that?s like trying to encourage the government to implement pro-human policies OR telling survivors that they can work with programs to make them better. LOL

***Safe Harbor was interested in the taxpayer approved fund for improving the mental health system in California. I spoke to the president and one of the board members. They declined furthur help when I let them know that only
evidence based practices are to be funded. Apparently they did not have proof that their non-pharma solutions worked or they would have asked for money.

Well, what can I say, except that I don?t feel like there is any evidence that drugs ?cure? anything, that ?mental illness? is genetic, that drugs are necessary to live a good life. And there is so much fraud occurring in drug research and at the FDA, that I personally wouldn?t believe any results (evidence?) of those studies. Studies are not objective or unbiased.
So, It?s still not clear to me why you asked the original question:
?I am curious as to why you are posting this information for your Fornits contribution, but when I mentioned Safe Harbor's recent Non-Pharma conference you ignored it??

Let me ask it this way- how did you EXPECT me to respond? Did you feel you needed a particular response from me in order to share what you finally divulged? There won?t be any ?evidence? (or very little) for alternatives because those who have the money to fund research don?t stand to gain from the results.

***If you don't understand what I am saying to you, please ask for clarifications. If you want to flame my comments then you will just be revealing yourself as a pseudo expert.

Pauly, only YOU perceive me as presenting myself as a ?pseudo expert?. I do think it says something that you are so viciously attacking and slandering a person who is sharing information and has formulated her own opinions.

***I think Timoclea has taken the time, over and
over, again to explain to you the benefits of the
standard protocols for treating serious and persistant mental illness.

And unnecessarily. I was a psych student, but lost interest. I am well aware of the drill. I happen to be a target because I have presented opposing information for others to consider. You both seem terrified of people considering anything but the status quo, and have a vested interest in people considering only what you believe.

***It is all about choice. Participate and you will find out. 87% of the patients in San Diego County mental health programs are on meds, the other 13% are not, by choice. They receive other treatments by their own choice, it is as simple and as non-conspiracy based as that.

Only in your dreams Pauly, is it ?about choice? for the average person. No, the average person does not know they have choices and are not told the truth about research or the potential side effects of the drugs their prescribed. Heard the latest.. not a psych drug (specifically anyway)? it?s coming out that VIAGRA has caused some folks to go blind. Lordy, lordy. Hope the good sex they had in the interim was worth it.

***Frankly I don't see your contributions here as valuable.

You?re entitled to that opinion, and to attempt to discredit the information I have shared. If you want to be effective, why not attack the opinions of the ?pros? I have cited, instead of me?

***That is a bummer since you have the host
recommending you as knowing about mental health.

She might have a few choice words for your assumption, or not. I think the only thing she?s said remotely related to that is to appreciate the info I shared. And, what of it. Do you think she?d delete the info I?ve shared if she disagreed? Not here.

***This makes you influencial, it does come with
responsibility. Please use your responsibility wisely, or say nothing more.

LMAO Paul, you can?t be serious!? And from what authority do you make that demand and expect me to comply? You are not my authority buddy. Talk about delusions! I?ve known all along that it was YOUR agenda to silence me. Oh well, that?s not how it works here or in the real world Pauly. Deal.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 10, 2005, 04:57:00 PM
[I forgot to log in for my initial response]

I did a Fornits search using Safe Harbor. I didn't think it necessary to use their URL. I am wrong,
sorry. I am glad you post their info.

I am glad you have no experience personally with mental illness. It shows.

Lots of people took some psych clases, get over it.

I have two mentally ill roomates. I chose them. One on meds, the other still on the couch since
Jan. 1st, out of fear of sleeping in bedrooms. She asked to live with me because I don't influence people on way or the other. I just give them the most legitimate info on any choice, or all choice, that they are interested in, and that I know to provide.

If you don't think Ginger is influencial on Fornits then that is your opinion, nothing else.

What I do must be pretty obvious by now.

When I scanned your responses to Timoclea I just got fed up with your slandering other potential treatments. That is what bothers me. You are not impartial. Period!

That is what hurts people on making choices.

I am tired of your biased posts, period.

Ginger, or Antigen, does not prevent anyone from posting and that is wonderful ... I hope for an unbiased quest for knowledge for all. Furthurmore I hope that all inherint biases are either obvious, understood or explained and that the bottom line is no slander and no influencing anyone deciding on any medical treatment.

It is all just information, isn't it?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 10, 2005, 07:54:00 PM
My presumption is that the family had a lack of effective communication/negotiation skills, owned guns, and were faced with a major family dispute. Both incidents she was on psych drugs. And what of the brother? What we know is that they were both gun owners and he often threatened to use his. The info I?ve read does seem to indicate that it was self-defense, even if she ?over-reacted?. I can?t say that I wouldn?t have done the same thing. I just might have waited until he came back with his gun in his hand. And perhaps both would have benefited from some counseling and social skills training.

Is it the responsibility of the husband or the woman (or anyone)  to know what is important to report to a pdoc? How would they know what was important? Would ANY patient knowingly ?withhold? that they had ?violent tendencies?? Why? She/anyone might assume that if the drug helped with depression that it would also have a positive affect on anger- and that?s if the patient perceives him/herself as having a ?problem? with anger/violence. Did the pdoc ask about ?violent tendencies?? Did s/he educate family members on what to report? If the pdoc had known, what would s/he have done differently? Have all the guns removed from her home?
Her rx had been changed three times since ?99.

***You demand zero incidence of pdoc malpractice because you're an extremist on this issue

Mute point Tim. I have NEVER ?demanded? that there should be ZERO accidents or adverse reactions- as you say, humanly impossible. But while on the topic, yeh, I think there are way too many adverse reactions occurring and not nearly enough caution and ?less is better?. The only thing ?extreme? here is your desperate need for others to perceive me as an extremist and the chasm between our opinions/preferences.  

***I've referred people to the thread where we had this out to demonstrate you're an extremist on this issue, and don't need to say anymore.

Where ?we had this out??? That?s funny. What qualifies you to evaluate me? Most of what I post is experts? opinions, articles of ?adverse affects?, and testimonies. Rather than reply/refute the information, you?d rather attack me.  

***You're going to say you *don't* demand zero incidents of pdoc malpractice---but your history shows that that's exactly what you do. I'll let readers search your posts on this and judge for themselves whether I'm exaggerating or being fair.

That?s awful decent of ya, Tim. I have posted many articles relating to adverse reactions and deaths. I am not surprised that you interpret that as a ?demand for zero incidents?.  Who?s tracking them and where else are people going to hear about them? They certainly aren?t told by their doctors. And how will people know of the corruption in the industry and FDA?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 10, 2005, 08:10:00 PM
***I did a Fornits search using Safe Harbor.

That?s BS, Paul. All those links I posted come up for safe harbor. How do you think I found them? Their url isn?t necessary.

***I am glad you have no experience personally with mental illness. It shows.

Is that a compliment? Thanks for noticing.

***When I scanned your responses to Timoclea I just got fed up with your slandering other potential treatments. That is what bothers me. You are not impartial. Period!
I am tired of your biased posts, period.

Wah, wah, wah. I think that is evident. And?.
Slander? do you really think that is the appropriate choice of words for this situation?  

***It is all just information, isn't it?

Damn. I think that?s what I?ve been saying.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 10, 2005, 11:35:00 PM
Deborah,

People who have no exposure to the mentally ill cause the most problems.

You are one of them.

If you want to get involved, help someone, help lot's of people who are ill. Stick by them, don't write them off. See what you learn.

Then start posting again.

Until then, please don't influence the mentally ill.
They are sick, as I have been in the past. It is too important to only have those with knowledge involved.

Let me know how you feel about all these issues when you have spent time with the depressed, the manic, the mixed, the delusional, the psychotic, the angry, the giddy - all of it. Get your nose dirty with those of us with the illness.

Learn.

Until then, have a great experience.

Paul
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 10, 2005, 11:38:00 PM
I am interested in folks on this list who have been influenced in their choice of treatments, including none at all by Deborah.

Please let me know how you feel? Better, worse?

How do you feel about someone with no experience with mental illness being so outspoken and opinionated?

Thanks
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 11, 2005, 07:37:00 AM
http://www.fornits.baremetal.com/wwf/to ... 38&forum=9 (http://www.fornits.baremetal.com/wwf/topicreview.php?topic=6138&forum=9)
>
>http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/o ... sp?c=17982 (http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=17982)
>
>
Commission is a front for Scientologists

In your article a few days ago about "compulsory" mental health screening, you cite the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. Many of your readers may not be aware that this group is a front for Scientology, a mind-control cult based in Los Angeles, California and Clearwater, Florida. They oppose everything in any way related to psychology, psychiatry, or drugs used for mental health, often exaggerating or misrepresenting statistics or the wording of legislation.

They're also a very dangerous bunch, which prevents me from giving you my name and city. A couple of my relatives were involved with them and managed to escape.

Name and town withheld
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 14, 2005, 10:59:00 PM
Paul, you said:
Safe Harbor is having a non medication conference
in June. I offered to get the folks at Safe Harbor going with the Mental Health Services Act for funding, but they where not interested. I tried ...
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =40#102890 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9581&forum=9&start=40#102890)   

Safe Harbor was interested in the taxpayer approved fund for improving the mental health system in California. I spoke to the president and one of the board members. They declined furthur help when I let them know that only evidence based practices are to be funded. Apparently they did not have proof that their non-pharma solutions worked or they would have asked for money.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 190#108648 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=190#108648)

****
Why would you "try? to set them up with MHSA funds if you knew the funds only go to ?evidence based practices?, or as Wendy understood, to ?government-run agencies??

How is "evidence based" defined? To your knowledge, is there any ?evidence based? alternative (non-drug) treatments, other than therapy?

I contacted Wendy at Safe Harbor and here is her response, which I post with her permission. As you will read, her understanding is that the funding had nothing to do with "evidence-based practices." :

Paul does not speak for Safe Harbor. He had suggested a possible funding source to myself and Dan Stradford, president of Safe Harbor. I personally checked out the government funding possibility; however, from what I found, it is only for government agencies, not private nonprofits like Safe Harbor. As the fundraiser for Safe Harbor, we of course, would love funding, but this idea suggested by Paul was a dead end unfortunately.

It has nothing to do with "evidence-based practices." (Paul never mentioned this to me personally. He simply sent me the URL's to check out.) This is government money for government-run agencies, which generally use drugs as a first practice. Safe Harbor is trying to change this of course, and move government agencies toward nondrug alternatives. There is some interest in the area, and we are continuing to push for nondrug treatments and practices.

For information about Safe Harbor, please check our Web site at AlternativeMentalHealth.com, contact me at [email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected]). Thanks.

Wendy Bolt
SAFE HARBOR
787 W. Woodbury Rd., #2
Altadena, CA  91001
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 15, 2005, 12:11:00 AM
"When he didn't take his medication, she said he could quickly "flip-out," swear, and throw things."
Whether it was the wrong rx (after 10 yrs?) or withdrawal symptoms, another drug-related restraint fatality.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/ ... t=n061343A (http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=n061343A)
June 13, 2005 - 17:31
Edmonton mom weeps at elevator fatality inquiry, recounts son's problems
JOHN COTTER
Excerpts:
EDMONTON (CP) - Kyle Young, who fell to his death down a courthouse elevator shaft after scuffling with guards, had been ON MEDICATION FOR SEVERE
BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS FOR 10 YEARS AND HAD LIVED IN MORE THAN 30 GROUP HOMES, his mother said Monday.

Provincial court Judge Jerry LeGrandeur, who is presiding, heard in January that Young, a short boy who weighed 140 pounds, was handcuffed and shackled that fateful day when he was removed from a cell in the youth court cell block because he had been acting up.

Two guards, both over six feet tall and each weighing more than 200 pounds, have testified that YOUNG FELL FIVE STOREYS DOWN THE SHAFT AFTER THEY PRESSED HIM AGAINST THE ELEVATOR DOOR HARD ENOUGH TO POP THE DOOR OFF ITS TRACKS.

A review by Alberta's Justice Department said the guards used "a modest amount of restraint" and followed "normal procedures." Police said there was not enough evidence to lay criminal charges.

Earlier Monday, Lorena Young testified that her son WAS LIKE ANY OTHER NORMAL TEENAGER AS LONG AS HE TOOK HIS PILLS FOR ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER, OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANCE DISORDER AND OTHER PROBLEMS. PROZAC AND RITALIN WERE PRESCRIBED WHEN HE WAS AS YOUNG AS SIX.

When he didn't take his medication, she said he could quickly "flip-out," swear, and throw things.

Young said after her son's arrest she phoned the Edmonton Young Offenders Centre to inquire about his pills, but was told that outside medication
wasn't allowed. "I asked if I could bring it in and they said no," she said. "He had to have them every day."

Young and her lawyer contend that the lack of medication was responsible for her son's outbursts.

Toxicology tests performed after the boy's death were inconclusive.

Royal said a report from the young offenders centre said Kyle Young exhibited a long history of behavioural problems, including an explosive
temper, trouble learning, impulsive tendencies and an aggressive, angry manner.

Lorena Young has said she hopes Judge LeGrandeur will determine if excessive force was used by the guards and if the elevator door was defective.

Public fatality inquiries establish the cause, manner, time and other circumstances of a death. They do not determine legal responsibility but may
offer recommendations to prevent future deaths.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 01:24:00 PM
Deborah,

OK, here is your chance, what would you have
done for this individual?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 15, 2005, 02:02:00 PM
***OK, here is your chance, what would you have
done for this individual?

I assume you're talking about the deceased. If you mean the sadistic killers, that would be a different story.

The short answer:
If I had the limited information the mother (and the majority of people) had, I may have done the same.
Given the information I am aware of, way back when he was 6 years old I would have:

1)Ruled out any neurological, visual, or medical problems
2)Altered his diet and added supplements. Check for food allergies.
3)Find the source of the ?learning difficulty?. Determine if he might do better in private school. Does he have ?attention deficit? or ?selective attention??
Remember this story? http://www.austinmontessori.org/donnabr ... apter9.htm (http://www.austinmontessori.org/donnabryantgoertz/readChapter9.htm)

That?s for starters. In addition, the parent could benefit from some counseling on how to help him effectively deal with the anger/aggression, looking at the family dynamics and what might be contributing to his lack of peace.

The long answer can be found in this thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#15275 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2539&forum=9&start=0#15275)

Ten years of drugs obviously did him no good. I would think that at some point someone might suggest doing something different. Hmmm... but then there is that unfortunate problem of limited information due to the lack of 'evidence'. Which, btw, the drug companies haven't provided either- just a yarn they spin for the public. Pretty evident they didn't help this young man, and many more like him.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 02:06:00 PM
Do you respect the mother's choice to choose
whay type of treatment?

You say the meds did not good, glossing over
the statements that when he was on meds he
was fine.

When he died he was not on meds.

I believe that is a fact, yes or no?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 02:11:00 PM
Sadistic Killers

I assume you're talking about the deceased. If you mean the sadistic killers, that would be a different story.

---

Wow, really?
Who was charged, and what where the charges?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 02:13:00 PM
The short answer:

If I had the limited information the mother (and the majority of people) had, I may have done the same.

Given the information I am aware of, way back when he was 6 years old I would have:



1)Ruled out any neurological, visual, or medical problems

2)Altered his diet and added supplements. Check for food allergies.

3)Find the source of the ?learning difficulty?. Determine if he might do better in private school. Does he have ?attention deficit? or ?selective attention??

---

I know the information is limited, but
perhaps all these items where carried out?

Could you find out?

Do you know what percentage of the time mental
illness is solved by these items that you mentioned? It would be great to know, wouldn't it?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 15, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
Paul, I realize you have a problem with detail... so let me remind you that you asked what "I" would do.

Young said after her son's arrest she phoned the Edmonton Young Offenders Centre to inquire about his pills, but was told that OUTSIDE medication
wasn't allowed.

Toxicology tests performed after the boy's death were INCONCLUSIVE.  :question: Was he given other drugs? Was he having withdrawal symptoms?

When he didn't take his medication, she said he could quickly "flip-out," swear, and throw things.

Royal said a report from the young offenders centre said Kyle Young exhibited a LONG HISTORY of behavioural problems, including an explosive
temper, trouble learning, impulsive tendencies and an aggressive, angry manner.

Sounds to me like the kid didn't have peace before or after the drugs.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 04:12:00 PM
"Sounds to me like the kid didn't have peace before or after the drugs."
[/quote]

We agree on this one.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 04:27:00 PM
Deborah,

"... so let me remind you that you asked what "I" would do."

You are correct, sorry if my response was negative.
I didn't make myself clear.

I do agree with what you would have done. I believe
each item you mentioned should be checked out. Hopefully one of them would help the person.

I should have said it that way, and added that I
wonder how often the protocol that you suggested
finds a solution. Not a negative, but more of just
hoping it is significant.

We agree again, thanks.

Paul
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 16, 2005, 12:01:00 AM
Safe Harbor's final response....

Here is a copy of the e-mail Paul sent me:

http://sandiego.networkofcare.org/mh/home/prop63.cfm (http://sandiego.networkofcare.org/mh/home/prop63.cfm)
http://www.cimh.org/mhsa.cfm (http://www.cimh.org/mhsa.cfm)
Paul Cumming
(phone numbers omitted for security)

I personally know there IS forced drugging. My father was drugged AGAINST MY FAMILY'S WISHES almost continually in the last years of his life. I had power of attorney and the doctors drugged my father anyway, against my direct orders. One psychiatrist even went so far as to go to court to get permission, directly against and intentionally against my wishes and my family's wishes. The court (in Ventura County) also decided to take conservatorship for a couple of years, despite the fact that my father had family who cared for him, and were taking care of him. My father had Alzheimer's. He could not sign his consent. And no consent form was EVER given to me to sign. The system is very broken and needs extreme reform.

Paul is stuck on this evidence based thing. "Evidence based medicine" simply means using research studies as a guide to clinical decisions and practice. As I mentioned, that has nothing to do with Safe Harbor's decision to not
pursue government funding. If Paul wants to talk to me about how it can benefit Safe Harbor, I would be happy to listen. My e-mail is
[email protected]. He may also contact Dan Stradford at 626-791-7868 to discuss it.

Just for the record, most, if not all, alternatives we promote are indeed evidence-based medicine. We are not "turned off" by evidence base medicine.

In fact, we welcome it in any alternatives we present at our conferences. Many of the alternatives are just plain standard medical practice, which is many times ignored in favor of giving drugs without actually looking and
finding the real illness and treating the real illness appropriately.

Here is some additional data for your information from an attendee at our conference who also works in the mental health system:

"* There are over several hundred identifiable actual medical conditions which all manifest as psychiatric conditions in both children and adults.
* There are at least 48 conditions that look like ADD alone.
* There are eleven categories of medical illness involving dozens of individual diseases and conditions which manifest as anxiety. * There
are nine categories of life threatening medical illnesses that present as psychiatric emergency conditions.
* There are eight categories medical problems involving scores of conditions which mimic psychosis.

"These conditions are accessible by medical testing, and treatable with medical and support interventions.  According to the research presented, persons who present with psychiatric symptoms and conditions rarely get screened or tested further for any of these conditions before being started into a course of psychiatric medication treatment.  California reported a study showing that of all of the persons who present for public mental health treatment in a year, none were screened for other medical conditions.  This is leading to a change of their state laws for mental health treatment, professional practice act, and reimbursement.

"The voices of experience speaking as one.  The physicians and researchers speaking at this conference and the previous three annual
conferences I've attended, warned that when these conditions are observed solely through the lens of mental health assessment, 'mental health screening', or psychiatric treatment alone, the results can be disastrous, resulting not only in the potential for life long suffering but for death.  The voices of psychiatric ex-patients and survivors also warn against mandatory mental health screening.  This is one voice being heard from these two groups.

"If you are alive, you are at risk. Affecting anyone, the most vulnerable include those with limited resources of access to information and treatment options. How many of the following things which present as psychiatric disturbances might be present in the most vulnerable of our population without access to information and cause-specific screening:
*cumulative excitotoxin poisioning from artificial sweeteners and MSG type food additives - dozens of schools and hospitals are
eliminating access to these products
*environmental toxic disorders due to heavy metal and other exposures
*metabolic deficiencies related due to a prolonged diet of processed food or genetic conditions (requiring life long treatment.)
*chronic intra-cellular dehydration due to aversion of water as the fluid of choice for health in favor of the 'sexy' but dehydrating liquids taken instead (caffeine, soda, alcohol, etc)

"Do we recognize any of the above as risk factors in the persons we serve? or for ourselves for that matter?  Even with mental health screening, do we have what it takes to go further to identify, diagnose, and treat those conditions which are not mental illnesses but pretend they are before starting a person on a perilous  course?  It will take more than screening.  It will take a change of public, economic, political, and personal will."

Apparently, Paul, you have not been paying attention to the FDA requiring black box warnings on SSRI's. Or to the many studies showing that SSRI's are often no more effective than placebo and much more dangerous. They can cause violent behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide, murder, along with diabetes, liver and kidney damage, brain damage, etc. Anti-psychotics and older
psychiatric drugs are also fraught with side effects.

Also, patients and clients are not routinely given data about alternatives along with data about drugs, so it can hardly be fully informed consent. Many people seek out Safe Harbor to learn about the alternatives because they have not been able to get the data from their practitioners.

I am not interested in any further anti-religious or antagonistic rhetoric. As you know, it is nonproductive. It also indicates to me that the person degrading others has something to hide. Care to come clean, Paul?

It appears to me that you, Paul, are not paying attention to what is really going on in the world of mental health. Things are starting to change, but major changes are needed to move the system away from constant drugging and towards actually finding and treating the real illnesses people often have or helping them handle real problems. We are doing this. We have numerous success stories evidencing our help to individuals. We would welcome your help in our mission, if you sincerely want to help.

Wendy Bolt
SAFE HARBOR
787 W. Woodbury Rd., #2
Altadena, CA  91001


[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2005-06-15 21:11 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 16, 2005, 12:09:00 AM
FYI, Paul wasn't content wasting people time and attention in one forum, so he duplicated some of this discussion in another forum.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =22#110297 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10411&forum=22#110297)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 16, 2005, 11:50:00 AM
I created a forum with the subject
Safe Harbor, so that readers would
be able to find it.

No conspiricy here Deborah.

Is there a litmus tests to determine
which posts and which subjects are
a waste of time?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2005, 01:36:00 PM
So a doctor felt your decisions about your father were so adverse to his health that he actually took it to court and the judge agreed with him and gave the order?

That doesn't necessarily mean the system is broken, that just means a judgment went against you, personally.

If Paul had decided a given medication was a bad idea for his loved one and decided to withhold it, and the doctor ordered it anyway, I'd be more inclined to suspect the system was broken.

I know this has to be heavily emotionally laden for you.

But doctors go to court to order the treatment of the children of Christian Scientists all the time, when a transfusion would save the child's life and the parents won't allow it, or in other cases where a *reasonable person* would allow treatment.

The judge in the case decided you were not a reasonable person.

Maybe the system isn't broken.  Maybe the judge was just right.

We talked before, in another thread, about what an extreme minority opinion your opinions on psychoactive medications are.

And you can refuse those medications for yourself, no matter how sick you get.

But when someone with extreme minority medical opinions, and little to no medical training, tries to refuse them for someone else, I'm glad that our system allows a judge to decide whether that person is acting against a patient's interests or not, and appoint a different guardian if the judge thinks the present one *is* acting against the patient's best interests.

I don't know if you would have won if you had had the money and appealed the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court, or until some appeals court declined to hear the case.  I don't know if you *did* pursue all appeals.

I do know that just the fact that you lost your bid to make an extreme minority decisions for someone else, someone not competent to decide for himself, does not necessarily mean the system is broken.

It could just mean you are the one who's wrong.

What I think is scary is that you appear in capable of seriously considering that you might be wrong.

I'm really sorry for your pain and your loss, but if anything your story just shows how far outside the mainstream your own opinions are, and how much objective, disinterested, reasonable people---like the judge---disagree with you.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 16, 2005, 01:37:00 PM
er...incapable

T.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 20, 2005, 01:53:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-15 21:01:00, Deborah wrote:

"Safe Harbor's final response....





I am not interested in any further anti-religious or antagonistic rhetoric. As you know, it is nonproductive. It also indicates to me that the person degrading others has something to hide. Care to come clean, Paul?



Wendy Bolt

SAFE HARBOR


I was just re-reading some of this thread and noticed Wendy's challenge.

Ok, I am on the San Diego County Mental Health Board, I have Bipolar Disord, I am on meds, I have
had the most success with ECT than anything else, one time, 5 treatments and then I was able to cut down my meds dramatically. For about 15 years I sought out alternative treatments to no avail. I did meet alot of cash only practicioners who promised alot, demonized western medicine and after I learned the hard way had no success stories that where reproducable ...

OK, now for Safe Harbor to be more legitimate I would like to see there Scientology links posted on the flash page, that way when people find out they don't feel so deceived and discredit everything Safe Harbor does, even the good stuff.
That is the danger of deception, credibility.

Wendy Bolt:
http://scientologist.myhomepage.org/wen ... uccess.htm (http://scientologist.myhomepage.org/wendybolt/success.htm)

Dan Stradford, President, Owner

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/ ... 1107978563 (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/6504.html?1107978563)

"Safe Harbor --- not so safe..."
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/safe-harbo ... tology.htm (http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/safe-harbor-is-scientology.htm)

illa-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 25, 2005, 01:05:00 AM
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_repo ... R_ID=30911 (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=30911)

AMA Declines To Support Ban on DTC Prescription Drug Ads, Pending Study


Ablechild has contacted the American Medical Association to find out their position on the following questions. We encourage all to contact
Erin Woods at the American Medical Association 312-464-5926.

What is the AMA's position on forced drugging of children onto antidepressants within State Care?

What is the AMA's position on setting up a database at the Medical Examiner's office to screen suicide victims at the time of death for
antidepressant use?

What is the AMA's position on a checklist diagnosis at time of death to determine, Did this victim of suicide have access to mental health
services if so what kind?

What is the AMA's position on having all suicide deaths been given a toxicity screening and history of the start or withdrawal from antidepressants prior to death?

What is the AMA's position on informed consent relating to the Blackbox warning issued by the FDA?

What is the AMA's position on Insurance Coverage for persons know to have been taking antidepressant prior to suicide death?

What is the AMA's position on Legal Rights of the families of those who have died via suicide and confirmed to have been started on, withdrawn
from, or were using antidepressants prior to suicide death?

The AMA should be obligated to give answers to these basic questions.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 25, 2005, 11:45:00 PM
Quote

On 2005-06-24 22:05:00, Deborah wrote:

"http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=30911



AMA Declines To Support Ban on DTC Prescription Drug Ads, Pending Study
Quote


OK, I went to the link. I think everyone should read the whole article. This is an example of where just posting a link, then making a comment can create innacuracies.

First, I don't think Deborah read the article because there is another issue in there that she
would have really been upset about.

Second, it turns out that the delay in the final vote on the ban recommendation by the AMA is that
their sub-committee had a legal question of a first ammendment nature.

I say, let them figure it out, then check out their rationale. Or hey, at least tell the readers in your post Deborah, what the stated reason was!

Regarding your referral to the article and posting
a list of questions send by ablechild.org. I couldn't find those questions on their website, nor what was the official reason for doing so.

Could you post your source for those questions?

Thank you!

Paul
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 26, 2005, 02:41:00 PM
If you're interested in receiving information from Ablechild I guess you should sign up to receive their press releases/newsletters.

Nothing 'inaccurate' about:
AMA Declines To Support Ban on DTC Prescription Drug Ads, Pending Study

'Stated reason'... Pending Study
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 26, 2005, 11:23:00 PM
http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm ... topicid=55 (http://www.medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=1225&topicid=55)

AMA Supports Use of SSRIs for Treating Teen Depression

By Peggy Peck, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
June 21, 2005

CHICAGO, June 21-The American Medical Association agreed today that antidepressants such as Prozac (fluoxetine) are safe and effective therapies for
treating depression in teenagers.


http://www.boston.com/business/technolo ... 5/06/09/su (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/biotechnology/articles/2005/06/09/su)
rveyed_scientists_admit_misconduct/

Surveyed scientists admit misconduct
One-third cite research tactics
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff  |  June 9, 2005

A third of American biomedical scientists have engaged in questionable research practices, according to survey results released yesterday that raise questions about the integrity of the nation's multibillion-dollar quest to understand the human body and cure diseases.
[IF A THIRD ARE OPENLY ADMITTING MISCONDUCT, HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT?]

The study, based on a survey of about 3,000 government-funded scientists, is the first broad, quantitative examination of misconduct that asked researchers to admit their own misdeeds. The scientists, who participated anonymously, were asked whether they had done any of 33 actions in the three years before the 2002 survey. Asked about the most serious misconduct, 0.3 percent said they had falsified data, and 1.4 percent said they had used another's ideas without
gaining permission or giving credit. In addition, 15.5 percent said they had changed how they conducted an experiment or its results in response to pressure from a funding source, raising the prospect that companies are influencing scientific papers to support their commercial interests. The scientists also
admitted a range of other misdeeds, such as circumventing the rules on using human subjects in experiments, and not properly disclosing ties with companies.

''We found a striking level and breadth of misbehavior," said lead author Brian C. Martinson, a researcher at HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis. ''I think this really causes us to call into question the assumption that it is just a few bad apples."

There is no way, said Martinson, to gauge how much of the nation's research was compromised by the misconduct. And several specialists on scientific conduct said that it was difficult to know from the study how common scientific
misbehavior is because many of the questions were worded vaguely, and could include behavior that is not objectionable. For example, a scientist might have changed the design of an experiment after a legitimate suggestion from a government funding source.

But the specialists welcomed the work, which was published in the journal Nature, saying more research like it is needed at a time when science is becoming increasingly commercialized.

Trust and integrity lie at the heart of the scientific process, with published experimental results making careers, determining whether scientists win research grants, and shaping spending priorities in the nearly $30 billion budget of the National Institutes of Health. At a time when scandals have shaken the worlds of business, politics, and journalism, the authors of the new report said that similar factors -- such as intense competition and human failings such as greed and cynicism -- threaten the fundamental working of science. They said the problem goes well beyond the egregious cases that the government is authorized to investigate.

Editors of prominent medical journals have been increasingly vocal about financial conflicts of interest that they say are hampering science, causing researchers to hype positive results and downplay negative ones. Yet the topic of
misconduct tends to make scientists uneasy, and that has led to a dearth of research on the subject.

''I think this is a very important step," said C. K. Gunsalus, a special counsel at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and one of the nation's leading specialists on research integrity. ''The discomfort means that we don't like to talk about it, and that means we don't have good data."

Surveying misconduct was controversial even before the current study was done. In 2002, the US government's Office of Research Integrity proposed conducting a survey of scientific misconduct, but several scientific groups, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, objected. They said that the survey questions were vague and might be misused, and that the federal government's role should be restricted to policing fabrication, alsification, and plagiarism.

The government study was eventually canceled, and that same year the editors of Nature harshly criticized the scientific groups for their role in stopping it, saying they gave ''a good impersonation of aged, out-of-touch special
interests with something to hide."

The survey reported yesterday was done with government funding, including money from the Office of Research Integrity, but it was conducted by an independent scientific team. An official with the Association of American Medical
Colleges, which represents some of the nation's leading biomedical research institutions, said the group had no objection to the survey being done this way, but she declined to comment on the results of the study, saying she had not had time to review it carefully.

Martinson said his team designed the survey based on interviews with scientists about the kinds of misbehavior they believe are most common. In these interviews, he said, he was surprised at how candid scientists were in describing a wide range of problems. Some said they felt guilty crossing ethical lines, but that they needed to in order to succeed. One scientist, he said, described coming across a case where his own work had been systematically plagiarized, but the scientist did not report it because the person who had done it was a powerful figure in the field.

The team designated 10 of the behaviors as the most serious types of misconduct, based on interviews with officials at universities who oversee research integrity. Thirty-three percent of scientists admitted to at least one of these
10 behaviors in the three years before the survey, according to the paper.

In the report, titled ''Scientists Behaving Badly," the most common misbehavior was MAKING CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO PRESSURE FROM A FUNDER. There have been cases, now public, where drug firms have pressured scientists to rewrite or not
publish papers because they would harm the market for one of their products. [ANY SURPRISE THERE?]

Two of the most common practices found in the survey are likely to raise red flags because they hint at a breakdown of the basic checks and balances that are supposed to correct the scientific record. Of the scientists surveyed, 12.5 percent admitted to ''overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data," and 6 percent admitted to ''failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research." The paper also reported other
behaviors beyond what it called the ''top 10" most serious offenses. Ten percent admitted to ''inappropriately assigning authorship credit" and 15.3 percent admitted to ''dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

But because of the vagueness of many of the questions, it is impossible to know how serious an infraction the scientists were admitting to, or even if it was an infraction, said Dr. Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association who has been a longtime advocate for more study of misconduct. Rennie said that he welcomed the work and hoped there would now be more rigorous study of the issue.

Another problem, Rennie and others said, is that the survey relies on scientists to report on themselves, and even with the promise of anonymity, the results depend on the honesty of the people filling it out. Also, only about half
of the scientists responded to the survey, which was mailed.

Martinson said that he agreed there were flaws in the study, but that he hoped it would inspire more discussion of the problem.

''I don't have all the answers," Martinson said. ''What I think I have here is some evidence that suggests we need to begin a more broad-based
conversation."

Gareth Cook can be reached at [email protected]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 27, 2005, 09:10:00 AM
Deborah, for the record, what's your position on Scientology?

I think people who would consider what you have to say have a right to know.

Or, alternately, if you won't say, they have a right to know that, too.

My position on Scientology is that it's a dangerous cult that destroys lives.

This would, of course, affect my opinion about ablechild.org, which has been alleged to be yet another Scientology front group.

Tom Cruise has very similar positions to yours on psychiatry.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 27, 2005, 03:24:00 PM
Who alleged that Ablechild is a front group for scientology? How are you using 'front'? Have you/they contacted them, or are you content to perpetrate the rumor?

Tom Cruise, and many, many others.
According to Belief-O-Matic, I appear to have about 47% similar values, beliefs as Scientologists.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#47317 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5330&forum=22&start=0#47317)
Take the test yourself and post the results in that thread.

I appreciated Cruise's efforts in NY after 911. I don't think that supplements and saunas killed any of the workers, ill from exposure to heavy toxins. Having Native anscestory, I may appreciate supplements and saunas more than others. Based on what I've read, I support their 'alternative protocols' in general, to some degree or another, which probably accounts for the 47% similarity in values/beliefs.

I know nothing about their program for reading difficulties. If it works as Cruise claims, then I think someone should take a look at it. I don't care who created it, if it's useful and doesn't do harm, them implement it. We know that Phonics is very useful. Why isn't it available to all public school kids? If you analyze the system, in the end you have to ask the question, "is government really interested in what's best for kids"? I have concluded that the answer is NO.

What I don't know about Scientology far outweighs what I know. I have nothing to contribute about what goes on on a national/global level. Ultimately, I don't get very involved in what consenting adults choose to do, therefore have not put much time at all into researching the topic.

What I DO know is that while living in an alternative mecca for 20 years, a number of Scientologists crossed my path socially. One neighbor was a scientologist. What I know of them is that they were good people, law abiding, family oriented, had jobs of integrity. My neighbor was a really cool guy who I enjoyed hanging with. I was never 'preached' to or recruited- can't say that about cristians. I can not speak to the allegations of abuse, holding people against their will, etc. etc. I did not witness that or feel that the people I knew were in any way being held against their will, any more than any other religious person of whatever persuasion. Doesn't mean it's so. They appeared to be happy, reasonable, and rational people who functioned with more integrity than most of the christians I've had the displeasure of encountering.

While I know little about the specific beliefs of the religion, I know more about CCHR. I support their efforts in terms of exposing the ills of psychiatry and in aiding those who have been harmed by the industry. I am not alone:
http://www.cchr.org/what/endorsements/index.htm (http://www.cchr.org/what/endorsements/index.htm)

They have done a wonderful job researching and if not for them, I doubt the Hartford Courant?s five-part expose "Deadly Restraint" (which is frequently cited here) would have ever been published.

Bottomline, there's good and bad everywhere. If you want to compare the bad of christianity with the bad of scientology, that might be a interesting endeavor. I personally believe that christians have been and still are the most violent people on the planet, responsible for wiping out millions of people, overtly and convertly, and still going strong. And at the risk of being shot dead on the spot, I think they are far more dangerous- generally speaking- than scientologists, based strictly on my experience. They definitely meet the criteria of a malignant cult, as do public schools and other institutions where people are captive audiences, by law or fear, and covertly told what to believe/think.

You might find what you're looking for here:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =10#107818 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10271&forum=9&start=10#107818)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =10#107866 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10271&forum=9&start=10#107866)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 190#108674 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=190#108674)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =50#112761 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10408&forum=22&start=50#112761)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =50#112882 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10408&forum=22&start=50#112882)

And a few on my opinion of organized religion/psychiatry in general. The first is my favorite on the ills of the two:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#65038 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6961&forum=9&start=0#65038)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#65238 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6976&forum=9&start=0#65238)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =100#83921 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=100#83921)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#22685 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3216&forum=9&start=10#22685)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#17791 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2825&forum=9&start=0#17791)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#20284 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3017&forum=9&start=0#20284)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#20372 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3017&forum=9&start=10#20372)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#32874 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4154&forum=9&start=30#32874)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#45444 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5173&forum=32&start=0#45444)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#47152 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5242&forum=9&start=30#47152)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=40#56172 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3310&forum=9&start=40#56172)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 27, 2005, 05:00:00 PM
I think the difference is that the COS is a dangerous mind control cult. Most Christian groups in the US and abroad are for community, worship, and guidance, and believe in free will.  I've never been to a church that incorporated brainwashing techniques and subliminal electro-shock "therapy" not excluding the extermination of members that want to leave the church.  :scared:

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys

--P.J. O'Rourke



_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 27, 2005, 06:52:00 PM
Quote




You might find what you're looking for here:

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =10#107818 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10271&forum=9&start=10#107818)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =10#107866 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10271&forum=9&start=10#107866)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 190#108674 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=190#108674)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =50#112761 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10408&forum=22&start=50#112761)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =50#112882 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10408&forum=22&start=50#112882)



And a few on my opinion of organized religion/psychiatry in general. The first is my favorite on the ills of the two:

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#65038 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6961&forum=9&start=0#65038)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#65238 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6976&forum=9&start=0#65238)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =100#83921 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=100#83921)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#22685 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3216&forum=9&start=10#22685)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#17791 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2825&forum=9&start=0#17791)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#20284 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3017&forum=9&start=0#20284)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#20372 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3017&forum=9&start=10#20372)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#32874 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4154&forum=9&start=30#32874)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#45444 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5173&forum=32&start=0#45444)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#47152 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5242&forum=9&start=30#47152)

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=40#56172 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3310&forum=9&start=40#56172)

"


Ginger, is this recource flooding?

Deborah, can't you prove your point succinctly?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 27, 2005, 08:39:00 PM
NBC News Transcripts
SHOW: Today 7:00 AM EST NBC
June 27, 2005 Monday

HEADLINE: Dr. Steven Shafstein and Dr. Joseph Glenmullen discuss debate over antidepressants sparked by Tom Cruise's statements

ANCHORS: KATIE COURIC, MATT LAUER, MATT LAUER, NATALIE MORALES
REPORTERS: AL ROKER
KATIE COURIC, co-host:

We're back at 7:41. Tom Cruise raised a lot of eyebrows last week when he slammed mental health treatments in this country, including the use of antidepressants. Here's another look at what he had to say to Matt.

Mr. TOM CRUISE: I have never agreed with psychiatry, ever. Psychiatry is--is is a pseudo-science. Here we are today, where I talk out against drugs and the psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people...

MATT LAUER, co-host:

Mm-hmm.

Mr. CRUISE: ...OK? Against their will. Of drugging children, with them not knowing the effects of these drugs. Do you know what Adderall is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that? (Unintelligible)...

LAUER: I understand there's abuse of all of these things.

Mr. CRUISE: No, you see, here's the problem. You don't know the history psychiatry. I do. All it does is mask the problem, Matt. That's what it does. That's all it does. You're not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in a body.

LAUER: So postpartum depression, to you, is--is...

Mr. CRUISE: Matt...

LAUER: ...kind of psychological...

Mr. CRUISE: ...don't...

LAUER: ...gobbledy-gook?

Mr. CRUISE: No. But what happens is that the antidepressant, all it does is mask the problem. There's ways of vitamins and through exercise and various things. I'm not saying that that isn't real. That's not what I'm saying. That's an alteration of what--what I'm saying. I'm saying that drugs aren't the answer. That these--these drugs are very dangerous. They're mind-altering, antipsychotic drugs, and there are ways of doing it without that, so that we don't end up in a brave new world.

COURIC: Dr. Steve--Steven Sharfstein is president of the American Psychiatric Association and Dr. Joseph Glenmullen is a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and author of the book "The Antidepressant Solution."

Gentlemen, good morning. Nice to see you both.

Dr. STEVEN SHARFSTEIN (President, American Psychiatric Association): Good morning.

Dr. JOSEPH GLENMULLEN (Harvard Medical School): Nice to see you.

COURIC: All right, lots to tackle here, and let me start with you, Dr. Sharfstein. Tom Cruise's statement--he says drugs are never the answer, basically, when it comes to psychological and behavioral problems. What do you make of what he had to say about this?

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: Well, Mr. Cruise may be a halfway decent actor, but when he starts to play doctor, he's being totally irresponsible. This is--his statement crossed the line, especially when he took after Brooke Shields, who came forward and described a true, important, medical psychiatric condition, postpartum depression, and her treatment for it, and said that she needed diet and exercise for that. That, I think, is a disservice not only to her, but to psychiatric patients across the country.

COURIC: Doctor Glenmullen, you've written two books, I know, about antidepressants. What do you make of his assertion that they're dangerous, and really should never be prescribed?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Well, I don't agree with everything that Tom said, and I--I'm a psychiatrist, I prescribe the drugs myself, but I think there's a middle ground here. I'm very much a moderate in the debate. And I think we don't want to lose sight of the fact that he did, in fact, raise some very important issues.

COURIC: Like what? What do you think is important?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Ritalin. Ritalin and Adderall are being used as street drugs.

COURIC: But so are some painkillers, to be perfectly honest. Does that mean that painkillers shouldn't be prescribed?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: But--but patients should be told. They should be told when they start these drugs. Psychiatric drugs can mask the real problems. Psychiatric drugs are being overprescribed. He's right when he actually says that there are no proven biochemical imbalances. [Damn, straight from the Harvard shrink. I guess that proves that the the 'anti propoganda' is not generated by scientology.] Everyone's shocked by that, but it's true, and we don't want to lose sight of the very real issues that he's raised.

COURIC: Well, let me talk to Dr. Sharfstein about that. What about--he said there's no such thing as a chemical imbalance. Tell us your reaction to that.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: Well, that's total nonsense. It belies the last 20 years of incredible breakthroughs in neuroscience and our understanding of how the brain works, and the fact that the medications that we use are very helpful--often very helpful. [Not the point buddy. Where's the beef? Serve up the research that proves biochemical imbalance. And then prove the research is unbiased and conducted with the utmost integrity.] I also take the middle ground.  :lol: Obviously, often these medications are overprescribed. But also, I think they're underprescribed because there are many people out there who have not come forward for treatment who could benefit from the medication.

COURIC: I just have to, Dr. Glenmullen, ask you, if you believe--if you agree with him there's no such thing as a chemical...

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Right.

COURIC: ...brain imbalance...

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Right.

COURIC: ...then why are you prescribing antidepressants?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Well, they clearly help. I've seen them help patients. There are studies that show they help, but...

COURIC: Well, obviously, are they helping with brain chemistry?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Well, we don't know that. It's never been proven. [How many times must the man say it. I appreciate his honesty.] Do you know that the FDAs in other countries have actually banned pharmaceutical companies and doctors from making that claim because it's actually never been proven. So it's misleading to tell a patient, `You have an biochemical imbalance. This drug is going to correct that imbalance.' It's in TV ads, it's in magazine ads. It's said all the time in doctor's offices. That's why people--millions of people are shocked by what Tom Cruise said, but that is actually true.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: I disagree. [Then serve up the proof Dr. Sharfstein.] And this is the kind of scientific debate that we are having within the field of psychiatry that's constructive. That's very different than Mr. Cruise's assertions, which I think are destructive.

COURIC: What about the whole notion of vitamins and exercise? Does he have a point that there are alternatives to medication?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Absolutely. There is an excellent study comparing, for example, the antidepressant Zoloft to exercise for mild to moderate depression. Same kind of studies that are used to study the drugs for approval for FDA, and exercise was as good as Zoloft head-to-head in a study. Now, if you're are severely depressed, you may not have the energy to exercise. But once you're feeling a little bit better, maybe on an antidepressant, exercise can be one of the best ways to help you wean off an antidepressant.

COURIC: Do you agree with that?

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: I certainly do. I--I'm very much in favor of exercise. But as Dr. Glenmullen said, and this is where we certainly agree, that when you get--are severely depressed, medications are very important.

COURIC: Let's talk about Ritalin and Adderall, because not only did he talk about antidepressants, he talked about medications that have been used for millions of kid for ADD and ADHD. And--and do you think that there are--that there's any useful purpose? Again, I think we can even state they're over-prescribed, perhaps. Maybe doctors turn to them too quickly. Having said that, do they have any value?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Oh, absolutely. Again, the middle ground is really the place to come on this. So there's no question that some children are so hyperactive that they really can't benefit from school. They can't take information in. But at the same time, it's also true that many children who get these drugs, it's because the classroom is too big and there aren't enough teachers, and maybe the family situation is a little out of control, and they need help and support and therapy, maybe, instead of the drugs. So again, we just need to strike a middle ground. You know, Katie, these are not black and white issues.

COURIC: Right.

Dr. GLENMULLEN: And it's very important not try and limit them to black and white.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: You know, kids with attention deficit disorder need more than the medications. They need psychotherapy. They need family interventions, work with the teachers. But just ask any parent of a child with attention deficit disorder, and they will tell you how important these medications are.

COURIC: But also therapy is so important, too. And when Tom Cruise says these medications sometimes mask the cause, too often doctors these days are doling out antidepressants or some things like Ritalin and Adderall and other drugs without the necessary counseling to kind of work with kids on issues that can't be cured with a pill, right?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Absolutely. And you know, people get very passionate about this. You know, if you took a hundred people who went on an antidepressant and felt better, the science shows that 75 to 85 of them would have had the same thing happen on a sugar bill--if they were given a sugar pill...[Damn, that's significant!! How bout they give the teens who are dx'd with depression via Teen Screen the sugar pill. They are so suggestable, it might work for 100% of them.]

COURIC: A placebo.

Dr. GLENMULLEN: ...and they didn't know it was a placebo. The placebo effect is very powerful. It's very persuasive. People really feel, `Wow, this really helped me.' So, again, we need to just educate people so they can make truly informed choices. [Now THAT sounds like the middle ground. Don't lie to people. Inform them about all potential adverse affects, advise them of alternatives. Try the placebo. If it doesn't work, then present the option of drugs. Perhaps the APA should demand this of all shrinkydinks, and those found in violation loose their license.]

COURIC: And really have a more balanced view of this, but not necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.

Dr. GLENMULLEN: No, no. No. Absolutely. Again, a moderate position. They help many, many people, but they also are over-prescribed. They have side effects that people aren't often told about. They have dangers that people aren't often told about. And there are, as you said, alternatives.

COURIC: When you say dangers, real quickly, what do you mean?

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Well, for example, with antidepressants, we now have a warning that they can make people suicidal. People gain 20, 30, 40 pounds of weight. [Go on. Don't stop there.]

COURIC: And very quickly...

Dr. GLENMULLEN: People have severe withdrawal. Serious side effects. [Death 'is' a pretty serious side effect.]

COURIC: We're almost out of time. I'm so sorry. But Dr. Sharfstein, I have to give you the last word with about 10 seconds to go.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: Well, I believe that antidepressants save lives. I've treated patients for over 30 years. I've seen how useful they are. I think if you need it, you ought to take it. I think that's really critical.

COURIC: But also be educated about it, I think.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: Be educated about it. You know the reason people get pills these days and not therapy is because of--of the insurance. And...

COURIC: And that's a whole 'nother can of worms, which we can't talk about this morning. Dr. Glenmullen, Dr. Sharfstein, thank you both so much.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: Thank you.

Dr. GLENMULLEN: Thank you for having us.

Dr. SHARFSTEIN: My pleasure.

COURIC: You're welcome.

And we'll be back with more of TODAY right after this.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 27, 2005, 08:54:00 PM
GREAT post. You know, as I started reading the transcript and I noticed the two guests, I really was starting to wonder why Deborah of all people had posted this. Head of the American Psychiatry Association, I thought for sure he would portray Cruise an idiot, and talk about how wonderful medications are. I mean, that is basically what psychiatry has become is it not, prescribing meds? (at least in my experience) I tried a lot of anti-depressants, and I never felt a thing. Accept to my pocketbook that is.

Personally, I think Cruise is a freak. But he has a few good points. The way parents prescribe meds to their children is shocking to me. I don't think children should be forced to mend into a uniform schooling system by drugging them. This is Orwellian scary if you ask me. If anything, the schooling system should be changed to adapt to the needs of children.

I've met people with the needs for meds (voices, hallucinations, etc) but I still can't believe they admit they haven't scientifcally proven the 'chemical imbalance' theory. I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I had a chemical imbalance by a psychiatrist. Insanity I tell you.

Thanks for the good read!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 27, 2005, 09:59:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-27 17:54:00, Anonymous wrote:




I've met people with the needs for meds (voices, hallucinations, etc) but I still can't believe they admit they haven't scientifcally proven the 'chemical imbalance' theory.





Look at any PDR, it states action unkown on many medications, not just psychotropics.

On a short sound bite type interview, it is difficult to explain it more thoroughly.

These medications do have a reproducible effect.

I don't think Science has ever stated we are done here.

If you want to wait until there is further proof that is satisfactory to you, then wait, your choice.

***

I am glad Deborah was able to post the whole interview without being accused of flooding.

If I can find the original interview, I will post it.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 27, 2005, 10:14:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-27 17:54:00, Anonymous wrote:


I thought for sure he would portray Cruise an idiot, and talk about how wonderful medications are.



You might have noticed the psychiatrist allowing Tom to have his own opinion.

That is not the problem here, it is Tom's invalidating Brook Shield's choice of taking
her own remedy for depression, as well as others.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 27, 2005, 10:15:00 PM
Please note, it is not that Tom Cruise has an opion on what what mental illness is, or is not, it is that he is invalidating others choices ...

***

Today on Today: Tom Cruise Takes On Matt Lauer?s Thetans
Filed under Culture : Today Show
With Katie Holmes supportively sitting nearby, today?s Today show forced poor Matt Lauer to sit down for a taped interview with Tom Cruise, more of which will air on Monday. But we can?t imagine Monday will get much better than today?s segment; as Lauer put it, things ?got a little tense? when Tom was asked about his anti-psychiatric views:

Tom: [with patented ferocity] Do you know what Adderall is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? [Ed: Oh, har har. We?re on Ritalin right now.]
Matt: I understand the abuse of all these things ?
T: [interrupting] Yeah but you don?t understand the history of these drugs. And if you do, you know that it masks the problem. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance!
M: But ?
T: No, Matt, I know these things ?
M: No ?
T: Listen ?
[This continues for a few moments and we stop listening.]
M: So, depression ? is it all gobbledy gook?

T: No, Matt, I?m not saying that. That?s an alteration of what I?m saying. These drugs are dangerous, mind-altering chemicals. There are ways of handling these problems so that we don?t end up in a Brave New World.
M: You want [other people] to do well, but you want them to do well on a road that you approve of.
T: No ?
M: [interrupting] But if anti-depressants worked for Brooke Shields, isn?t that okay?
T: I disagree with it.
M: But aren?t there examples where it works?
T: You don?t even know what Ritalin is! If you read the papers on how they came up with the drug, the dosage? You should be more responsible in knowing what it is. I am responsible. I know these things.
M: You?re saying that you know how it affected people you don?t know, but I do? You?re now telling me that what has and hasn?t worked for people I know, and I?m telling you I lived with these people and I saw an improvement.
T: So you?re advocating?
M: No, I?m not. I?m just saying that in their individual cases, it helped them? We could go in circles on this matter. But do you want more people to understand Scientology? Is that a goal of yours?
T: Of course. And I don?t talk about things I don?t understand.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 27, 2005, 10:36:00 PM
Neurologist Dr. Fred Baughman http://www.adhdfraud.com/ (http://www.adhdfraud.com/) weighs in:

Fred Baughman <> wrote:
Today, 6/27/05, in an interview on the Today Show (in follow-up to the previous Cruise Matt Lauer interview in which Mr. Cruise called psychiatry "pseudoscience")  Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, a Harvard psychiatrist confirmed
that while ads and, routinely, psychiatrist/ physician encounters portray psychiatric disorders/diagnoses as chemical imbalances, i.e.,
diseases--something abnormal within the brain of the child, none of them are--not a single one, not even schizophrenia or the psychoses, much less
ADHD or any childhood disorder.  

Psychiatrist Steven Sharfstein of the American Psychiatric Association had no comeback for this, most damning of disclosures, but went on talking of them just as though they were (chemical
imbalances) just as though they needed, required, justified chemical balancers--psychiatric drugs.  Mr. Cruise rightly said that the drugs cover
up, mask real-life situational challenges leading to behaviorial and emotional reactions, and right he is.  But, most importantly of all, every
drug--psychiatric drugs included--is a foreign compound--a poison.  They mask emotional and behavioral reactions by damaging the brain both short-and long-term with virtually all of them inflicting permanent brain damage in time...but of course they do not do long term studies so they don't know and the public doesn't know or find out for years when post-marketing
surveillance makes it impossible to hide the injuries and deaths as we saw recent with Adderall (Canada Health but not the FDA taking it off of the market), and, with thalidomide, Vioxx, Rezulin, Baycol, and others.

The main point about the "chemical imbalance" lie is that virtually all parents, parent surrogates (judges) and thus patients in psychiatry/mental
health are thus robbed of their right to informed consent, making them involutary conscripts, pawns, victims--usually for life as it turns out in US mental health today.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 12:37:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-27 19:36:00, Deborah wrote:

"Neurologist Dr. Fred Baughman http://www.adhdfraud.com/ (http://www.adhdfraud.com/) weighs in:




OK, Deborah, it appears from here:
http://www.google.com/search?biw=791&hl ... gle+Search (http://www.google.com/search?biw=791&hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adhdfraud.com%2F+scientology&btnG=Google+Search)

That you have been relentless on this issue since at least 2003, wow, and you have no invovement?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 12:43:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-27 17:54:00, Anonymous wrote:

"GREAT post. You know, as I started reading the transcript and I noticed the two guests, I really was starting to wonder why Deborah of all people had posted this. Head of the American Psychiatry Association, I thought for sure he would portray Cruise an idiot, and talk about how wonderful medications are. I mean, that is basically what psychiatry has become is it not, prescribing meds? (at least in my experience) I tried a lot of anti-depressants, and I never felt a thing. Accept to my pocketbook that is.



Personally, I think Cruise is a freak. But he has a few good points. The way parents prescribe meds to their children is shocking to me. I don't think children should be forced to mend into a uniform schooling system by drugging them. This is Orwellian scary if you ask me. If anything, the schooling system should be changed to adapt to the needs of children.



I've met people with the needs for meds (voices, hallucinations, etc) but I still can't believe they admit they haven't scientifcally proven the 'chemical imbalance' theory. I can't tell you the number of times I've been told I had a chemical imbalance by a psychiatrist. Insanity I tell you.



Thanks for the good read!"


To view the interview, go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375594/#MoreCruise (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375594/#MoreCruise)

Then scan down and click the blue highlighted:
"Click here to watch video of the counter debate over anti-depressants and psychiatry."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 08:27:00 AM
The Mental Health Community Responds to Tom Cruise?s Today Show Interview

?While we respect the right of individuals to express their own points of view, they are not entitled to their own facts.  Mental illnesses are real medical conditions that affect millions of Americans.  

FACT:   Over the past five years, the nation has more than doubled its investment in the study of the human brain and behavior, leading to a vastly expanded understanding of postpartum depression, bipolar disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Much of this research has been conducted by the National Institutes of Health and the nation?s leading academic institutions.

FACT:   Safe and effective treatments are available and may include talk therapy, medication or a combination of the two.  Rigorous, published, peer-reviewed research clearly demonstrates that treatment works.

FACT:   Medications can be an important and even life-saving part of a comprehensive and individualized treatment plan.  As in other areas of medicine, medications are a safe and effective way to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans who have mental health concerns.  

FACT:   Mental health is a critical ingredient of overall health.  It is unfortunate that in the face of this remarkable scientific and clinical progress that a small number of individuals and groups persist in questioning its legitimacy.

FACT:   Mental illnesses are highly treatable and seeking help is a sign of strength.  

It is irresponsible for Mr. Cruise to use his movie publicity tour to promote his own ideological views and deter people with mental illness from getting the care they need.?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 08:29:00 AM
War of the Words: Tom Cruise's Messages on the Today Show Perpetuate Fear and Misinformation

A Statement by Michael M. Faenza, MSSW, President and CEO of NMHA

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (June 24, 2005) - Tom Cruise's destructive, anti-mental health comments on the Today Show this morning -- and over the course of the last few weeks -- fuel an already intense stigma associated with mental illness that can force people with real needs to go without care.

Each year, 54 million Americans experience a mental illness, such as depression or an anxiety disorder. Yet, only one-third receive any treatment at all despite very high treatment success rates. In fact, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health wrote in its final report, "Mental illnesses are shockingly common; they affect almost every American family." Clearly, the real crisis facing our nation is not that we over- or mistreat people, but that we fail to meet basic needs of most Americans living with mental health problems. The gap between the number of adults and children with mental health needs and those receiving treatment will certainly widen if people are dissuaded from seeking treatment because of such visible misinformation.

Cruise's comments could have very damaging consequences for American with mental health needs by increasing stigma and shame, discouraging treatment and forcing people to go without needed care. Celebrities, like Cruise, have an organic platform to share their talents and their viewpoints. However, this opportunity comes hand-in-hand with a responsibility to not mislead the American public with unfounded rhetoric.

The National Mental Health Association is the country´s oldest and largest nonprofit organization addressing all aspects of mental health and mental illness. With more than 340 affiliates nationwide, NMHA works to improve the mental health of all Americans through advocacy, education, research and service.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 08:57:00 AM
Tom Cruise is a brainwashed spokesman for the COS. I saw that TS interview and I think even Matt Lauer thought he was a kook.

To quote Tom, "Psychiatry does not work." And basically went on to say how he knows a better way?

Yeah, sure... Let's all just get subliminal electro-shock treatment for painful past memories or to excel in tennis or math... Sure.  :roll:
 

It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.
--Arthur C. Clarke, author

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 28, 2005, 09:09:00 AM
"Chemical imbalance" is a gross oversimplification professionals use to explain some very complicated neurobiology to laymen.

Strictly speaking, it's accurate, and proven, for certain problems.

There are multiple studies showing that people with certain mental health problems have different amounts of certain neurotransmitters in certain areas of their brain and/or spinal cord relative to normal people.

When professionals say "chemical imbalance" to laymen what they're really referring to is the whole host of things that can biochemically happen *differently* at the synapse where a dendrite almost meets an axon, in a mentally ill person, than they would happen in a mentally healthy person.

Those differences can include anything from differences in the amounts--the balances---of the various chemicals, different rates of reuptake, and blockages at the receptor sites on the axon side of the synapse.

People who say there's not *substantial* evidence that the synapses and/or neurotransmitter balance and action between them--the whole synaptic picture--doesn't have some differences in people with certain illnesses versus in people without them---are flat wrong.

This would be like some "skeptic" saying I'm wrong about computers when I talk about little ones and zeros in the computers making all the programming, and data, and decisions.

In the sense that there are no *actual* little written-down ones and zeros, written down as digit one and digit zero, all the way down in the chips and the disks, etc., sure, they're "right."

But in the sense that talking about little ones and zeros is just a gross oversimplification for laymen who aren't really up for the gory details of circuitry at the bit level, the "skeptic" is either disingenuous, or a dupe, or a moron.

Also, "chemical imbalance" has continued to be shorthand for giving a brief description to a patient even though all sorts of *other* gory details of neurobiology are doing their thing in the brain with people who aren't normal upstairs.  There's everything from differences in blood flow to various areas, to lesions on various parts of the brain (in ADHD), to brain damage from knocks on the head or street drugs, to differences in the glial cells that form the "insulation" in the brain, to the buildup of plaques in Alzheimers patients.  And, of course, it doesn't help that genetic differences can affect things all over your whole body, and while medical science may have found some effects now, it may not have found other effects yet.

The cellular protein a particular gene codes for can frequently do a lot more than one thing.  A single changed protein can make multiple separate changes in an organism's biology.

As an example, blue-eyed white cats are deaf.  Odd-eyed white cats with only *one* blue eye can hear.  Cats with fur color but blue eyes can hear.  The protein for fur and eye pigment in cats obviously does something else, too.

Biology, neurobiology, gene biology, microbiology---it's all complicated as all hell, and doctors have to have short, oversimplified explanations for all that complicated biology that they can give a patient in five minutes or less---because a lot of times that's all the patient has the brains or time or interest for.

A patient with the brains or time or interest for more can always go back to college and take classes in neurology, psychology, genetics, and microbiology.

Cruise *says* he's read the scientific literature, but all I can say is that he's obviously another fluffhead who didn't understand what he read.

I say that not because he disagrees with me.  I've had all sorts of people disagree with me on matters from computers to criminology to psychology to chemistry.  When you know a certain amount about a highly technical subject, you can tell when someone else is a genuine expert, or a genuine educated layman, or when they're yet another idiot who may have plowed through a certain amount of literature, quack and real, but didn't actually understand what they read.

"I'm not an idiot, idiots don't read Nietzche!"

"Yes, they do.  Idiots just don't understand him."

--A Fish Called Wanda

Cruise is just another idiot.  Or, to put it more politely, a seriously misguided layman with comprehension deficits.

Not because he disagrees with me, but because what he says shows he didn't understand whatever literature he claims to have read.

I've been disagreed with by the best of them.  That doesn't include Cruise.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 11:41:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-28 06:09:00, Anonymous wrote:

""Chemical imbalance" is a gross oversimplification professionals use to explain some very complicated neurobiology to laymen.



Strictly speaking, it's accurate, and proven, for certain problems.

"


Timoclea,

I don't have the ability to comprehend the neurobiology adequately, nor do I write
that well.

As I said before, I am just an advocate who
refers people to the best resources that I
know.

I am going to save this post for just such
a referral, or rather reference.

Thanks,

Paul
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 11:59:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-28 05:57:00, 001010 wrote:



To quote Tom, "Psychiatry does not work." And basically went on to say how he knows a better way?



"


I am surprised at how few people get that it is not his belief in Scientology that is making him look like a fool, but his invalidating others experiences.

I guess it would be safe to say that the COS attracts the same type of people as its founder. Therefore nothing will change, they will just be an annoyance and a creepy, semi-clandestine influence on things we may or may not realize.

That is why, yes Deborah - you, it is important to be courteous and post the scientology connection to your referneces.

If they didn't intentionally create front groups and have followers who do not admit to being Scientologists then making the connection for your readers would not be necessary!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 12:22:00 PM
Note: I am posting this whole testimonial, all 2,749 words, because after noting that since at least 2003 Deborah and Ginger have been relentless in their posts against psychiatry, I feel the need for some balance. IMHO it appears that Ginger and Deborah have been a defacto one, two punch on this issue. This is a 2004 testimony but it hits on all current topics ...

If you don't like this kind of input to balance the bias trends on Fornit's then I imagine this post will be called a flood, if you like to hear both sides of an issue, and would like to hear more from the current mental health system in the US today then you will probably call this information.

After seeing the voluminous posts that certainly would qualify as flooding as explained to me by Ginger allowed over the years on Fornit's I am not going to apologize for this post.

---

LINK

Statement of Margaret Stout on Behalf of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education and Related Agencies
April 28, 2004

Chairman Regula, Representative Obey and members of the Subcommittee, I am Margaret Stout of Johnston, Iowa. I current serve as President of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) and Executive Director of NAMI?s statewide Iowa affiliate. I am pleased to offer NAMI?s view on the Subcommittee?s FY 2005 bill.

NAMI is the nation?s largest grassroots advocacy organization, 220,000 members representing persons with serious brain disorders and their families. Through our 1,200 chapters and affiliates in all 50 states, we support education, outreach, advocacy and research on behalf of persons with serious brain disorders such as schizophrenia, manic depressive illness, major depression, severe anxiety disorders and major mental illnesses affecting children.

Mr. Chairman, for too long severe mental illness has been shrouded in stigma and discrimination. These illnesses have been misunderstood, feared, hidden, and often ignored by science. Only in the last decade have we seen the first real hope for people with these brain disorders through pioneering research that has uncovered both a biological basis for these brain disorders and treatments that work.

The cost of mental illness to our nation is enormous. President Bush?s White House Mental Health Commission ? which completed its work in 2003 ? found that the direct treatment cost exceeds $71 billion annually. This does not include the $79 billion in estimated indirect costs of benefits and social services (including 35% of SSI benefits and 28% of SSDI benefits). These direct and indirect costs do not measure the substantial and growing burden that is imposed on "default" systems that are too often responsible for serving children and adults with mental illness who lack access to treatment. These costs fall most heavily on the criminal justice and corrections systems, emergency rooms, schools, families and homeless shelters. Moreover, these costs are not only financial, but also human in terms of lost productivity, lives lost to suicide and broken families. Investment in mental illness research and services are ? in NAMI?s view ? the highest priority for our nation and this Subcommittee.

Funding for Services Programs at SAMHSA & CMHS The Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) ? part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) ? is the principal federal agency engaged in support for state and local public mental health systems. Through its programs CMHS provides flexible funding for the states and conducts service demonstrations to help states move toward adoption of evidence-based practices. Funding for all SAMHSA and CMHS programs is part of the FY 2005 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that Congress will soon consider.
CMHS Programs and the Crisis Confronting the Public Mental Health System

During the recent economic downturn and resulting crisis the state budgets are facing, we are witnessing widening of gaps in the public mental illness treatment system in many states. This is resulting in unprecedented cuts being enacted by states in both direct spending on mental illness treatment and supportive services, and in Medicaid funding of such services. Deep cuts to front-line clinics and providers in the public mental health system, curbs on access to newer more effective medications and closure of acute care beds in the community are just a few of the misguided strategies that states are employing to close their widening budget gaps. The consequences of these emerging cracks in the service system are readily apparent, not just to NAMI?s consumer and family membership, but also to the public: increased risk of suicide, the growing number of chronic homeless adults and the growing trend of "criminalization" of mental illness and the stress it is placing on state and local jails and prisons.
The Need to Focus on Recovery-Oriented Evidence-Based Practices

As states continue to cut funding for mental illness treatment and supportive services, CMHS programs are becoming an increasingly important source of funding for the states. First and foremost, states should be encouraged to use their CMHS Block Grant funds to prevent further cuts in services for children and adults with severe mental illnesses. NAMI also supports targeting of CMHS dollars toward investment in evidence-based, outreach-oriented service delivery models for persons with severe mental illness in the community. The need to focus limited resources on evidence-based models (such as Programs of Assertive Community Treatment (PACT) and integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders) was recommended in 2003 by the President?s "New Freedom Initiative "Mental Health Commission Report. This landmark report called for a reform of the public mental health system to eliminate system fragmentation and better reflect the priorities of recovery and community integration.
NAMI Supports the Bush Administration?s Request for a "Mental Health System Transformation" Initiative

The President?s FY 2005 budget includes a request for $44 million at CMHS for a new state incentive grant program for "Mental Health System Transformation." This initiative is intended to help states follow through on the July 2003 recommendations in the White House "New Freedom Initiative" Mental Health Commission report. Under the proposal, funds would be allocated to states on a competitive basis to support the development of comprehensive state mental health plans to reduce system fragmentation and increase access to evidence-based services that promote recovery from mental illnesses. States would be required to use funds to develop plans that cut across multiple systems such as housing, criminal justice, child welfare, employment and education. In subsequent years, up to 85% of funds could be used to support community-based programs, with the remaining 15% available for state planning and coordination. NAMI strongly supports this proposal as critical to the effort to reform our nation?s fragmented and underfunded public mental health system and bridge the gap between scientific advances and practice.
NAMI Supports the "Samaritan" and "ELHSI" Initiatives to End Chronic Homelessness

The President?s FY 2005 budget proposes $70 million to continue the "Samaritan Initiative" to end chronic homelessness over the next decade, with funding spread across SAMHSA, HUD and the VA. In addition, the Bush Administration is seeking a $5 million increase for the Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) program ? boosting FY 2005 funding to $55 million. PATH is a formula grant program to the states that funds outreach and engagement services for homeless individuals with severe mental illnesses. CMHS estimates that this increase in the PATH program will result in 154,000 homeless individuals with severe mental illnesses being served by state and local PATH grantees. NAMI also urges additional funding in FY 2005 for the PATH program to address inequities in the program?s interstate funding formula that have the allocation for many smaller rural states frozen since the mid-1990s.

NAMI urges full funding of the "Samaritan Initiative" in FY 2005 and the proposed increase for PATH. Individuals with severe mental illnesses and co-occurring substance abuse disorders make up the largest share of the more than 150,000 people who experience chronic homelessness ? those who stay homeless for a year or more. In addition to supporting the Administration?s Samaritan Initiative and the recommended increases for PATH, NAMI also supports funding for the Ending Long-Term Homeless Services Initiative (ELHSI) program at SAMHSA to assist states and localities in funding services for new permanent supportive housing being developed through HUD?s McKinney-Vento program. Funding at SAMHSA for Samaritan and ELHSI is critical to producing and sustaining 150,000 units of permanent supportive housing that will all but eliminate chronic homelessness. Ending chronic homelessness through permanent supportive housing will pay for itself, as communities save hundreds of millions of dollars in that communities are relieved of the costs related to keeping people homeless ? including those associated with shelters, emergency rooms and jails.
Funding for CMHS Programs in the President?s FY 2005 Budget

In addition to the initiatives noted above, NAMI also supports ongoing activities at CMHS.

    * Mental Health Block Grant ? CMHS?s largest program, the Mental Health Block Grant (state formula grant program), would receive a $2 million increase under the President?s FY 2005 budget proposal (boosting funding to $436 million).
    * Children?s Mental Health program at CMHS ? The President is requesting a $4 million increase for the Children?s Mental Health program, increasing funding to $106 million.
    * Programs of Regional and National Significance ? CMHS?s own discretionary budget ? known as Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) ? would increase under the President?s budget to $271 million. This includes the $44 million mental health system transformation initiative noted above.
    * Co-Occurring Disorders ? The request for FY 2005 for the PRNS program includes $15.2 million in ongoing and new funding for best practices and targeted capacity expansion grants to foster increased access to integrated treatment for individuals with co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders. SAMHSA has an important leadership role to play on this issue. NAMI strongly urges this Subcommittee to support expansion of SAMHSA?s activities on this critical priority.
    * Jail Diversion ? NAMI is disappointed that the President?s budget does not request continued funding for the $7 million Jail Diversion program at CMHS. NAMI strongly supports the Jail Diversion program and urges continuation of funding in FY 2005.
    * Suicide Prevention ? NAMI strongly supports continuation and expansion of CMHS?s best practices grants and contracts to support suicide prevention. The President?s "New Freedom Initiative" Mental Health Commission report contains important recommendations on making suicide prevention a national priority. NAMI supports these recommendations as critical to addressing the estimated 30,000 suicides that occur every year in our country ? 90% of which involve a victim with a mental disorder.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Research Funding

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is the only federal agency with the main objective of funding biomedical research into serious mental illnesses. Increased funding and focus is needed to achieve the promise of exciting gains in understanding the brain in upcoming years.
NIMH ? Smallest Proposed Increase in 8 Years

For FY 2005, the President is proposing a $1.421 billion budget for the NIMH. This is a $39 million increase?2.2 percent?over the amount Congress appropriated for NIMH for FY 2004 ($1.39 billion). While this exceeds the average 0.5% increase for all domestic discretionary spending, it is below the 2.7% increase proposed for all of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ? which would increase to $28.805 billion under the President?s budget. In addition, this proposed increase for NIMH for FY 2005 is below the 3.6% increase that Congress enacted for FY 2004 and far below the 8% and 9% annual increases that were achieved between FY 1998 and 2003.

This minimal budget increase is expected to have a serious impact on the ability of NIMH to sustain ongoing multi-year research grants that have been initiated over the past 3-4 years and fund new grant proposals relevant to serious mental illness. This is especially the case if Congress accepts a proposal being floated by NIH to limit annual "cost of doing research" adjustments to individual grants to 1% per year. NAMI remains very concerned that this coming fall-off in budget increases for NIH does not wipe out the new research that has been undertaken at NIMH in recent years, and take advantage of the significant opportunities to advance treatments and cures for serious mental disorders.

Mr. Chairman, NAMI is deeply grateful for your leadership on this Subcommittee in seeking a strong budget for NIH and NIMH. The bipartisan commitment to scientific research that this Subcommittee continues to demonstrate is an example to your colleagues in Congress and in the Administration. NAMI urges you and your colleagues to make every effort to fund in NIMH at the "professional judgment" recommendation for FY 2005 -- $1.555 billion, or $172.8 million above the FY 2004 level.
"Roadmap to Recovery and Cure" ? NAMI?s Advocacy Goals and Strategies on Mental Illness Research

In March, the NAMI Policy Research Institute released a new report, Roadmap to Recovery and Cure, urging significant increases in the NIMH budget for basic, clinical and health services research focused on serious mental illness. The reality is that dramatic improvements in the lives of individuals with mental illness can be achieved over the next decade if research is expanded and the treatment system reformed and brought into closer alignment with research.

Among the conclusions in Roadmap to Recovery and Cure are that serious mental illness research has been underfunded, compared to other chronic, disabling illnesses, and is insufficiently prioritized at NIMH. The task force also found that psychiatric research has only begun to enter the modern era of biomedical research and requires the development of a strong base of basic and interdisciplinary research, large, policy-relevant clinical trials and services research directly tied to service delivery. It is important to note that all of these are integral to the Bush Administration?s Roadmap to Medical Research initiative that is currently driving research priorities at NIH.

Among the recommendations in this report are:

    * Significant and accountable increases in NIMH funding of basic, clinical and services research focused on serious mental illness--$1 billion over 5 years,
    * Increased application of the NIH?s Roadmap to Medical Research initiative to serious mental illness,
    * Continuation and expansion of clinical trials focused on serious mental illness,
    * Coordination of serious mental illness research, dissemination, and service system policy efforts by the federal government, and
    * Increased training and support of researchers and mental health care providers.

The Case for Increased Federal Investment in Mental Illness Research

    * Further research is imperative if we are to prevent the next generation from suffering. Much has to be learned. The causes and mechanisms of diseases such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are mostly unknown. We do not yet have laboratory tests that can diagnose these illnesses. There are no side-effect free treatments. And, of course, there is no primary preventive measure or cure currently available.
    * Treatment is imperfect; it does not work well for all individuals living with these brain diseases. There are no cures for severe mental illnesses, and existing treatments and services shown to be effective are all too often not available to the people who need and deserve them. While steady research-funding gains have been achieved, NAMI believes that severe mental illness research, from the most basic to services research, remains underfunded, given the tremendous scientific opportunities that exist and the severe burden that these diseases present to the public as well as to our families.
    * The public health burden associated with severe mental illness is enormous, accounting for a large percentage of costs imposed by all illnesses in the United States. An independent study by the World Bank and World Health Organization (DALY: Disability Adjusted Life Years) found that four of the top ten causes of disability worldwide are severe mental illnesses: major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, accounting for 25 percent of the total disability resulting from all diseases and injuries.

Where Should Funding at NIMH Be Directed?

    * Greater Focus & Accountability on Severe Mental Illness ? NAMI believes that more focus is needed at NIMH on severe mental illness research. NAMI therefore urges Congress to require NIMH to provide an accounting of new and existing research grants broken down by specific illnesses.
    * Basic Neuroscience ? NIMH needs to continue progress that has been made in unraveling the mysteries of molecules, genes, and brain interconnections related to higher brain functioning in brain health and serious disease.
    * Treatment Research ? Currently there is a lack of understanding about which treatments work best for which patients, in what combination, and with what risks and costs. NIMH has invested in significant research to improve this understanding and it should be continued and expanded in the current budget. Importantly, new treatments must be developed as well.
    * Services Implementation ? There are many important, even crucial research questions relevant to the treatment system that serves individuals with severe mental illnesses?ranging from improving the provision of evidence-based care to identifying exactly how much public monies are being spent on a treatment system that more often than not is failing.
    * Consumer and Family Involvement in Research ? All of these efforts at NIMH must be done with a greater involvement with and accountability to those patients with severe illnesses and their families. Recent efforts at NIMH have moved in this direction, but more needs to be done to integrate families and patients into annual reporting and strategic planning on research investments and accomplishments.

Conclusion

Chairman Regula, Representative Obey and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer NAMI?s views on your FY 2005 bill.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 12:46:00 PM
Excellent points, Timoclea. I though about that when I read, "chemical imbalance" also. In addition, I've been told I had a chemical imbalance and chosen to stop taking psyche meds after years of trying enough to know none of them worked for me (especially SSRIs) with the exception of Strattera (new ADHD med) which helps without the amphetamine blast to the body and brain. That's one I've never tried.

* I do on rare occasion use a benzodiazepine for anxiety and panic disorder. But that's roughly less than 15 1 mg tablets every 2 months or so.

In all honesty, it's been the cognitive behavioral therapy for the past 7 years that I think so much of, and that has helped me the most. Definitely more than any drug offered up my way.  

However, my very first psychiatrist visit was in the 2nd grade. I was misdiagnosed for years due to the fact that my parents were abusing me and no one ever found out about it. I spent my life after school as a young child in psychiatrist?s offices and special learning centers with gooey-sweet counselors in my business everyday. I hated every minute of it, but the problem had to be me! I mean, what could an upstanding doctor and member of the Jewish community and his perfect, lovely wife have ever done to make me (their kid) act out and perform poorly in school, along with have behavioral and attention problems?  I hated my parents but no one ever made the connection.  I was just lucky after all these years to find a shrink that I didn?t automatically discredit simply for being one. Before I just looked at them as legal drug pushers until I met my doc.  Psychiatry works well, but you have to find a good one ? at least I did. Everyone is different.

Paul, I agree about the discrediting other people's recoveries to a certain extent but doesn't everyone do that in some way or another? People believe what they want to believe to survive. If a person?s reality is okay with them, and not hurting anyone or themselves, what's the harm?

The problem with Cruise is the fact that he's a spokesman for a very dangerous cult, and not so much not giving credit, but giving it to Scientology in the process.


 

G:   "If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?"
EB:  "Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area."
-- Somewhere in No Man's Land, BA4



_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 01:21:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-28 09:46:00, 001010 wrote:





Paul, I agree about the discrediting other people's recoveries to a certain extent but doesn't everyone do that in some way or another? People believe what they want to believe to survive. If a person?s reality is okay with them, and not hurting anyone or themselves, what's the harm?




Great question.

From my personal experience, and in helping others, when someone is unstable and seeking help giving the best resources to any type of treatment or philosphy helps.

Having that person exposed to self professed industry haters like Deborah, and possible Ginger is dangerous. Not because they are either right or wrong. Because their posts are to discredit a methodology of treatment that may work for that person, thus creating a biased environment that will influence that person not to consider a certain method.

My roomate is a great example. He did fine with psychiatry. Then was convinced by the anti-psychiatry people to get off medications and psychiatry was evil. So he did, destabilized, got arrested, did time, got back on his original medication and therapy protocol that was working just fine ... until he was influenced otherwise.

Now he is doing wonderful, working, dating, living  a full life. That would sound ok to most people right?

Wrong. When I was at a conference in LA recently I had a discussion with a leading patient advocate in the state. I was asking about two current people I was trying to help. I was shocked at her responses. Right out of the COS dogma, I have learned since being on Fornit's.

She told me to tell my roomate to get off his medications, they where bad for him, and that his recovery method was completely wrong ... on and on she went slamming my roomate who she never met and discredited his life and his treatment choice.

That is bad.

That is why if the COS has a method of treatment then please be up front. Offer it as a choice like any other choice and then there is no controversy.

But nope, the industry haters will make up all the reasons in the world why they are so self important that they must hate the industry, while claiming not to influence people individually, and then claim they are for choice, and against forced treatment when they are practicing forcing their opinions on people in such a way as to enact forced treatment by their chosen method.

It is sad, hurtful and ironically the main reason why their treatment protocols will not become popular. Not becuase of the COS methodology but by their creepy way of approaching it.

I guess the vote on Tom Cruise is 69% against his actions on the Today show. Remember he has been a Scientologist for as long as I can remember. Very popular and no big deal on his COS beliefs. Now it makes a difference in the way he devalued psychiatry and invalidated Brooke Shield's choice of treatment ... that is why people think he is a kook, not because he is a Scientologist.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 01:27:00 PM
Anyway you dish him up, he's a kook.  :silly:

The fact that he's promoting the COS in the process just makes it worse.

Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on June 28, 2005, 01:49:00 PM
Not everybody who's ever experienced depression, despondency, anxiety, boredome or restlessness is disordered and in need of treatment. In fact, I think that if you're not pissed off then you haven't been paying attention.

There's a very real danger in allowing political agencies and organizations to define the difference between dysfunction in an individual and external causes of unhappiness.

I don't have a problem w/ people using amphetamines if they know what they're taking and they think it helps them. I do have a problem w/ giving our dysfunctional school system even more power to drug down or tag as insane any child who is not happy in that system.

Revelation indeed had no weight with me.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 02:19:00 PM
I agree Ginger, there's no one way. People find many different things that help or heal them. Everyone is different.

I'm just waiting to see if that's actually what's about to happen. It seems awfully Orwellian and extreme. I'll be pulling my kid out of the public school system just like a lot of other people will be if that goes through. I just don?t think it will.

If God has spoken, why is the world not convinced?
--Percy Bysshe Shelley, English poet



_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: BuzzKill on June 28, 2005, 02:23:00 PM
//I don't have a problem w/ people using amphetamines if they know what they're taking and they think it helps them. I do have a problem w/ giving our dysfunctional school system even more power to drug down or tag as insane any child who is not happy in that system. //

Couldn't agree more.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
However, who's to say that it couldn't help if it were offered and not mandated? I for one am not too concerned because I don't think my kid has any disorders that I need to worry about. If a screen option came up, I'd decline unless I truly thought it served as an opportunity for my daughter?s mental health. I should have that right as a parent. It needs to be a choice like any other help. Free will is the only way for it to work. You have to choose it. Now, if we're talking about a kid with severe bipolar or schizophrenia, it might be a blessing to those parents and child. But parents should have the final say.

Those who control the past, control the future; and those who control the present, control the past.

--George Orwell

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 02:33:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-28 11:23:00, BuzzKill wrote:

"//I don't have a problem w/ people using amphetamines if they know what they're taking and they think it helps them. I do have a problem w/ giving our dysfunctional school system even more power to drug down or tag as insane any child who is not happy in that system. //



Couldn't agree more.



 "


Here here!

Dextroamphetamine got me out of a severe depression more than once as an adult!  :nworthy:

The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.


--P.J. O'Rourke

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on June 28, 2005, 04:02:00 PM
The legislation just passed without the Paul amendment, which would have made parental consent a requirement. So, as I understand it, the new policy allows the public school system to screen all students for mental illness (by what definition?) w/o even asking their parents' permission.

It's a done deal now. If you don't want your kid to be screened by some anonymous stranger presenting themselves as psyche pros, you have to go out of your way to explicitly deny permission. And, knowing the ps system as I do, I'd say it's probably wise to fill your kids in on what mental health screening is and make sure they understand you don't want them to participate and that, despite what anyone might say or imply, you won't be mad at them if they refuse.

Truth does not have to be accepted on faith. Scientists do not hold hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! Amen.
--Dan Barker, former evangelist and author

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 28, 2005, 04:21:00 PM
The truth about the New Freedom commission agenda is that they really do want to screen everybody, and the misrepresentation is that people will be given informed consent.

Two disturbing tactics have been used to gain consent for school mental health screenings.

The first, is "passive consent", which involves having the parent return a form if they do not want their child screened. What happens if the consent form never makes it out of the backpack and into the parent's hands?

Well, according to TeenScreen's statistic, this results in an 86% consent rate as opposed to a 57% consent rate if the parents actually have a  choice.

The other disturbing tactic is the direct marketing of these screenings to the children.  

Another disturbing statistic from teenscreen is that 98% of kids will assent to the screening.  

And of course, after you've sold the  kids,
it is just a matter of letting them sell it to the parents.

Unfortunately, that tactic is not a theory. It is being used.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 29, 2005, 08:38:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-28 13:02:00, Antigen wrote:

"The legislation just passed without the Paul amendment, which would have made parental consent a requirement. So, as I understand it, the new policy allows the public school system to screen all students for mental illness (by what definition?) w/o even asking their parents' permission.



It's a done deal now. If you don't want your kid to be screened by some anonymous stranger presenting themselves as psyche pros, you have to go out of your way to explicitly deny permission. And, knowing the ps system as I do, I'd say it's probably wise to fill your kids in on what mental health screening is and make sure they understand you don't want them to participate and that, despite what anyone might say or imply, you won't be mad at them if they refuse.

Truth does not have to be accepted on faith. Scientists do not hold hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! Amen.
--Dan Barker, former evangelist and author


"


Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure all of her teachers (and she) knows next year and beyond. She has a shrink that she's seen before anyway. She's on record in his office and his office only. I'm still baffled that this is being carried out this way. I'm a believer in psychiatry, but when you take away free will, it's just force. A big no thank you to big brother on that one. New Freedom, sheesh did they get this crap right out of 1984? Welcome to the New America, where a new kind of freedom rings -- the ring of chains jangling.  :scared:

Thanks again to both of you guys.  :wave:

All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.
--Ambrose Bierce



_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 29, 2005, 09:27:00 AM
*sigh* amazing how this shit passes without a peep on TV, which is far too busy keeping everyone quiet with the hand-picked 'issues' that sate the average consumer whore between trips to go shopping at walmart or to stuff their faces, or both if they buy more cookiedough icecream (in a two gallon tub!)

Im going to go out of my way to protect the one sister I have left from this crap (who is 9), but my parents are already the sort to be wary of it. I'll just make sure its PRO-active, not after the fact.

I also plan to go to my old highschool and raise hell... it was a charter school for kids who didnt go too well with the existing school paradigm, we had a lot less bullshit testing, etc. But, state mandates meant we had EOGs (which I just aced instead of bothering to do any school work) until I got totally fed up and got my GED and skipped straight to college due to a mix of personal  crap and the resultant lack of tolerance for bullshit.

Oh well, with what I know now they would either be really glad or really NOT glad to see me  :grin:

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
--Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander, sentenced to death at Nuremberg

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 29, 2005, 09:32:00 AM
Hurray passive-consumerism. Don't question anything and consume, consume, consume!
This kind of thing is working out *too* well for the companies, ESPECIALLY the drug companies. Even with the thousands of lawsuits being filed against them for every drug under the sun, nobody hesitates to shove a 10 year old kid on Prozac.
There is something incredibly messed up about that. Seriously. :/
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 29, 2005, 09:54:00 AM
I think the way they probably look at it is that they've been doing it for years privately anyway, only now, the government can benefit by partnering with the drug companies instead of losing money on welfare. They (W & co) probably feel the nation?s poor and needy owe them for all the years the welfare system was actually helping -- but noooo, they didn't have enough control then, and weren't benefiting themselves. Our government wants you to believe marijuana is evil, but that forcing psyche meds on children is okay?

Do I really want to have another baby?  :razz:

Then I went here:

http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?sectio ... Commission (http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=New_Freedom_Commission)

and here:

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/ (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/)

and here:

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/mission.html (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/mission.html)

oh, and here too:

http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update09.07.04.htm (http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update09.07.04.htm)

So, yeah...







The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken, 1923



_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 29, 2005, 12:19:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-29 06:54:00, 001010 wrote:

"I think the way they probably look at it is that they've been doing it for years privately anyway, only now, the government can benefit by partnering with the drug companies instead of losing money on welfare. They (W & co) probably feel the nation?s poor and needy owe them for all the years the welfare system was actually helping -- but noooo, they didn't have enough control then, and weren't benefiting themselves. Our government wants you to believe marijuana is evil, but that forcing psyche meds on children is okay?



Do I really want to have another baby?  :razz:



Then I went here:



http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?sectio ... Commission (http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=New_Freedom_Commission)



and here:



http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/ (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/)



and here:



http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/mission.html (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/mission.html)



oh, and here too:



http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update09.07.04.htm (http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update09.07.04.htm)



So, yeah...




I don't have time to read these links, now, but I will later.

I just want to make a couple of comments.

1) Hardly any bills are on TV beforehand. That is why advocacy groups are so important.

2) The suggestions from the New Freedom Commission as I understand it was brought to them from both the public, industry and patients, as well as any anti that wanted to testify. It didn't come down from the government.

3) I thought the Paul Ammendment was all about funding? You all are only talking about consent. That is the problem of building too much into one ammendment. Sorry, it happens all the time. If the consent issue was so important to Rep. Paul he should have signaled it out. If he didn't, he knew it would fail along with the rest of his restriction of funding ammendment. Why? He introduced the same ammendment the year before. So was he simply grandstanding to please some constituancy or was he serious?

4) Who ever has a problem with the bill better start doing something other than posting to boards and sharing the same info over and over, hence flooding, but not acting.

5) Now for the confusing part to me:

Fornits states the govt:
Our government wants you to believe marijuana is evil, but that forcing psyche meds on children is okay?

Fornits promotes:
Freedom to take all currently illegal drugs but slams people if they choose to take certain prescription medications.

To me, that is weird.

Why not freedom with no criticism?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on June 29, 2005, 12:21:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-29 09:19:00, Paul wrote:

"Now for the confusing part to me:



Fornits states the govt:

Our government wants you to believe marijuana is evil, but that forcing psyche meds on children is okay?



Fornits promotes:

Freedom to take all currently illegal drugs but slams people if they choose to take certain prescription medications.



To me, that is weird."


What is weird to me, is the fact you believe Fornits speaks with one voice. Is there a fornits manifesto I haven't read somewhere? You are one strange fella, huh?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 29, 2005, 01:37:00 PM
I perceive it as slander, an attempt to discredit the entire site. Of course, unwarranted.
It?s my understanding that it is part of the One World Order plan and came directly from the prez in collusion with drug companies. The same political/pharmaceutical alliance that generated the TMAP project was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission. Re: Paul?s bill-it was about funding and consent. And don't be confused. Many did a lot, as much as they could.

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#86638 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8608&forum=9&start=0#86638)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... um=9#52430 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9#52430)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =110#87751 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9&start=110#87751)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =110#85820 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9&start=110#85820)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 29, 2005, 07:11:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-29 10:37:00, Deborah wrote:



I perceive it as slander, an attempt to discredit the entire site.
"


Deborah, while you have insulted me time and time again, any comments that you don't agree with are a slander? Give me a break. Really?

I guess I was confused when logging on to Fornit's and the book that is in honor of Peter McWilliam's is displayed that indicated support of removing laws against illegal drugs, am I wrong?

Do I think Fornit's is one voice, no.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: 001010 on June 29, 2005, 09:27:00 PM
I am not the voice of Fornits. Only the great and powerful OZ can hear the voice!  :tup:
 

Vain are the thousand creeds that move men's hearts, unutterably vain, worthless as wither'd weeds.
--Emily Bronte



_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 29, 2005, 11:43:00 PM
Quote

On 2005-06-29 18:27:00, 001010 wrote:

"I am not the voice of Fornits. Only the great and powerful OZ can hear the voice!  :smile:

I don't know anyone who believes in force as a front line treatment protocol.

Regarding getting slammed on Fornits, I have been called a drug addict for taking my meds, I believe it was Deborah. So the slams do happen.

Deborah has stated she has nothing to do with anyone who is mentally ill, she also states that she is not against personal choice, but she does state that she is against the industry. I don't know, to me, if someone is against the industry that is providing my medication, I connect the dots, and weigh in that she called me a drug addict, I would say that is a pretty slim line of personal choice.

Perhaps it is personal choice with harrassment and an onslaught of activity to eliminate the supply ... eliminate the supply, then what choice do I have.


Offer an alternative, promote it, and everyone lives happily after. No one needs to be trying to shut down any industry. Why would anyone want to shut down an industry, if one has nothing to do with the people who are helped by that industry?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on June 29, 2005, 11:46:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-29 18:27:00, 001010 wrote:

I believe in options, not force.  


Woops, I meant to just comment here, I guess I went off on a tangent. Perhaps it is my Bipolar Disorder that caused that, according to one insightful poster today :smile:

Anyway, I just have thought that TeenScreen was voluntary.

Apparently it is not.

That is a bummer.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: webcrawler on June 30, 2005, 03:39:00 PM
Okay, as much as I am sick of hearing about Tom Cruise I had to make a comment after reading this thread.

When he says such things as mental illness doesn't exist, I wonder if it is because he has never experienced it and therefore is unqualified to make that declaration.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but for someone to tell me that a problem or feeling does not exist for me it's quite arrogant and based on assumptions. Tom is not me. Tom is not in my body. Tom therefore does NOT know what I go through on a daily basis.

I don't have the luxury like Tom to change my enviroment with $$$ so things in my life can get somewhat better and my state of mind to a point where I'm not feeling as much depression.

I also do not find it a comfort to sit in any type of church on some uncomfortable bench or chair and have someone standing in front of me saying I will go to hell if I don't do exactly as they say.

Sorry this is getting long. I also will add that the other day on the radio I listened to an interview w/ a woman from Chicago that is the head of (leader, whatever) the COS and she admitted that the followers will not be given access to info unless they pay. It's a teir system. The more one pays the more "knowledge" they disclose.

Imagine a desperate person who is lonely, sad, suicidial, and isolated seeking support from them. Now imagine this person giving away their life savings in the quest to be enlightened and have all their pain taken away. No thanks.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Cidsa on June 30, 2005, 09:44:00 PM
First of all an SSRI is:
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. A type of drug that is used to treat depression. SSRIs slow the process by which serotonin (a substance that nerves use to send messages to one another) is reused by nerve cells that make it. This increases the amount of serotonin available for stimulating other nerves.

I myself was forced on Paxil at around 12 or 13 and i've been addicted and riddled with symptoms since (im almost 20 now).
There is another site all about paxil and it is here: http://paxil.bizland.com/ (http://paxil.bizland.com/)

It has a very handy guide to getting off paxil, which I'm going to have to try as soon as my memory stops being so awful.
I personally wish I had never been forced on this, I would probably feel a lot better..As it is I'm sick every day and I almost never feel happy, but I hardly ever feel sad either..just a middle ground.

Anyways, the front page of that talks about the fact that GSK hid information about suicidal tendancies and I'll vouch for it. Until that drug, suicide never really came into my mind. Then I was attempting/threatning it every week.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on July 01, 2005, 12:11:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-30 18:44:00, Cidsa wrote:

"First of all an SSRI is:

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. A type of drug that is used to treat depression. SSRIs slow the process by which serotonin (a substance that nerves use to send messages to one another) is reused by nerve cells that make it. This increases the amount of serotonin available for stimulating other nerves.



I myself was forced on Paxil at around 12 or 13 and i've been addicted and riddled with symptoms since (im almost 20 now).

There is another site all about paxil and it is here: http://paxil.bizland.com/ (http://paxil.bizland.com/)



It has a very handy guide to getting off paxil, which I'm going to have to try as soon as my memory stops being so awful.

I personally wish I had never been forced on this, I would probably feel a lot better..As it is I'm sick every day and I almost never feel happy, but I hardly ever feel sad either..just a middle ground.



Anyways, the front page of that talks about the fact that GSK hid information about suicidal tendancies and I'll vouch for it. Until that drug, suicide never really came into my mind. Then I was attempting/threatning it every week."


I am sorry to hear that of your negative experience with Paxil. I hope your doctors can help you resolve the health condition you mention.

I have been very fortunat. I have been on many different medications of all classifications and have never had a problem getting off of them. I have no side effects from my current combination of Effexor and Lamictal.

There are many medications and combinations available now, little or no side effects should be the goal. This is of course, if you decide that medications are right for you. Good luck.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 01, 2005, 12:17:00 AM
If you read the information I?ve posted you?d have some idea of who believes in ?force?.

No Paul, I didn?t say that I had ?no involvement with anyone who was ?mentally ill?. I said that I don?t work with the ?mentally ill?, nor did I care to work in 'public mental health'.

I do have family and friends who have had involvement with the industry. I have friends and family who choose to use drugs in spite of the information I have shared with them. Several family members have had negative experiences. One committed suicide while on antidepressants under the ?care? of a shrink. One is having severe neurological problems that stem from years of taking Adderall. My ex is a Zoloft junky- tried but couldn't get off. My mother's neighbor and friend committed suicide while taking Paxil- his wife received a handsome settlement. There are probably others I'm not thinking of now.

I was content to post information about the industry that people may not find otherwise, and pretty much as it pertains to young people. I made NO derogatory comments to you (or Tim) until you/she attacked me personally, rather than refuting the information I had posted.
Should I have ignored the personal attacks? Yeh, probably. But I?m not a saint. You and Tim both have used the 'bipolar' excuse for your rudeness. Having a psych dx sure hindered my nephew from learning the social skills he desperately needed- what I consider to be the crux of his 'problems'.

Advocating informed consent, honesty, and transparecy has nothing to do with eliminating your supply of drugs OR shutting down the industry. That may be the most ridiculous comment you?ve made so far. I wouldn?t waste my time on such an ill-fated agenda- they're here to stay.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on July 01, 2005, 02:54:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-30 21:17:00, Deborah wrote:

"I made NO derogatory comments to you (or Tim) until you/she attacked me personally, rather than refuting the information I had posted.
Should I have ignored the personal attacks? Yeh, probably. But I?m not a saint. You and Tim both have used the 'bipolar' excuse for your rudeness. Having a psych dx sure hindered my nephew from learning the social skills he desperately needed- what I consider to be the crux of his 'problems'.

Advocating informed consent, honesty, and transparecy has nothing to do with eliminating your supply of drugs OR shutting down the industry. That may be the most ridiculous comment you?ve made so far. I wouldn?t waste my time on such an ill-fated agenda- they're here to stay.


Deborah, you are such a treasure. Really now.

So tell me, you never insulted me?

Tell me, your neighborhood has this dismal tract record of horrific stories.

You said you informed them of an option. Did they make their own choice. Do you have problem with that.

Are your examples true, because really, they sound false to me. Your family and neighborhood just fell apart, damn, I bet that sucked. Hey, did they all have a problem before seeking help, or did they seek help for no reason, and then develope their problems?

Say it again, in your neighborhood. Suiciedes, bad reactions to medication ... free choice?

Hey, wait a minute, I am getting off track here. Wasn't the question, as you posed to others ... what is your experience with medications. Make that a specific medication and not generalities, just as your request of others.

You stated: You and Tim both have used the 'bipolar' excuse for your rudeness.

Where do get off making those comments? Post the comments by Timoclea and I about Bipolar Disorder motivating our actions.

You, sadly, are melting down ...

Lucky you are on Fornits!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on July 01, 2005, 03:23:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-30 21:17:00, Deborah wrote:

" That may be the most ridiculous comment you?ve made so far. I wouldn?t waste my time on such an ill-fated agenda- they're here to stay.

"


Let me know when it is appropriate to call you full of shit.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on July 01, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-30 21:17:00, Deborah wrote:

My mother's neighbor and friend committed suicide while taking Paxil- his wife received a handsome settlement.

"


I am unaware of Paxil or any other medication losing a lawsuit. Please post information on this "handsome settlement" and what was the particulars of the case.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 01, 2005, 08:51:00 PM
Who ?IS? Paul? Curious?
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=9#114154 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10711&forum=9#114154)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 02, 2005, 12:42:00 PM
Paul,
I think you're attempting to intentionally deceive people, but in case your genuinely ignorant, there are about 290,000 returns at google for paxil + lawsuit
Take a gander, you might learn something.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paxil+%2B+lawsuit (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paxil+%2B+lawsuit)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Paul on July 02, 2005, 02:39:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-07-02 09:42:00, Deborah wrote:

"

Paul,

I think you're attempting to intentionally deceive people, but in case your genuinely ignorant, there are about 290,000 returns at google for paxil + lawsuit

Take a gander, you might learn something.



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paxil+%2B+lawsuit (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paxil+%2B+lawsuit)

"


I was interested in lawsuits in which Paxil lost,
not lawsuits that where filed
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 02, 2005, 03:20:00 PM
Of course, then avail yourself to the 36,000+ returns for Paxil + settle
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paxil+%2B+settle (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paxil+%2B+settle)

Everything from murder, suicide, antitrust, overcharging Medicare/Caid, withholding research data, addiction, debilitating withdrawal symptoms. It's all there.

Excellent article on addiction/withdrawal:
http://citypages.com/databank/23/1141/article10788.asp (http://citypages.com/databank/23/1141/article10788.asp)
Another good one:
http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/ (http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/)

But you wanted 'wins'. Well here are a couple. All the research I'm willing to do for your education.
http://www.counterpunch.org/giombetti0912.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/giombetti0912.html)
http://www.jamesesparza.com/paxil.htm (http://www.jamesesparza.com/paxil.htm)

PS Paul, you have presented yourself as an authority on the subject. Why are you asking ME for this information? Lazy? Get those fingers working. Good exercise. Better yet, get a computer that can be powered by a treadmill. I hear exercise creates endorphines.
If someone requested to know the issues around Paxil, could you provide them with ALL they needed to know? If not, you can now, and will be acting irresponsible if you don't do so.




[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2005-07-02 12:45 ]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 21, 2005, 10:59:00 PM
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411278 (http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411278)

Lyons: Fire and firewater in Native America
Posted: July 21, 2005
by: Scott Richard Lyons  
Excerpts:
There is a mental health crisis in Indian country, and its casualties are the young. From suicide clusters on the northern Plains to the school shooting at Red Lake, Native youth have spent this year issuing a collective cry for help more plaintive and more chilling than any since Wounded Knee.

There is no sadder evidence of this than the 17 teenagers who killed themselves in recent months at Cheyenne River. As Julie Garreau, executive director of the Cheyenne River Youth Project, recently testified: ''Some of these suicides were young men who had made a suicide pact with one another. They drew numbers, and decided to hang themselves in that order. One by one their families found these boys, often hanging in their homes, as their number came up.''

When I first heard that story - still reeling at the news from Red Lake - my immediate reaction was to wonder if the same might not be said for the human species as a whole. Was our number up, too? Are the kids simply taking themselves out first?

An overreaction, I'll admit. But this is a situation that compels a dramatic response.

Consider the numbers: While the suicide rate has fallen for most social groups in America, it is on the rise among teenagers and American Indians. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the rate of suicide among American adolescents has tripled since 1960. The trends are even worse when the adolescents are Natives.

If you are an Indian, you are already 72 percent more likely to commit suicide than the average American, according to the IHS. If you are an Indian teen, however, you are over 300 percent more likely. And if you are a Native teenager living on the northern Plains, you are fully 10 times as likely to initiate your own death.

Of course, none of this is meant to detract from the successes of Native youths who are doing well. In fact, the ironic flipside of this crisis is the very good news that many young Indian lives are improving, as seen for example in certain indicators of academic performance and reduced poverty rates.

But we should not fall into the dangerous trap of thinking that only some of us - the ''abnormal'' - are afflicted with individual emotional problems right now. This is a community crisis.

First, we must understand what we're dealing with here: mass unhappiness. There is no lurking scientific mystery. What doctors call depression is simply a persistent unhappy emotional response to life: intense sadness, often accompanied by feelings of hopelessness, despair, self-loathing or guilt.

In the 19th century this emotional state was called ''melancholy,'' and it was believed to result from an excess of black bile in the body. During the 20th century it was termed ''depression,'' then designated as a ''disease,'' and finally described as a ''chemical imbalance'' in the brain. Soon it became common to speak of ''clinical depression.''

Whatever we call it, it's still unhappiness: an emotional response to life.

Everyone wants the pain to stop, but there is little agreement about how to do it. Increasingly in our society - the same society that invented the concept of clinical depression - the trend is to focus on chemical imbalances and medicines designed to correct them.

It is certainly true that unhappy emotions are the result of chemical reactions in the brain. So are all emotions. But there are significant problems with the idea of relying on drugs to regulate feelings.

I think sovereign indigenous nations should consider SSRI bans of their own, at least for people under the age of 18. There are no legal precedents against such a ban in Indian country, so why not? As a potentially dangerous panacea for troubled times, SSRIs just might be the new firewater.

At very least, no one can say with absolute certainty what SSRIs actually do. But we can all see what they cannot do.

Drugs cannot address the real social forces operative in peoples' lives. They do not counter the violence of poverty, abuse or addiction. They are unable to address the needs of an adequate diet, decent health care or a sustainable environment. They do not speak back to racism, historical trauma or low self-esteem. They are mute on the subjects of meaning, values or identity. They are unable to provide love.

Aren't these the burning issues facing American Indian teenagers today? Isn't this what started the fires at Cheyenne River, Red Lake and elsewhere? If the problem is mass unhappiness with life, what is the solution if not fixing life itself?

Scott Richard Lyons, Leech Lake Ojibwe, teaches writing, literature and Native American Studies at Syracuse University.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on July 21, 2005, 11:24:00 PM
Deborah?  Respectfully, fuck you.

You have no idea what it's like to have one of the two most serious mental illnesses in existence, and you have no idea how *high function* I am for having that illness *at all*.

Am I perfectly normal?  NO.  And until they have a cure, I never will be.

Do you call people in wheelchairs "gimpy" for an encore?  Bitch them out for using their wheelchair as an "excuse" for taking all the *good* parking spaces?

Not just for me, but for everyone out there living with a major mental illness, or any of the other "silent" disabilities, fuck you you ignorant, idiotic, fool of a bitch.

There.  *Now* I've insulted you.  And you've never deserved it more.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 21, 2005, 11:55:00 PM
Insulted me? No, but I am kinda curious about what you're in a rage about now. Guess I must have said something that insulted you.

Anyway, I actually came back to this thread to post a link to an interiew from WOAI in San Antonio. Good debate on the Cruise/Sheilds issue.

http://www.woai.com/mediacenter/?videoId=135766,565 (http://www.woai.com/mediacenter/?videoId=135766,565)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2005, 12:21:00 AM
Timoclea is being rude because Deborah suggested that she used her bipolar disorder as an excuse for being rude. Who has the last laugh here?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 22, 2005, 12:41:00 AM
Oh it that it?

Tim,
I'll give you the opportunity to retract your rude comments before I search WWF and post the links in which you apologized for attacking someone and then attribute it to your MI.

You can use the MI excuse, but I can't say that you do? How is that rational?

My comment wasn't a judgment or attack, it was a statement of fact.

I guess we just think differently out here on the 'fringe' in 'Moonbat Tinfoil hat' land.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2005, 09:46:00 AM
There's a difference between an excuse and a reason.

An excuse is when you leave the house late for work, or late enough that everything has to go *perfectly* for you to get there on time, and then blame it on the traffic when you arrive late.

A reason is when you leave the house in plenty of time to get to work on time in average to heavy traffic and, when you arrive work late, blame it on the five car pile-up that closed three of five lanes of traffic for four hours.

Does bipolar disorder affect my behavior?  For damned sure it does.  It's a *reason*, not an excuse.

Calling it an excuse just proves that you, Deborah, have carried your Luddism so far that it's become bigotry.

I'm being nasty and insulting to you right now not because I'm bipolar but because you are a bigot.  Today, I'm stable.  At this moment, I am not in an unstable state from my mental illness.  At this moment, I am being hostile to you from full and frank conscious intention because you are a bigot and, frankly, as a result of your bigotry I hate your guts.

Sometimes (rarely) I do experience bipolar rages and "lose it" at someone when the cause is not them, it's my mental illness making me go "over the top."  I did that once with Perrigaud.  It's happened other times in my life.

It doesn't mean that *every* time I get pissed off at someone and say things that the cause is my mental illness.

I said things I didn't mean to Perrigaud because I was in the middle of a bipolar rage, which the doctors (not you in your omniscient bigotted "wisdom," of course) believe to be seizures in the brain, akin to epilepsy or the seizures that cause migraine headaches.

I'm saying things I very much *do* mean to you, because you're a bigotted, obnoxious bitch.

Rude? To you? You bet.  You brought my name back into a thread I hadn't been in for *weeks* just to insult *me* and I'm pissed off about it.

You don't recognize the difference between "reason" and "excuse" with respect to particular behaviors of mentally ill persons because you're a bigot.  You're just like the KKKer who looks at an illiterate African American kid with Down's Syndrome and says, "Of course he caint read.  Whaddya expect from them people.  Aw, they're just usin' some made-up sin-drome fer an excuse."

"Excuse" contains an inherent judgment.

No sale.  Fuck off and die.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2005, 10:01:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-07-21 20:55:00, Deborah wrote:

"

Insulted me? No, but I am kinda curious about what you're in a rage about now. Guess I must have said something that insulted you.



Anyway, I actually came back to this thread to post a link to an interiew from WOAI in San Antonio. Good debate on the Cruise/Sheilds issue.



http://www.woai.com/mediacenter/?videoId=135766,565 (http://www.woai.com/mediacenter/?videoId=135766,565)"


This isn't a bipolar rage.  This is me being pissed off at you and telling you to fuck off.

You brought my name into a thread I hadn't been in for weeks, and brought it in solely to say that in some previous instance(s) when I was symptomatic that I was using my condition as "an excuse"--which contained the unmistakeable innuendo that those particular cases weren't symptoms of a neurological condition I never had any choice about having.

Now, by using the term "rage" you're implying that this is the same thing as that.

No, Deborah, I'm not in a bipolar rage.  I'm saying these things because my real opinion of you is that you're a bigotted, luddite bitch.  I'm saying these things now, as opposed to some other time, because you're bringing me up for no damned reason except to be nasty pissed me off.

Notice, I'm not saying I've never been nasty to you, because I have.  I'm also not saying that I like you, because I don't.  I'm just saying that this particular time I was minding my own business and not involved at all and *you* stepped up and started something and expected me to just let the slam go by without comment.

And frankly, I probably will from now on let any gratuitous slams of me, by you, when I'm not around and not actively participating in a thread go unanswered.  After this, I have nothing more to say to you.  I just wanted the satisfaction of telling you what I thought of you first.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on July 22, 2005, 10:35:00 AM
Okay, it had been a few days instead of weeks.  Same point.  A whole lot of posts had gone by since I'd had anything to do with the thread.

It's not that I don't think Deborah has every reason to respond in kind to my obvious dislike of her.

Of course she does.  We've had words before and I don't expect to tell somebody what I think of them without them having the option of returning the favor.

I get pissed off when anybody blames obvious symptoms of mental illness on someone who's mentally ill in the unrealistic expectation that a mentally ill person is going to be able to, always and everywhere, behave as if they were not mentally ill.

Yeah, it was more personal because she was talking about me, obviously.

But for people who have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, even when they're usually stable on medication, and medication compliant, and seeing their psychiatrist as often as the doctor thinks they need to be seen, and doing any therapy their doctor has recommended---even when we're taking care of all of that very carefully, I've never met a person with either disorder who doesn't still sometimes have symptoms which affect their thoughts and behavior.

Medication, if they're lucky, can make someone with a mental illness not dangerous and even stable.  It cannot make them normal.

People have people they like and people they dislike.  People get in arguments and have words with each other, sometimes to the point of outright fights.

It's possible to have a strong personal dislike of someone who happens to be a different race than you, or a different religion, or a different sexual orientation, or have a disability, and you can get in a verbal brawl with them without hurling racial slurs, religious epithets, gay/straight slurs, or disability-based slurs.  It's possible to have a total knock-down drag out, or keep your dislike within courteous bounds, either one---without descending to the level of slurs that display one's bigotry.

It's also possible to make brief asides that are phrased *almost* innocuously that are incredibly bigotted.

It doesn't really matter to the bigotry level of a statement whether it had been five weeks or five minutes, but if it had been "in the heat of battle" I might have made allowances.

If she had said I was a flake, or a nut, or a rotten bitch, or pick a slur, my emotional response would have been, "Yeah, I hate you too."

What I'm pissed off about is the very idea that anything unpleasant that differs from normal behavior that someone with a mental illness does, where it's specifically symptomatic of what they've got, gets labelled "using [X] as an excuse" by Deborah and people like her.

When George has a fight with John because they can't stand each other, that's one thing.  When George makes John's being gay the issue, it's no longer just about George and John hating each other, it becomes about George's homophobia.  Even if what George has said is, "John says he was 'born that way' and uses that as an excuse to screw around with other guys."

George will then, predictably, say, "What'd I do?  I'm just stating the facts."  Yeah, right.

Done with Deborah.

Timoclea
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on July 22, 2005, 01:16:00 PM
Back to the indians (who are no more from india than caucasians are from the caucuses, but there ya' go)

Obviously, the problem here is not the individuals. I suppose it could be dietary or some environmental toxin. But why grasp at straws when there are so many more obvious and likely causes.

If this many kids are depressed, maybe, just maybe, it's not a dysfuncion in these individuals but, instead, a normal, healthy response to a fucked up situation. Drugging the kids down is not going to make their situation any better. This much seems obvious.

I think most Americans have probably never given it much thought, but we need for the native cultures to heal and regain strength. They're the only people on the continent, except for the Amish/Mennonites and Quakers, who have a clue how to live when the empire falls down. And the empire will collapse. They always do.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of both mind and body will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day
Thomas Jefferson

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 22, 2005, 02:41:00 PM
Ditto, before all that wisdom is lost. I feel certain it will be useful, but some won't. Not much you can do about radical weather- heat waves causing edible trees to flower prematurely, resulting in no fruit. One example of many.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on July 23, 2005, 03:20:00 AM
Remember that Deborah will have nothing to do with the mentally ill, as she has stated on this thread.

Her motivation would be relevant to reveal, but
I doubt she will.

Why all the angst?

Why all the focus on attacking the mentally ill?

Why not be proud of Timoclea?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on September 11, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
Come One Come All - Welcome To The Paxil Protest
by Evelyn Pringle

http://www.opednews.com (http://www.opednews.com)
Excerpts:
This action ? aimed at pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline ? represents one of the few times in history where a group of concerned citizens will come together in a high profile manner to warn the public about a dangerous and defective drug, and to protest the egregious conduct of its manufacturer and distributors.

It will take place on September 26th through the 28th at the company's home base of 200 North 16th Street in Philadelphia PA.

Furthermore, that Glaxo (formerly SKB) conspired to hide these effects from the FDA in order to win approval for the drug. Why? So the company could seize upon and then dramatically expand into a burgeoning multi-billion dollar "SSRI" anti-depressant market.

The Paxil Protest will also focus the public's attention on additional hidden dangers of Paxil impacting women as a class, as well as the sub-population of women who are pregnant or who have just given birth.

As a result of Glaxo's hiding the truth from the public, approximately 5,000 US citizens have filed suit against GSK for the oftentimes excruciatingly painful, prolonged, sometimes life-threatening withdrawal symptoms experienced when stopping the drug.

Thousands more have sued Glaxo in the UK on the same basis.

Some of these lawsuits are filed on behalf of individuals who started Paxil ? only discover they could not stop taking the drug, even with extraordinary medical intervention. As a consequence these persons have effectively been transformed into lifetime Paxil addicts.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2005, 10:29:00 AM
I didn't realize this problem existed.

Are there any estimates, or knowledge,
of how many have developed a Paxil
dependency?

I would imagine there is because even
though someone is addicted to a prescripion
drug, they still need a perscription.

The doctor has to write down why?

Heck, even Rush got perscriptions, I think.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2005, 10:37:00 AM
From 1989 to the present, patients attempting to taper down or abruptly discontinue use of Paxil have suffered withdrawal symptoms as noted in the paragraph above.Physical symptoms occur:"hot flashes," dizziness, ataxia, paraesthesiae, gastrointestinal and flu-like symptoms, and related sensory and sleep disturbances.Psychiatric symptoms occur:anxiety, agitation, lability of mood, nervousness, hypersexuality, crying spells, irritability, sweating, lightheadedness, headache, weakness, and tremor.The result of these terrible symptoms is that many patients continue to take Paxil because they are entrapped by the drug.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2005, 10:44:00 AM
I took Paxil for 9 months about 5 years ago. I decided it wasn't really helping the symptoms I was having and quit over a 2 week period by taking a pill every other day instead of every day. I had no side effects whatsoever. Was I in the minority?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 12, 2005, 04:05:00 PM
I took Paxil for about a year, then my doctor
suggested I try a different one.

Nothing was wrong, he just wanted me to do better.
This is how the trial and error way of finding
the right medications works.

He told me to go off Paxil slowly and then start
the new medication slowly.

I always fast forward the process, and have never
had a problem. I have always cut my dose by a 1/3
and then started taking the new one. No problem.

I don't recommend that for others, but it works
for me ... I am not sensitive to these meds.

I haven't heard anyone else personally talk
about having problems with Paxil ...

It is just weird, to never have encountered
anyone talk about how they had trouble with it?

---

Didn't Stevie Nicks say she had trouble with
some sort of anti-depressant, and complained.
Although she is a heroin addict, she I don't
recall any dissatisfaction with smack.

Perhaps some people just hate feeling better.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 13, 2005, 03:48:00 AM
There have been many people who have successfully tapered off of Paxil with no problems, I being one of them. I have also known of people who started off with tapering problems, even when they did the tiniest increments of tapering, but eventually were able to get off paxil entirely as well. (Normally by doing a "step-tapering" process, where you would taper down, then taper-up a tiny bit, then taper down more, then taper up a tinier bit, then taper down again, like everest climbers do with their base camps.)

The biggest injustice concerning the Paxil issue was that the drug company who made Paxil downplayed the side effects when the drug was released, and just plain witheld information. Of course, they stated, like any SSRI, that you should taper down when you stop taking the drug, but they NEVER talked about all of the negative effects that had been attributed to the tapering down process with Paxil, and only finally released it after being pressured to do so.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 13, 2005, 08:37:00 AM
Prozac no life-saver for girl, 14
Young Alison Millar 'couldn't see past tomorrow,' her mother, Elaine, tells Mark Bonokoski

By MARK BONOKOSKI
Excerpts:
SUICIDE NOTES written -- two to girlfriends, another to her mother and one in which she says "I hate myself" exactly 20 times -- 14-year-old Alison Millar went down to the basement, wrapped an old drapery around her neck, pulled it through the rafters and then stepped off the couch.

A few months earlier, while watching the CBC evening news, Elaine Millar had listened to a report that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) had given U.S. regulators confidential drug company documents linking a heightened risk of suicide attempts to the antidepressant drug, Prozac.

"Her daughter had recently been prescribed Prozac and so, next morning, a frantic Elaine Millar called her daughter's psychiatrist to relay her
concerns."

"'I remember his words as if he had said them yesterday,' she said. 'He told me the benefits far outweighed the risks, and for me not to worry.'"

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/B ... 12116.html (http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2005/09/11/pf-1212116.html)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 13, 2005, 12:35:00 PM
>Prozac no life-saver for girl, 14
>Young Alison Millar 'couldn't see past tomorrow,' >her mother, Elaine,

This is a sad story for sure.

If you click and read the whole story she was a suicidal patient, with one major attempt with pills
that failed because her mom found her vomiting.

She was hospitalized for a week.

She tried many medications, the last was Prozac.

It is easy to say Prozac did it, but reasonable
to state that her eventual suicide could not
be prevented. If she was going to have these
thoughts all the time, and do it eventually
then sadly there is nothing much to be done,
other than standard mental health treatment.

Kurt Cobain and others have successfully carried
out their suicides without psychiatric medications.

Perhaps going to the doctors and therapists extended her life for that year and a half,
not ended her life.

Without her mom finding her she would have
already been dead the first time.

---

She may have drank a glass of milk, but no one
associates milk with suicides, do they?

---

Oh well, a tragedy but with or without Prozac
she was a troubled girl. Very sad.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on September 13, 2005, 07:34:00 PM
Yup, it is too bad the example was not of
someone who was never mentally ill, or
suicidal that took Prozac and then killed
themselves.

In this case it looks like Prozac, nor the
other medications did not work well enough.

Doing nothing would not have worked either,
since she tried to off herself even before
seeing a shrink.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on October 26, 2005, 04:33:00 PM
US panel against new depression drug data test
Tue Oct 25, 4:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Drug makers seeking U.S. approval of drugs to treat major depression should not be required to first provide data on how well they work long-term, a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel said unanimously on Tuesday.

The FDA is considering changing the requirements for companies who seek to market drugs for depression and other psychiatric conditions. The agency usually follows the advice of its advisory panels.

Industry representatives and some patient groups told the panelists that requiring long-term data before approval would be a burden and could slow development of new antidepressants.

Panelists agreed long-term data could help doctors treat patients, but voted 12-0 that getting new products on the market was more important.

"We do need more data on long-term efficacy ... I just don't think (a long-term requirement) is the right approach. I think this is going to hurt consumers rather than help them," said panel chairman Dr. Wayne Goodman, head of psychiatry at the University of Florida's College of Medicine.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on October 27, 2005, 12:58:00 AM
Quote

snip

"and some patient groups told the panelists that requiring long-term data before approval would be a burden and could slow development of new antidepressants"

snip



Listening to the patients!

That will teach em ...  :scared:
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: cleveland on October 27, 2005, 01:41:00 PM
After 20 years of depression, mixed with general anxiety, social phobia and panic attacks, I took a prescription for an MOI inhibitor called Nardil. I seem to recall that it has the same effect as an SSRI but the mechanism is different. Anyway, I started to feel much better that I had felt in a long time. A month later, I felt great. Two months later, I felt REALLY great, to the extent that I was in a manic state. Music sounded incredible! Food was awesome! Everything flet so good! Who needs sleep? Why is going to work so important? Why worry about spending money? And by the way, I love everyone!

Oh my god. I started to wear crazy outfits to work, I kissed all of my friends and some strangers, I broke into tears, I stayed up all night writing poetry, I smoked about a billion cigarettes.

Finally, I crashed, and reluctantly put away the meds. But oddly enough, I have had much less of an issue with depression or anxiety since. I think there was an internal emotional 'thermastat' that needed to be reset ant that did it for me.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on October 27, 2005, 02:08:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-10-27 10:41:00, cleveland wrote:

But oddly enough, I have had much less of an issue with depression or anxiety since. I think there was an internal emotional 'thermastat' that needed to be reset ant that did it for me.


Shrooms can be good for that too. Maybe that's how ibogain works?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on October 27, 2005, 04:46:00 PM
***Music sounded incredible! Food was awesome! Everything flet so good! Who needs sleep? Why is going to work so important? Why worry about spending money? And by the way, I love everyone!

Sure you weren't taking ecstacy??
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on November 02, 2005, 12:14:00 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/01/ne ... ampage.ap/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/01/neighborhood.rampage.ap/)
Report: Teen left suicidal messages on Web site before rampage
19-year-old vowed 'to hurt those that have hurt me'
Tuesday, November 1, 2005 Posted: 1723 GMT (0123 HKT)

ALISO VIEJO, California (AP) -- A 19-year-old man who authorities say killed two neighbors then himself posted suicidal messages on a Web site
before the rampage, according to a report published Tuesday.
William Freund posted an Internet message October 16 that threatened a "Terror Campaign to hurt those that have hurt me," the Los Angeles Times
reported. In the same message, he said, "My future ended some time ago."

The messages were posted on wrongplanet.net, a site used by people with Asperger's syndrome, an autism-like neurological disorder marked by poor
social skills and communication problems. He wrote on the site that he was diagnosed at age 16, but the Times reported that details of his medical treatment were unavailable.

The founder of the Web site, George Mason University student Alexander Plank, said volunteer monitors were concerned about the messages and tried unsuccessfully to find Freund's parents. After seeing news accounts of the shootings, Plank contacted police.

"We're looking into his mental health at the time of the shooting," said Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino.

On Saturday, Freund, who lived with his parents in the upscale community of Aliso Viejo, donned a dark cape and a paintball mask. Armed with a shotgun, he drove to a nearby neighbor's house and shot to death Christina Smith, 22, and her father, Vernon Smith, 45. (Full story)

After the gun apparently jammed when trying to shoot another neighbor, he walked home and killed himself.

On the Web site, Freund wrote that he had purchased a 12-gauge shotgun for defense, and that his health was deteriorating because of a new medication. "I feel like I need to kill myself," he wrote.

On October 19, he asked for references to a mental hospital and said he needed counseling and training in social skills. He also wrote that he
wished he had some friends -- emphasizing it with 75 exclamation points.

Some of the messages remained on the site Tuesday morning.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: try another castle on November 02, 2005, 06:14:00 PM
Maybe I'm ignorant, but it just seems to me that if they are going to treat teens who have mental illnesses with medication, they really can't do it with adult drugs. The teenage brain is wired SO differently than an adult brain. For one thing, the frontal lobe isn't even "online", i.e. synapse (I think that's the right word) connections haven't been established between that part of the brain and the rest. (Which explains why teenagers are more prone to doing stupid things and feeling invincible, because the frontal lobe deals with one's understandings of consequences.) It also explains why teenagers would be more willing to commit suicide.

It would seem to me that it would be more prudent to research creating medications that deal specifically with the physiology of the teenage brain, instead of trying to force a medication regimen onto them that don't take these differences into account. Even then, there is no guarantee this would be successful, as psych meds are hit-and miss a lot of the times. I remember being put on tricyclics after a rather nasty suicide attempt at 13, and those made me absolutely major psycho nuts. It certainly didn't help. In fact, no adult medication really helped. I just had to muddle through my teens with bipolar symptoms until I reached adulthood and was able to make my own decisions as to whether I wanted to try medication or not.

Which brings up another point that I think is important. I think that a lot of these teens are simply being put on these medications without informed consent. (This is outside of the behavior mod system that I am talking about.) A lot of times, that can cause more problems than it solves. All I knew, at least for me, was that there was something wrong with me, and that I had to take some weird pills that I didn't really want to, that made me feel miserable. I had no autonomy in the matter, and very little information about what was going on. That can add to depression and anxiety, as well as influence self-esteem and self-image issues.

I think that part of what helps with people who have mental illnesses is that they have the power to decide whether or not they want to be on medication. Obviously, this is not realistic in all scenarios (such as the criminally insane), but for most of us who suffer and deal and have some level of functionality, the idea of being forced to take a certain med seems ludicrous as an adult. However, this is what teens have to go through, at least to some extent. This, in my opinion, is totally counterproductive to mental health.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 08, 2005, 11:20:00 AM
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 103105.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/plos-afs103105.php)
Contact: Paul Ocampo
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
(850) 294-0875

Jonathan Leo
www.plosmedicine.org (http://www.plosmedicine.org))AS THE SOURCE FOR THIS ARTICLE AND PROVIDE A LINK TO THE FREELY-AVAILABLE TEXT. THANK YOU.

About PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine is an open access, freely available international medical journal. It publishes original research that enhances our understanding of human health and disease, together with commentary and analysis of important global health issues. For more information, visit
http://www.plosmedicine.org (http://www.plosmedicine.org)

About the Public Library of Science
The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a non-profit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world's scientific and
medical literature a freely available public resource. For more information, visit http://www.plos.org (http://www.plos.org)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 11, 2005, 02:51:00 PM
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/1111 ... 8971.shtml (http://www.staugustine.com/stories/111105/new_3448971.shtml)
Demeniuk trial to be conducted Nov. 28
Woman's sons killed in 2001
By RICHARD PRIOR
[email protected]

Concluding more than 4 1/2 years of hearings and motions, the prosecution and defense are ready to go to trial Nov. 28 in the capital murder case of a mother charged with shooting her twin sons to death.

St. Johns Circuit Judge John M. Alexander, presiding over a "case management session" yesterday, heard several "housekeeping matters" that had to be resolved before the trial can begin for Leslie Ormandy Demeniuk.

The 36-year-old Ponte Vedra Beach woman has been held in custody since she was arrested in the first-degree murder of her sons, James and John, on March 17, 2001.

Her attorneys, Bill Sheppard and Gray Thomas of Jacksonville, have argued that a mix of anti-depressants and alcohol created a "substance-induced mood disorder" that drove their client to kill her children.

Demeniuk's parents attend all of her hearings, and she flashed them a quick smile as she entered the courtroom Thursday. She sat at the defense table in a blue jump suit, occasionally speaking to her attorneys in a low voice.

As both sides move closer to trial, the judge said Thursday, he wants to see a list of all potential witnesses to avoid last-minute surprises.

Sheppard and Assistant State Attorney Noah McKinnon agreed to submit a complete list by next week.

"There has been good dialogue" between the two sides, McKinnon told the judge. "We will continue to do that. There won't be any surprises."

The prosecutor said he also will show the defense all photos, diagrams and charts he intends to use at trial.

"I don't believe I intend to offer autopsy photos," he said.

That decision, he said, may hinge on whether the defense stipulates to the identity of the children -- in other words, that the children who died were Demeniuk's.

Alexander noted that Sheppard and Thomas had submitted a questionnaire for potential jurors to fill out. McKinnon urged that individuals fill out the forms in the courthouse, to protect against possible juror "contamination." Sheppard and the judge agreed.

Not allowing the questionnaires to be filled out ahead of time "will slow you down in getting to the action," but it will probably save time in the
long run, Sheppard said.

Alexander approved the defense's request for a PET scan of their client's brain but did not specify who would do the procedure. He said the defense and prosecution could work that out.

Since the defense is relying on an insanity defense, the judge asked to have both sides submit recommended jury instructions before the trial gets under way.

He also asked McKinnon to submit the list of aggravating factors the prosecution expects to argue before the jury.

"It might clear up some issues if you are not going to use some aggravators," Alexander said.

"Some of them are obvious," McKinnon replied. "Cold, calculated and premeditated atrocious and cruel."

If he gets a guilty verdict, the prosecutor will also cite the age of Demeniuk's children as he asks for a sentence of death.

The defendant changed her plea from not guilty to guilty by reason of insanity in February 2003, following months of extensive medical
examinations.

She had been prescribed Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, for her depression as well as Zoloft, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Her Zoloft prescription was changed to Paxil, another SSRI, two days before the killings, according to court records.

According to testimony at a series of hearings, Demeniuk began drinking heavily to relieve akathisia, a side effect of SSRIs. Many patients, experts testified, drink alcohol to calm akathisia's "inner restlessness."

Demeniuk was drinking Early Times bourbon and Rolling Rock beer the day of the murders, according to court records.

Alexander ruled Oct. 21 that the defense could argue Demeniuk drank to relieve akathisia, but not that the combination drove her to kill.

The only potential delay in starting Demeniuk's trial in 17 days is a "very large box" of documents and "internal drug company studies" that the defense received Wednesday from Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft.

Packed inside the box is the company's own information about "adverse incidents" and the "side effects the causality we have previously
discussed," Thomas said.

"These are documents that support our position," he added.

The defense has not yet received similar information from GlaxoSmithKline, which manufactures Paxil, Thomas said.

Copies are being made of the Pfizer documents and will be brought to court Monday, said Thomas.

The "important documents" may even persuade Alexander to change his mind about his Oct. 21 ruling, Thomas suggested.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 16, 2005, 10:21:00 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28349 (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28349)
From The Onion
Pfizer Launches 'Zoloft For Everything' Ad Campaign
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 18, 2005, 12:26:00 AM
Academy for the Study of the Psychoanalytic Arts
---------------------------------------------

Prescription For Scandal: Biological Psychiatry's Faustian Pact
by Antony Black

      The last few decades have witnessed an explosion in the use of psychiatric medication. Indeed, the omnipresence of legal brain altering drugs in our society is such that, nowadays, it is rare for us not to know someone else who is on them - if we not already taking them ourselves.

      Prescription for Scandal

      Moreover, and contrary to popular perception, a marked increase in the practice of electro-shock therapy is accompanying this legal drug explosion.

      Prior to 1960 this biological psychiatric arsenal was confined mostly within the walls of the major psychiatric institutions. Since then, the biological genie has escaped the confines of the mental institution and taken up residence amidst the population at large.

      One of the reasons for this psychiatric colonization of the normal, stems from the increasingly intimate association between the multi-billion dollar a year psycho-pharmaceutical industry and institutional psychiatry. Thus, the latter's psychiatric journals, conventions and professional associations are all substantially underwritten by the former.

      Another reason is the rapid growth in Western society of an overarching philosophy of what is known as biological reductionism. This notion posits that, in studying any higher organizational entity, the whole can be explained by the parts, the complex by the simple, the higher by the lower. If you are 'depressed', it is because you have a biochemical imbalance, rather than, perhaps, that your life has no meaning. If one goes to war it is because of individual 'aggressive genes', rather than your being the pawn of complex socio-political forces over which you have no control.

      The idea that fundamentally new physical properties and laws emerge at higher levels of an organization, each level of which demands its own language and theory for its description and analysis, is given short shrift in the reductionist paradigm.

      A third and perhaps more ominous reason for the dramatic rise in the fortunes of biological psychiatry, is that its proponents have waged a propaganda war on its behalf that is riven with pseudo-scientific claims and evidential suppression.

      Shock/Drug Therapy and Brain Damage

      They continue to claim, for instance, against substantial research to the contrary, that shock therapy is harmless. Needless to say, no psychiatrists have ever volunteered to test this hypothesis themselves. In this they are probably wise, since the original animal research (of the 1940' and 50's) demonstrating undeniable brain damage was damning in this regard, as has been much of the subsequent human clinical data.

      Particularly disturbing are the demographic trends for this controversial procedure. In Canada and the United States, well over 100,000 people are subjected to the electroshock every year. Over two thirds of these patients are women, and almost half are the elderly.

      Still, while ECT is one of the heavy weapons of the modern bio-psych arsenal, the more usual work-a-day armament is drug therapy. The first is targeted on a population of thousands. The second on millions.

      Here again, proponents make a number of bold claims. Perhaps the most scandalous of these is that drug therapy is safe. In 1980, twenty-five years after the introduction of neuroleptic (antipsychotic) medication, an American Psychiatric Association task force report finally, grudgingly confirmed what a number of previously neglected studies had attempted to call attention to, namely, that roughly 40 percent of chronic users of these drugs went on to develop tardive dyskinesia, a Parkinsonian-like movement disorder indicative of permanent brain damage. Subsequent studies only amplified these fears by pointing the finger at other permanent brain disorders caused by the neuroleptics. These included tardive akithisia, a highly debilitating anxiety and hyperactive movement disorder. All told, the evidence now in supports rates of neuroleptic induced brain damage exceeding an astounding 5 percent per year of usage.

      For clearly psychotic patients there may be a cost-benefit tradeoff to consider. except that few if any of the patients so prescribed are, or ever have been, told of the potential cost. Moreover, these drugs are routinely employed in institutional settings on clients that are patently not psychotic.

      Given this sobering tale, it might have been expected that biological psychiatry would exercise the cautionary principle in its future endeavours. This was not the case. Instead, the next round in psychiatry's legal drug trafficking campaign was launched on an unsuspecting public with all the same hubris, euphoria and woefully inadequate, experimental investigation as the first.

      So Began the Anti-depressant Revolution

      Actually, the word 'revolution' is slightly misleading here, for some of the anti-depressants, like the tricyclics and the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, have been around for quite a while. Long enough, in fact, to garner a shadowy reputation. Thus, the tricyclics, like Tofranil and Elavil, are known to have numerous side effects, induce severe withdrawal symptoms and be extremely lethal in overdose. The MAO inhibitors are so dangerous that the maintenance of a special diet is necessary to avoid life-threatening cardiovascular reactions.

      The minor tranquilizers, like Valium, have also been around for decades and are probably the most widely prescribed psychiatric medication. Technically, they are considered apart from the anti-depressants by virtue of their central nervous system action. Nevertheless, they too are associated with a host of side effects in addition to being both highly addictive and lethal in combination with other drugs.

      The word 'revolution', then, should rightly be reserved for the latest generation of anti-depressants, the so-called 'selective serotonin reuptake inihibitors' (SSRI's) and their hybrid kin. These include such brand names as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. What is revolutionary about them is less their mode of action, than the extraordinary media fanfare and scientific claims accompanying them. Though this is not the first time that a class of drugs has been alleged to specifically target the presumed biological cause of a complex psychological function (i.e. depression), they are the first to benefit from the notion that they might enhance the normal human condition as well.

      The credibility of both these claims rests on the theory, widely embraced by the general public, that depression involves a well defined point source, or sources, in the brain upon which anti-depressant drugs act like magic bullets surgically targeting the offending region(s). Such a theory, however, seems never to have been burdened with the facts, for the overwhelming weight of clinical and physical evidence suggests that the drugs act, not by targeting any hypothetical 'depression center', but by simply blunting affect and emotion generally. They act, in other words, non-specifically to block emotional (limbic system) and higher cognitive (frontal lobe) connection. They don't 'target' anything other than a generalized splitting of psychic functioning.

      Indeed, there is a clear line of reasoning that the sine qua non of their action is precisely their toxicity. In this they are related to alcohol, the pleasantly delirious effects of which derive largely from its toxicity and that, likewise, doesn't 'cure' or 'target' any mental dysfunction at all. In fact, a more telling analogy is to be seen in the comparison with cocaine and amphetamine, both of whose effects rely, in part, on their inhibition of the reuptake of serotonin. Ironically, it was cocaine that was first hailed as a miracle drug and panacea for psychic ills by Sigmund Freud at the turn of the century. That was until he personally discovered its physically destructive and addictive qualities.

      The analogy can be carried further. Both cocaine and amphetamine impact additionally on the dopamine and adrenergic neurotransmitter systems. So do the SSRI's. Moreover, the claim that these drugs work functionally and specifically is further belied by the fact that the serotonin system itself ramifies throughout the brain and spinal cord.

      Curiously, in light of the widespread concern about biochemical imbalances in the brain, the only known such imbalances (apart from a few hormonal conditions like Cushing's syndrome and Graves' disease) are those caused by the drugs themselves. Lack of appreciation of this fact leads routinely to travesties in assigning cause and effect. Thus, the inevitable rebound reactions which ensue upon cessation of medication, are often interpreted in circular fashion, by doctor and patient alike, as confirming evidence of the previously hypothesized biological abnormality.

      It must be stated at this point, that none of the foregoing is meant to suggest that genes and biochemistry have nothing at all to do with moods and behaviour. Nor is it meant to espouse a belief in some sort of metaphysical mind/body dualism. I take it that the psyche is obviously based in a physical substrate, and that constitutional factors clearly influence everything from temperament to potential intellectual limits. But to see biological parameters as framing human potential is a far cry from believing that we have uncovered - or that there even exist - localized chemical origins of complex emotional and psychological states. It is, furthermore, naive to suppose that these drugs could ever act in a functionally specific (i.e. fine tuned) way given what we know of the complexity of even the most 'primitive' of brain processes (like temperature and water regulation, for instance).

      Even more naive, however, is to suppose that tampering, on a daily basis for perhaps years, even decades, on end with an organ as delicate and complex as the human brain, is not inherently dangerous. Certainly our experience with the neuroleptics suggests otherwise.

      Equally worrying is that basic biological principles clearly argue for the potential for permanent changes in physiology when the brain's dynamic homeostasis is chronically altered or upset. A number of animal studies involving amplification of the serotonin system have already demonstrated a resulting permanent loss of serotonin receptors.

      Also worrying is a recent report in the British medical journal the Lancet, describing how a group of scientists in the United States had scanned human brains and found damage to serotonin neurons, caused, they believe, by the street drug Ecstasy. Studies with monkeys have reinforced these results. Ecstasy is thought to work, at least in part, by boosting the serotonin system.

      Statistical Shenanigans

      Still, biological psychiatrists will argue, and most people believe, that the SSRI's have undergone a rigorous battery of independent tests, trials and experimental protocols under the auspices of the American FDA to insure their efficacy and safety. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      First of all, the experimental studies for these drugs are constructed, financed, and supervised entirely by the drug companies themselves. Their vaunted independence is a complete myth.

      Second, the time line of the trials are so ludicrously short as to fly in the face of the most elementary scientific reasoning. Prozac, for instance, was released onto the market with only six weeks of clinical trials. In essence, anyone now taking the drug for more than six weeks is involved in their own study into its long-term effects.

      Third, the experimental protocol and statistical design of many of these studies are a complete scandal in their own right. In the case of Prozac, among other statistical shenanigans: data were pooled from different sources, then manipulated into shape; relevant clinical groups were eliminated from participation; additional confounding medications were administered simultaneous to the test drug; the dropout rate of roughly 50 percent - and the reasons for - were never factored into the final results; and, finally, the total number of subjects that actually finished a placebo-controlled study was a mere 286. It is natural to ask at this point, why, given their potential danger, we haven't witnessed an epidemic of adverse reactions and brain damage related to these new generation drugs.

      As far as the latter effect is concerned, 'witnessed' is the operative term. The serotonin neurotransmitter system, unlike the dopamine system upon which the neuroleptics principally act, is not linked directly to the body's motor system, therefore any damage that may occur is likely to be much less visible over the short and intermediate run. Moreover, any emotional scarring or loss that does take place is likely, again, to be interpreted as part of the original hypothesized 'biological' disorder. That said, it must be noted that the SSRI's do, in fact, also effect the dopamine and adrenergic systems, and, like the neuroleptics, they can be expected to exert a malign, if peripheral, influence on these structures as well. Evidence to this effect has already been documented.

      Prozac Horror Stories

      In terms of bad reactions, the case against the SSRI's is on much firmer clinical ground. Following its release in 1988, for instance, a flood of Prozac horror stories hit the media. A deluge of lawsuits quickly followed, whilst Eli Lilly, its manufacturer, embarked on a massive lobbying and propaganda campaign to protect its $1 billion a year (1993) Prozac market.

      Among the many pathological effects that Prozac appeared to induce or exacerbate were: paranoia, compulsion, depression, suicidal ideation and violence. Numerous bizarre and gratuitous murders and suicides were credited to its influence, and a number of august journals including the Lancet and the British National Formulary came out with confirming warnings about 'suicidal ideation' and 'violent behaviour'. Interestingly, this symptom cluster is typical of amphetamine psychosis, a, by now, well known result of protracted stimulant overdose. Like amphetamine, Prozac is functionally a stimulant.

      Apart from safety, yet another claim routinely made by proponents of the biological psychiatric paradigm is that the long term effectiveness of medication for neurotic disorders is superior to that of traditional psychotherapy. Once again, a claim with little or no clinical evidence to back it up.

      Indeed, a number of comprehensive reviews over the past decade have come out decisively in favour of psychotherapy. Commonsense would hardly dictate otherwise, for by suggesting to people that they are merely biologically defective mechanisms capable of handling their emotional / psychospiritual crises only with the aid of a technological crutch, many of the fundaments and principles of psychological healing are completely undermined. Encouraging patients to give up on personal growth and understanding in favour of pills, is, apart from being a philosophy of despair, a recipe for emotional disaster. Thus, helplessness is substituted for mastery, dependency for autonomy, and an unexamined life takes the place of self-discovery.

      Moreover, at precisely the time of greatest need, the patient-cum-pscyhic adventurer is delivered up to a zombie-like state devoid of both mental acuity, and the capacity for deep feeling, self-awareness and self-empathy.

      That biological psychiatry could so blithely trample underfoot such granite pillars of therapeutic commonsense is chilling. Even more chilling is the fact that the biological paradigm has expanded well beyond the confines of the adult population. For though most medicated adult patients can be said to be nominally voluntary, medicated children can in no way be so considered. It is curious that, in an era deluged with an avalanche of new statistics detailing the pervasiveness of childhood poverty, neglect, and abuse, the psychiatric profession has chosen to ignore the obvious psychsocial causes of most childhood behavioural disorders and has opted, instead, to crusade for the wholesale drugging of this involuntary population on the basis of totally unsubstantiated theories of biological causation.

      Thus, there is hardly a shred of experimental evidence to buttress such trendy childhood 'disease' entities as Minimal Brain Dysfunction, Learning Disorder, or Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. No underlying local organic malformation, physiological malfunction or chemical basis has ever been clearly demonstrated for these syndromes and no well controlled clinical studies have ever unequivocally supported them either. This has not stopped the escalating prescription of such stimulants as Ritalin and Dexedrine despite a host of negative side effects including, tics, spasms. growth suppression, and chronically elevated heart rates and blood pressure.

      Naturally, the same dangers, the same potential for permanent damage, apply with respect to these medications as they do to all the others, with the added complication that, here, the potential for harm is compounded by virtue of the drugs' interaction with the developing brain.

      Increasingly, Prozac is also being given to children despite their never having been part of the original experimental protocol. The license for such practice derives from the fact that, once the FDA has approved a drug, there are few restrictions on how or to whom a doctor can prescribe it. In line with this practice, the anti-depressants in general have become a jack-of-all-trades medication prescribed for everything from insomnia to migraine headache.

      In stark contrast to this massive, state sanctioned drug laundering operation is the harshly punitive 'war' the state wages against illegal drugs. Though beyond the scope of the present discussion, this fascinating paradox points up the concluding need to briefly confront some of the broader social implications of the biological psychiatric paradigm.

      A Biased Conception Of What It Means To Be Human

      As part of its general philosophical stance this paradigm is a conceptual formation with an implicit, highly ideological portrayal of the nature of 'human nature'. In this sense it is aimed at us all, for at the heart of any political philosophy will be found a biased conception of what it means to be human and it is just this conception that the reductionist psychiatric model seeks to address in a manner which is neither progressive nor in any way new. Indeed, it is politically and culturally reactionary.

      Politically, the notion that the laws of human behaviour and mental functioning should be phrased predominantly in terms of biological parameters ineluctably invokes the specter of Social Darwinism. For if our behaviour is thought to be strictly biologically determined then it is immutable, our fates inevitable, and the status quo merely reflects the 'laws of nature'. It is then but a short step to the rationalization of the manifest inequalities of societal wealth and privilege. A sort of updated version of the Divine Right of Kings in pseudo-scientific jargon.

      Culturally, the notion that we should conceive ourselves primarily as biochemical mechanisms is not only dangerously dehumanizing and spiritually stunting, it leads inevitably to both a dismissive and escapist attitude towards many genuinely psychological and social problems.

      In having suborned, in other words, a substantial proportion of the population into believing their behaviours are dictated principally by their genes and their biochemistry, biological psychiatry has not only set back the psychological paradigm a hundred years, it has also fanned the flames of a simplistic, reductionist view of human nature and of human society.

      Psychiatry may have festooned itself with self-congratulatory laurels vis-à-vis its increasingly 'scientific' and 'objective' orientation, but ironically, it has moved ever further away from the true meaning of those terms. Having jettisoned the language and level of analysis necessary for an appropriate dialogue with its clientele, it is no longer capable of seeing itself in any remotely objective way.

      Possessed by the reductionist daemon, psychiatry today, remains blind to its own historical contingency, to its own social, cultural, economic and political conditioning. Unable to see that it too has a case history, it remains insensible to its own, quite advanced pathology.

----------------------------------------------

(Previously published at http://www.swans.com (http://www.swans.com) and in the Canadian Dimension, 2001.)

      Antony Black is a freelance writer concentrating, for the most part, on international issues from a 'radical' left perspective.  Having incubated first in an intellectual context of psychology and psychiatric theory, then veered into the sciences, thence to writing and teaching, he has yet retained an abiding interest in his first 'career'.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2005, 07:05:00 PM
"...But low serotonin levels are no more the cause of depression than low aspirin levels are the cause of headaches, argue Jonathan Leo at Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine in Bradenton, Florida, and Jeffrey Lacasse at Florida State University in Tallahassee..."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 21, 2005, 09:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-11-21 16:05:00, Anonymous wrote:

" "...But low serotonin levels are no more the cause of depression than low aspirin levels are the cause of headaches, argue Jonathan Leo at Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine in Bradenton, Florida, and Jeffrey Lacasse at Florida State University in Tallahassee..."

"


Furthermore, it is a coincidence that 25 million people in this country alone feel better with a
serotonin medication!

25 million people are wrong, thank you Jonathan Leo, for pointing that out.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 21, 2005, 10:49:00 PM
And how many millions of people with rotten teeth feel better with an aspirin or 10? Hell, give em some coke instead, they'll feel better. Does that prove the existance of a coke deficiency?

The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with a Liberal Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
--Anonymous

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2005, 09:51:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-11-21 19:49:00, Antigen wrote:

"And how many millions of people with rotten teeth feel better with an aspirin or 10? Hell, give em some coke instead, they'll feel better. Does that prove the existance of a coke deficiency?


"


Fantastic meaningless comparison.

Perhaps you will chip in the 1st dollar for a billboard campaign that states:

Anti-depressant users:
You do not feel better
because of your anti-depressants!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on November 22, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-11-22 06:51:00, Anonymous wrote:


Fantastic meaningless comparison.



Perhaps you will chip in the 1st dollar for a billboard campaign that states:



Anti-depressant users:

You do not feel better

because of your anti-depressants!"


Are you thick? I didn't say aspirin would not make a tooth ache feel better. I said it often does. But it neither cures the invection nor proves an aspirin deficiency.

Same w/ cocaine and depression. Give a depressed person a little cocain and, in all liklihood, they will feel substantially better. Give them something to tweak up their seratonin levels and, in some cases (not as reliable as coke) they will feel better. But that does not mean that they had a seratonin or cocaine deficiency. And it doesn't address the causes of the depression.

All kinds of things can cause people to feel badly. I've never said that no one should use psyche drugs. But, in the interest of consistancy, I also have never said that no one should use those other, more natural, unpatentable drugs either. To each his own.

25 million people? What's that, the total number in America who are on SSRIs? That's pretty close to 1 out of 100 of us. Do you truely and honestly believe, given the state of psyche medicine today, that every last one of them is helped more than hurt by those drugs and that none of them could find relief through less invasive methods? Do you deny that overprescibing is a legitimate issue in the industry?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Redemption: Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sins through the murder of their deity against whom they sinned.
--Ambrose Bierce

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: AtomicAnt on November 22, 2005, 01:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-11-22 07:13:00, Antigen wrote:

"
Quote

On 2005-11-22 06:51:00, Anonymous wrote:



Fantastic meaningless comparison.





Perhaps you will chip in the 1st dollar for a billboard campaign that states:





Anti-depressant users:


You do not feel better


because of your anti-depressants!"




Are you thick? I didn't say aspirin would not make a tooth ache feel better. I said it often does. But it neither cures the invection nor proves an aspirin deficiency.



Same w/ cocaine and depression. Give a depressed person a little cocain and, in all liklihood, they will feel substantially better. Give them something to tweak up their seratonin levels and, in some cases (not as reliable as coke) they will feel better. But that does not mean that they had a seratonin or cocaine deficiency. And it doesn't address the causes of the depression.



All kinds of things can cause people to feel badly. I've never said that no one should use psyche drugs. But, in the interest of consistancy, I also have never said that no one should use those other, more natural, unpatentable drugs either. To each his own.



25 million people? What's that, the total number in America who are on SSRIs? That's pretty close to 1 out of 100 of us. Do you truely and honestly believe, given the state of psyche medicine today, that every last one of them is helped more than hurt by those drugs and that none of them could find relief through less invasive methods? Do you deny that overprescibing is a legitimate issue in the industry?



Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.



Redemption: Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sins through the murder of their deity against whom they sinned.
--Ambrose Bierce


"


I'm with you on this one. My ex is a board certified psychiatrist and she believes that people run to the pills too quickly and too often. She is a strong critic of ADHD diagnosis and calls it an excuse for bad parenting. She informed me that the drugs used for ADHD cause permanent changes in the brain that are very similar to the changes caused by crystal-meth which is actually in the same family of stimutants (amphetamines). We are giving the kids speed to calm them down. She says psychiatry does not know why it works. She says psychiatry does not know why anti-depressents work either, but they do, and so they are used.

My ex has often had run-ins with her supervisors at various jobs because she follows a course of minimal medication and only when really needed instead of making a living by writing scripts on demand. She has informed me that a psychiatrist makes between $50 and $150 every time they write a perscription. The range reflects how much the practice gets vs how much they pay the individual doctor.

Many psychiatrists live off of referrals. A psychologist will refer patients to a psychiatrist solely because the psychiatrist can prescribe the medication the psychologist thinks is needed. Some psychiatrist will insist on seeng and assessing the patient for themselves. Others just phone in the script. Nice huh? Make a phone call and get a hundred bucks.

I have attended drug company dinners with her. They give participants a great meal at a great restaurant and then give a presentation outlining their newest medication. They describe all of the indications, side effects, and studies that are done. These presentations are professionally done and quite convincing. They are also often the ONLY information a doctor ever gets about the medication. The doctors are given lots of free samples to try on their patients. The rest is left to the doctors' own experience and judgement.

My ex is anti-program. She feels the only kids that need residential treatment are those with severe problems like severe autism, downs sydnrome, or other dramatic illness; or in cases where the parents suffer from something that prevents them from parenting (like any of the above and/or addiction.). She says these teen programs are for lazy parents who have messed up their kids and want to pass the mess to someone else to fix. She says it doesn't work because the kids are not the problem, the parents are. Fix the parents and the kids will just follow along nicely.

She worked in an adolescent drug and alcholol rehab unit in an NYC hospital for some years. She has experience with the worst of troubled teens. She has worked for prison systems and homeless outreach programs as well. She has pretty much seen it all.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2005, 03:39:00 PM
1% of the population has schizoprenia

3% of the population has Bipolar Disorder

? I don't know how many have an active clinical depression?

---

There was a time when no one was on any psychotropic medications. During that period of time the solution was insane asylums and then state run residential psychiatric hospitals.

About 45 years ago, or so, there was a major closure of these psychiatric hospitals, it is
commonly referred to as de-institutionalization.

If there is any other reason besides the advances
in medication that allowed for these hell whole
hospitals to close than please post.

---

I prefer a different take.

To each is own. However they want to live their
lives and function, do it.

It is none of my business what someone else wants
to do. It is not my preference to criticize anyones choices and their preferred methodologies.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2005, 03:43:00 PM
The source of capitol and the demands
on executives is the cause for over selling.

If the stock exchange was not used to
fund these businesses then they would need
another sort of funding.

Most common would be for the government, or
government's to nationalize them. Most people
do not trust the government, so ...

That brings us back to the stock market and
quarterly reports and all that pressure for
profits.

I guess the government could regulate the industry
further, but most people don't want the governement to regulate businesses to death.

Therefore we have the system we have today!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2005, 04:43:00 PM
A comment an ally made recently re: institutions, and the unfortunate backlash:

Well psychiatrists wear white coats, and they wave brain scans around and they have a very impressive vocabulary. Joseph Goebbels said it perfectly:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

I think of the "State" in our situation as not Nazi Germany but the profession of Psychiatry as it is primarily practiced today.

I also think once psychiatry got their "treatments" out of the mental ward and into the streets the people were no longer being "shielded" from the "consequences of the lie". Pharma greed put the treatments in many homes and now we are all reaping the results; suicide, murder, insanity, abuse. It was always there with booze and street drugs but it's hit an all new level.
***************

There's a black market on 'legal' drugs now. Kids are selling their Ritalin which is crushed and snorted. Moms are drowning their kids, severing their arms, shooting them.
While I wouldn't wish a psych ward on anyone, we can't deny the reality that psych drugs could possibly be doing more harm than good. And the DSM continues to grow. Everyone can have their own dx and rx to go with it.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2005, 05:01:00 PM
Quote

On 2005-11-22 13:43:00, Anonymous wrote:


Pharma greed put the treatments in many homes and now we are all reaping the results; suicide, murder, insanity, abuse. It was always there with booze and street drugs but it's hit an all new level.

"

What was the per capita levels of suicide, murder, insanity, abuse say in the year 1900, 1950 and 2000?

I assume you did your research to make the statement that these four items are higher per
capita than ever.


Quote


There's a black market on 'legal' drugs now. Kids are selling their Ritalin which is crushed and snorted. Moms are drowning their kids, severing their arms, shooting them.

"


Ritalin, I think I read here, is a 70
year old medication.

Who supplied the speed in the 60's?
Are those supplies available today?

I would imagine that yes, if Ritalin
is the preferred source of speed then
careful examination should be provided.

Such as, is the Ritalin stolen, or is
it perscription abuse.

What is illegally in the perscription
system and why?

Is it because the medication was deveoped
70 years ago?

Is it because a stolen batch of pills is
essentially free to the user?

Of today's whole supply of illegal speed
how much of a percentage is it of stolen
Ritalin?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 22, 2005, 05:11:00 PM
I think the biggest problem to finally
getting an alternative to pharmaceuticals
is that these other treatment professionals
fail to document their successes.

It hurts everyone and leaves very few real
options other than pharmaceuticals.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2005, 09:42:00 AM
War on Drugs appears to be meeting one of its objectives? Meet the new 'drug dealers'.

THE NEW YORK TIMES
November 16, 2005 Front Page
Being a Patient
Young, Assured and Playing Pharmacist to Friends
By AMY HARMON

Nathan Tylutki arrived late in New York, tired but eager to go out dancing. When his friend Katherine K. offered him the Ritalin she had inherited from someone who had stopped taking his prescription, he popped two pills and stayed out all night.

For the two college friends, now 25 and out in the working world, there was nothing remarkable about the transaction. A few weeks later, Katherine gave the tranquilizer Ativan to another friend who complained of feeling short of breath and panicky.  "Clear-cut anxiety disorder," Katherine decreed.

The Ativan came from a former colleague who had traded it to her for the Vicodin that Katherine's boyfriend had been prescribed by a dentist. The boyfriend did not mind, but he preferred that she not give away the Ambien she got from a doctor by exaggerating her sleeping problems. It helps him relax after a stressful day.

"I acquire quite a few medications and then dispense them to my friends as needed. I usually know what I'm talking about," said Katherine, who lives in Manhattan and who, like many other people interviewed for this article, did not want her last name used because of concerns that her behavior could get her in trouble with her employer, law enforcement authorities or at least her parents.

For a sizable group of people in their 20's and 30's, deciding on their own what drugs to take - in particular, stimulants, antidepressants and other psychiatric medications - is becoming the norm. Confident of their abilities and often skeptical of psychiatrists' expertise, they choose to rely on their own research and each other's experience in treating problems like depression, fatigue, anxiety or a lack of concentration. A medical degree, in their view, is useful, but not essential, and certainly not sufficient.

They trade unused prescription drugs, get medications without prescriptions from the Internet and, in some cases, lie to doctors to obtain medications that in their judgment they need.

A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration says it is illegal to give prescription medication to another person, although it is questionable whether the offense would be prosecuted.

The behavior, drug abuse prevention experts say, is notably different from the use of drugs like marijuana or cocaine, or even the abuse of prescription painkillers, which is also on the rise. The goal for many young adults is not to get high but to feel better - less depressed, less stressed out, more focused, better rested. It is just that the easiest route to that end often seems to be medication [legal drugs] for which they do not have a prescription.

Some seek to regulate every minor mood fluctuation, some want to enhance their performance at school or work, some simply want to find the best drug to treat a genuine mental illness. And patients say that many general practitioners, pressed for time and unfamiliar with the ever-growing inventory of psychiatric drugs, are happy to take their suggestions, so it pays to be informed.

Health officials say they worry that as prescription pills get passed around in small batches, information about risks and dosage are not included. Even careful self-medicators, they say, may not realize the harmful interaction that drugs can have when used together or may react unpredictably to a drug; Mr. Tylutki and Katherine each had a bad experience with a medication taken without a prescription.

But doctors and experts in drug abuse also say they are flummoxed about how to address the increasing casual misuse of prescription medications by young people for purposes other than getting high.

Carol Boyd, the former head of the Addiction Research Center at the University of Michigan, said medical professionals needed to find ways to evaluate these risks. "Kids get messages about street drugs," Ms. Boyd said. "They know smoking crack is a bad deal. This country needs to have a serious conversation about both the marketing of prescription drugs and where we draw the boundaries between illegal use and misuse."

To some extent, the embrace by young adults of better living through chemistry is driven by familiarity. Unlike previous generations, they have for many years been taking drugs prescribed by doctors for depression, anxiety or attention deficit disorder.

Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, has for most of their adult lives sent the message that pills offer a cure for any ill. Which ones to take, many advertisements suggest, is largely a matter of personal choice.

"If a person is having a problem in life, someone who is 42 might not know where to go - 'Do I need acupuncture, do I need a new haircut, do I need to read Suze Orman?' " said Casey Greenfield, 32, a writer in Los Angeles, referring to the personal-finance guru. "Someone my age will be like, 'Do I need to switch from Paxil to Prozac?' "

For Ms. Greenfield, who could recite the pros and cons of every selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor on the market by the time she graduated from college, years of watching doctors try to find the right drug cocktails for her and for assorted friends has not bolstered faith in their expertise.

"I would never just do what the doctor told me because the person is a doctor," said Ms. Greenfield, who dictates to her doctors what to prescribe for her headaches and sleep problems, and sometimes gives her pills to friends. "I'm sure lots of patients don't know what they're talking about. But lots of doctors don't know what they're talking about either."

Prescriptions to treat attention deficit disorder in adults age 20 to 30 nearly tripled from 2000 to 2004, according to Medco, a prescription management company. Medications for sleeping disorders in the same age group showed a similar increase.

Antidepressants are now prescribed to as many as half of the college students seen at student health centers, according to a recent report in The New England Journal of Medicine, and increasing numbers of students fake the symptoms of depression or attention disorder to get prescriptions that they believe will give them an edge. Another study, published recently in The Journal of American College Health, found that 14 percent of students at a Midwestern liberal arts college reported borrowing or buying prescription stimulants from each other, and that 44 percent knew of someone who had.

"There's this increasingly widespread attitude that 'we are our own best pharmacists,' " said Bessie Oster, the director of Facts on Tap, a drug abuse prevention program for college students that has begun to focus on prescription drugs. "You'll take something, and if it's not quite right, you'll take a little more or a little less, and there's no notion that you need a doctor to do that."

Now, Going Online for Pills
The new crop of amateur pharmacists varies from those who have gotten prescriptions - after doing their own research and finding a doctor who agreed with them - to those who obtain pills through friends or through some online pharmacies that illegally dispense drugs without prescriptions.

"The mother's little helpers of the 1960's and 1970's are all available now on the Internet," said Catherine Wood, a clinical social worker in Evanston, Ill., who treated one young client who became addicted to Xanax after buying it online. "You don't have to go and steal a prescription pad anymore."

In dozens of interviews, via e-mail and in person, young people spoke of a sense of empowerment that comes from knowing what to prescribe for themselves, or at least where to turn to figure it out. They are as careful with themselves, they say, as any doctor would be with a patient.

"It's not like we're passing out Oxycontin, crushing it up and snorting it," said Katherine, who showed a reporter a stockpile that included stimulants, tranquilizers and sleeping pills. "I don't think it's unethical when I have the medication that someone clearly needs to make them feel better to give them a pill or two."

Besides, they say, they have grown up watching their psychiatrists mix and match drugs in a manner that sometimes seems arbitrary, and they feel an obligation to supervise. "I tried Zoloft because my doctor said, 'I've had a lot of success with Zoloft,' no other reason," said Laurie, 26, who says researching medications to treat her depressive disorder has become something of a compulsion. "It's insane. I feel like you have to be informed because you're controlling your brain."

When a new psychiatrist suggested Seraquil, Laurie, who works in film production and who did not want her last name used, refused it because it can lead to weight gain. When the doctor suggested Wellbutrin XL, she replied with a line from the commercial she had seen dozens of times on television: "It has a low risk of sexual side effects. I like that."

But before agreeing to take the drug, Laurie consulted several Internet sites and the latest edition of the Physicians' Desk Reference guide to prescription drugs at the Barnes & Noble bookstore in Union Square.

On a page of her notebook, she copied down the generic and brand names of seven alternatives. Effexor, she noted, helps with anxiety - a plus. But Wellbutrin suppresses appetite - even better.

At the weekly meetings of an "under-30" mood-disorder support group in New York that Laurie attends, the discussion inevitably turns to medication. Group members trade notes on side effects that, they complain, doctors often fail to inform them about. Some say they are increasingly suspicious of how pharmaceutical companies influence the drugs they are prescribed.

"Lamictal is the new rage," said one man who attended the group, "but in part that's because there's a big money interest in it. You have to do research on your own because the research provided to you is not based on an objective source of what may be best."

Recent reports that widely prescribed antidepressants could be responsible for suicidal thoughts or behavior in some adolescents have underscored for Laurie and other young adults how little is known about the risks of some drugs, and why different people respond to them differently.

Moreover, drugs widely billed as nonaddictive, like Paxil or Effexor, can cause withdrawal symptoms, which some patients say they only learned of from their friends or fellow sufferers.

"This view of psychology as a series of problems that can be solved with pills is relatively brand new," said Andrea Tone, a professor of the social history of medicine at McGill University. "It's more elastic, and more subjective, so it lends itself more to taking matters into our own hands."

To that end, it helps to have come of age with the Internet, which offers new possibilities for communication and commerce to those who want to supplement their knowledge or circumvent doctors.

Fluent in Psychopharmacology
People of all ages gather on public Internet forums to trade notes on "head meds," but participants say the conversations are dominated by a younger crowd for whom anonymous exchanges of highly personal information are second nature.

On patient-generated sites like CrazyBoards, fluency in the language of psychopharmacology is taken for granted. Dozens of drugs are referred to in passing by both brand name and generic, and no one is reticent about suggesting medications and dosage levels.

"Do you guys think that bumping up the dosage was a good idea, or should I have asked for a different drug?" someone who called herself Maggie asked earlier this month, saying she had told her doctor she wanted to double her daily intake of the antidepressant fluoxetine to 40 milligrams. xxxxxxxxxxx cut xxxxxxxxxxxxx

A Post-Hurricane Care Package
Dan Todd, marooned in Covington, La., after Hurricane Katrina, said he would be forever grateful to a woman in New Hampshire who organized a donation drive for him among the site's regular participants.

Within two days of posting a message saying that he had run out of his medications, he received several care packages of assorted mood stabilizers and anti-anxiety drugs, including Wellbutrin, Klonopin, Trileptal, Cymbalta and Neurontin.

"I had to drive down to meet the FedEx driver because his truck couldn't get past the trees on part of the main highway," said Mr. Todd, 58. "I had tears in my eyes when I got those packages."

It doesn't always work out so well. When Katherine took a Xanax to ease her anxiety before a gynecologist appointment, she found that she could not keep her eyes open. She had traded a friend for the blue oval pill and she had no idea what the dosage was.

An Adderall given to her by another friend, she said, "did weird things to me." And Mr. Tylutki, who took the Ritalin she offered one weekend last fall, began a downward spiral soon after.

"I completely regretted and felt really guilty about it," Katherine said.
Taking Katherine's pills with him when he returned to Minneapolis, Mr. Tylutki took several a day while pursuing a nursing degree and working full time. Like many other students, he found Ritalin a useful study aid. One night, he read a book, lay down to sleep, wrote the paper in his head, got up, wrote it down, and received an A-minus.

But he also began using cocaine and drinking too much alcohol. A few months ago, Mr. Tylutki took a break from school. He flushed the Ritalin down the toilet and stopped taking all drugs, including the Prozac that he had asked a doctor for when he began feeling down.

"I kind of made it seem like I needed it," Mr. Tylutki said, referring to what he told the doctor. "Now I think I was just lacking sleep."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2005, 10:02:00 AM
Quote

On 2005-11-23 06:42:00, Anonymous wrote:



"War on Drugs appears to be meeting one of its objectives? Meet the new 'drug dealers'.

THE NEW YORK TIMES
November 16, 2005 Front Page
Being a Patient




FYI: This was posted already at:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... forum=22&0 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12675&forum=22&0)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2005, 10:54:00 AM
If Ginger would like to save space she can replace the text with a link to the previous posting.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 23, 2005, 12:32:00 PM
Oh, sorry, that wasn't my point.

I should have included that it has been
posted there to let you know, in case
there is any discussion.

Having said that ... I just checked and
there was no discussion ... so I guess
disregard my info post  ::bangin::
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 29, 2005, 04:27:00 PM
http://www.ironwooddailyglobe.com/1125ssri.htm (http://www.ironwooddailyglobe.com/1125ssri.htm)
Antidepressants under scrutiny

Published Friday, November 25, 2005 11:24:04 AM Central Time
By MARGARET LEVRA
Globe Staff Writer

Experts agree that withdrawal from antidepressant medications must be done under a controlled environment, or it could result in tragedy.

Mark Laguna, 40, of Pence, Wis., is currently lodged in the Iron County jail, facing a first-degree intentional homicide charge for the March 16 shooting death of his wife Brenda.

Laguna is taking two well-known Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Celexa, and Wellbutrin, along with Ceroquel, for schizophrenia, and Xanex.

Defense attorney Fred Bourg from the public defender's office in Ashland, Wis., is attempting to have Laguna transferred to a mental health facility to be evaluated and weaned from these medications before his February trial.

For withdrawal without complications, the dosage of an SSRI must be decreased over a period of time, said Karen Barth-Menzies, with the
Baumhedlund Law Firm in Los Angeles on Thursday. Barth-Menzies is the lead attorney for withdrawal cases involving SSRIs.

SSRIs are "extremely powerful drugs, designed to alter a person's brain chemistry. They can cause a person to completely change behavior -- change
their way of thinking and cause them to become psychotic." The drugs cause "severe agitation and suicide to some, and it causes others to commit acts of violence against others," she said.

She noted side effects "can occur on any dosage fluctuation."

Having dealt with the violent side effects of SSRIs, Barth-Menzies said, "Sometimes they do not even realize what they did. It's basically a
psychotic break. They have no control of what they are doing at the time, followed by disbelief. What happened? Who did that? How did that happen?"

Barth-Menzies said there are millions of people in the country on these medications.

"From what we can tell, 3 to 5 percent of the population will have suicidal or violent reactions, either harm against self or harm against others," she said.

Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, said withdrawal from SSRIs should be done under a controlled environment.

On Tuesday, Glenmullen said he could not comment on possible effects on Laguna from SSRI withdrawal without more in-depth information.

Glenmullen recently testified in a Federal Drug Administration hearing that resulted in the recent warning that antidepressants make patients, including children and adolescents, suicidal.

The warning covers 10 of the current popular antidepressants, Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Effexor, Celexa, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, Luvox, Remeron and
Serzone.

Safety of Drugs
In his publication, "Suicides and Homicides in Patients Taking Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft: Why They Keep Happening -- And Why They Will Continue," California author Jay S. Cohen M.D. wrotefrom almost the day that they were
introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, sudden, unexpected suicides and homicides have been reported in patients taking serotonin-enhancing antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. "I'm not surprised this problem hasn't disappeared, nor will it unless we look deeper," he wrote.

Cohen said the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors help millions of people, but, "any drug that can cause positive changes in people's brains can also cause negative ones, unless care is taken to avoid it."

SSRIs could create a unique combination of side effects that might severely impair judgment and impulse control, Cohen noted. SSRIs can also cause a severe degree of agitation or restlessness that may become intolerable and
reduce impulse control, he wrote. Impulsive behavior, especially if coupled with impaired cognitive functioning, can be dangerous, he added.

Any psychiatrist will tell you that excessive doses of antidepressants can cause brain dysfunctions, including disorientation, confusion, and cognitive disturbances, Cohen said.

Antidepressants can also trigger similar, manic-like symptoms in people whose depression is part of a manic-depressive syndrome, which often gets
overlooked when people are given SSRIs.

"Some of these individuals may have serious adverse reactions to antidepressants, including irritability, aggression, and mania," wrote Dr.
Ronald Pies, professor of psychiatry at Tufts University.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on November 30, 2005, 11:54:00 PM
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_76511.asp (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_76511.asp)
Lawsuit Filed In Case Of Suicide After Paxil Use
posted November 28, 2005

A lawsuit has been filed in Circuit Court against the makers of Paxil in a case in which a 20-year-old took his own life after using the drug.

The suit is also brought against a psychiatrist and counselor who provided treatment for Ryan Robert Austin.

The suit was filed by Robert Austin, grandfather of the young man.

Defendants are Dr. Susan K. McGuire, Denise Triggs, Focus Psychiatric Services and GlaxoSmithKline.

The suit says Dr. McGuire began treating Ryan Robert Austin in February 2001 when he was 16 and after he had gone into Valley Psychiatric Hospital. It says he had behavioral problems, attention hyperactive disorder and other problems and had previously been on Paxil briefly.

It says he began seeing Dr. McGuire every three months.

The suit says he was living with his maternal grandparents, and the grandmother went to the Focus Psychatric offices in June 2004 to discuss his depression problems.

The complaint says the grandmother was given samples of Paxil but not instructed on its possible effects or on its proper dosage.

The suit, filed by attorney John McMahan, says Paxil can increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior.

It says on July 18, 2004, that Ryan Robert Austin overdosed on multiple pain medications and was taken to Erlanger Medical Center, then to Valley
Hospital.

The suit says on July 22, 2004, that Ms. Triggs was told about morbid and depressing poems the grandmother had found, including morbid scenes of his committing suicide.

On the early morning of Sept. 12, 2004, he shot himself in the head in the driveway of his home and died instantly. He was 20. A suicide note was found in his pocket.

The suit asks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 02, 2005, 09:49:00 AM
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0 ... _psych.php (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0548/051130_news_psych.php)

The Drugging of the American Mind
A new generation of meds to treat mental illness has turned millions of Americans into human guinea pigs. Among them is an eyewitness who thinks the drug 'revolution' has gone too far.
by Philip Dawdy

In the 1990s, there was a small, quiet revolution in American health care that promised to be as far reaching as the advent of antidepressants like Prozac. The revolution involved a new class of medications called atypical antipsychotics, designed for the treatment of schizophrenia.

The atypicals were an instant hit with doctors and schizophrenics alike. Initially, the drugs treated schizophrenia far better than older drugs like Thorazine and Haldol had done. In mental-health circles, atypicals were sometimes referred to as "the silver bullet," the breakthrough to a centuries-long quest to effectively treat the most vicious of mental illnesses without turning patients into zombies.

But now this is a revolution in trouble.

The new meds don't work as well for schizophrenics as their initial rock-star status suggested, according to recent research. Questions about their effectiveness are now being raised. At the same time, these very same meds are being handed out like candy to a different class of patients: the millions of Americans with bipolar disorder, or good old manic-depression. We are not talking about people in psych hospitals or on the brink of suicide. We are talking about people with plain vanilla bipolar disorder?the kind where you can't sleep and are wound up for days but are a long way from diving off a bridge or running naked down the street.

In other words, fairly regular, mainstream Americans now take the most powerful mood-altering drugs in all of psychiatry. Last year, 23 million prescriptions were written for these drugs. Sales this year are expected to hit $10 billion, three times what they were in 2000. Atypicals are the fourth largest class of patented medications in America.

Patients aren't taking them for a few days or weeks, either. Doctors expect their bipolar patients to take these drugs for years, much the same as they've taken traditional mood stabilizers, like lithium, which tamp down mood swings. In fact, there's a growing rumble in the psych world that researchers would like to use atypicals to replace mood stabilizers altogether.

Yet there is no comprehensive scientific evidence to support this paradigm shift. Zero. The psychiatric industry says this isn't a problem because real-world treatment has always outpaced research. But if you happen to be a patient, it's a very big problem?atypicals have the worst side effects of any drugs used to treat bipolar disorder. As a patient, I've experienced this shift firsthand, sometimes as a willing test subject. So, I have a question: Without scientific evidence, why are doctors prescribing these meds so freely and expecting patients to take them for so long?

For the past 15 years, psych meds have been touted as the answer for every flaw of mood, feeling, and behavior in American society. We are in the midst of what's called the psychopharmacological revolution, a shift from the days of nasty meds that didn't work well to new generations of meds that aren't nasty and work very well. That's the hype, at any rate. But the revolution isn't playing out as advertised.

Even the habitually cautious National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) now says that psych meds?including atypicals?only work 50 percent of the time.

But the mental-health world is congenitally incapable of being skeptical about how psych meds work in patients' lives. Doctors quickly become wedded to new therapies, and patients follow. As a result, a new treatment paradigm for millions of bipolars is charging ahead when researchers, doctors, and patients ought to be very cautious.

A new class of drugs for treating mental illness, atypical antipsychotics are becoming more widely used. Sales this year are expected to hit $10 billion. (Jay Vidheecharoen)  

Bipolar patients should be asking why doctors want them to use meds long term that regularly generate debilitating side effects in both bipolars and schizophrenics?the kind of side effects that can mess with a patient's life almost as much as the underlying illness. Last summer, Eli Lilly quietly and with little media notice settled a lawsuit for $750 million. The suit alleged that patients had injuries, including diabetes, caused by Zyprexa, the top-selling atypical in the world. Reportedly, 23 patients have died as a result of using the drug.

All psych meds generate side effects, but atypicals even more so. On these meds, patients can gain 20 to 40 pounds in a year. Blood sugar levels shoot upward. Cholesterol goes up as well. The question of side effects is important not only because of short-term comfort, but because of patients' long-term physical health. Extreme weight gain and altered blood cholesterol levels, for example, give rise to what doctors call the "metabolic syndrome," a fancy way of saying underlying cardiac and respiratory problems can be caused by these medications over time.

That's not speculation, either. Recently published long-term data on schizophrenics taking atypicals showed weight gain on the order of 2 pounds a month, for example. Researchers say the same dynamic is present in bipolars. Any patient who takes atypicals can tell you all about those effects. To date, however, there have been no long-term studies of the effects of these medications on bipolar patients. There are other effects, too, life-reducing ones. The daylong grogginess that comes with atypicals like Seroquel. Cognitive slowing. Risperdal's tendency to stiffen faces. An odd sense that somehow you aren't the same person you were before. There's something about the immediacy of sensation that changes. Nothing is as vivid as it was before. You feel calm and diluted at the same time.

The goal of mental-health treatment is to enhance human life, not limit it.

But something else about long-term treatment of bipolar disorder with atypicals is as troubling as the side effects. These powerful meds don't do a good job of knocking down symptoms over the long term. In the five years that atypicals have been used aggressively in treating the disorder, I have only encountered a handful of patients who say that their original starter dose of Zyprexa, say, wiped out their mania and depression and that life has been balanced ever since.

More commonly, patients will start on an atypical after failing to see their symptoms disappear, or remit, on more traditional meds?and that happens all the time. The atypical will perform well for a few months, but then for many bipolars, the symptoms roar back to life. They begin cycling out to the manic fringes again. Their minds race, they cannot sleep, they fall apart. That's the nature of the bipolar beast? limited symptom remission.

Let's talk best-case scenario: They are self-aware, responsible patients and recognize what is happening. They go see their doctor. As often as not, that's a general practitioner or internist instead of a psychiatrist. The doctor's common response will be to either increase the dosage or switch the patient to another atypical. Within a few months, the process will be repeated because the patient has had yet another bout of hypomania, a restless state of insomnia and racing thoughts.

I know bipolars with fairly moderate forms of the illness who have been on three different atypicals in three years. (There are five commonly used atypicals; see chart, this page.) They have gone through multiple dosages of each?and they are usually taking a mood stabilizer and an antidepressant at the same time.

I am not the only bipolar who finds this medication and dosage switching to be unacceptable.

Mental-health experts typically wave away such complaints by saying, "Each patient is an individual and responds differently to different medications, and patients must often switch from medication to medication to find the treatment that works best for them. There are medications that will work well for you. There is hope."

Doctors, researchers, and advocates have trotted out the same line since the psychopharmacological revolution hit the American mainstream about 15 years ago. Its implied promise was that taking new-generation psych meds would remit symptoms forever. Applied to mood stabilizers and antidepressants, which have comparatively lesser side effects, the promise doesn't sound like much more than harmless cheerleading. But when the same logic is applied to atypicals, it sounds irresponsible and coldhearted because, with their rotten side effects, they still fall short of the goal. The name alone tells you that atypicals are a wholly different class of drugs. All of these meds carry FDA-required black-box warnings because their use can cause diabetes.

Atypical antipsychotics are major juju?a kick in the brain, the purple pill that puts you on the floor, the white pill that turns your face stony. Some patients pine for the side effects of lithium and Lexapro, which are benign by comparison.

I say none of this lightly.

I've lived with bipolar disorder for 16-plus years. I have taken all the major medications at one time or another. In that time, I have interviewed, talked with, counseled, and basically hung out with hundreds of bipolars, schizophrenics, and depressives. Few of us have ever seen the promise of the psychopharmacological revolution fully realized, except for short bursts at a time.

Much of what has become standard long-term treatment, or maintenance, in mental illness is based on short-term studies. The FDA doesn't require long-term tests in order to license medications. As a result, most psych meds are typically studied in eight- to 12-week trials. That tells doctors about patients' short-term response and little more. There is little incentive for drug companies to fund further studies. The federal government rarely steps into the breach to fund long-term studies, either.

But most psychiatry involves giving patients drugs for maintenance, not to bail them out of a short-term crisis. Absent long-term data, maintenance becomes more of an art than science, though psychiatrists and doctors don't like to admit that, especially to patients sitting in their office.

There is a disconnect here that makes patients sitting ducks. Their illness is lifelong not short term.

Patients are often downright desperate when they see their doctor, especially if they've had a recent relapse?one of the most annoying aspects of the disorder is that symptoms will re-emerge at some point, even if you strictly adhere to treatment.

Besides trying to find a treatment that works, patients are also trying to placate competing interests. Families and friends press them to find some kind of medication that works?take anything! Employers warn they are on thin ice. If they don't find something that works, then they are likely to be bounced right out of American life.

They'll take damn near anything a psychiatrist or general practitioner suggests to get a short-term result. That's potentially millions of patients going to their doctors each year looking for something? anything?that works. Often, these same patients find that the next something doesn't work, either.

Nice psychopharmacological revolution we've got.

The irony is that as problematic as atypicals are for bipolars, they are the best deal schizophrenics have ever seen. Until the 1950s, schizophrenics were treated in some of the most inhumane ways imaginable. Tied to a bed for weeks on end. Padded rooms. Lobotomies. None of that worked very well.

Then along came Thorazine, Haldol, and a host of other antipsychotics that, in many cases, stopped patients' hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, and violent outbursts. The trouble was that antipsychotics typically took a huge toll, inducing disabling side effects such as frozen expressions, shuffling gaits, and shaking limbs? zombieism, in effect.

In 1989, a medication called Clozaril hit the world that caused none of these physical side effects. It was dubbed "atypical." But this medication proved toxic to some patients' immune systems. As a result, the medication was used sparingly even though it seemed to work better than the older antipsychotics.

By the mid-1990s, newer atypical antipsychotics were introduced. They didn't have Clozaril's toxicity. Doctors quickly shifted to the new meds. Within years, atypicals like Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel almost completely displaced the older drugs. Patients seemed to do well on them?no more tremors, no more frozen stares. Many people were able to get out of state hospitals and restrictive group homes and live fully realized lives in the community.

It was a watershed moment in treating mental illness.

In 2000, sales of atypicals reached $3.2 billion. But already questions had emerged among psychiatrists about just how well these newer meds performed against older antipsychotics, and whether the expense was justified. Atypicals are not cheap?the bill for someone with severe schizophrenia could easily run $1,000 a month, 10 times more costly than the older drugs.

What's more, doctors and patients documented a new series of side effects from these meds. In particular, patients' blood sugar levels shot up, cases of diabetes were reported, and patients rapidly gained weight.

The bind for doctors and patients was that there was a complete data vacuum about just how good these meds were or weren't when it came to maintaining schizophrenia. Doctors also had questions about whether the side effects were as prevalent as many in the business feared.

In 2001, the NIMH funded a $43 million, 1,400-patient study of the long-term performance of four atypicals (Zyprexa, Risperdal, Seroquel, and Geodon) against one old antipsychotic (Trilafon). The CATIE study was the first long-term study of atypicals in schizophrenics. The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September, and generated a fair amount of media attention.

That was because 74 percent of the patients discontinued taking their assigned medication. They either couldn't handle its side effects or it wasn't working. This was a startling outcome in light of the decade-long hype around atypicals.

The best of the atypicals in this respect was Zyprexa. Only 64 percent of the Zyprexa patients had to stop taking that drug. Put another way, only 36 percent of the Zyprexa patients found the drug's performance justified taking it for 18 months. Among the other drugs, Seroquel had the worst discontinuation rate at 82 percent. What's more, the newer meds didn't treat schizophrenia's symptoms much better than Trilafon did, another surprising outcome.

The CATIE study was the shot heard round psychiatry. NIMH went into overdrive trying to explain to the media that the patients didn't stop taking meds altogether, but switched to something else. Advocacy groups put together media calls and stressed that CATIE wasn't an indictment of an entire class of meds. Pharma companies issued press releases claiming that their drug was the winner (Eli Lilly's Zyprexa) and, in one case, that their drug had been used at too low a dosage (Janssen's Risperdal). The general consensus was that atypicals remain the best treatment available for schizophrenia no matter how side effects cloud their use. No one wants to go back to the bad days of the old antipsychotics.

In the media flurry, no one said a word about bipolars, who now make up 50 percent of the market for atypicals. But there were obvious implications.

As with schizophrenics, the same kind of search for the perfect combination of meds to remit symptoms of bipolar disorder has been going on for decades.

The disorder is marked by extreme mood swings between delusional euphoria and psychosis and the black pit of depression. An estimated 15 percent to 20 percent of bipolars commit suicide. Although the illness was long believed to affect about 3 million Americans, recent estimates double or triple that figure to between 6 million and 9 million.

Bipolar is a tricky illness. It is linked to high levels of intelligence and creativity, for example. Its effects on personality are legendary?uninhibited people-seeking (bipolars are often the life of the party), hypersexuality, and incessant talking, for example.

Classically, the disorder is treated with a mood stabilizer. Lithium was long the gold standard. In recent years, there has been a shift to anticonvulsants like Depakote or Lamictal. Often, bipolars are also given an antidepressant like Paxil or Effexor to deal with bouts of depression. Until 2000, the mood stabilizer plus antidepressant approach was essentially the state-of-the-art treatment. It just doesn't knock down symptoms forever.

Bipolars can "break through" these meds and wind up having acute episodes of rage or suicidal depression. Another common breakthrough symptom is hypnomania, when the mind races so quickly that the patient cannot sleep for days on end.

In response, doctors loaded patients with higher doses of mood stabilizers and antidepressants. Ten years ago, it wasn't unusual for a bipolar to end up on 2,500 milligrams of lithium and 60 milligrams of Prozac a day, both fairly high doses. Patients who didn't respond at those levels would sometimes be given a small dose of an old antipsychotic, if their doctor could trust them. The idea was that patients would use it as needed for a few days until they returned to baseline. Doctors didn't want patients on antipsychotics for long due to the risk of giving bipolars the same ugly side effects the drugs gave schizophrenics. I was one of those bipolars who was prescribed an antipsychotic, a small dose of Mellaril in my case. I wasn't even remotely psychotic, in the classic sense of that term. But there was an angry edge that had crept into my daily life (this was in the mid-1990s). On occasion, my mind was too ramped up for me to get anything other than fitful sleep. So, I'd take Mellaril when I was manic or hypomanic and just fog my brain and sleep. That way, I wouldn't wind up in a hospital, or doing anything that couldn't be redeemed.

I took 40 milligrams of Mellaril perhaps twice a year. It was never a pleasant experience. Mellaril made me feel leaden and rendered me impotent. Once a girlfriend of mine found the Mellaril in my medicine cabinet. She asked what they were. Nuclear weapons, I told her.

Then I developed paranoia in late 2000. This was a new experience for me, and it dogged me day and night. I knew it had to be addressed quickly before something irreparable happened. So I went to my doctor. He asked me what I knew about antipsychotics, and I told him I was no fan of Mellaril. He suggested the atypical Risperdal. I knew that it was being used by schizophrenics.

"So I take this for a few days?" I figured the deal would be the same as with Mellaril.

"No, you take it all the time," my doctor answered.

"Why?"

"It doesn't have the side effects of the old stuff, and you can take it long term to remit your symptoms."

I'd never heard of antipsychotics being used for maintenance of bipolar disorder. "Are you telling me I'm schizophrenic?"

My doctor told me that his proposal was essentially experimental and off-label. The drug was unstudied in bipolars, nor was it FDA-approved for use in bipolar disorder. But he said there was plenty of anecdotal evidence to support people like me giving it a whirl. And, no, I wasn't a schizophrenic. So I went to Walgreens and gave it a whirl. Later, I visited the Risperdal Web site. It was devoted to the drug's use in schizophrenia. I was a guinea pig.

At first, I liked Risperdal. I took it at night along with Depakote and Wellbutrin, an antidepressant. The paranoia disappeared within days. Other than that, the drug kept me calm and made me sleep 10 hours a night. I'd be groggy in the morning. I put on 20 pounds, but I figured it was a small price to pay for ditching that paranoia and buying some peace of mind.

About a year later, my dose went to 1.5 milligrams a day?a baby dose by schizophrenic standards of 4 to 6 milligrams a day?due to a couple of episodes of hypomania that had slipped through the Risperdal curtain. Once again, I had run into the prototypical bipolar complaint of being unable to sleep.

On the higher dose, I felt slowed down and unable to think at my usual clip. This is a common experience for patients taking atypicals long term.

One day, a friend of mine told me that my face had no emotional range. She said I was fixed and stony when I should've been smiling. After two years of daily use, the more troubling side effects had blossomed. Weight gain and grogginess I could handle, but not looking emotionless to the world. I had taken psych meds each day for the previous 14 years and was more or less stable, so I decided it was time to be a guinea pig in a whole new way.

In the spring of 2003, I went to my then-doctor and told him I wanted to go off all my meds. I wanted to see what my nonmeds baseline was like.

For three months, things went well. I lost weight, my facial expressions snapped back to life, and my emotions had what seemed like a normal range. Then the edge returned, and I couldn't sleep. Soon after, I crashed.

My doctor put me back on Depakote and Risperdal. Within a day, I was so agitated I couldn't sleep and my heart raced. I measured 140 beats a minute at one point. I had to piss every five minutes and was so nauseated that I couldn't eat. I almost checked myself into Harborview Medical Center for monitoring. I had never had that kind of response to meds of any kind before and I was frightened. When I visited him a couple of days later, my doctor confirmed my hunch that Risperdal was the culprit.

"Let's replace that with Zyprexa," he said. I told him no. He gave me samples in case I changed my mind.

Since then, I have continued to chase that edginess and have had occasional bouts of insomnia. My new doctor and I decided last year that I ought to try Seroquel. So I began taking the smallest possible dose.

At first, it helped me sleep, although it took about two hours to be fully alert the next morning. It was as if I had taken a Quaalude and drank a fifth of whiskey the night before. I didn't like that, neither did I like putting on weight all over again. Seroquel also caused me to have bad dreams?horror-film bad?that I would awake from in full shout. There were mornings where I'd look at myself in the mirror and see scratches on my forehead.

Still, the edge was mostly gone. I liked that. But something about Seroquel bugged me.

Seroquel is very much the med of the moment for treating bipolar disorder. It is made by AstraZeneca. In the last two years, sales have more than doubled to $2 billion. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca officials bragged to investment analysts that they expected more than 30 percent growth in sales in 2005. Recently, the company began an advertising campaign with banner ads on MySpace.com, the popular social networking Web site.

Right now, it is only FDA-approved for short-term treatment of acute mania. It is not approved for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder, rapid cycling (switching between mania and depression), or bipolar depression. Doctors are free to prescribe it for those uses, off-label. Seroquel is now the most prescibed atypical in the U.S., according to AstraZeneca.

Almost every bipolar I've spoken with has had Seroquel prescribed to them because they've gone to their doctors complaining of insomnia?the kind of insomnia that sleeping pills cannot address. Seroquel knocks down this problem with sledgehammer efficiency. Patients tell me that they've generally been started at 200 milligrams and then slept well for a few weeks. Then they cannot sleep again and up goes the dosage. One patient I know wound up taking 800 milligrams a day?the amount an acute schizophrenic takes?and still couldn't sleep. That dose of Seroquel runs $668 a month, according to drugstore.com.

All of them put on 20 to 30 pounds in short order. Most of these patients had already tried one of the other atypicals, if not two or three, before arriving at Seroquel. Interestingly, many patients I've interviewed began taking Seroquel in 2003 or 2004. They stuck with it for about a year, and then switched to something else in 2005 after the heavy head in the morning became too great of a trade-off. For this reason, I, too, had to stop taking the drug earlier this year.

I wonder what AstraZeneca's executives will be telling investment analysts in 2006.

But the pharma giant recently went into press release overdrive. There was an academic conference on bipolar disorder in Holland last month. One study released at the conference claimed that Seroquel was highly effective in treating bipolar depression based on an eight-week study. Bipolar depression is a subtype of the broader disorder.

In recent interviews, several prominent researchers pointed to that study as proof of Seroquel's efficacy in treating bipolar disorder. Some researchers said that it ought to be used long term in bipolars, as a result?and as the only drug a bipolar would take.

The study states that Seroquel worked on the depression of 53 percent of the patients in the eight-week study. That means it didn't work for 47 percent of the patients. That's tantalizingly close to NIMH's own assertion that psych meds work only about half the time. It also dovetails with what patients I know have experienced on atypicals as a whole?50 percent performance.

Half-performance is wholly unacceptable. It certainly doesn't justify a paradigm shift.

The results are even less impressive in light of what Seroquel does to patients' bodies as well as the expense of the medication. Least impressive still is that if you are a bipolar taking an atypical like Seroquel, and you need to be to work at 8 a.m. each morning, then you'll likely need to take your pills around 9 p.m. the previous evening. Seroquel will knock you out for a good eight hours, and you'll need to devote two hours in the morning just to waking up. That leaves you about four hours in the evening for the rest of your life.

And they call this treating bipolar disorder? The doctors think there is solid evidence that it's a good idea to use these meds for long-term maintenance? Why do they tout complete symptom remission as a goal, when it creates an environment where patients, who are in no position of power, are literally forced to take successively more powerful meds when doctors themselves know that complete symptom remission is a fantasy? They are kidding themselves.

Much of this shift to atypicals for treating bipolar disorder has gone on under the noses of the media and advocates for the mentally ill. Perhaps the questions that need to be asked are too subtle to permit the kind of black-and-white answers that the media love and that advocates need.

Still, it's puzzling to me that such a vast change could be going on in the treatment of a major mental illness and the very people who should be asking the hard questions are mute. Last month, actress Linda Hamilton was a guest on Larry King Live on CNN. She was discussing her "20 years of bipolar hell." At the top of the show, King announced that the Terminator star was also there representing Eli Lilly and their well-being approach?exercise and nutrition?for "people with serious and persistent mental illness." In other words, she was talking to me. Too bad I wasn't asking the questions.

King is of course no exemplar of journalistic inquisitiveness. He didn't ask her if maybe?just maybe?those side effects and all that weight gain that she was on television saying patients needed to address were, in fact, caused by products made by Eli Lilly?namely, Zyprexa and Prozac. He didn't ask how reasonable it was to expect someone taking Zyprexa (or Seroquel or Risperdal) in high doses to get out there and exercise and eat good food, as she was saying they must, when their weight, blood lipids, blood sugar levels, and cholesterol were shot to hell by Zyprexa. I guess looking to the media and advocates for cold-blooded honesty and accountability is naive. But someone ought to be asking serious questions because atypical antipsychotics have serious problems.

The people who most need to be held to account here are not the pharma companies, however. They are acting much as you'd expect drug companies to behave?designing drugs, calling half-performance a victory for patients, and minting money.

It's doctors and researchers who must be held accountable. By dint of their medical degrees, they are supposed to be ethical actors. I am not convinced that it is ethical to ask millions of bipolars to take medications long term that work about as well at remitting symptoms as the old standby of a mood stabilizer plus antidepressant approach. Their proposed paradigm shift is doubly questionable given the side effects and hard-core nature of atypicals. Maybe I've become too much of a skeptic about psych meds, if by skeptical you understand that I actually expect meds to work and expect long-term treatments that don't dumb down active, intelligent humans.

I still take meds, however. They are a constant in my life and will be until I die. In fact, I still have a bottle of Seroquel in my medicine cabinet. It's there for short-term use when I cannot sleep and the edge dogs me once again, as it will. I'll take the Seroquel just like I once took Mellaril, for a day or two, here and there.

This is an awkward time for mental- health experts, researchers, and advocates. This month, a peer-reviewed academic paper was published on the Public Library of Science Web site pointing out that researchers still have not proved the serotonin-imbalance-in-the-brain hypothesis of depression. What proof there is, the authors claim, is mostly circumstantial. Two weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal ran an article covering the same points in relation to antidepressants. And a pesky reporter was calling around the country, asking questions about bipolar disorder and atypical antipsychotics that prominent researchers hadn't even asked themselves.

These are all matters that smart people should be willing to meet head-on.

The larger uncomfortable truth about the psychopharmacological revolution is that psychiatric medications are now part of mainstream American culture, but these meds do not consistently offer the kind of long-term benefits that many in the mental-health field claim. Nor do we fully understand the long-term consequences of their use. This is as true of antidepressants as it is of atypical antipsychotics.

That's a lousy deal for patients, regardless of their diagnosis. It's doubly lousy because there are no new classes of psych meds on the horizon. And any talk of gene-based cures and therapies is just talk, for now.

Meanwhile, patients have to live. They have to grapple with illnesses that are poorly understood scientifically, in an environment where medications can be as much of a problem as a solution, where incomplete evidence is the guiding light of long-term care in a revolution that's forgotten how to serve the patient first.

The hell with that.

www.abilify.com (http://www.abilify.com)) Otsuka America Yes 2002
Clozaril** (www.clozaril.com (http://www.clozaril.com)) Novartis Yes 1989
Geodon (www.geodon.com (http://www.geodon.com)) Pfizer Yes 2001
Risperdal (www.risperdal.com (http://www.risperdal.com)) Janssen Yes 1994
Seroquel (www.seroquel.com (http://www.seroquel.com)) AstraZeneca Yes 1997
Zyprexa (www.zyprexa.com (http://www.zyprexa.com)) Eli Lilly Yes 1996

* A special FDA-required warning alerting consumers and doctors to known side effects of a drug, or class of drugs, owing to documented deaths or injury.

**Due to cases of toxicity, Clozaril (clozapine) is rarely prescribed.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 07, 2005, 09:31:00 AM
Schizophrenia is no longer seen as a genetically
predetermined disease.

Now scientists are beginning to uncover evidence that schizophrenia is heavily influenced by environmental factors. Their research has huge implications for treatment. Doctors now believe that therapy and social work are the preferred method of treatment for most schizophrenics.

http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... forum=22&0 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12916&forum=22&0)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 07, 2005, 12:11:00 PM
Quote
Doctors now believe that therapy and social work are the preferred method of treatment for most schizophrenics.



http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... forum=22&0 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12916&forum=22&0)"


The preferred treatment has always been
medication and therapy!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 07, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles ... 0CAE9E.htm (http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/0000000CAE9E.htm)
SPIKED
30 November 2005

'One-in-10 kids are mentally ill'? That's madness
Can you spot the three with disorders in your kid's nursery?
by Ken McLaughlin

Headlines around the world yesterday reported the finding that one in 10 pre-school children are mentally ill.

The study in question was by Adrian Angold, associate professor of psychiatry at the Duke University Medical Centre in North Carolina. In
Professor Angold's view, these children 'are really sick' - he suggests the development of tools and skills to assess the psychological health of babies, in order to diagnose and intervene before the onset of conditions
(1).

I suppose it is progress of sorts. After all, only six years ago we were informed that one in five children were so afflicted (2). Halving the rate of childhood mental distress in six years is no mean feat, and would, if true, have me praising those campaigners and professionals responsible for such an improvement in children's wellbeing. But these statistics reflect, not changes in the psychological health of children, but changes in how we categorise and view childhood behaviour.

Does this one in 10 statistic chime with your experience? The next time you drop your child off at nursery or school, look around. From a class of 30, this claim suggests that three of those children are mentally ill. They may be noisy, upset, disobedient or anxious, but would you really categorise them as mentally ill? Of course not - but then, this debate tends to see parents not as protective guardians but more as a contributor to children's psychological distress. It also conflates severe but rare mental distress
with the more mundane, if unpleasant aspects of negotiating childhood.

In some respects, the classifying of children, even infants, as mentally disturbed is nothing new, having its roots in the psychoanalytic theories of Melanie Klein and her followers. For Klein, each infant's development proceeds through 'paranoid-schizoid' and 'depressive' phases. However, these phases are seen as crucial in allowing the child to negotiate the anxiety
and fear experienced during development. They are transitory phases, which normally resolve themselves satisfactorily and help the developing maturity of the child (3).

While the 'psychoanalytic/psychiatric deluge' of the first half of the twentieth century was rightly criticised for downplaying the social and
political aspects of mental distress, it presented a more optimistic view of humanity than that espoused by psychiatry today. Theories of the importance of the unconscious in human behaviour may have undermined notions of rationality, and in this sense can be construed as labelling us all mad.

However, Kleinians also saw the aggressive and destructive aspects of the unconscious as a source of strength. In contemporary psychotherapeutic discourse, by contrast, it is the fragility of human nature that is emphasised. The assumption that we are all mad merges with a belief that we are all fragile and in need of professional help.

Mental health professionals now categorise a plethora of childhood - and adult - behaviour as indicators of mental disorder. Whereas a diagnosis of a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia (a concept which is itself open
to question (4)) is rare, figures of 10 to 20 per cent prevalence of mental disorder in children are found by reclassifying the hitherto mundane, if unpleasant, aspects of childhood and growing up under a psychiatric umbrella.

Bedwetting and truancy are seen as indicators of childhood mental health problems; refusing to obey parents becomes 'oppositional defiant disorder'; fighting or 'anti-social' behaviour becomes 'conduct disorder'. While bullying is frequently seen as a source of high mental anguish for children, on closer inspection the definition of what constitutes bullying has
expanded to include 'being mean to someone' and 'teasing or calling names'(5).

The tendency is to view problems as unresolved, not only throughout childhood but also into adult life. Mental health charities such as MIND and
the Mental Health Foundation routinely claim that one in four of us will suffer from a mental health problem. At times it appears that we are all ill. For example, a review of some North American studies found that 80million people have eating disorders, 50million suffer from depression and anxiety, 25million are sex addicts, 10million suffer from borderline
personality disorder and 66million have experienced incest or sexual trauma, to name but a few. The total number of sufferers of all disorders adds up to several times the population of North America (6). Perhaps everybody has
multiple pathologies! (7).

Some children and their parents may well feel anxious and unhappy, and may interpret their experiences through a psycho-medical framework. However, it could be argued that this is more to do with a rise in mental health professionals and campaign groups than to a rise in mental illness. If people are encouraged to view themselves as fragile, ill and in need of professional help, it is perhaps no surprise that some individuals
internalise such views.

Ken McLaughlin is a senior lecturer in social work at Manchester Metropolitan University.

(1) 'One in ten pre-schoolers may be suffering from mental illness', Guardian, 29 November 2005

(2) 'The Big Picture', Mental Health Foundation, 1999

(3) See Melanie Klein and Critical Social Theory, Fred Alford, 1989, for example

(4) See Schizophrenia Re-evaluated (1990) by Mary Boyle or The Dialectics of Schizophrenia (1997) by Phil Thomas for good critiques of the concept of schizophrenia as a useful diagnostic category

(5) See Childline's website

(6) See Manufacturing Victims by Tana Dineen, 1996.

(7) At a mental health social work conference I attended in 1998 this was the response given by one of the speakers when I questioned the uncritical acceptance of some of these studies

Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE9E.htm (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE9E.htm)

spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP
Email: [email protected] © spiked 2000-2005 All rights reserved. spiked is not responsible for the content of any third-party websites.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on December 07, 2005, 10:25:00 PM
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ ... 364840.xml (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/113394169364840.xml)

Wednesday, December 07, 2005
By Paul Rioux
St. Tammany bureau
Excepts:
A 3-month-old Bogalusa boy died Monday night after his mother, apparently tired of his crying, put him in a clothes dryer and turned it on for several minutes, authorities said.

Adams, who authorities suspect may have been suffering from postpartum depression, placed the boy in an electric dryer with a few articles of clothing and turned it on for at least several minutes, Darden said.

"She remained calm throughout the whole situation and never really showed much emotion."

Adams also shared the home at 1501 N. Roosevelt St. with her 1-year-old daughter and grandmother, who was not home Monday, Darden said.

Galvan said neither of the children had signs of any earlier abuse or injuries.

"This child was extremely well-nourished," he said. "There was no evidence of previous neglect or records of involvement with child-protection services."

Noting that a bottle of antidepressant medication was found in the home, Galvan said he suspects Adams may have been experiencing postpartum depression, a condition linked to hormonal changes after childbirth. Symptoms include uncontrollable crying, mood swings, exhaustion, feelings of hopelessness and lack of interest in the baby. In extreme cases, mothers sometimes exhibit psychotic behavior toward their children.

Paul Rioux can be reached at [email protected] or (985) 645-2852
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 08, 2005, 10:17:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-12-07 19:25:00, Deborah wrote:

"

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ ... 364840.xml (http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/113394169364840.xml)



Wednesday, December 07, 2005

By Paul Rioux

St. Tammany bureau

Excepts:

A 3-month-old Bogalusa boy died Monday night after his mother, apparently tired of his crying, put him in a clothes dryer and turned it on for several minutes, authorities said.



Adams, who authorities suspect may have been suffering from postpartum depression, placed the boy in an electric dryer with a few articles of clothing and turned it on for at least several minutes, Darden said.



"She remained calm throughout the whole situation and never really showed much emotion."



Adams also shared the home at 1501 N. Roosevelt St. with her 1-year-old daughter and grandmother, who was not home Monday, Darden said.



Galvan said neither of the children had signs of any earlier abuse or injuries.



"This child was extremely well-nourished," he said. "There was no evidence of previous neglect or records of involvement with child-protection services."



Noting that a bottle of antidepressant medication was found in the home, Galvan said he suspects Adams may have been experiencing postpartum depression, a condition linked to hormonal changes after childbirth. Symptoms include uncontrollable crying, mood swings, exhaustion, feelings of hopelessness and lack of interest in the baby. In extreme cases, mothers sometimes exhibit psychotic behavior toward their children.



Paul Rioux can be reached at [email protected] or (985) 645-2852

"


When posting only criminal cases where anti-depressants are used, or just found in the house it indicates a biased toward these medications.

How come you don't post criminal cases where there
are no use of pychotropic medication.

I think for the benefit of fairness, and courtesy to this forum, if you decide to post an article about a crime, you should also follow the proceeding and keep Fornits posted, and especially
post the outcome of the trial.

If you purpose is to soley make accusations that medications are the root cause of these crimes then I would expect that you would follow these trials and report back to us if indeed the medication was found to be a factor or not.

I am not requesting that you flood the forum with many, many accusation posts. Rather, I am requesting that you follow these stories that you have found and let us know the outcome.

Or better yet, instead of posting the initial arrests, please only post the outcomes of a trial and spare us your bias and accusation filters.

In all these posts, if the outcome is not posted, then you are posting the accusation to condem the medication without a fair trial.

You would want that done to you, would you?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 12:36:00 PM
http://www.ktksound.com/kate_links.htm (http://www.ktksound.com/kate_links.htm)

Kates' Mom & Dad want to thank everyone for their love and support. We want everyone to know that Kate was a wonderful girl that got into a bad
relationship with an older boy. That relationship led her into a complicated life of isolation from us (her parents) and ultimately resulted in her
taking her own life on Feb 22, 2004 at the age of 16 years old. We plea to everyone in the community to please take care of each other. Teens need to realize how important it is to watch over and protect each other. When seeking help for depression, please use caution... ZOLOFT KILLS!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 01:41:00 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 403604.htm (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13403604.htm)

Posted on Wed, Dec. 14, 2005
Mother says she killed daughter to protect child from 'spirits'
Associated PressEUGENE, Ore. - A Eugene woman has told police that she killed her 17-month-old daughter to protect the baby from spirits.

A search warrant affidavit written by Eugene police Detective Tracey Belshee and filed in Lane County Circuit Court states that Dawn Serrena Young told two Red Bluff, Calif., detectives that spirits were talking to her and abusing her 17-month-old daughter, Ruby.

Young was arrested Nov. 23 after she crashed her pickup truck into parked cars at a Red Bluff lumber store. Police found her covered in blood from self-inflicted chest wounds.

She later confessed to killing Ruby by suffocating her with her hand, police have said. She led Red Bluff detectives to an area near the Sacramento River, where Ruby's body was found.
Young had practiced both Voodoo and Santeria, the affidavit said. She told detectives that she had paid religious practitioners in California and Florida to "cleanse" Ruby.

Young, 34, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity during her Dec. 6 arraignment in Tehama County Superior Court. Friends have said that Young suffered from bipolar disorder. Police searching her apartment found a bottle of Effexor, a drug used to treat depression and anxiety.

Rosemary Childs, a friend of Young, said the woman was trying to get away from her spiritual past. Since moving to Eugene a year ago, she had explored both Buddhism and Christianity.

But Young worried about her daughter's spiritual well-being, Childs told The Register-Guard newspaper of Eugene.

"She had mentioned that she had some deities that she was taking care of and she hadn't been taking care of them, so she was really afraid for Ruby," Childs said.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 04:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-14 09:36:00, Anonymous wrote:

"http://www.ktksound.com/kate_links.htm



Kates' Mom & Dad want to thank everyone for their love and support. We want everyone to know that Kate was a wonderful girl that got into a bad

relationship with an older boy. That relationship led her into a complicated life of isolation from us (her parents) and ultimately resulted in her

taking her own life on Feb 22, 2004 at the age of 16 years old. We plea to everyone in the community to please take care of each other. Teens need to realize how important it is to watch over and protect each other. When seeking help for depression, please use caution... ZOLOFT KILLS!

"


Was there any suicides before anti-depressants
where invented about 70 years ago?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 04:20:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-14 10:41:00, Anonymous wrote:

"http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13403604.htm



Posted on Wed, Dec. 14, 2005

Mother says she killed daughter to protect child from 'spirits'

"


Was there ever any suicides prior to religion,
or for that matter not for religious purposes?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 08:14:00 PM
No, there was not.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 11:29:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-14 17:14:00, Anonymous wrote:

"No, there was not."


Prepare to die ... :scared:
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 14, 2005, 11:31:00 PM
Quote


Prepare to die ... :scared: "


Progress cannot be stopped, and
we apparently cannot turn to
religion or medication or these
damn schools ...

One good thing though, life expectancy
keep going up, up and up.

Paradoxically, of course.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on December 15, 2005, 12:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-14 20:31:00, Anonymous wrote:

One good thing though, life expectancy
keep going up, up and up


Where and among which populations?

We get crushed in the first three, four years of school...We're trained to become parrots. We're trained to learn information and give it back at test time.  But we're not taught to think. We're not taught how to access genius.
--Victor Villasenor, author of Burro Genius (2004)

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Nihilanthic on December 15, 2005, 06:00:00 PM
Quote
   We get crushed in the first three, four years of school...We're trained to become parrots. We're trained to learn information and give it back at test time. But we're not taught to think. We're not taught how to access genius.
    --Victor Villasenor, author of Burro Genius (2004)



That quote is all too true, Ginger.

A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.
--Carl Sagan, American astronomer and author

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 15, 2005, 06:05:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-15 09:58:00, Antigen wrote:



Where and among which populations?


http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,128 ... 17techhead (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,69789,00.html?tw=wn_17techhead)

Associated Press

02:11 PM Dec. 08, 2005 PT

U.S. life expectancy has hit another all-time high ? 77.6 years ? and deaths from heart disease, cancer and stroke continue to drop, the government reported Thursday.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Antigen on December 15, 2005, 06:28:00 PM
I was thinking a little more comprehensive than that.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights ... -life.html (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/maps-life.html)

What about them blue spots on the map? What have they got that we ain't? What ain't they got that we have?

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
--Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist

Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on December 15, 2005, 06:51:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-15 15:28:00, Antigen wrote:

"I was thinking a little more comprehensive than that.



http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights ... -life.html (http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/econrights/maps-life.html)



What about them blue spots on the map?


Wow, I like this resource ... thank you!

The first thing that comes to mind in the blue
spots that they have and we don't ...
socialized medicine!

Perhaps legalized, or near legalized, pot too!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2006, 03:38:00 PM
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10663341/site/newsweek/ (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10663341/site/newsweek/)

One Very Wild Pitch
Did drugs make a star hurler rob a jewelry shop?
By Arian Campo-Flores
Newsweek

Jan. 9, 2006 issue - By Christmas day, Jeff Reardon was a physical and emotional wreck. The former star relief pitcher was struggling through a second holiday season without his son Shane, who died of a drug overdose in 2004 and would have turned 22 last Thursday. "I miss you more than ever," Reardon wrote in a November entry to a Web memorial for Shane. To help numb the pain, Reardon, 50, was taking at least five antidepressants, his lawyer says. That was on top of four or five heart medications he was prescribed after an angioplasty operation on Dec. 23.

The day after Christmas, Reardon went to a nearby mall in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. Though he told his wife and two surviving kids that he was
going to buy a coffeepot, instead he entered a jewelry store and slipped a sales clerk a note demanding cash and jewelry and claiming that he had a gun, according to a police affidavit. The store manager gave him $170 in a bag. After leaving, Reardon-who in fact had no weapon-saw a security guard in the parking lot, went up to him and surrendered. "I completely lost my mind," he wrote later in a statement to police. "I flipped on my medications."

The state attorney may or may not see it that way. Released on bond, Reardon now faces armed-robbery charges (even though he wasn't armed, the note claiming that he was meets the legal threshold). The news came as a shock to former teammates, who describe the four-time All-Star as a quiet, generous soul. With career earnings of at least $11.5 million and a big house on a
golf course, Reardon, who retired in 1994, had little reason to rob and no prior criminal record.

But he was sinking deep into depression. Over the summer in Massachusetts, where Reardon has family, he would spend hours in his room with the shades drawn, says his mother, Marion Cavanaugh. "He just couldn't get over" Shane's death, she says, and even began contemplating suicide. Last month, says Cavanaugh, Reardon spent a week in a psychiatric facility. Just before Christmas, a psychiatrist prescribed him three new antidepressants. "He was on too many pills," says Cavanaugh.

That will likely be one of Reardon's main defenses should his case go to trial. His attorney, Mitchell Beers, says he plans to call forensic psychiatrists "to discuss the side effects of the drugs individually and in combination with others." At his Jan. 27 arraignment, Reardon will plead not guilty, says Beers. The Palm Beach County state attorney could still reduce the charges from armed robbery, which carries a sentence of up to life in prison, to robbery without a firearm or theft. Given that Reardon was medicated, had no weapon and immediately surrendered, "he's got some good
facts," says John Thornton, a former prosecutor with no connection to the case. "It's likely some type of a plea agreement will be worked out." That
would be the closer's ultimate save.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10663341/site/newsweek/ (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10663341/site/newsweek/)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 02, 2006, 04:35:00 PM
Thread on new 'study' claiming SSRIs are safe:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =22#160622 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=13263&forum=22#160622)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2006, 01:40:00 PM
http://www.ironwooddailyglobe.com/1231murd.htm (http://www.ironwooddailyglobe.com/1231murd.htm)
Excerpts:
Laguna is alleged to have shot his wife from behind with a .20-gauge shotgun on Fifth Avenue, Laguna had first chased his wife's car with his truck on Poplar Street, ramming it several times before she got out of her vehicle.

Bourg maintains Laguna is on strong medications and must be weaned off the drugs in a controlled environment.

He has worked to have Laguna transferred to either Winnebago or Mendota Mental Health Institute for evaluation and the weaning off of the antidepressants he is taking.

Last week, Bourg said he advised his client of the dangers involved in withdrawal from Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

Corporation counsel Jodie Bednar-Clemens strongly objected to Laguna being transferred to either Winnebago or Mendota for evaluation or to have him weaned off the drugs.

She said Laguna could slowly be weaned off the medication while he is in jail, however, experts on SSRIs said withdrawal must be done in a controlled environment.

Bednar-Clemens said the medication Laguna was currently taking would not affect his ability to participate in a trial.

Laguna, who has been on the antidepressants since November, is currently taking Celexa, Wellbutrin, Ceroquel, for schizophrenia, and Xanex.

Bourg told the Globe he will present an involuntary intoxication defense at Laguna's trial, noting Laguna was on three anti-depressants at the time of the shooting.

Bourg contends Laguna began having symptoms of being overdosed in January.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2006, 04:26:00 PM
Remember to follow the case and post the verdict.

Thanks!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 05, 2006, 06:25:00 PM
Mother and daughter, both victims of domestic violence, forced to take psych drugs against their will. Daughter being held in RTC, no contact with her mom.

http://ablechild.org/press%20release/mo ... -19-05.htm (http://ablechild.org/press%20release/mother%20mary%2012-19-05.htm)

Lisa Payne of Green Bay , Wisconsin finds little to be joyful about during these most holy days of Christmas.  Her daughter is locked away in a psychiatric ?treatment? center having been placed on a variety of mind-altering drugs by the State of Illinois .  She thinks about her possible visit sometime in January to bring her daughter gifts for the holiday.  ?Maybe a pair of jeans? she tells Ablechild . ?She doesn?t fit in her jeans anymore; her clothing size has been reduced from a size 9 to a size 3 due to the drugs effects. I am watching from an unbelievable distance as my daughter suffers in pain, and I have no say in her ?treatment?. Now she is hearing voices. They tell me that it is from all her ?trauma?, I know it?s from the drugs,? she adds.  

Previously featured on Montel Williams, Lisa Payne was a survivor of domestic violence. A victim at the hands of her abusive husband, she was left for dead and her mother was murdered.  Her daughter saved her life, called 911, and stayed by her side as help arrived. ?I know my daughter needs my help now, I just don?t know how I can ensure that she gets it,? she said.  

When Lisa awoke from a coma induced by the beatings, she discovered the Department of Children and Family Services had taken custody of her daughter.  An agency originally designed to help children ?at risk? or in traumatic situations; they had resorted to simply placing her daughter on psychiatric drugs and refused any input whatsoever from her as the biological mother.  Making matters even worse, Lisa has now been court ordered to take antidepressants, undergo urine tests to ensure that she is complying with their drug regiment, and mandated to counseling.  The Supreme Court ruling on the right to ?treatment? never intended to result in the forced drug ?treatment? of individuals.  

Lisa Payne is up against a legal system that has been unchallenged regarding forced drugging of children in State care.  Her chances of ensuring the safety for her child, looks grim. Her daughter is in another State and she cannot afford to travel to visit her.  The court in Illinois has also refused to allow her daughter to transfer to a different psychiatric center closer to home.  Her next court date is not scheduled until May of 2006.  Lisa Payne can be reached at 920-592-9558.

Events that led to CPS taking over.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sectio ... id=1470896 (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=News&id=1470896)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 05, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
Eileen Dannemann
Director, National Coalition of Organized Women
Submitted as Guest Editorial:

           Thank you so much for the Savodnick article on Psychiatry's sick compulsion. (LA Times, Jan 1, 2006)   My son David, now 21, who has been meditating since he was four; grew up on organic food, received no mandated childhood mercury vaccines, and was point guard of his high school basketball team and a most creative "out of the box thinker" decided to try recreational drugs at the University of Iowa 3 years ago. He had a bad reaction to LSD  The Psychiatrists at the U of I Hospital totally disregarded the fact that he was coming off of a recreational trip and labeled him Bi Polar neatly coded by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) enabling him to be locked up and covered by Medicaid insuring that the Hospital would be paid.  

            The Hospital psychiatrist put David, then age 19, on Lithium, Haldol, Addivan and you name it.  He gained enormous amount of weight and became zombie-like. They told him he would have to be on Lithium the rest of his life...that is...the rest of his life.   This once brilliant athlete was now shuffling his feet having been condemned to a life of a lawn mower. The diagnosis was based on no tests...no genetic history...no nothing...just the "professional opinion" of a college educated, brainwashed American Psychiatric Association (APA) dweeble who blatantly disregarded the fact that David's symptoms were caused by LSD (one of the first SSRI drugs developed by Pfizer in the early day).  Does the DSM have a code for LSD adverse effects?   Would "detoxification" have been a more rational first line of treatment? Would Medicaid pay for a hospital stay for "detoxification"? I don't think so, but it sounds like a sorely needed common sense plan for the youth of America, today. s And...to add insult to injury:

            One day as David was coming off the Haldol, he hung himself in my back yard.  Twitching uncontrollably from a tree, I saved him in the nick of time, shouldering him back up on the ladder from whence he jumped. Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued black box warnings for SSRIs:  A little late for David or Diane Routhier, a well-educated, beautiful, happily married mother of two who killed herself with a gun after six days on Wellbutin. Or Sara Bostock whose daughter stabbed herself twice in the chest with a large chef's knife after taking Paxil for 2 weeks.  (Sleeping in the next room, Sara simply heard a slight yelp and a thump when her daughter fell on the floor). Glenn McIntosh?s 6th grade daughter hung herself with her shoelaces in the school bathroom after being prescribed Paxil/Zoloft.  Chris Pittman was 12 years old and on Zoloft when he killed both his grandparents and torched their house.

Yet, Psychiatrists still prescribe these drugs.  David "believed" the white coated, diploma laden authorities and so did his father who would piss in the wind if an authority told him to do so.  It took David a self discovery journey in and out of mental institutions and hospitals for over two years to realize he was not mentally ill but had become a victim of massive, covert, quasi-legitimate, series of clinical drug trials.   The reality is that research hospital psychiatrists are "experimenting' on this generation with a vast array of sketchily FDA approved anti depressant/psychotic medications. University mental hospitals have become the second tier drug trial laboratory for the drug companies. The Bayh-Dole Act passed by Congress in the 80's gave Universities and their researchers full patent rights to drugs they might develop.  Since then, universities and associated hospitals have become field laboratories for the drug industry. (See:  http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune7 ... -2,00.html (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune75/articles/0,15114,1101810-2,00.html)) Emory College, for example, recently received over $300 million dollars for a drug they developed.

            Currently on the radar is TeenScreen, a suicide screening initiative created by Columbia University (emphasis on university). Teen Screen has begun to infiltrate our public schools, using our convenient "educational" network as a channel for the Drug industry. There is so much blind banter going on in the media about the TeenScreen program, but has anyone actually seen a Teen Screen survey?  Have a peek.  Judge for yourself whether this is science or academic junk. We have a research project currently reviewing a TeenScreen survey on our website http://www.ProgessiveConvergence.com (http://www.ProgessiveConvergence.com).   In our review, we noticed that there were many questions on the use of street drugs such as marijuana, LSD, amphetamines, etc, but no questions on the use of "prescription drugs".  It seemed odd to us that since over eight million children are on psychiatric drugs and many of these drugs have black box warnings in particular for suicide that there were no questions on this survey pertaining to prescription drugs. Marijuana isn't known for causing suicidal ideation, but drugs given to ADD and ADHD kids are.   It is quite telling by this blaring omission who is behind the congressionally funded, mandated mental screening of all America's children via public schools initiative.  In addition, this initiative has been strategically designed so that it does not require active parental consent. And although Congressman Ron Paul (TX) has fought for parental consent, Congress has failed to support him.  

        And while we are at it:  Why all this concern about mental illness in our public schools? Yes, it is true that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report that 1 of every 6 children has a neurological disorder. Could the 20 years of injecting the generation (via the CDC?s mandated  children?s vaccine program) with high levels of mercury (aka Thimerosal) in as many as 22 vaccines between the ages of 1 month and 2 years old have anything to do with the apparent rampant epidemic of mental illness, ADD, ADHD and Autism?

        Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that we are advised by our government not to eat fish contaminated with mercury, yet we are asked to stand by while health professionals inject this deadly neurotoxin directly into our children?s bloodstreams?  And does it not appear to be even odder? rather than facing this CDC atrocity square on, that Congress is facilitating the dumbing down of our children with anti-depressants, psychiatric, suicide/homicide drugs by funding programs like Teen Screen and the New Freedom Commission. Seems odd to me?the on going government program...shoot ?em up with mercury, then dumb ?em down with Zoloft

         In conclusion, I wonder how we will all fare when the Dept. of Defense (DoD) calls a Bioterrorism emergency (based on reality or not) and the Human Health Services director, Mike Leavitt mandates the injection of every man, woman and child with untested vaccines. Last week?s passage of the Patriot Act amendments has insured non-liability for Drug companies.  How convenient.  We might expect either the avian flu pandemic or a bio terrorist attack any time soon now that Drug companies are held harmless for damages.

Eileen Dannemann
Director, National Coalition of Organized Women
http://www.ProgressiveConvergence.com (http://www.ProgressiveConvergence.com)
http://www.SlavetotheMetal.org (http://www.SlavetotheMetal.org)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 18, 2006, 08:05:00 AM
New Drug Commercial

Shyness

Do you have feelings of inadequacy? Do you suffer from shyness? Do you sometimes wish you were more assertive?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, ask your doctor or pharmacist about Tequila.

Tequila is the safe, natural way to feel better and more confident about yourself and your actions. Tequila can help ease you out of your shyness and let you tell the world that you're ready and willing to do just about anything.

You will notice the benefits of Tequila almost immediately, and with a regimen of regular doses you can overcome any obstacles that prevent you from living the life you want to live.

Shyness and awkwardness will be a thing of the past, (well shyness anyway) and you will discover many talents you never knew you had. Stop hiding and start living, with Tequila.

Tequila may not be right for everyone. Women who are pregnant or nursing should not use Tequila. However, women who wouldn't mind nursing or becoming pregnant are encouraged to try it.

Side effects may include dizziness, nausea, vomiting, incarceration, erotic lustfulness, loss of motor control, loss of clothing, loss of money, loss of virginity, delusions of grandeur, table dancing, headache, dehydration, dry mouth, and a desire to sing Karaoke and play all-night rounds of Strip Poker, Truth Or Dare, and Naked
Twister.

Tequila. Leave Shyness Behind.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 30, 2006, 02:07:00 PM
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 300#146878 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=300#146878)
Follow up

Excerpts:
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/0128 ... 4948.shtml (http://www.staugustine.com/stories/012806/new_3604948.shtml)
Leslie Demeniuk impassive as dad speaks about sons
Boys' mother sentenced to two consecutive life terms without possibility of parole; twins' slayings haunt father
By RICHARD PRIOR
[email protected]
Publication Date: 01/28/06

John and James Demeniuk, 4 years old when they died, "could light up a room wherever they went," Tommy Demeniuk said Friday afternoon, at the sentencing of their mother, Leslie, on two convictions for first-degree murder.

Wearing jail issue of navy blue pants and pullover, Leslie Demeniuk stood at the end of the hour-long hearing to have Circuit Judge John M. Alexander sentence her to two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole.

A jury of five women and one man deliberated for three hours over two days before announcing Jan. 17 that Demeniuk was guilty of murdering her sons on March 17, 2001.

Accompanied by his second wife and his sister, Tommy Demeniuk came into the St. Johns County courtroom Friday afternoon and took a seat in the spectator section.

He kept his head down while Alexander denied a motion for a new trial from defense attorney Bill Sheppard.

Leslie Demeniuk was convicted of using a Smith & Wesson .357-caliber Magnum revolver to shoot James as he laid on a bed watching "Scooby Doo" on
television.

John had been sitting on the floor, also watching television. His mother shot at him twice. One shot grazed his head.

According to a crime scene reconstructionist, Leslie Demeniuk grabbed him as he ran for the door, put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger.

Tommy Demeniuk said he has been unable to stop reliving the moment of his children's deaths. He said he can't help putting himself in their place.

"I see the horror in their innocent eyes," Demeniuk said.

He said he can imagine John, knowing his brother was dead, "in shock and running for his life, knowing he was next if he couldn't get away."

Leslie Demeniuk barely changed expression as her ex-husband gave the court a sense of the anguish he had gone through over the past five years.

Sheppard and co-counsel Gray Thomas had argued at trial that a mix of certain antidepressants and alcohol created a "substance-induced mood
disorder" that drove Demeniuk to kill her sons.

Several weeks before the murders, the defendant had been prescribed Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, as well as Zoloft, a selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitor (SSRI).

Her Zoloft prescription was changed to Paxil, another SSRI, two days before the killings.

Though Demeniuk's family sat a few rows behind her, the only other person who wanted to speak at the hearing was her attorney.

As a 64-year-old father of six children, Sheppard said, "All of us have been affected by this tragedy."

"What's the answer?" he continued. "We need to take another look at a phenomenon known as SSRIs."

The public has been lulled by advertisements into thinking SSRIs are "quick fixes to our daily problems," said Sheppard.

He told the judge that anyone considering taking an SSRI should have it dispensed by a mental health professional, "not by a doc in the box, not by your general practitioner."

As new discoveries about SSRIs are made public, he said, their volatile side effects "are going to be shocking to our nation."

Sheppard filed a notice of appeal and then withdrew as Demeniuk's attorney.

Alexander said he would appoint an attorney to handle the appeal.

© The St. Augustine Record
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 04:49:00 PM
Thanks for the follow up!
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 05:00:00 PM
http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/EXECUTIO ... 13-04.html (http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/EXECUTION_NEWS_ARTICLES/staugustine_com%20Local%20News%20Emergency%20delay%20granted%20in%20Demeniuk%20case%2003-13-04.html)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 05:01:00 PM
Jury In Demeniuk Murder Trial Hears Grim Crime Scene Evidence

POSTED: 6:19 pm EST January 10, 2006

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- The jury in the Leslie Demeniuk murder trial heard more about the grim crime scene evidence on Tuesday.

One of the witnesses called by prosecutors was lead detective Sgt
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on March 01, 2006, 11:51:00 AM
http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4564808 (http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4564808)

Knoxville (WVLT) - Duke University medical researchers have made a surprising finding among patients with heart disease who take anti- depressant drugs.

Researchers found these heart patients are at a significantly higher risk of death.

In this week's Healthy Tennessean, Medical Reporter Jessa Goddard has reaction from the local medical community on the study and how local heart patients should proceed.

The study took into account several patient variables, as well as the type of anti-depressant and the risk still remained.

Researchers say there's something going on here they don't yet fully understand.

But they can't discount the findings.

Heart patients taking anti-depressant drugs had a 55% higher risk of dying.

Even after taking into account factors such as age, degree of heart disease and severity of depression.

Parkwest Hospital Cardiologist Robert Martyn says the risk potential is alarming.

"Yes, I am quite a bit. There's a lot about these drugs that we certainly don't know and all new categories of drugs need to be investigated
thoroughly," says Dr. Martyn.

A newer class of anti-depressants, known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRI's, have generally been considered safe.

For this reason, doctors have increasingly prescribed these drugs to their patients with depression.  In this study, that included one in five patients.

"It is quite common that after a heart attack, and especially for open heart surgery, for people to go through a period of time of depression," says Dr. Martyn.

This new finding is raising issues about the best way to treat depression in heart patients.

Duke researchers believe their findings add more support for the use of other approaches to treat depression, such as exercise.

Doctor Martyn says not only can exercise improve heart health, it's also been proven to combat depression.

A win-win situation for heart patients who also suffer symptoms of depression.

"Even just minimal amounts of exercise certainly has benefits on depression scores, life fitness, energy levels... so any form of exercise is certainly useful," Martyn says.

Doctor Martyn says taking into account the degree of heart disease and severity of depression, you and your doctor can decide what's best for you.

While researchers don't know why there appears to be a link between depression and increased risk of death, there are a number of theories.

Depression has been linked to other heart risk factors such as insulin resistance, high blood pressure, obesity, increased cigarette smoking,
alcohol abuse and physical inactivity.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on March 01, 2006, 12:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-03-01 08:51:00, Deborah wrote:




Duke researchers believe their findings add more support for the use of other approaches to treat depression, such as exercise.




Duke must have the only sedentary post cardiac
surgery protocol in the country.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on March 01, 2006, 04:19:00 PM
It makes sense.  Some of the first genes they've linked to bipolar disorder involve how the body handles stress hormones and, by extension, the tie in of bipolar disorder to an increased risk of insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

The correlation may be that a certain percentage of the same people who need and respond well to SSRIs also have higher risks of death from their heart disease because of the way a particular genetic vulnerability impacts both systems.

They're already finding out that mental illness is a full-body syndrome with the mood and behavioral symptoms just being some of the symptoms of the whole syndrome that happen to be most noticeable, soonest.

Even if the SSRIs have some sort of causative influence worsening the heart disease outcome, greater understanding of linkage between the two problems of mood disorders and heart disease will certainly help the doctors and healthcare companies develop better treatments to fix/help the underlying causes.

The first thing to find out is if these people with a higher risk of death have a higher risk because they're taking SSRIs, or have a higher risk because of a common gene that gives them the higher risk *and* makes them need the SSRIs.

The cause and development of their heart disease may not be the same as the cause and development of the people who aren't taking SSRIs.

Regardless, finding out what and why will lead to better treatments and is a good thing for everybody.

Julie
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on March 01, 2006, 04:47:00 PM
Two studies published in the Feb Archives of General Psychiatry explore possible links between depression to Alzheimer?s and  late-life cognitive decline.

The first study, from the University of Pittsburgh, tracked 1.265 adults over 12 years and found depression was not associated with cognitive decline.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... t/63/2/153 (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/2/153)

The second, from the Mt Sinai School of Medicine, which compared the postmortem brains of 52 Alzheimer?s patients with no lifetime history of depression with 50 Alzheimer?s patients with a history of depression, found those with a depression history had higher levels of plaque and tangle in the hippocampus (associated with memory) and more rapid cognitive decline than the depression-free brains.

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... t/63/2/161 (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/2/161)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on May 21, 2006, 04:04:00 PM
http://keye.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpa ... viewer.tpl (http://keye.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=6679&tf=keyeviewer.tpl)

Investigative News Clip
Paxil caused 16 year old to attempt suicide, which lead to class action.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on June 30, 2006, 10:39:00 PM
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/art ... =0&cat=109 (http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=67903&paper=0&cat=109)

15-Year-Old Pleads Guilty to Murder
Plea agreement ensures that Fort Belvoir teenager will begin his sentence in a juvenile facility until he is 21 years old.
By Ken Moore
June 29, 2006

Rody Phillips, 15, could face life in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree murder, three days before his trial was scheduled to begin.

The plea agreement ensures that Rody, 14 at the time he stabbed 7-Eleven clerk Sun Ku Kwon to death on Dec. 6, 2004, will begin serving his sentence in a juvenile facility.

ON DEC. 6, 2004, Rody walked around the Fort Belvoir base after he woke up at 3 a.m. and couldn't get back to sleep, said Morrogh.
Wearing camouflage clothing and black army boots, Rody stole knives and ornamental hand grenades from the commissary on the base, the prosecutor said. Rody eventually ended up at the 7-Eleven at 5638 Mount Vernon Highway where he waited outside until customers left around 5 a.m.

RODY'S PARENTS TRIED to get treatment for their son in the months before the crime. Rody battled depression following his move to Fort Belvior from Texas, where he had lived with his father and stepmother.

His mother and stepfather sent him to a psychiatrist at Fort Belvoir. The doctor started prescribing Effexor for Rody one month before the murder.

Rody said "he was hearing voices that were telling him to hurt somebody," Morrogh said. "In the past, he heard voices that were telling him to rob someone but he knew that was wrong."
One side was telling him one thing, another side the other, the prosecutor said. "He was trying to resist bad thoughts but the voices were telling him otherwise."

During court proceedings the last 18 months, Meleen filed motions showing that she intended to question Rody's sanity at the time of the offense. Rody had been evaluated at the University of Virginia's Institute for Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy in Charlottesville.
Last Friday, Meleen was expected to argue a motion to suppress Rody's statement to police as well argue a motion of "involuntary intoxication" since Rody was prescribed a medication risky to youth.

"The Food and Drug Administration has required pharmaceutical companies to issue warnings concerning Effexor and an entire class of anti-depressants that are believed to pose a risk of violent and suicidal behavior in adolescents," according to a motion filed by Meleen last July.
She will present the effects of Effexor on adolescents and her client as mitigating evidence when Rody is sentenced this fall.

ALTHOUGH HE is separated from adult inmates, Rody has been jailed at the Adult Detention Center since being transferred in May 2005 from the juvenile detention center. "The defendant has stated that he is having thoughts and 'visions' of killing other juveniles housed in the facility who have 'irritated him,'" according to an emergency transfer motion filed by the prosecution 13 months ago.

But since Rody stopped taking the prescribed medication, his grades improved, he is no longer a suicide threat, and his mental health has improved, Meleen said in April 2005 when she requested that Rody be evaluated to determine his sanity at the time of the offense.

Judge Williams asked if Kwon's family had any reaction to the plea agreement made Friday. The Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney has attempted to contact the family, but they moved back to Korea after picking up Kwon's belongings, Morrogh said.
Title: "Is it True? Are We All Crazy?"
Post by: Deborah on July 19, 2006, 01:16:37 PM
Recent articles have exposed the DSM as written by psychiatrists funded by pharmaceutical companies. The press is finally getting comfortable attacking the Psychiatric "Bible".

Caplan said one doctor is proposing a new diagnosis, relational disorder, which she summarizes as a dysfunctional relationship in which "neither person is mentally ill but the relationship is.
She said she wonders what would happen when an afflicted couple visits the doctor's office for help. "The psychiatrist takes out a pill. ... Where does the psychiatrist put it?" she asked.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation ... 3653.story (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.anger17jul17,0,7903653.story)

The Baltimore Sun
July 17, 2006 Monday
Behaving badly has disorder to call its own; Ever-growing list of mental illnesses met by skepticism
CHRIS EMERY, SUN REPORTER
Excerpts:
When researchers announced that 16 million Americans who fly into occasional fits of unwarranted rage may suffer from a mental illness called "intermittent explosive disorder," the diagnosis drew its share of hoots and howls.

"Your grandmother would say these are bad folks who can't control their temper, and she would be right," said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, an outspoken schizophrenia expert alarmed by the ever-expanding list of behaviors and attitudes branded as illnesses.

Torrey and other critics point to the volume that doctors use to determine mental illness, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as evidence that the world is out of control.

When it was first published in 1952, the DSM identified about 100 official mental disorders. Today, it certifies roughly 375.

Intermittent explosive disorder became the latest of those to reach the public consciousness in June, when a study of the syndrome, funded by the National Institutes of Health, was released.

Newspaper columnists and others around the country exploded in skepticism at its conclusions.

"Is it me, or does it seem like good old-fashioned bad behavior - rudeness, obsession, violence - is being increasingly explained away by doctors and pharmaceutical companies as some kind of mental illness du jour?" asked columnist Daniel Vasquez in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

In Georgia, a headline in The Augusta Chronicle read, "Jerks get disorder of their own."

While many critics echoed the derision historically reserved for mental illness, some mental health experts - including Torrey - are also skeptical.

"It's not a well-defined entity," Torrey said of IED. At the heart of his concern is a question mental health providers have long debated: When does a behavior or emotion cross the line from normal - however eccentric or undesirable - to become an illness?

What they decide affects many aspects of American life, ranging from criminal trials to decisions on who gets treatment and disability benefits for mental illness.

The most visible venue for that debate is the DSM, the primary reference for mental health professionals. When the American Psychiatric Association revises the manual every few years, doctors have to decide what disorders will be included.

Although the DSM's definitions of mental disorders are only guidelines, they influence courts, insurance companies and government agencies.

Although it was virtually unknown to the public before the June report, IED has been used as a legal defense in murder, assault and intimidation cases.

Critics argue that the professionals who rule on what goes into the manual too often have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

"The people who make these decision range from those with very good intentions ... to people who care about power, money and territory, and work hand in hand with the drug companies," said Paula J. Caplan, a psychologist and author of a book critical of the DSM.

Some psychiatrists worry that the credibility of their profession will be undermined if the guidelines are expanded too far or become too specific. In particular, they worry that fracturing well-documented disorders into sub-disorders based on flimsy evidence could prevent patients from getting appropriate treatment.

Those concerns alarmed critics when several controversial disorders were added to the manual's fourth edition, typically referred to as the DSM-IV.

"Many of us thought they went overboard," Torrey said. He joked that the range of disorders in the DSM-IV is so wide "you can fit almost everybody you know into one."

Much of the controversy surrounded personality disorders and mental illness among children. Among the most recently defined mental ailments, several drew particular scorn: mathematics disorder, reading disorder and disorder of written expression.

Based on definitions in the DSM-IV, naughty children can be diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder and cigarette smokers with nicotine dependence. "If You're Breathing, You're In The Book," a 1994 newspaper headline in the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record declared. Another newspaper asked, "Is it True? Are We All Crazy?"

More recently, doctors have begun suggesting disorders that should be included in the next revision of the manual, due in 2011.

Caplan said one doctor is proposing a new diagnosis, relational disorder, which she summarizes as a dysfunctional relationship in which "neither person is mentally ill but the relationship is."

She said she wonders what would happen when an afflicted couple visits the doctor's office for help. "The psychiatrist takes out a pill. ... Where does the psychiatrist put it?" she asked. Other doctors have suggested broadening the definition of bipolar disorder, an illness once known as manic depression, characterized by extreme mood swings from elation to deep despair.

Under the proposed changes in the DSM, "everyone who's had any kind of mood swings in their life becomes bipolar," Torrey said. "And because of that, the concept loses meaning."

While the APA's Narrow agrees the jury is out on expanding the definition of bipolar disorder - particularly when it would enrich the drug manufacturers whose medicines are used to treat it - he argues that refining the definition of old disorders and identifying new ones is important. "It means patients are more likely to get better treatment for their disorders," he said. "An accurate diagnosis leads to an accurate treatment."

The findings of the IED study released in June support that view, according to Ronald C. Kessler, the Harvard scientist who led the research team. The researchers found that IED often appears in adolescence but is later compounded by other problems such as alcoholism and depression. Identifying and treating the anger attacks early on might help prevent the problems that boil up, he said.

The study found that over a lifetime, people with IED averaged 43 rage attacks resulting in $1,359 in property damage. "The question is, can you make them into regular people, and there is evidence we can," Kessler said.

Disorders of note

Here are some disorders officially identified by the American Psychiatric Association and a few symptoms of each.

Narcissistic personality disorder: Grandiose sense of self-importance; arrogant or haughty behaviors; believes that he or she is "special"; sense of entitlement.

Disorder of written expression: Writing skills that are substantially below those expected, given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence and age-appropriate education.

Factious disorder: Intentional production or feigning of physical or psychological signs or symptoms but for no apparent reason.

Nightmare disorder: Extended and extremely frightening dreams, usually involving threats to survival, security or self-esteem.

Avoidant personality disorder: Reluctance to take personal risks or to engage in any new activities because they may prove embarrassing.

Antisocial personality disorder: Failure to conform to social norms; deceitfulness; irritability; lack of remorse.

Conduct disorder: Physically cruelty to people and animals; staying out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13; lying to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations.

General anxiety disorder: Excessive anxiety and worry, occurring for at least 6 months, about a number of events or activities; muscle tension; difficulty concentrating or mind going blank.[Source: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition]
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 28, 2006, 06:06:04 PM
I am in contact with a reporter who is looking for stories of young people who were inappropriately prescribed psychiatric drugs and suffered bad side-effects.

I you'd like to share your story, PM me.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 07, 2006, 02:55:52 PM
http://www.ottawasun.com/Lifestyle/Heal ... 20121.html (http://www.ottawasun.com/Lifestyle/Health/2006/08/05/pf-1720121.html)

Depressing situation
Quitting antidepressants a terrifying ordeal for some patients
By MATT CRENSON, AP

When Gina O'Brien decided she no longer needed drugs to quell her anxiety and panic attacks, she followed doctor's orders by slowly tapering her dose of the antidepressant Paxil.

The gradual withdrawal was supposed to prevent unpleasant symptoms that can result from stopping antidepressants cold turkey. But it didn't work.

"I felt so sick that I couldn't get off my couch," the Michigan resident said. "I couldn't stop crying."

Overwhelmed by nausea and uncontrollable crying, she felt she had no choice but to start taking the pills again. More than a year later she still takes Paxil, and expects to be on it for the rest of her life.

In the almost two decades since Prozac -- the first of the antidepressants known as SRIs, or serotonin reuptake inhibitors -- hit the market, many patients have reported extreme reactions to discontinuing the drugs. Two of the best-selling antidepressants -- Effexor and Paxil -- have prompted so many complaints that many doctors avoid prescribing them altogether.

"It's not that we never use it, but in the end I will tend not to prescribe Effexor or Paxil," said Dr. Richard C. Shelton, a psychiatrist at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Patients report experiencing all sorts of symptoms, sometimes within hours of stopping their medication. They can suffer from flu-like nausea, muscle aches, uncontrollable crying, dizziness and diarrhea. Many patients suffer "brain zaps," bizarre and briefly overwhelming electrical sensations that propagate from the back of the head.

"It's almost like pins and needles, and jittery on the inside," said a New York children's entertainer who asked that his name be withheld to protect his professional reputation.

MISTAKEN FOR SEIZURES

Though not exactly painful, they are briefly disorienting and can be terrifying. There are case reports of people who have just quit antidepressants showing up in hospital emergency rooms, thinking they are suffering from seizures.

Toni Wilson certainly didn't know how unpleasant going off Zoloft could be when her doctor recently switched her to Wellbutrin. The two antidepressants actually work on entirely different neurochemical systems, so going straight from one to the other was equivalent to quitting Zoloft cold turkey.

"After about three days I felt real anxious and irritable," Wilson said. "I would shake, not eat much, it felt like little needles in my body and head."

After two weeks, Wilson said, she was rescued from the brink of suicide by a friend who took her to the hospital.

Cases like Wilson's would be virtually nonexistent if physicians took more care in weaning their patients off antidepressants, said Philip Ninan, vice-president for neuroscience at Wyeth, the maker of Effexor.

"The management of discontinuation symptoms is relatively easy if you know about it," Ninan said, and noted that Wyeth had made efforts to educate both physicians and patients.

Yet surprisingly few doctors know enough about SRI discontinuation to manage it effectively. A 1997 survey of English doctors found that 28% of psychiatrists and 70% of general practitioners had no idea that patients might have problems after discontinuing antidepressants.

Having to keep taking Paxil makes O'Brien angry because she feels at the mercy of GlaxoSmithKline, the company that makes it.

Though a GSK spokesperson said the symptoms associated with discontinuing Paxil are generally mild and manageable, in O'Brien's eyes the company is profiting by having hooked her on one of its drugs.

"If they ever did quit making Paxil I'd be in so much trouble," O'Brien said. "What really makes me mad is if I can't get off it, why am I paying them? They should be paying me."
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 07, 2006, 04:52:05 PM
I oppose the Programs.  I think they're a dangerous cult whose owners scam parents out of loads of money while abusing and doing permanent psychological harm to kids.

For people who are new to Fornits and don't know our history, I feel like I need to say this for the record.

I strongly disagree with Deborah's positions on modern medicine and modern pharmaceuticals, including her positions on psychiatry, etc.

She and I have gone nine rounds on this too often already, so I won't be responding further in this thread unless it gets bumped up again some months hence.

I post only because I don't want new people to see her opinion unopposed and think that all Program opponents here, including me, share it.

Other folks can and will think what they want.  Just count me out.

Julie
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 07, 2006, 05:11:35 PM
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/ ... 55ab1.html (http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou060802_cd_paxil.2a55ab1.html)

Litigation against Paxil begins
05:58 PM CDT on Wednesday, August 2, 2006
By Chau Nguyen / 11 News
Click to watch video

You might remember all the national attention surrounding the drug Vioxx and the many lawsuits waged around the country.

There's now a new wave of litigation against another popular drug, the popular anti depressant Paxil.

Some women who took the drug while they were pregnant are claiming their babies were born with severe birth defects.

One woman in the Houston area says that's exactly what happened to her.

She spoke only to 11 News about her Paxil problems.

Her baby is on life support and this mother's life will never be the same.

"I mean it's been a roller coaster," said Lisa Collins Steele

When she talks about her 9-month-old son Chase, it's not easy.

"You see your child the way I see him. Most people shouldn't go through this in their lifetime," she said.

What Chase is going through is surviving with just half a heart. He was born this way.

Now, Collins believes it could have been prevented had her doctor warned her not to continue taking the anti-depressant drug Paxil.

Last December the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the makers of Paxil, Glaxo Smith Klein, issued an alert advising the risk of birth defects for pregnant women taking Paxil.

But Collins stopped taking the drug a few months before that warning came out.

"Had Lisa known about this, she wouldn't have taken Paxil," said attorney Robert Kwok.

Kwok now represents Collins in a liability and negligence lawsuit, suing her doctor and Glaxo Smith Klein.

"And we're gonna ask that the jury consider punishing GSK," he said.

Collins wants the parties to pay the hundreds of thousands in mounting medical bills, plus additional unspecified damages.

Chase doesn't understand why he turns blue why he gets seizures why he has to take a bucket of medicine a day," Kwok said.

Chase has already undergone one open heart surgery and has made at least a dozen trips to the hospital for emergency care.

For now, his prognosis is uncertain.

Late this afternoon 11 News received a call from Glaxo Smith Klein's corporate public relations representative.

She said the company doesn't comment on pending lawsuits, but is aware of Lisa Collins' case.

We should add that a similar lawsuit was filed by a woman in Bedford Texas.

Kwok says he knows of an estimated 50 cases around the country being reviewed.
Title: Zyprexa Settlement
Post by: Deborah on August 15, 2006, 01:04:54 PM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... e=printart (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060810&Category=BUSINESS&ArtNo=608100379&SectionCat=&Template=printart)

Zyprexa users await settlement payments
8,362 to receive checks related to side effects
By Jeff Swiatek
[email protected]
August 10, 2006

More than 8,000 users of Eli Lilly and Co.'s top-selling drug should find out this month how much their pain and suffering is worth.

Notices of injury payouts to Zyprexa users, in Lilly's largest-ever liability settlement, will be mailed as early as this week to those who hoped to enjoy the pharmaceutical benefits of the antipsychotic drug but ended up with diabetic side effects.

The long-awaited award notices will be followed within weeks or months by checks from a $700 million fund Lilly has set up to settle claims from 8,362 people. Many are vulnerable patients with schizophrenia and manic depression, the two main conditions Zyprexa treats.

The payouts, ranging from a minimum fixed amount of $5,000 to well over $100,000 a person, amount to a windfall for patients, most of whom are poor enough to qualify for federal Medicaid assistance.

"The awards are significant," said Chris Seeger, a New York attorney who serves on a steering committee that represents plaintiffs. Payouts of more than $100,000 will be common, he said, with fewer than 1,000 people getting the $5,000 base award for those who suffered the least harm from the drug.

"People are anxious to get paid," said Seeger, who helped hammer out the agreement with Lilly in 2005. "They're very anxious to receive their compensation."

Deborah F. Wagers of Shelby County, who is part of the settlement, said she hopes to collect on a claim of $112,500. She said she was prescribed Zyprexa for depression from about 2001 to 2003, and she blames the drug for causing her to become diabetic. She said she injects herself with insulin five times a day now and has had difficulty finding a job. Unemployed, she previously worked as a gas station cashier.

"I think they should be paying it out," she said of Lilly's mass settlement. "I'm the one who has to suffer."
Wagers said she hopes to use her check to pay more than $10,000 in medical bills.

The settlement by the Indianapolis drug maker was part of an effort to head off a mass class- action lawsuit against it by trial lawyers around the country who signed on thousands of clients alleging they gained weight from Zyprexa or acquired blood-sugar problems. Many of the lawsuits were consolidated in one federal court in New York, where Judge Jack B. Weinstein has overseen the settlement.

At times, the elderly judge has chastised plaintiffs' attorneys for being slow in getting payments to their clients who are in the settlement. In June, Weinstein called the delay in processing claims "intolerable" and demanded the work be speeded up, saying, "I want to terminate this case. I have my 86th birthday Aug. 10."

The lawyers did pick up their pace, reaching the agreed-upon threshold of processing 90 percent of the filed claims by late July, said Seeger. Lilly could have rejected the settlement if the attorneys didn't get enough of their clients to take the money and drop their legal cases.

With more than 8,000 claims now processed, "the deal is a final deal. No backing out by either side," Seeger said last week.
The only imminent holdup to paying out the money: A few state governments, including Ohio, want a share of the settlement money to reimburse them for Medicaid payments the states made for patients, to cover diabetes-related expenses linked to their use of Zyprexa.

"A number of states are giving us a hard time over . . . lien amounts," Seeger said. "We'll be forced to hold back (payments) in states where we can't reach agreement."

Indiana hasn't objected to payments to its residents, so checks likely won't be held up to Indiana residents, he said.
Tom Beaury, an informational technology worker from Lake Luzerne, N.Y., said he is awaiting payment on a claim topping $200,000. He said he became disabled partly because of diabetes-related symptoms linked to using Zyprexa six years ago.
Beaury, 35, said he will use his check, in part, to pay off $30,000 in medical bills he has run up since his Zyprexa-related health problems began.

He is not bitter toward Lilly.

"I don't know how to comment on Zyprexa. Was it a mistake? Was it gross negligence? They had a mishap, and it affected me. But I think they've done a lot of people good."

Lilly spokesman Phil Belt said plaintiffs' attorneys are handling the payouts.
"We are pleased to hear that the process is moving forward," he said.

The settlement will produce a windfall for attorneys, too, although Judge Weinstein has capped legal fees at 35 percent for most claims paid. Still, that will amount to more than $200 million going to attorneys.

The settlement covered about 75 percent of the known Zyprexa claims against Lilly. But hundreds more have flooded into federal and state courts.

"The money attracts more cases," said Peter H. Woodin, a New York attorney appointed by the court as a special master to handle claims.

Lilly has set aside another $300 million to cover potential liability from the unsettled cases, which it has said it will fight in court.
The first trial from the unsettled claims could happen next year. Lilly employees are being deposed by trial lawyers, and the company has turned over more than 10 million pages of documents sought by plaintiffs' attorneys, Woodin said.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 15, 2006, 02:26:29 PM
I wish good luck to those that signed on for this, and hope they get their money, especially if they had medial problems they had to pay for. I was on zyprexa for about six months, and an extremely high dose, 25mg per day. I have mixed feelings about the drug. I understand what people are saying, it does make you gain weight, and fast. I never ate like I did while on that drug, You literally, can never get full. Ever. It really is a weird feeling. I have never been as fat as I was while on that drug, I gained about 10 pounds a month while on it. I didn't have schizephrenia, but I think the psychiatrist thought I was crazy, and put me on it. I was hearing voices when coming off some hard drugs and maybe he thought it would help.
When in day treatment there was this girl, who just started hearing voices one day. It was really sad. Zyprexa does a very good job at what it is supposed to do, stop the voices and 'stop the crazy', but in order to do so it turns you into a semi-zombie. So, the constant dilemma in patients taking this drug was deciding what is better, hearing voices with a clear mind, or not hearing voices and crazy thoughts, but be cloudy and weird and fat. It is not an easy choice.
Eventually, I noticed the doctors starting to prescribe a new drug at the time, Geodun. It wasn't supposed to have the same effects as Zyprexa (weight gain), but it made me even more cloudy. I tried to walk to 7-11 to get a soda, and ran into the light pole and bruised my face, that's how bad the cloudiness was with that one.
It's a tough subject, because I've met a lot of people with schizephrenia, and it is so terrifying to them they would have already killed themselves if it weren't for these drugs. I am glad I never did develop schizephrenia, it's a tough choice deciding whether and what meds to take, and living with that decision.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on August 15, 2006, 03:01:37 PM
Having been there, I'd like to ask you a question.
Why do you think the focus is not on helping people learn to ignore 'the voices', like the guy in Beautiful Mind (forgotten his name), rather than drugging people out of their minds.

This will surely be perceived as over-simplified to some, but it appears to me that schizophrenics live in fear. Fear does strange things to people. Our minds are powerful and cause us harm if fear dictates our thoughts.
It doesn't seem that difficult to ferret out the source of a person's fearful thoughts which are causing the voices and hallucinations. Then assist the person in learning how to tune them out, as portrayed in the movie.

What IF, the thoughts are nothing more than someone tripping over something in their past that scared the shit out of them. If you could identify and dismantle it, I can't help but think there would be drastic improvement. Like re-programming the software. Seems the goal should be to help the person gain a firm grasp of the assurance that they can be in full control of their thoughts. That these thoughts are not currently coming from an external entity, but completely from their own mind, based on one or more fearful, confusing, unresolved, past events.

Like a whipped, cowling dog who might never fully recover, the same may be true of more severe cases of schizo, but this kind of approach seems far more humane, effective, and safer in the long run.

Did you ever get counseling? If so, what kind and was any of this explored during sessions?
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on August 15, 2006, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
Having been there, I'd like to ask you a question.
Why do you think the focus is not on helping people learn to ignore 'the voices', like the guy in Beautiful Mind (forgotten his name), rather than drugging people out of their minds.

This will surely be perceived as over-simplified to some, but it appears to me that schizophrenics live in fear. Fear does strange things to people. Our minds are powerful and cause us harm if fear dictates our thoughts.
It doesn't seem that difficult to ferret out the source of a person's fearful thoughts which are causing the voices and hallucinations. Then assist the person in learning how to tune them out, as portrayed in the movie.

What IF, the thoughts are nothing more than someone tripping over something in their past that scared the shit out of them. If you could identify and dismantle it, I can't help but think there would be drastic improvement. Like re-programming the software. Seems the goal should be to help the person gain a firm grasp of the assurance that they can be in full control of their thoughts. That these thoughts are not currently coming from an external entity, but completely from their own mind, based on one or more fearful, confusing, unresolved, past events.

Like a whipped, cowling dog who might never fully recover, the same may be true of more severe cases of schizo, but this kind of approach seems far more humane, effective, and safer in the long run.

Did you ever get counseling? If so, what kind and was any of this explored during sessions?


Totally, I agree. When I went into the psychiatrist he was almost detached from humanity, viewing from his ivory tower a lowely soul in need of chemical repair. He asked very brief questions, that would certainly result in me being diagnosed and prescribed something. I do know Zyprexa vs Schizo in the current treatment arena for teens and adults is a horrifying choice. I remember this teen girl who looked like a supermodel gain a hundred pounds at least, which gave her a whole new set of issues to deal with. Definitely a doubel edged sword if you ask me. I like the idea of exploring new options for sure!
-same poster as before
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on January 05, 2007, 12:30:05 PM
January 5, 2007
Lilly Settles With 18,000 Over Zyprexa
By ALEX BERENSON
Eli Lilly agreed yesterday to pay up to $500 million to settle 18,000 lawsuits from people who claimed they had developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa, Lilly's drug for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Including earlier settlements over Zyprexa, Lilly has now agreed to pay at least $1.2 billion to 28,500 people who said they were injured by the drug. At least 1,200 suits are still pending, the company said. About 20 million people worldwide have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in 1996.
```
The documents also show that Lilly marketed the drug as appropriate for patients who did not meet accepted diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, Zyprexa's only approved uses. By law, drug makers may promote their drugs only for diseases for which the Food and Drug Administration has found the medicines to be safe and effective, though doctors may prescribe drugs in any way they see fit.

In response to questions about the information in the documents, Lilly has denied any wrongdoing and said it provided all relevant information to doctors and the F.D.A. Lilly has also said it did not promote Zyprexa for conditions other than schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
```
In 2005, a $700 million agreement covered 8,000 patients, and the company has made 2,500 individual settlements whose total value has not been disclosed, Lilly said. The 2005 settlement valued claims at about $90,000 a plaintiff, while yesterday's agreement values claims at about $27,000 a plaintiff, at most.

The lower value for the new claims comes in part because of the F.D.A. label change, which has allowed Lilly to say that it adequately warned doctors of the risks of Zyprexa after 2003. The label change may also help to protect Lilly from future lawsuits, analysts and lawyers say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/busin ... ref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/business/05drug.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2007, 12:35:07 PM
I was on zyprexa for six months, a very high dose of 25mg per day. Luckily no ill side effects or anything but I feel bad for these people. It does make you hungrier than youve ever been in your life. I would have gained more weight if I wasnt locked up and restricted diet. I saw in a psych hospital this girl who heard voices who was taking it started to blow up and so she got a whole new set of issues because of that. I can't believe they prescribe this to so many people. It was a very strong antipsychotic that is stronger than ANY illegal drug and I've taken pretty much all of them. It shuts your brain off.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: Deborah on July 10, 2007, 12:40:29 PM
Video here:
http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/07/paxil- ... watch-here (http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/07/paxil-settlement-on-you-tube-watch-here)

Paxil Settlement On. You Tube;
July 10th, 2007
By Ed Silverman

In an unusual move, the Public Citizen advocacy group has posted a video
on YouTube to alert parents to a $48 million settlement of a lawsuit
concerning Glaxo's Paxil antidepressant and side effects. The drugmaker
was required to announce the settlement terms last October, but wasn't
to publicize that the terms were improved and simplified in April, the
group notes.

Even without receipts, parents can recover up to $100, but any money
that isn't claimed prior to the August 31, 2007, deadline will revert
back to Glaxo. Although it's not clear, Public Citizen may be correct in
noting this is the first time such a class-action settlement uses
YouTube to publicize terms.

The video, which is just a minute and a half, resembles a public service
announcment read by a news anchor, who says: "Now, $48 million is
sitting in a fund waiting to pay back parents whose children were on
Paxil before their 18th birthday." You can visit www.paxilpayback.org (http://www.paxilpayback.org)

+++

See here: www.paxilpayback.org (http://www.paxilpayback.org)
You are entitled to this money if:
. you live in the U.S. and
. you purchased Paxil or Paxil CR for someone under the age of 18.
If you qualify, you MUST fill out a claim form and mail it to the Paxil
Pediatric Settlement Administrator in order to receive compensation. The
claims must be received by August 31, 2007.
~~~

And, just as there is an effort before congress to remove the "Black Box Warning" for use of SSRIs with youth.
Title: FDA warning on SSRIs
Post by: hanzomon4 on July 11, 2007, 05:45:35 AM
Well, well, well, I'll post if I get a refund....