This great article can be read in its entirety at http://www.newswithviews.com/Eakman/beverly31.htm
In the article, Eakman talks about the "brouhaha surrounding actor Tom Cruise and his Hollywood colleague, Brooke Shields, regarding their respective views on antidepressant drugs."
"Inevitably," she says, "psychotherapies in general became intertwined with the topic of mind-altering substances -- and so did Scientology, the bête noire of the psychiatric profession."
Eakman clarifies that she is not a Scientologist. She sayst that until Scientology’s spin-off organization, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, contacted her in 1996 concerning two of her books on education, she had only heard of it in passing and had never heard of CCHR.
She had, however, independently discovered that psych-based education was ruining the school system. In fact, she says it is why she quit her job as a teacher. "Long ago and quite independently, I had come to certain conclusions, the primary one being that psychology had compromised the educating process. That was why I left the teaching profession. The new emphasis on emotions meant that academics took a back seat. It inaugurated what I felt was a phony and counterproductive self-esteem movement. Finally, psychologized education brought in a counseling industry that undermined the moral authority of adults, with the consequence that teachers were handling little 'mob-ocracies' instead of kiddy cliques."
"With the arrival of the counselor-therapist," she says, "I got the sinking feeling that psychology in schools was 'morphing' into something more ominous: psychotherapy and drugs were replacing the discipline and character-building functions that had been the staples of education and childrearing."
Her suspicions were confirmed by the time reports started appearing, in the late 1980s, alleging that schools were intimidating parents into putting their children on psychiatric drugs.
She says, "Not only was real, scientific research on learning methods being scuttled, but I couldn’t find any hard, statistical validity behind the claims for psychiatric drugs that were being prescribed for behavioral problems. Eventually, renowned experts in government and on the boards of major pharmaceutical companies were blowing the whistle on unreported side-effects, unsubstantiated claims, and outright fraud -- and they weren’t Scientologists. Experts and authors like Drs. Peter Breggin, David Healy, Charles Medawar, and (more recently) former Pennsylvania Inspector General Allen Jones were, in many cases, actually hostile toward Scientology.
"Today, reports that many antidepressants have no more effect than a placebo are ubiquitous. Which brings up the question: Is the aggressive marketing of psychotropic drugs creating a market based on the power of suggestion?"
She says she takes most of what Hollywood stars say "with a grain of salt," and that Tom Cruise’s June 24th interview on NBC’s “Today Show” may not have been the most articulate discussion about drugs or that whole field technically known as “behavioral science.” She says Mr. Cruise was particularly blasted for suggesting that vitamins and exercise could serve as solutions for emotional and mental problems.
"But we must remember," she goes on, "that such interviews revolve around sound bites. That’s all television journalists really want: short sentences that explain little but are easily merged into a 7-minute topic segment that TV executives believe will keep viewers keep from changing channels. Hollywood’s stars know whatever they say must be condensed down to a sentence.
Experts increasingly are learning how to do that, too."
Her indictment is scathing. She says, "The fact is, there is nothing in the medical, scientific literature that confirms objective abnormality (“objective abnormality” equates to disease) in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder (CD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Post-partum Depression, “math disorder” or hundreds of other “diseases” that psychiatrists swear up and down are “biological.” If they were biological, scientists would be able to see evidence in blood workups, x-rays, urinalyses, taps of spinal fluid, or something. But they can’t. No one knows, for example, how much serotonin (the chemical associated with depression) is normal, or how much is too much or not enough. But medical doctors can tell for sure if you have a vitamin deficiency, and they can tell you which vitamin, too. Vitamin deficiencies, allergies and sedentary lifestyles frequently do contribute adversely to mental function."
This is a former educator and a very articulate writer who sees the insanity being perpetrated on our school system by psychiatrists, psychologists and psych-based education.
The article is worth the read.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Another Prozac Murder
Another Prozac murder. Or maybe it's another anti-depressant, but Prozac is the most popular one. Which anti-depressant wasn't specified in the article. This one will make you wince:
In Brockton, Massachusetts a man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.
The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.
Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for Aug. 26.
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."
Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.
"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."
After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.
Boy, think about how crazy Bishop would be if he wasn't taking his psychiatric drugs. No! Wait! He didn't kill anybody BEFORE he took the drugs!!! But the drugs are supposed to HELP you. Can it be that anti-depressants actually MAKE people insane????? Huh? Can it??
In Brockton, Massachusetts a man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.
The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.
Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for Aug. 26.
Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."
Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.
"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."
After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.
Boy, think about how crazy Bishop would be if he wasn't taking his psychiatric drugs. No! Wait! He didn't kill anybody BEFORE he took the drugs!!! But the drugs are supposed to HELP you. Can it be that anti-depressants actually MAKE people insane????? Huh? Can it??
Letter To South Florida Sentinel Newspaper
Regarding the latest hype about the drugging of America, I cannot believe how gullible people have become regarding mental illness. We're being snowed. Millions are spent on developing and advertising psychotropic drugs to get people to "feel" better. The drug companies and psychiatrists want a stoned population that can't really face anything. They've put billions of dollars in their pockets without coming up with any cures. Wouldn't it be better to have a population that can have a chance of solving its own problems by confronting them? We're in a society of legalized drug pushing.
Why? Because the psychiatrists put a label on an ordinary problem and the drug companies develop a drug to "treat" it. They certainly don't cure anything. Just read the letter by your writer whose wife has been on anti-depressants for 12 years. Kudos to the Scientologists. They're promoting finding ways to make people feel better without drugs. Now that's new!
Why? Because the psychiatrists put a label on an ordinary problem and the drug companies develop a drug to "treat" it. They certainly don't cure anything. Just read the letter by your writer whose wife has been on anti-depressants for 12 years. Kudos to the Scientologists. They're promoting finding ways to make people feel better without drugs. Now that's new!
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
"Big Pharma" is using "Western Medicine" to Destroy America...
Opinion by consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
In the United States every company with over two hundred employees is required to provide full health insurance coverage to its employees. Since 1999, when the US FDA allowed "Big Pharma" to advertise directly to the American consumer, the cost of the average prescription drug has increased 500% - with no reason other than greed.
The same prescription drugs cost five to twenty times as much in the US as other countries. Because of this, the average cost of health insurance for a family of four, including the amount a company pays, and what the employee pays, is now $14,700 per year.
No company in the US can afford those increases in health care costs - so just to survive, at all, much less compete in a word-wide market, US companies are sending their labor requirements overseas - and shutting down US production facilities, laying off US workers, supervisors, managers, vice presidents, etc.
It's time America recognized "Big Pharma" for what it really is - the enemy of mankind - and does something about it.
To read the entire article, click on the URL below:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/big%20pharma%20destroying%20America.htm
In the United States every company with over two hundred employees is required to provide full health insurance coverage to its employees. Since 1999, when the US FDA allowed "Big Pharma" to advertise directly to the American consumer, the cost of the average prescription drug has increased 500% - with no reason other than greed.
The same prescription drugs cost five to twenty times as much in the US as other countries. Because of this, the average cost of health insurance for a family of four, including the amount a company pays, and what the employee pays, is now $14,700 per year.
No company in the US can afford those increases in health care costs - so just to survive, at all, much less compete in a word-wide market, US companies are sending their labor requirements overseas - and shutting down US production facilities, laying off US workers, supervisors, managers, vice presidents, etc.
It's time America recognized "Big Pharma" for what it really is - the enemy of mankind - and does something about it.
To read the entire article, click on the URL below:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/big%20pharma%20destroying%20America.htm
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Psychology Today Tells The Truth!
This partial article is from Psychology Today. You can read the whole article here.
PSYCHIATRIST LOREN MOSHER RECENTLY RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE American Psychiatric Association, claiming that some of his colleagues are too quick to hand out drugs in what he terms an "unholy alliance" between psychiatrists and drug companies. A substantial number of cases of misdiagnosis and fraud support his view that patient care may be in jeopardy.
"I Want No Part of It Anymore"
The trouble began in the late 1970s when I conducted a controversial study: I opened a program--Soteria House--where newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients lived medication-free with a young, nonprofessional staff trained to listen to and understand them and provide companionship. The idea was that schizophrenia can often be overcome with the help of meaningful relationships, rather than with drugs, and that such treatment would eventually lead to unquestionably healthier lives.
The experiment worked better than expected. Over the initial six weeks, patients recovered as quickly as those treated with medication in hospitals.
The results of the study were published in scores of psychiatric journals, nursing journals and books, but the project lost its funding and the facility was closed. Amid the storm of controversy that followed, control of the research project was taken out of my hands. I also faced an investigation into my behavior as chief of the National Institute of Mental Health's Center for Studies of Schizophrenia and was excluded from prestigious academic events. By 1980, I was removed from my post altogether. All of this occurred because of my strong stand against the overuse of medication and disregard for drug-free, psychological interventions to treat psychological disorders.
I soon found a less politically sensitive position at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland. Eight years later, I re-entered the political arena as the head of the public mental health system in Montgomery County, Md., but not without a fight from friends of the drug industry. The Maryland Psychiatric Society asked that a state pharmacy committee review my credentials and prescribing practices to make sure that Montgomery County patients would receive proper--read: drug--treatments. In addition, a pro-drug family advocacy organization arranged for more than 250 furious letters to be sent to the elected county executive who had hired me. Fortunately, my employers were not drug-industry-dominated, so I kept my position.
Why does the world of psychiatry find me so threatening? Because drug companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of psychiatrists around the country, making them reluctant to recognize that drugs may not always be in the best interest of their patients. They are too busy enjoying drug company perks: consultant gigs, research grants, fine wine and fancy meals.
Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance major symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $1,000-$2,000 per speaker to hock their wares. It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, on education.
And, of course, the doctors-for-hire tell only half the story. How widely is it known, for example, that Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them?
What's even scarier is the greed that is directing a good deal of drug testing today. It is estimated that drug manufacturers have, on average, 12 years to recoup costs and make profits on a given medication before a generic form can be made. So pressure to test new drugs mounts. In the field of psychiatric drug testing, organizations make a profit of as much as $40,000 for every patient who successfully completes a trial. And university psychiatry departments, private research clinics and some individual doctors live on this money.
The good news is that the press is catching on. The New York Times, Dallas News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and New York Post have recently run articles or series on how pharmaceutical companies use cash incentives to encourage doctors to prescribe their drugs.
This spring, the New York Post revealed that Columbia University has been cashing in. Its Office of Clinical Trials generates about $10 million a year testing new medications--much of which is granted to the Columbia Psychiatric Institute for implementing these tests. The director of the institute was being paid $140,000 a year by various drug companies to tour the country promoting their drugs. He also received payments of nearly $12,000 from a drug manufacturer to head up a study on panic disorders. How could he rate these drugs fairly when his livelihood was dependent on the success of the drug manufacturer? The director resigned in the aftermath of the article's publication.
At least one drug company, Wyeth-Ayerst Research, has spoken out against offering cash bonuses and other incentives to researchers. But company representatives admit it's difficult to stay competitive when other groups so eagerly violate ethical concerns.
The APA Connection
The American Psychiatric Association--representing the majority of psychiatrists in America, with about 40,000 members--is also unduly influenced by pharmaceutical dollars. The association:
o receives substantial rent from drug companies for huge symposia spaces at national conventions.
o derives an enormous percentage of its income from drug companies--30% of its total budget is from drug company advertising in its many publications.
o accepts a large number of unrestricted educational grants from drug companies.
This relationship is dangerous because researchers and psychiatrists then feel indebted to the drug companies, remain biased in favor of drug cures, downplay side effects and seldom try other types of interventions. And they know they have the unspoken blessing of the APA to do so.
Collectively, these practices aggressively promote reliance on prescription drug use-so much so that many people think drugs should be forced on those who refuse to take them. The APA supports the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which believes that mentally ill patients should be coerced to take medication. I am appalled by this level of social control. Mentally ill people should be given a choice to have their illness treated in alternative ways.
Over the last decade, ! have written a number of letters bringing my concerns to the APA's attention but have received no response. The association claims that what it's doing is in the "best interest of patients," but its strong ties to the drug industry suggest otherwise.
Recently, it was dues-paying time for the APA, and I sat there looking at the form. I thought about the unholy alliance between the association and the drug industry. I thought about how consumers are being affected by this alliance, about the overuse of medication, about side effects and about alternative treatments. I thought about how irresponsibly some of my colleagues are acting toward the general public and the mentally ill. And I realized, I want no part of it anymore.
Loren R. Mosher, M.D.
PSYCHIATRIST LOREN MOSHER RECENTLY RESIGNED IN DISGUST FROM THE American Psychiatric Association, claiming that some of his colleagues are too quick to hand out drugs in what he terms an "unholy alliance" between psychiatrists and drug companies. A substantial number of cases of misdiagnosis and fraud support his view that patient care may be in jeopardy.
"I Want No Part of It Anymore"
The trouble began in the late 1970s when I conducted a controversial study: I opened a program--Soteria House--where newly diagnosed schizophrenic patients lived medication-free with a young, nonprofessional staff trained to listen to and understand them and provide companionship. The idea was that schizophrenia can often be overcome with the help of meaningful relationships, rather than with drugs, and that such treatment would eventually lead to unquestionably healthier lives.
The experiment worked better than expected. Over the initial six weeks, patients recovered as quickly as those treated with medication in hospitals.
The results of the study were published in scores of psychiatric journals, nursing journals and books, but the project lost its funding and the facility was closed. Amid the storm of controversy that followed, control of the research project was taken out of my hands. I also faced an investigation into my behavior as chief of the National Institute of Mental Health's Center for Studies of Schizophrenia and was excluded from prestigious academic events. By 1980, I was removed from my post altogether. All of this occurred because of my strong stand against the overuse of medication and disregard for drug-free, psychological interventions to treat psychological disorders.
I soon found a less politically sensitive position at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Maryland. Eight years later, I re-entered the political arena as the head of the public mental health system in Montgomery County, Md., but not without a fight from friends of the drug industry. The Maryland Psychiatric Society asked that a state pharmacy committee review my credentials and prescribing practices to make sure that Montgomery County patients would receive proper--read: drug--treatments. In addition, a pro-drug family advocacy organization arranged for more than 250 furious letters to be sent to the elected county executive who had hired me. Fortunately, my employers were not drug-industry-dominated, so I kept my position.
Why does the world of psychiatry find me so threatening? Because drug companies pour millions of dollars into the pockets of psychiatrists around the country, making them reluctant to recognize that drugs may not always be in the best interest of their patients. They are too busy enjoying drug company perks: consultant gigs, research grants, fine wine and fancy meals.
Pharmaceutical companies pay through the nose to get their message across to psychiatrists across the country. They finance major symposia at the two predominant annual psychiatric conventions, offer yummy treats and music to conventioneers, and pay $1,000-$2,000 per speaker to hock their wares. It is estimated that, in total, drug companies spend an average of $10,000 per physician, per year, on education.
And, of course, the doctors-for-hire tell only half the story. How widely is it known, for example, that Prozac and its successor antidepressants cause sexual dysfunction in as many as 70% of people taking them?
What's even scarier is the greed that is directing a good deal of drug testing today. It is estimated that drug manufacturers have, on average, 12 years to recoup costs and make profits on a given medication before a generic form can be made. So pressure to test new drugs mounts. In the field of psychiatric drug testing, organizations make a profit of as much as $40,000 for every patient who successfully completes a trial. And university psychiatry departments, private research clinics and some individual doctors live on this money.
The good news is that the press is catching on. The New York Times, Dallas News, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and New York Post have recently run articles or series on how pharmaceutical companies use cash incentives to encourage doctors to prescribe their drugs.
This spring, the New York Post revealed that Columbia University has been cashing in. Its Office of Clinical Trials generates about $10 million a year testing new medications--much of which is granted to the Columbia Psychiatric Institute for implementing these tests. The director of the institute was being paid $140,000 a year by various drug companies to tour the country promoting their drugs. He also received payments of nearly $12,000 from a drug manufacturer to head up a study on panic disorders. How could he rate these drugs fairly when his livelihood was dependent on the success of the drug manufacturer? The director resigned in the aftermath of the article's publication.
At least one drug company, Wyeth-Ayerst Research, has spoken out against offering cash bonuses and other incentives to researchers. But company representatives admit it's difficult to stay competitive when other groups so eagerly violate ethical concerns.
The APA Connection
The American Psychiatric Association--representing the majority of psychiatrists in America, with about 40,000 members--is also unduly influenced by pharmaceutical dollars. The association:
o receives substantial rent from drug companies for huge symposia spaces at national conventions.
o derives an enormous percentage of its income from drug companies--30% of its total budget is from drug company advertising in its many publications.
o accepts a large number of unrestricted educational grants from drug companies.
This relationship is dangerous because researchers and psychiatrists then feel indebted to the drug companies, remain biased in favor of drug cures, downplay side effects and seldom try other types of interventions. And they know they have the unspoken blessing of the APA to do so.
Collectively, these practices aggressively promote reliance on prescription drug use-so much so that many people think drugs should be forced on those who refuse to take them. The APA supports the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which believes that mentally ill patients should be coerced to take medication. I am appalled by this level of social control. Mentally ill people should be given a choice to have their illness treated in alternative ways.
Over the last decade, ! have written a number of letters bringing my concerns to the APA's attention but have received no response. The association claims that what it's doing is in the "best interest of patients," but its strong ties to the drug industry suggest otherwise.
Recently, it was dues-paying time for the APA, and I sat there looking at the form. I thought about the unholy alliance between the association and the drug industry. I thought about how consumers are being affected by this alliance, about the overuse of medication, about side effects and about alternative treatments. I thought about how irresponsibly some of my colleagues are acting toward the general public and the mentally ill. And I realized, I want no part of it anymore.
Loren R. Mosher, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)