Teen Screen. Sounds friendly, helpful, upbeat, right? Well, it’s not. It is a marketing technique to addict and control our children by using bogus “suicide screening” questions and then, if a child identifies some of these universal experiences as their own, they are sucked into a vortex of procedure and misuse of professional words and ideas to make sure that huge numbers of children are doped and made dopey. Make them dopey enough, and you will make them damaged and dead, too. Oh, by the way, there is no need to have parental approval for this doping and dieing in more and more places, by the way. Object and you can loose your children to the power of the state. The list of abominations goes on and on and on here. Let me remind you that these psychoactive drugs are dangerous toxins and have never been tested for long term effects in human, especially not on the developing brains of children Six to 13 weeks is about average for a test protocol for psychoactive drugs despite the fact that these horrific substances are addictive and used for years on end on children. They are often used in combination, too, despite the absolute lack of clinical testing to assure anyone at all that these are safe procedures.
In case I did not mention it, I am a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist by training as well as an Adult Psychiatrist. I know whereof I speak because I practiced out-patient psychiatry without drugs for more than 35 years before I closed my practice in order to take on the Body Politic: health freedom. I know first hand what these drugs do and I know first hand what is, and is not, known about the use and damage of these powerful mind altering chemicals and their impact on brains in development. I also know with the certainty of long practice that orthomolecular psychiatry, NeuroBioFeedback, clean food and psychotherapy are powerful, non-toxic, empowering tools to help with real issues of cognition, affect and attention.
I know, too, that these techniques are not very good for the biggest, and meanest, business in the world, Big Pharma. Not good at all. How much does a bottle of B3 (Niacin) cost compared to any of the dangerous doping compounds the patent medicine companies have convinced us are essential for life and health? You do the math. Or, if you’d rather look at some really interesting math done by some pretty smart people, take a look at the real story on Teen Screen and, scrolling down, take a look at the $30B which the Teen Screen poisoning of our children’s brains and bodies will result in for Big Pharma!
Here is my advice for you if you have kids: Do Not Allow Teen Screen Anywhere Near Your Child. Teach your child to resist the blandishments, the Video coupons and the Pizza Parties that are used as inducements for this diabolical program. Just Say No! and teach your kids to say “NO!”, too.
If a child is mentally ill, there are ways to screen and to help him or her that do not involve blandishments and enticements and treatments that do not involve poisoning your child’s developing brain. Love your child. Keep him/her free of mind-bending poisons with addictive and other dangerous potentials. Please.
Yours in health and freedom from profitable poisons,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
Psychiatrists Recommended Putting The Children In A Cage
While many are shocked at news reports of a psychiatrist advising an Ohio couple to confine their 11 foster children in caged beds, the practice of caging patients in beds in not uncommon for the psychiatric industry.
In 2004, after young children and adults were found in Hungarian psychiatric wards, imprisoned in caged beds as punishment for “misbehavior,” such as getting out of bed in the night or taking food from the hospital refrigerator, the practice was banned in Hungary and the Czech Republic by the European Parliament. This was due to the dedicated efforts of human rights groups and Harry Potter author JK Rowling who demanded an end to this degrading and inhuman treatment of both adults and young children. Harry Potter Author JK Rowling slams psychiatrists use of cage beds.
As abusive and harmful as caging children may be, psychiatry's unrepentant use of such arcane practices spans more than 200 years.
Circa 1998: CCHR found Hungarian mental
patients forced to live in cages
Psychiatric cage beds date back
to the 1800s
To download images: http://www.cchr.org/news/index.htm
For more information on psychiatry's brutal treatment of children, including caged beds, heavy drugging and deadly restraint procedures that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of American children over the past 10 years, read: Deadly Restraints—Psychiatry's 'Therapeutic' Assault
To find out how you can help Click here
In 2004, after young children and adults were found in Hungarian psychiatric wards, imprisoned in caged beds as punishment for “misbehavior,” such as getting out of bed in the night or taking food from the hospital refrigerator, the practice was banned in Hungary and the Czech Republic by the European Parliament. This was due to the dedicated efforts of human rights groups and Harry Potter author JK Rowling who demanded an end to this degrading and inhuman treatment of both adults and young children. Harry Potter Author JK Rowling slams psychiatrists use of cage beds.
As abusive and harmful as caging children may be, psychiatry's unrepentant use of such arcane practices spans more than 200 years.
Circa 1998: CCHR found Hungarian mental
patients forced to live in cages
Psychiatric cage beds date back
to the 1800s
To download images: http://www.cchr.org/news/index.htm
For more information on psychiatry's brutal treatment of children, including caged beds, heavy drugging and deadly restraint procedures that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of American children over the past 10 years, read: Deadly Restraints—Psychiatry's 'Therapeutic' Assault
To find out how you can help Click here
Monday, September 12, 2005
Handling ADHD In Adults Without Prozac, Ritalin Or Other Drugs
An interesting essay by Dr. Mike Adams appeared recently. It is instructive on the issue of ADHD, especially in adults, which is apparently the variety Dr. Adams has experience with:
Adams doesn't buy the adult ADHD diagnosis. He says it's fictional. His solution is highly inventive. He says:
One of the toughest things about being a teacher is dealing with all the latest “syndromes” in our culture of victimization.
Often those fictional problems take the form of “disorders” like adult ADHD. I always know which of my students have been told that they suffer from adult ADHD. They are often late and sometimes leave class early to go potty, unlike most students who go potty before class begins. They blurt out the answers to my questions constantly – always without the courtesy of a raised hand. And, usually, they fall asleep in class (probably from exhaustion) after the fifteenth or twentieth interruption. Later, they are awakened by the cell phone they forgot to turn off before arriving in class.
After being diagnosed with ADHD, two things usually happen to the newly “disadvantaged” student. First, a psychologist tells the victim that he cannot pay attention nor control various impulses. Next, he is given a dosage of drugs. Neither one of these responses actually works. In fact, telling him that he cannot pay attention – rather than that he simply does not pay attention – usually reinforces the problem. The drugs don’t work because, again, the disorder is fictional.
But, fortunately, I have discovered a cure for students with this so-called disorder, which I am now sharing (free of charge, mind you) with my readers. Here’s how it works.
At the beginning of the semester I lay out a few ground rules with my students. For example, they are not to bring cell phones into my class. They are also forbidden from walking into class after the lecture has started. But I don’t just tell students not to do these things. I also make them sign an agreement (on the first day of class) that they will not do these things under penalty of writing a research paper if they break the promise.
The first student to ever violate the agreement was named Chris. After he walked into my class very late one day, then interrupted it approximately fifteen times by shouting out the (usually wrong) answer to a question, then fell asleep in class, then woke up and went potty (thankfully in the restroom, not in his seat), I sent him the following letter:
Chris: Your research paper this semester will take the form of an interview of either:
a) A teacher, or b) A psychologist.
If you choose "A," you will be asked to conduct an interview on how the teacher’s job is made more difficult when students 1) come to class late 2) sleep in class 3) interrupt the lecture by blurting out answers without a raised hand, and 4) get up and walk out in the middle of a lecture to go to the restroom.
If you choose "B," you will be asked to conduct an interview on the causes of the following behaviors: 1) coming to class late 2) sleeping in class 3) interrupting the lecture by blurting out answers without a raised hand, and 4) getting up and walking out in the middle of a lecture to go to the restroom.
Whether you choose "A" or "B," the paper must be, at present, one page long. It is due with your final exam. Between now and then, one more page will be added to the length of the paper, each time you 1) come to class late 2) sleep in class 3) interrupt the lecture by blurting out answers without a raised hand or 4) walk out of class during the lecture to go to the restroom.
Dr. Mike S. Adams
Of course, Chris did write back to say that a medical condition – adult ADHD -was responsible for his behavior. But I quickly informed him that his condition was a fiction and that the behavior was fully under his control. Thus, the assignment stood.
Chris made the choice to cooperate. And, wouldn’t you know it, every one of the disruptive behaviors he exhibited disappeared the very next class period. Of course, he made that choice simply because it was easier than writing a 600 page research paper to cover the projected pace of about 600 interruptions he had set during the first few classes.
Psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and social workers around the world will surely be angry with this present column – largely because it provides a rather simple solution to a rather simple problem. They will no doubt also be angry over my seemingly calloused attitude towards those who suffer from adult ADHD. But I choose not to pay attention to them – remember, paying attention is a choice for adults – until they answer a few simple questions. For example:
Why did my solution work so immediately and so effectively after, presumably, years of therapy and drug prescriptions failed?
Will you continue to use the term “irresistible impulse” to describe what is obviously merely an impulse not resisted?
Are you at all concerned that other fictional disorders will be exposed by other equally simple experiments?
How can one be a part of a helping profession, if he does not, first and foremost, help people to help themselves?
And, finally, what will happen if you ever win your war upon free will? Will you protect people from the prospect of failure? Or will you deprive people of the prospect of success?
Adams doesn't buy the adult ADHD diagnosis. He says it's fictional. His solution is highly inventive. He says:
One of the toughest things about being a teacher is dealing with all the latest “syndromes” in our culture of victimization.
Often those fictional problems take the form of “disorders” like adult ADHD. I always know which of my students have been told that they suffer from adult ADHD. They are often late and sometimes leave class early to go potty, unlike most students who go potty before class begins. They blurt out the answers to my questions constantly – always without the courtesy of a raised hand. And, usually, they fall asleep in class (probably from exhaustion) after the fifteenth or twentieth interruption. Later, they are awakened by the cell phone they forgot to turn off before arriving in class.
After being diagnosed with ADHD, two things usually happen to the newly “disadvantaged” student. First, a psychologist tells the victim that he cannot pay attention nor control various impulses. Next, he is given a dosage of drugs. Neither one of these responses actually works. In fact, telling him that he cannot pay attention – rather than that he simply does not pay attention – usually reinforces the problem. The drugs don’t work because, again, the disorder is fictional.
But, fortunately, I have discovered a cure for students with this so-called disorder, which I am now sharing (free of charge, mind you) with my readers. Here’s how it works.
At the beginning of the semester I lay out a few ground rules with my students. For example, they are not to bring cell phones into my class. They are also forbidden from walking into class after the lecture has started. But I don’t just tell students not to do these things. I also make them sign an agreement (on the first day of class) that they will not do these things under penalty of writing a research paper if they break the promise.
The first student to ever violate the agreement was named Chris. After he walked into my class very late one day, then interrupted it approximately fifteen times by shouting out the (usually wrong) answer to a question, then fell asleep in class, then woke up and went potty (thankfully in the restroom, not in his seat), I sent him the following letter:
Chris: Your research paper this semester will take the form of an interview of either:
a) A teacher, or b) A psychologist.
If you choose "A," you will be asked to conduct an interview on how the teacher’s job is made more difficult when students 1) come to class late 2) sleep in class 3) interrupt the lecture by blurting out answers without a raised hand, and 4) get up and walk out in the middle of a lecture to go to the restroom.
If you choose "B," you will be asked to conduct an interview on the causes of the following behaviors: 1) coming to class late 2) sleeping in class 3) interrupting the lecture by blurting out answers without a raised hand, and 4) getting up and walking out in the middle of a lecture to go to the restroom.
Whether you choose "A" or "B," the paper must be, at present, one page long. It is due with your final exam. Between now and then, one more page will be added to the length of the paper, each time you 1) come to class late 2) sleep in class 3) interrupt the lecture by blurting out answers without a raised hand or 4) walk out of class during the lecture to go to the restroom.
Dr. Mike S. Adams
Of course, Chris did write back to say that a medical condition – adult ADHD -was responsible for his behavior. But I quickly informed him that his condition was a fiction and that the behavior was fully under his control. Thus, the assignment stood.
Chris made the choice to cooperate. And, wouldn’t you know it, every one of the disruptive behaviors he exhibited disappeared the very next class period. Of course, he made that choice simply because it was easier than writing a 600 page research paper to cover the projected pace of about 600 interruptions he had set during the first few classes.
Psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and social workers around the world will surely be angry with this present column – largely because it provides a rather simple solution to a rather simple problem. They will no doubt also be angry over my seemingly calloused attitude towards those who suffer from adult ADHD. But I choose not to pay attention to them – remember, paying attention is a choice for adults – until they answer a few simple questions. For example:
Why did my solution work so immediately and so effectively after, presumably, years of therapy and drug prescriptions failed?
Will you continue to use the term “irresistible impulse” to describe what is obviously merely an impulse not resisted?
Are you at all concerned that other fictional disorders will be exposed by other equally simple experiments?
How can one be a part of a helping profession, if he does not, first and foremost, help people to help themselves?
And, finally, what will happen if you ever win your war upon free will? Will you protect people from the prospect of failure? Or will you deprive people of the prospect of success?
Friday, September 02, 2005
Kiddie-Porno Psychs
Another psychiatrist is accused of being a kiddie-porn freak. This one is in Salt Lake City. If there's anyone who is surprised that it was in a typical American city, not "New York" or "San Francisco", realize that psychiatrists have infiltrated all of America -- red states, blue states, small towns, big cities. They are endemic.
This one, named Bruce Guernsey, asked a friend to help him set up a computer. The friend was transferring files from an old computer and noticed child porn. So he call the FBI.
Here's the fun part -- and the reason why it's so frightening to have a psychiatrist committing this crime. He has been working at mental health hospitals! He was working for the government in a mental health capacity most recently.
That makes sense. Nobody but the government really supports these guys. Without government support most of them would be flipping burgers -- which would be a great place for them to ogle all the little kids, so maybe it's a good thing we use our tax money to keep them busy elsewhere.
This one, named Bruce Guernsey, asked a friend to help him set up a computer. The friend was transferring files from an old computer and noticed child porn. So he call the FBI.
Here's the fun part -- and the reason why it's so frightening to have a psychiatrist committing this crime. He has been working at mental health hospitals! He was working for the government in a mental health capacity most recently.
That makes sense. Nobody but the government really supports these guys. Without government support most of them would be flipping burgers -- which would be a great place for them to ogle all the little kids, so maybe it's a good thing we use our tax money to keep them busy elsewhere.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Europe Regulators: No More SSRI for Kids
This just in from a CCHR press release:
August 31 2005: Europe’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has just issued the strongest warnings against child antidepressant use to date following a review of clinical trials that showed the drugs cause “suicidal behavior, including suicide attempts and suicidal ideation and/or related behavior like self-harm, hostility (predominantly aggression, oppositional behavior and anger) and mood lability [instability] in children and adolescents.” Due to the drugs dangerous side effects, the agency said they should not be prescribed to any under 18-year-old.
Worldwide sales of antidepressants reached more than $19.5 billion in 2002, but evidence continues to mount that clinical trial data was withheld from drug regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the approval process.
An estimated 17 million children worldwide are prescribed some form of psychotropic (mind-altering) drug, with 8 million of these in the United States. Up to 2 million American children are prescribed the drugs condemned by the CHMP: Paxil, Effexor, Prozac, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro, Zoloft, Remeron, and Strattera, another type of antidepressant, prescribed for “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” a diagnosis plagued by controversy because there is no physical means to test for or diagnose it.
Since 1991, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a psychiatric watchdog group, and independent doctors and researchers have raised the alarm about many of these drugs causing suicide and violent behavior. Nine out of 13 school shooters in the United States were taking antidepressants or “ADHD” stimulants known to cause aggressive behavior. In October, the FDA finally ordered that a black box label be added to antidepressant information warning that the drugs cause suicide in children and adolescents.
August 31 2005: Europe’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has just issued the strongest warnings against child antidepressant use to date following a review of clinical trials that showed the drugs cause “suicidal behavior, including suicide attempts and suicidal ideation and/or related behavior like self-harm, hostility (predominantly aggression, oppositional behavior and anger) and mood lability [instability] in children and adolescents.” Due to the drugs dangerous side effects, the agency said they should not be prescribed to any under 18-year-old.
Worldwide sales of antidepressants reached more than $19.5 billion in 2002, but evidence continues to mount that clinical trial data was withheld from drug regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the approval process.
An estimated 17 million children worldwide are prescribed some form of psychotropic (mind-altering) drug, with 8 million of these in the United States. Up to 2 million American children are prescribed the drugs condemned by the CHMP: Paxil, Effexor, Prozac, Luvox, Celexa, Lexapro, Zoloft, Remeron, and Strattera, another type of antidepressant, prescribed for “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” a diagnosis plagued by controversy because there is no physical means to test for or diagnose it.
Since 1991, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, a psychiatric watchdog group, and independent doctors and researchers have raised the alarm about many of these drugs causing suicide and violent behavior. Nine out of 13 school shooters in the United States were taking antidepressants or “ADHD” stimulants known to cause aggressive behavior. In October, the FDA finally ordered that a black box label be added to antidepressant information warning that the drugs cause suicide in children and adolescents.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Vioxx
They came up with a cute new marketing gimmick -- the name Vioxx, with two exes. Very cute.
A jury in Texas says they did some marketing things they shouldn't have, though.
We're talking about Merck -- the drug company.
For instance, they targeted doctors that were not friendly to Vioxx to either bring them into the fold, or else to neutralize or discredit them. "Neutralize" meant get them to change their mind, said the head of Merck's epidemiology department. Notes subpoenaed from her department suggest that "neutralization" may take the form of payoffs and bribes -- or if you want to be polite, research grants -- to doctors. She said such grants are common.
Her definition of "discredit" was somewhat murkier.
The marketing department reportedly taught reps to handle antagonistic doctors with drills called "Dodge Ball". But the company representative said this doesn't mean they dodge questions.
The marketing department also downplayed or misrepresented Vioxx safety concerns in expensive and aggressive advertising campaigns, according to FDA warning letters exposed in the trial.
Now the jury in a Texas case says Vioxx was the cause of death for a 59-year-old produce manager at a Wal-Mart in Fort Worth. He wasn't a couch potato. He ran marathons and worked as a personal trainer. Then he died. After he took the Vioxx. So the jury says Merck needs to pay a lot of money to the man's survivors -- about a quarter of a million dollars.
Thus went the first of hundreds or perhaps thousands of lawsuits against Merck, being generated by survivors of people who died using the drug, which vascillated on and off the market over a period of a few years as the company ran roughshod over multiple evidences of heart trouble in users.
The risk of heart attack more than doubled when Vioxx was taken, according to a Swiss study in 2000. Swiss researchers say this should have caused Merck to pull the drug at that time.
Those who did that study say the data was ignored. They not only attacked Merck. They also attacked "drug licensing authorities" (read FDA in our case) who "did not evaluate the data available on Vioxx sooner."
This writer is normally something of a free market animal, and detests the idea of lawsuits dragging down hard-working business people and crashing commerce. But in the case of drug companies such suits are more than justified. We've seen the evidence in the world of SSRI psychiatric drugs and drugs like Ritalin -- products that reap obscene profits, which are used by the drug companies to counter or cover up the destructive effects of the drugs.
Today's Robber Barons are Big Pharma. But the world is catching on. Something tells us this is only a little first step in the avalanche to come. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
A jury in Texas says they did some marketing things they shouldn't have, though.
We're talking about Merck -- the drug company.
For instance, they targeted doctors that were not friendly to Vioxx to either bring them into the fold, or else to neutralize or discredit them. "Neutralize" meant get them to change their mind, said the head of Merck's epidemiology department. Notes subpoenaed from her department suggest that "neutralization" may take the form of payoffs and bribes -- or if you want to be polite, research grants -- to doctors. She said such grants are common.
Her definition of "discredit" was somewhat murkier.
The marketing department reportedly taught reps to handle antagonistic doctors with drills called "Dodge Ball". But the company representative said this doesn't mean they dodge questions.
The marketing department also downplayed or misrepresented Vioxx safety concerns in expensive and aggressive advertising campaigns, according to FDA warning letters exposed in the trial.
Now the jury in a Texas case says Vioxx was the cause of death for a 59-year-old produce manager at a Wal-Mart in Fort Worth. He wasn't a couch potato. He ran marathons and worked as a personal trainer. Then he died. After he took the Vioxx. So the jury says Merck needs to pay a lot of money to the man's survivors -- about a quarter of a million dollars.
Thus went the first of hundreds or perhaps thousands of lawsuits against Merck, being generated by survivors of people who died using the drug, which vascillated on and off the market over a period of a few years as the company ran roughshod over multiple evidences of heart trouble in users.
The risk of heart attack more than doubled when Vioxx was taken, according to a Swiss study in 2000. Swiss researchers say this should have caused Merck to pull the drug at that time.
Those who did that study say the data was ignored. They not only attacked Merck. They also attacked "drug licensing authorities" (read FDA in our case) who "did not evaluate the data available on Vioxx sooner."
This writer is normally something of a free market animal, and detests the idea of lawsuits dragging down hard-working business people and crashing commerce. But in the case of drug companies such suits are more than justified. We've seen the evidence in the world of SSRI psychiatric drugs and drugs like Ritalin -- products that reap obscene profits, which are used by the drug companies to counter or cover up the destructive effects of the drugs.
Today's Robber Barons are Big Pharma. But the world is catching on. Something tells us this is only a little first step in the avalanche to come. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The Authority Technique In Drug Sales
Drug companies and psychiatrists/psychologists are always dreaming up new subterfuges to sell their wares. The idea of a "screening" program for mental illness is one of the most clever and most seditious. If you "screen" people for something that can't be proven to exist or not exist, i.e. mental illness, you have no way to judge the "screen" except the opinion of one or more human beings. If you are mentally ill in the opinion of somebody with authority, the consequences could destroy your life.
The stinky part is that the people who are offering their opinion stand to gain financially by saying yes rather than no. Now that sucks, to use the vernacular. In other words, we are asking someone for his expert opinion on whether someone is sane, and he makes money if he says no, but makes no money if he says yes. Backed by Big Pharma, he is going to be looking for ways to say yes.
The nutty "teenscreen" program that was supposed to sweep the country's school systems is just such a recruiting program for the purveyors of Prozac and Ritalin. The "authority" tag of the psychs who administer such a program is more than a suggestion of what might help. It's a raw insistence, backed by threats in many cases. Parents have had their children taken away from them for refusing to give them psychiatric drugs.
It would seem that the biggest conflict here is the odd concept that someone with an opinion can establish the existence of a mental illness or deficiency where it cannot be proven or verified with any kind of science. Unlike measles, mumps and whooping cough, ADHD cannot be scientifically verified with a blood test or an x-ray or in any other way.
But the larger data inconsistency is the statistic that goes with the violence that all of this is supposed to solve or prevent -- the emergence of the phenomenon of the madman (or child) who shows up with a gun and shoots everyone in sight, including in many cases him or herself, just out of frustration, with no apparent clear cut motive of the type we used to associate with murder (i.e. large sums of money, etc.) The statistic is that this kind of violence is closely associated with psychiatric and psychological help and with psych drugs. The people who do this, at any age, are victims of psychiatry, psychology and psych drugs.
And make no mistake, this phenomenon is new. If you're not old enough to remember when this stuff never happened, talk to someone who is. It's a new phenomenon, it's not normal, and it correlates with the introduction of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs into the society. In 1955 there was almost never any such phenomenon in the public school system. Now it repeats and repeats. And the people who do it are usually hopped up on psych drugs.
And the sequence is the key. These people go crazy and start shooting after they get their anger management counseling and psychiatric drugs, not before.
So to "prevent" violence, we are subjecting people to the very social phenomenon that causes violence -- psychiatric counseling and drugs like Prozac, Ritalin, Zoloft, Paxil and others. These drugs make billions of dollars per year for the manufacturers, but the cost people their sanity and in many cases their lives.
The latest "screening program"? Massachusetts wants to screen veterans who return from service in Iraq. That oughta sell a lot of pills. Do you rest better knowing that some expert wants to authoritatively give an opinion based on nothing as to whether these veterans are sane? If Mr. Authority says they're not up to snuff, he's going to give them treatment that causes homicide and suicide in many cases. That's a great idea.
The army has a better view. They won't take a soldier who has been on psychiatric drugs. They know it causes these guys to become wild men who are too dangerous to trust with a gun. Eric Harris, the shooter that killed his fellow students at Columbine school in Colorado, had tried to join the army -- but they found out he was a psych patient, and they said no.
Let's just say no to these cretins that want to drug up our children and our soldiers. We only need one "screening" program. We need to screen out people who want to use their authority to push psychiatry on unsuspecting victims in our schools and in our society.
The stinky part is that the people who are offering their opinion stand to gain financially by saying yes rather than no. Now that sucks, to use the vernacular. In other words, we are asking someone for his expert opinion on whether someone is sane, and he makes money if he says no, but makes no money if he says yes. Backed by Big Pharma, he is going to be looking for ways to say yes.
The nutty "teenscreen" program that was supposed to sweep the country's school systems is just such a recruiting program for the purveyors of Prozac and Ritalin. The "authority" tag of the psychs who administer such a program is more than a suggestion of what might help. It's a raw insistence, backed by threats in many cases. Parents have had their children taken away from them for refusing to give them psychiatric drugs.
It would seem that the biggest conflict here is the odd concept that someone with an opinion can establish the existence of a mental illness or deficiency where it cannot be proven or verified with any kind of science. Unlike measles, mumps and whooping cough, ADHD cannot be scientifically verified with a blood test or an x-ray or in any other way.
But the larger data inconsistency is the statistic that goes with the violence that all of this is supposed to solve or prevent -- the emergence of the phenomenon of the madman (or child) who shows up with a gun and shoots everyone in sight, including in many cases him or herself, just out of frustration, with no apparent clear cut motive of the type we used to associate with murder (i.e. large sums of money, etc.) The statistic is that this kind of violence is closely associated with psychiatric and psychological help and with psych drugs. The people who do this, at any age, are victims of psychiatry, psychology and psych drugs.
And make no mistake, this phenomenon is new. If you're not old enough to remember when this stuff never happened, talk to someone who is. It's a new phenomenon, it's not normal, and it correlates with the introduction of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs into the society. In 1955 there was almost never any such phenomenon in the public school system. Now it repeats and repeats. And the people who do it are usually hopped up on psych drugs.
And the sequence is the key. These people go crazy and start shooting after they get their anger management counseling and psychiatric drugs, not before.
So to "prevent" violence, we are subjecting people to the very social phenomenon that causes violence -- psychiatric counseling and drugs like Prozac, Ritalin, Zoloft, Paxil and others. These drugs make billions of dollars per year for the manufacturers, but the cost people their sanity and in many cases their lives.
The latest "screening program"? Massachusetts wants to screen veterans who return from service in Iraq. That oughta sell a lot of pills. Do you rest better knowing that some expert wants to authoritatively give an opinion based on nothing as to whether these veterans are sane? If Mr. Authority says they're not up to snuff, he's going to give them treatment that causes homicide and suicide in many cases. That's a great idea.
The army has a better view. They won't take a soldier who has been on psychiatric drugs. They know it causes these guys to become wild men who are too dangerous to trust with a gun. Eric Harris, the shooter that killed his fellow students at Columbine school in Colorado, had tried to join the army -- but they found out he was a psych patient, and they said no.
Let's just say no to these cretins that want to drug up our children and our soldiers. We only need one "screening" program. We need to screen out people who want to use their authority to push psychiatry on unsuspecting victims in our schools and in our society.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Beverly Eakman On Psych-Based Education
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.
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.
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.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Medical Society, Magazine Split Over Drug Company Influence
Medical societies like the American Medical Association and their journals have a history of influence by Big Pharma, often forwarding their own agenda (read that as Big Pharma's agenda) without regard for the opinions or best interests of individual physicians who make up the society they represent, much less the best interests of the general public. For half a century or more the agenda of the AMA was not closely aligned with the interests of doctors at all, but was intent on pushing surgical/pharmaceutical medicine as a monopoly, trying to push out by whatever means necessary any other type of help for health problems.
But in an interesting twist, the American Society of Hypertension, which represents docs that specialize in handling high blood pressure, is splitting with its journal, the American Journal of Hypertension, pulling its official support for the magazine. Why? Because the magazine is accusing the Society of being a Big Pharma sycophant, accepting drug company payoffs to promote drug solutions, presumably to the exclusion of non-drug solutions.
This is indeed a new phenomenon.
It's hard to tell the whole story from the outside, but it appears we have a magazine and its editor that wants to put in ethics on its group and has gotten into a fight over it.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Journal's Editor Dr. John Laragh, a researcher at Cornell University's Weill Medical College, has accused the society's leaders of being improperly influenced by financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry and becoming, in essence, marketers for drug companies, which pay them consulting and speaking fees.
Hmmm. It might not mean a lot. But it is part of a mounting body of evidence of a tear in the straitjacket Big Pharma has on the medical community. One of these days the straitjacket is going to come off. Big Pharma's days as an ethics-free power hungry industry that seeks social domination through the promulgation of drugs, whether they are needed or not, and whether or not they represent the best solution in all cases, is slowly coming to an end. It's not yet time to sell Lilly stock short, but it's certainly no time to buy it.
But in an interesting twist, the American Society of Hypertension, which represents docs that specialize in handling high blood pressure, is splitting with its journal, the American Journal of Hypertension, pulling its official support for the magazine. Why? Because the magazine is accusing the Society of being a Big Pharma sycophant, accepting drug company payoffs to promote drug solutions, presumably to the exclusion of non-drug solutions.
This is indeed a new phenomenon.
It's hard to tell the whole story from the outside, but it appears we have a magazine and its editor that wants to put in ethics on its group and has gotten into a fight over it.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Journal's Editor Dr. John Laragh, a researcher at Cornell University's Weill Medical College, has accused the society's leaders of being improperly influenced by financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry and becoming, in essence, marketers for drug companies, which pay them consulting and speaking fees.
Hmmm. It might not mean a lot. But it is part of a mounting body of evidence of a tear in the straitjacket Big Pharma has on the medical community. One of these days the straitjacket is going to come off. Big Pharma's days as an ethics-free power hungry industry that seeks social domination through the promulgation of drugs, whether they are needed or not, and whether or not they represent the best solution in all cases, is slowly coming to an end. It's not yet time to sell Lilly stock short, but it's certainly no time to buy it.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Psycho-Sadists Running Mental Institution In California
Here -- you read it. I don't think I could say it any better than this Associated Press writer...
By KIM CURTIS The Associated PressThursday, July 28, 2005; 8:55 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -- Patients at a state mental hospital overdosed on illegal drugs, were improperly restrained for hours on end and were forced to spend 12 hours in soiled diapers, according to a scathing report issued by the U.S. Justice Department.
The report said the problems were among "widespread and systematic deficiencies" at Napa State Hospital, including suicide and inadequate medical care. Some patients were bathed only very two to four weeks, the report said.
State officials were given until Aug. 15 to implement "minimum remedial measures" at the mental hospital, which has about 1,100 patients.
Lupe Rincon, a hospital spokeswoman, said many allegations were based on inaccurate information from family members, advocates and old surveys. But she said she could not respond to specific complaints.
"Releasing further information could compromise our negotiations for a settlement agreement" with the Justice Department, she said.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office had no response to the report, contained in a June 27 letter to him, and directed inquiries to the state Department of Mental Health.
The Justice Department investigation began in January 2004. The California Department of Mental Health has refused to cooperate, repeatedly preventing access to the facility, said the letter from Bradley J. Schlozman, acting assistant attorney general. A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Department of Mental Health spokeswoman Kirsten Macintyre said Thursday the department did not deny access, but simply asked for a delay because an investigation is "a huge diversion of resources" and because time and money was already being spent on preparing for the hospital's reaccreditation, which takes place this fall.
"I'm not saying we're perfect on patient care," said Macintyre, who added that the department already has improved some of its problem areas. "But you have to present things in a fair light."
The report also said that hospital staff punished patients who sought release, failed to provide English interpreters and refused to intervene during violent episodes among patients.
Three patients also overdosed on methamphetamine or cocaine in the fall of 2004 and one died, according to the report. Three other patients were able to use heroin, the report said.
Restraints and seclusion also are overused at Napa, according to the Justice Department. The report cited one patient who was restrained for 369 consecutive hours.
By KIM CURTIS The Associated PressThursday, July 28, 2005; 8:55 PM
SAN FRANCISCO -- Patients at a state mental hospital overdosed on illegal drugs, were improperly restrained for hours on end and were forced to spend 12 hours in soiled diapers, according to a scathing report issued by the U.S. Justice Department.
The report said the problems were among "widespread and systematic deficiencies" at Napa State Hospital, including suicide and inadequate medical care. Some patients were bathed only very two to four weeks, the report said.
State officials were given until Aug. 15 to implement "minimum remedial measures" at the mental hospital, which has about 1,100 patients.
Lupe Rincon, a hospital spokeswoman, said many allegations were based on inaccurate information from family members, advocates and old surveys. But she said she could not respond to specific complaints.
"Releasing further information could compromise our negotiations for a settlement agreement" with the Justice Department, she said.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office had no response to the report, contained in a June 27 letter to him, and directed inquiries to the state Department of Mental Health.
The Justice Department investigation began in January 2004. The California Department of Mental Health has refused to cooperate, repeatedly preventing access to the facility, said the letter from Bradley J. Schlozman, acting assistant attorney general. A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Department of Mental Health spokeswoman Kirsten Macintyre said Thursday the department did not deny access, but simply asked for a delay because an investigation is "a huge diversion of resources" and because time and money was already being spent on preparing for the hospital's reaccreditation, which takes place this fall.
"I'm not saying we're perfect on patient care," said Macintyre, who added that the department already has improved some of its problem areas. "But you have to present things in a fair light."
The report also said that hospital staff punished patients who sought release, failed to provide English interpreters and refused to intervene during violent episodes among patients.
Three patients also overdosed on methamphetamine or cocaine in the fall of 2004 and one died, according to the report. Three other patients were able to use heroin, the report said.
Restraints and seclusion also are overused at Napa, according to the Justice Department. The report cited one patient who was restrained for 369 consecutive hours.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Eli Lilly and Prozac Dirty Tricks
Nobody begrudges a profit to individuals and companies that produce and sell the things we need and want – least of all this author. I do what I do best, and sell it to you. You do what you do best and sell it to me. We both make a profit, and we use that profit to buy what we need.
But when the profit motive assumes more importance than ethics, we have a damaging aberration – like cancer cells that grow much like normal cells, except they’re out of control and they don’t know when to quit – until they kill the organism.
One organism that’s about to be swallowed up in its own cancerous appetite for money is Big Pharma. This industry is the Robber Baron business of this century – much like the financiers who earned that title by ripping off Americans a hundred years ago.
Perhaps the reason the dark side of this activity is so hard to confront is because like cancer, it doesn’t make sense. Why would major pharmaceutical corporations, already among the world’s richest industries, want more and more even at the expense of human life; without regard for the consequences?
Increasingly, drug companies aren’t just selling cures. They’re also marketing disease, according to Bradford Plumer in the most recent edition of Mother Jones. The result is accelerating health care costs, and the primary beneficiary of this increased outlay is Big Pharma and the medical support structure that supports it.
But don’t confuse this with the medical doctors who work in this system. They aren’t getting the money. In fact, doctors make less and less and are being sued more and more – creating a shortage of physicians, actually, as young people enter the medical profession at startlingly decreasing rates. Hospitals are importing doctors from foreign countries to fill their needs, and still don’t have enough. This works in the favor of Big Pharma. They don’t need doctors. Doctors might cure something. Big Pharma would rather have patients who need pills – lots of them, and ongoing, with no end in sight. A quick prescription takes no time at all for a harried doctor. Instead of examining a kid to see whether he is diabetic or hypoglycemic or underslept or allergic, a quick slip of paper and he’s out the door. The pay to the doctor is the same. But Big Pharma gets a drug addict with a habit sanctioned by and supported by the state. That’s worth a lot of money. And if the people at Big Pharma have any trouble sleeping nights, they have a drug for that too.
The craziest practice is the contorted procedures drug companies go through to save a profit that would be lost at the end of a patent period when a drug goes generic. The Plumer story in Mother Jones describes how Big Pharma handles this situation with a damaging subterfuge we all pay for. An example is Prozac. The patent for Prozac was expiring in 1998. Woops! There goes a lot of profit! But wait – if the drug were found to be useful for handling some disease other than the one it was originally marketed for, it would be eligible for an extended patent period!!
What happens after that sound like something from Saturday Night Live. If Peter Sellers were alive today it would be a quaint English movie – something in the Inspector Clousseau vein. Imagine Sellers working the boardroom. “We need a new disorder. I need ideas here!”
“We need a psychological disease, something that doesn’t presently exist and something that can’t be proven scientifically,” says one wizened advisor. “Why would that be?” says the new kid who just ascended to the board because of his family connections.
“Don’t be silly!” says the older man, “If we call it a mental disease, then nobody can argue with us! There’s no way to prove anything! So they will take us at our word. If we name a real illness that can be scientifically proven, we will then have to scientifically prove that Prozac cures it. Prozac doesn’t actually cure anything, so that option is out.”
The end of the story (this part is not satire, it’s actually true) is that Lilly dug up a controversial new disease nobody had ever heard of, and drummed up interest in it until it became a legitimate accepted condition, then said the drug solved it – and extended their cash cow patent. Read the story. It’s fantastic.
But it doesn’t stop there. What do you do when you need some “authority” for a story in a large respected medical publication? You plant the story in little insignificant medical publications, then you quote those publications as sources for the story in the big influential publication. The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association were doing this regularly in the 1950s when they were on a rampage attacking medical practices that fell outside their purview, such as Chiropractics. Huge lawsuit recoveries were made toward the end of the century when this sleazy practice finally caught up with them. But the drug companies still do it.
A question arises about whether there are unacceptable side effects to the drug when it is used for this newly discovered unprovable condition? All you have to do is plant a story in some small medical magazines saying that the fears are unfounded, then in the big magazine you publish that articles in many small magazines report that the fears are unfounded. It’s beyond fantastic.
There is more about this incredible business in the book Selling Sickness by Moynihan and Cassels.
It’s time to look at the ethics of Big Pharma. And it’s time to hold their feet to the fire. It’s time to say, “You made plenty of money ethically. Now you’ve been making excess profits. And they’re not excess because they are too much money, they’re excess because they’re being made unethically, on the backs of people who are being treated for non-existent diseases, and whose lives are damaged or ruined by the use of drugs that have extreme and violent side effects, including increased likelihood of homicide and suicide and real addiction that makes getting off them more difficult, in the opinion of some, than kicking heroin.
The lawsuits are accelerating. That’s good. But when do we start talking criminal responsibility? How many people have to die before some individuals are guilty of manslaughter?
But when the profit motive assumes more importance than ethics, we have a damaging aberration – like cancer cells that grow much like normal cells, except they’re out of control and they don’t know when to quit – until they kill the organism.
One organism that’s about to be swallowed up in its own cancerous appetite for money is Big Pharma. This industry is the Robber Baron business of this century – much like the financiers who earned that title by ripping off Americans a hundred years ago.
Perhaps the reason the dark side of this activity is so hard to confront is because like cancer, it doesn’t make sense. Why would major pharmaceutical corporations, already among the world’s richest industries, want more and more even at the expense of human life; without regard for the consequences?
Increasingly, drug companies aren’t just selling cures. They’re also marketing disease, according to Bradford Plumer in the most recent edition of Mother Jones. The result is accelerating health care costs, and the primary beneficiary of this increased outlay is Big Pharma and the medical support structure that supports it.
But don’t confuse this with the medical doctors who work in this system. They aren’t getting the money. In fact, doctors make less and less and are being sued more and more – creating a shortage of physicians, actually, as young people enter the medical profession at startlingly decreasing rates. Hospitals are importing doctors from foreign countries to fill their needs, and still don’t have enough. This works in the favor of Big Pharma. They don’t need doctors. Doctors might cure something. Big Pharma would rather have patients who need pills – lots of them, and ongoing, with no end in sight. A quick prescription takes no time at all for a harried doctor. Instead of examining a kid to see whether he is diabetic or hypoglycemic or underslept or allergic, a quick slip of paper and he’s out the door. The pay to the doctor is the same. But Big Pharma gets a drug addict with a habit sanctioned by and supported by the state. That’s worth a lot of money. And if the people at Big Pharma have any trouble sleeping nights, they have a drug for that too.
The craziest practice is the contorted procedures drug companies go through to save a profit that would be lost at the end of a patent period when a drug goes generic. The Plumer story in Mother Jones describes how Big Pharma handles this situation with a damaging subterfuge we all pay for. An example is Prozac. The patent for Prozac was expiring in 1998. Woops! There goes a lot of profit! But wait – if the drug were found to be useful for handling some disease other than the one it was originally marketed for, it would be eligible for an extended patent period!!
What happens after that sound like something from Saturday Night Live. If Peter Sellers were alive today it would be a quaint English movie – something in the Inspector Clousseau vein. Imagine Sellers working the boardroom. “We need a new disorder. I need ideas here!”
“We need a psychological disease, something that doesn’t presently exist and something that can’t be proven scientifically,” says one wizened advisor. “Why would that be?” says the new kid who just ascended to the board because of his family connections.
“Don’t be silly!” says the older man, “If we call it a mental disease, then nobody can argue with us! There’s no way to prove anything! So they will take us at our word. If we name a real illness that can be scientifically proven, we will then have to scientifically prove that Prozac cures it. Prozac doesn’t actually cure anything, so that option is out.”
The end of the story (this part is not satire, it’s actually true) is that Lilly dug up a controversial new disease nobody had ever heard of, and drummed up interest in it until it became a legitimate accepted condition, then said the drug solved it – and extended their cash cow patent. Read the story. It’s fantastic.
But it doesn’t stop there. What do you do when you need some “authority” for a story in a large respected medical publication? You plant the story in little insignificant medical publications, then you quote those publications as sources for the story in the big influential publication. The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association were doing this regularly in the 1950s when they were on a rampage attacking medical practices that fell outside their purview, such as Chiropractics. Huge lawsuit recoveries were made toward the end of the century when this sleazy practice finally caught up with them. But the drug companies still do it.
A question arises about whether there are unacceptable side effects to the drug when it is used for this newly discovered unprovable condition? All you have to do is plant a story in some small medical magazines saying that the fears are unfounded, then in the big magazine you publish that articles in many small magazines report that the fears are unfounded. It’s beyond fantastic.
There is more about this incredible business in the book Selling Sickness by Moynihan and Cassels.
It’s time to look at the ethics of Big Pharma. And it’s time to hold their feet to the fire. It’s time to say, “You made plenty of money ethically. Now you’ve been making excess profits. And they’re not excess because they are too much money, they’re excess because they’re being made unethically, on the backs of people who are being treated for non-existent diseases, and whose lives are damaged or ruined by the use of drugs that have extreme and violent side effects, including increased likelihood of homicide and suicide and real addiction that makes getting off them more difficult, in the opinion of some, than kicking heroin.
The lawsuits are accelerating. That’s good. But when do we start talking criminal responsibility? How many people have to die before some individuals are guilty of manslaughter?
Monday, July 18, 2005
Drug Company Merck Cover-Up of Test Data
We spend most of our time here going on about Big Pharma's long-time wide-scale cover-up of the devastating effects of psychiatric drugs, especially the class known as SSRIs such as Prozac, Luvox, Paxil and others. But an interesting side note of our investigation of this group of companies shows that their actions, which are criminal in our opinion, are not limited to psych drugs. They believe in cover-up and put very little value on human life.
The latest information about Vioxx is a case in point.
Merck pulled Vioxx from the market when evidence began to mount that it was killing people -- causing heart attacks. Vioxx is supposed to be a pain reliever. But people who took the drug started having heart attacks by the bucket full. Within a year after its initial release in 1999, public studies found that people who took it were as much as five times more likely to have a heart attack.
The FDA investigated, Merck pretended to cooperate, but fought for the continued approval of the drug. They wrangled with the FDA for two years, then agreed to a warning label, and off they went again with sales of the drug. But they were finally forced to remove it from the world market after new studies showed without a doubt that the drug doubles the risk of heart attack if the drug is taken for an extended length of time.
There are plenty of pain relievers, of course, but in our opinion the release of Vioxx was for the same reason a lot of the new drugs get released. The drug companies lose their patent on an older drug, and subsequently they lose profits. So they dream up a newer drug that can be patented -- never mind the value of the old drug that still works fine.
That's just background to what came out this week. Merck internal documents that show Merck knew the drug would cause heart attacks have surfaced. They were given inadvertently to a plaintiff's attorney in a lawsuit. We are told that the judge in that lawsuit suppressed the documents because they were inadvertently given to the plaintiff, and were subject to attorney-client privilege. So they never came out.
But they won't go away, and this time they are being splattered all over the press, regardless of whether a judge allows anyone to use them in court; and another judge might have a different opinion about that issue -- we'll see.
A side comment: It's a sad thing when "legal" procedure prevents a court from being able to prove a crime has been committed by suppressing the truth. The truth is the truth.
These memos document an internal Merck dialogue involving the patent office, where they realized the drug was causing heart attacks, and they considered adding another chemical to Vioxx that would reduce that risk! In fact, they patented the changed formula -- but they didn't use it.
Why they abandoned the idea of altering the Vioxx formula to reduce the heart attack risk isn't known. But like the makers of Prozac, Paxil and other killer drugs, Merck knew it would kill people, put corporate profits above ethics, and covered up.
The lawsuits go on. But when will our justice system, which is a part of a government that is swimming in money from drug companies, realize that there are corporate executives here guilty of manslaughter? When will that happen? It's just a matter of time. So far the drug companies have been able to avoid close scrutiny by using their financial power. Only recently a law was passed that the approval board of the FDA has to be made up of people who are not on the drug company payroll. That's a start. Now we need to look at the politicians who are beholden to drug companies and figure out who is looking the other way, and for what reason.
The latest information about Vioxx is a case in point.
Merck pulled Vioxx from the market when evidence began to mount that it was killing people -- causing heart attacks. Vioxx is supposed to be a pain reliever. But people who took the drug started having heart attacks by the bucket full. Within a year after its initial release in 1999, public studies found that people who took it were as much as five times more likely to have a heart attack.
The FDA investigated, Merck pretended to cooperate, but fought for the continued approval of the drug. They wrangled with the FDA for two years, then agreed to a warning label, and off they went again with sales of the drug. But they were finally forced to remove it from the world market after new studies showed without a doubt that the drug doubles the risk of heart attack if the drug is taken for an extended length of time.
There are plenty of pain relievers, of course, but in our opinion the release of Vioxx was for the same reason a lot of the new drugs get released. The drug companies lose their patent on an older drug, and subsequently they lose profits. So they dream up a newer drug that can be patented -- never mind the value of the old drug that still works fine.
That's just background to what came out this week. Merck internal documents that show Merck knew the drug would cause heart attacks have surfaced. They were given inadvertently to a plaintiff's attorney in a lawsuit. We are told that the judge in that lawsuit suppressed the documents because they were inadvertently given to the plaintiff, and were subject to attorney-client privilege. So they never came out.
But they won't go away, and this time they are being splattered all over the press, regardless of whether a judge allows anyone to use them in court; and another judge might have a different opinion about that issue -- we'll see.
A side comment: It's a sad thing when "legal" procedure prevents a court from being able to prove a crime has been committed by suppressing the truth. The truth is the truth.
These memos document an internal Merck dialogue involving the patent office, where they realized the drug was causing heart attacks, and they considered adding another chemical to Vioxx that would reduce that risk! In fact, they patented the changed formula -- but they didn't use it.
Why they abandoned the idea of altering the Vioxx formula to reduce the heart attack risk isn't known. But like the makers of Prozac, Paxil and other killer drugs, Merck knew it would kill people, put corporate profits above ethics, and covered up.
The lawsuits go on. But when will our justice system, which is a part of a government that is swimming in money from drug companies, realize that there are corporate executives here guilty of manslaughter? When will that happen? It's just a matter of time. So far the drug companies have been able to avoid close scrutiny by using their financial power. Only recently a law was passed that the approval board of the FDA has to be made up of people who are not on the drug company payroll. That's a start. Now we need to look at the politicians who are beholden to drug companies and figure out who is looking the other way, and for what reason.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Tom Cruise Sets The Tone
Tom Cruise isn’t the first person to catch on to the fraud of psychiatry. Groups like The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) have been trumpeting it for years – even decades. But Tom Cruise has a greater audience than the rest of us. A few courageous remarks by him on national media and suddenly everyone is starting to take a second look at psychiatry and psychology, especially psychiatric drugs. It’s about time.
The worm has turned. It seems like only a short time ago those of us who knew what Prozac and other similar psychiatric drugs could do were just lonely voices in the wilderness – listening to the echo of our own words, unheard by the bustling busy world of people coming and going from work and school, making their way through the maze of life.
The workplace killings didn’t do it – even though psychiatric drugs are a proven part of most of these crazy events where a disgruntled worker shows up with a gun and kills his boss, his co-workers, then himself. The United States Post Office was one of the earliest large employers to offer psychiatric coverage on their health plan. Not long after, so many postal workers had gone psychotic that the term “going postal” became a synonym for the condition.
Then the school killings started. The kids who do it are usually under the influence of psychiatry, taking “anger management” therapy and/or downing Prozac or other similar (SSRI class) drugs. But nobody looks at that. In many cases the fact that the killer was on psychiatric drugs was an afterthought from the viewpoint of the news. Hours of interviews with grief-stricken friends and relatives focuses on supposed causes like how “the other kids teased him” – always missing the one common denominator. Many times I’ve followed a major case for days – like the recent one in Red Lakes, Minnesota where 17-year-old Jeff Wiese killed 10 people – before it finally came out, usually from some casual remark by a friend or relative, that psych drugs were involved.
And to make things worse, the psychiatrists have invented a disease called ADHD. Unlike pneumonia or AIDS or measles, ADHD has no scientific basis. There is no blood test, no microscopic microbe, no saliva test… nothing. Only opinion, by someone who makes his living drugging children, that the child shows one or more of the incredibly common “symptoms” of ADHD, such as being unable to sit still in one’s seat, looking out the window instead of paying attention to teacher, or running around madly on the playground. The cure for this “disease”? It’s another drug, of course. A cocaine-class stimulant called Ritalin, that may make junior sit still in his seat, but his education goes right out the window as he stares through the fog of a drug experience intense enough to satisfy any 1960s hippie druggie.
But times they are a changin’, in the words of Bob Dylan.
First the psychiatrists grabbed onto LSD soon after its discovery in 1938. During the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s, LSD was a “therapy” drug, used by psychiatrists not only with individual patients, including some famous ones like Cary Grant and Time Magazine owners Henry Luce and Clare Booth Luce, but also as a part of wicked CIA and military-backed mind-control experiments, in conjunction with electric shock and other Neanderthal tortures. Then psychiatrist Timothy Leary went public with the drug and suggested everyone should try it. The disastrous effect when “everyone” did immediately identified the drug for what it was – a way to cause insanity, not a way to cure it. It was quickly relegated to the status of an illegal street drug, and everyone forgot it was introduced to the world by psychiatry. Other psychiatric drugs followed suit, going from therapy status to street-drug ignominy, including PCP and Ecstasy. Other psych favorites like downers and uppers bounce back and forth between legitimacy and infamy.
So the makers of psychiatric drugs forged ahead, wiser for their failures. The introduction of Prozac, about 20 years ago, was incredibly well planned. Dozens of tests were performed with the drug, but only the successful ones were presented to support its acceptance by the FDA. Years later we find out about multiple suicides even in early test groups. Britain and Germany at first rejected the drug as unsafe, but when the FDA in the United States pushed it through, it became a juggernaut. Nobody noticed that the board that approved it for the FDA was populated with psychiatrists, drug company employees, ex-drug company employees, and others who were beholden to the drug industry for their livelihood.
Years later, the protest built to a crescendo. The FDA was forced to act. They voted to place the “black box warning” about children and suicide on Prozac/SSRI class drugs (including Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox and others) in spite of the nay votes of the psychiatrists on the panel. Then a few weeks ago, on the same day Brooke Shields appeared on the front page of the old Henry Luce/Clare Booth Luce rag Time Magazine, recommending psychiatric drugs, the FDA went further and issued a new warning that extended to adults as well.
Recognizing where the weakness in the system was, Congress has passed a law that prevents anyone who is on the payroll of the drug companies from serving on the FDA drug approval committee. That should help. Another law that recently went into effect prevents schools from requiring parents to place their children on psychiatric drugs and gives parents some rights in the matter. Until recently, there have been repeated horror stories about parents whose children were taken away from them on the pretense of child abuse for refusing to give their children the drugs they “need”.
Now we need to take it a step further and get the psychs out of the schools. Then we need to dry up the government funding for psychiatry. Without it psychiatry would have no means of support – most people don’t consider psychiatry valuable enough to pay for it on their own.
But what about the drugs? Like LSD and the others that are now “street drugs”, Ritalin is already developing an underground trade. And why not? It’s readily available, unlike its relative Cocaine. It’s not too hard to get a prescription to the stuff, and the pills sell on the playground.
We have a job to do. It’s not even clear what steps we’re going to have to take to handle the problem. But at least America is becoming aware of it. Thank you, Tom Cruise. You may be an actor, but you’re also a man with the courage to speak his own mind. As one news article said, this characteristic is “very refreshing” in a business that’s intensely public relations conscious and controlled by press agents. Good luck to you… and to us all.
In the 1960s, when LSD broke out everywhere, the bard of the day was Bob Dylan. What does he say today about psychiatry? In a Rolling Stone interview he said, “I never read Freud. I've never been attracted to anything he has said, and I think he's started a lot of nonsense with psychiatry and that business. I don't think psychiatry can help or has helped anybody. I think it's a big fraud (pun not intended) on the public. Billions of dollars have changed hands that could be used for far better purposes.” Maybe he's been talking to Tom Cruise? Or maybe Tom isn’t the only person who sees that the emperor has no clothes.
The worm has turned. It seems like only a short time ago those of us who knew what Prozac and other similar psychiatric drugs could do were just lonely voices in the wilderness – listening to the echo of our own words, unheard by the bustling busy world of people coming and going from work and school, making their way through the maze of life.
The workplace killings didn’t do it – even though psychiatric drugs are a proven part of most of these crazy events where a disgruntled worker shows up with a gun and kills his boss, his co-workers, then himself. The United States Post Office was one of the earliest large employers to offer psychiatric coverage on their health plan. Not long after, so many postal workers had gone psychotic that the term “going postal” became a synonym for the condition.
Then the school killings started. The kids who do it are usually under the influence of psychiatry, taking “anger management” therapy and/or downing Prozac or other similar (SSRI class) drugs. But nobody looks at that. In many cases the fact that the killer was on psychiatric drugs was an afterthought from the viewpoint of the news. Hours of interviews with grief-stricken friends and relatives focuses on supposed causes like how “the other kids teased him” – always missing the one common denominator. Many times I’ve followed a major case for days – like the recent one in Red Lakes, Minnesota where 17-year-old Jeff Wiese killed 10 people – before it finally came out, usually from some casual remark by a friend or relative, that psych drugs were involved.
And to make things worse, the psychiatrists have invented a disease called ADHD. Unlike pneumonia or AIDS or measles, ADHD has no scientific basis. There is no blood test, no microscopic microbe, no saliva test… nothing. Only opinion, by someone who makes his living drugging children, that the child shows one or more of the incredibly common “symptoms” of ADHD, such as being unable to sit still in one’s seat, looking out the window instead of paying attention to teacher, or running around madly on the playground. The cure for this “disease”? It’s another drug, of course. A cocaine-class stimulant called Ritalin, that may make junior sit still in his seat, but his education goes right out the window as he stares through the fog of a drug experience intense enough to satisfy any 1960s hippie druggie.
But times they are a changin’, in the words of Bob Dylan.
First the psychiatrists grabbed onto LSD soon after its discovery in 1938. During the 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s, LSD was a “therapy” drug, used by psychiatrists not only with individual patients, including some famous ones like Cary Grant and Time Magazine owners Henry Luce and Clare Booth Luce, but also as a part of wicked CIA and military-backed mind-control experiments, in conjunction with electric shock and other Neanderthal tortures. Then psychiatrist Timothy Leary went public with the drug and suggested everyone should try it. The disastrous effect when “everyone” did immediately identified the drug for what it was – a way to cause insanity, not a way to cure it. It was quickly relegated to the status of an illegal street drug, and everyone forgot it was introduced to the world by psychiatry. Other psychiatric drugs followed suit, going from therapy status to street-drug ignominy, including PCP and Ecstasy. Other psych favorites like downers and uppers bounce back and forth between legitimacy and infamy.
So the makers of psychiatric drugs forged ahead, wiser for their failures. The introduction of Prozac, about 20 years ago, was incredibly well planned. Dozens of tests were performed with the drug, but only the successful ones were presented to support its acceptance by the FDA. Years later we find out about multiple suicides even in early test groups. Britain and Germany at first rejected the drug as unsafe, but when the FDA in the United States pushed it through, it became a juggernaut. Nobody noticed that the board that approved it for the FDA was populated with psychiatrists, drug company employees, ex-drug company employees, and others who were beholden to the drug industry for their livelihood.
Years later, the protest built to a crescendo. The FDA was forced to act. They voted to place the “black box warning” about children and suicide on Prozac/SSRI class drugs (including Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox and others) in spite of the nay votes of the psychiatrists on the panel. Then a few weeks ago, on the same day Brooke Shields appeared on the front page of the old Henry Luce/Clare Booth Luce rag Time Magazine, recommending psychiatric drugs, the FDA went further and issued a new warning that extended to adults as well.
Recognizing where the weakness in the system was, Congress has passed a law that prevents anyone who is on the payroll of the drug companies from serving on the FDA drug approval committee. That should help. Another law that recently went into effect prevents schools from requiring parents to place their children on psychiatric drugs and gives parents some rights in the matter. Until recently, there have been repeated horror stories about parents whose children were taken away from them on the pretense of child abuse for refusing to give their children the drugs they “need”.
Now we need to take it a step further and get the psychs out of the schools. Then we need to dry up the government funding for psychiatry. Without it psychiatry would have no means of support – most people don’t consider psychiatry valuable enough to pay for it on their own.
But what about the drugs? Like LSD and the others that are now “street drugs”, Ritalin is already developing an underground trade. And why not? It’s readily available, unlike its relative Cocaine. It’s not too hard to get a prescription to the stuff, and the pills sell on the playground.
We have a job to do. It’s not even clear what steps we’re going to have to take to handle the problem. But at least America is becoming aware of it. Thank you, Tom Cruise. You may be an actor, but you’re also a man with the courage to speak his own mind. As one news article said, this characteristic is “very refreshing” in a business that’s intensely public relations conscious and controlled by press agents. Good luck to you… and to us all.
In the 1960s, when LSD broke out everywhere, the bard of the day was Bob Dylan. What does he say today about psychiatry? In a Rolling Stone interview he said, “I never read Freud. I've never been attracted to anything he has said, and I think he's started a lot of nonsense with psychiatry and that business. I don't think psychiatry can help or has helped anybody. I think it's a big fraud (pun not intended) on the public. Billions of dollars have changed hands that could be used for far better purposes.” Maybe he's been talking to Tom Cruise? Or maybe Tom isn’t the only person who sees that the emperor has no clothes.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Non-Compliance With Treatment Disorder
Non-compliance with treatment disorder? That's the ultimate psychiatric bullet. If you refuse to accept the diagnosis some charletan gives you, then you also have this one.
But wait! What other disorders are there? Would you believe 350 of them? And the way these disorders find their way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for psychiatrists and psychologists is by... well, it is a democracy isn't it?... by... I'm having trouble saying this. Here goes: BY VOTE!
Is there any science involved? No. It's a show of hands. At conventions of the American Psychiatric Association, someone gives a paper on a new supposed mental disease, then they decide whether this disease should be published in the next issue of the DSM -- by vote!
These are the guys in charge of the incredible new Teen Screen program -- also known as 1984 comes to your neighborhood! But Teen Screen is running into opposition. In Illinois, a child came home to mommy with a diagnosis that she had terrible mental problems. Mom said, "But she has a good disposition, gets good grades, and besides, who said it was okay for her to get these tests?" Mom is suing. Big time. Read about it here.
But wait! What other disorders are there? Would you believe 350 of them? And the way these disorders find their way into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) for psychiatrists and psychologists is by... well, it is a democracy isn't it?... by... I'm having trouble saying this. Here goes: BY VOTE!
Is there any science involved? No. It's a show of hands. At conventions of the American Psychiatric Association, someone gives a paper on a new supposed mental disease, then they decide whether this disease should be published in the next issue of the DSM -- by vote!
These are the guys in charge of the incredible new Teen Screen program -- also known as 1984 comes to your neighborhood! But Teen Screen is running into opposition. In Illinois, a child came home to mommy with a diagnosis that she had terrible mental problems. Mom said, "But she has a good disposition, gets good grades, and besides, who said it was okay for her to get these tests?" Mom is suing. Big time. Read about it here.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Depression Medication = Abduction, Threatened Suicide
"It's not like him to do something like this," said his mother, at home in Alabama. His friends agreed, saying they were baffled how a churchgoing family man and selfless volunteer could go so wrong on a short business trip to Southern California.
But the only reason they don't understand is they don't realize that anti-depressants cause insanity. His mother let the cat out of the bag. She said he has been taking "diet pills and other medication for depression".
So another one snaps. Like all crime suspects, he now has three names instead of two. Dennis Elliot Shellhouse, 45, attempted an abduction in Lake Sherwood, California, then led authorities on a 75-mile chase. When he was cornered he threatened suicide. Finally, after being shot, teargassed and bitten by a police dog he was take into custody.
Too bad, Mr. Shellhouse. It's too bad nobody warned you about that "medication for depression". Nothing depresses people quicker than that stuff. How do we know nobody warned you? Because here you went crazy (after taking the drugs that are supposed to handle mental problems, not before) and even your poor mother doesn't know it was the drugs. "He may have gone crazy," she correctly assumes, but she wonders why.
We know.
But the only reason they don't understand is they don't realize that anti-depressants cause insanity. His mother let the cat out of the bag. She said he has been taking "diet pills and other medication for depression".
So another one snaps. Like all crime suspects, he now has three names instead of two. Dennis Elliot Shellhouse, 45, attempted an abduction in Lake Sherwood, California, then led authorities on a 75-mile chase. When he was cornered he threatened suicide. Finally, after being shot, teargassed and bitten by a police dog he was take into custody.
Too bad, Mr. Shellhouse. It's too bad nobody warned you about that "medication for depression". Nothing depresses people quicker than that stuff. How do we know nobody warned you? Because here you went crazy (after taking the drugs that are supposed to handle mental problems, not before) and even your poor mother doesn't know it was the drugs. "He may have gone crazy," she correctly assumes, but she wonders why.
We know.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Fraud Probes of Big Pharma
The current investigation of drug company fraud could net a billion dollars in fines, according to state and federal prosecutors.
The charges are that the drug companies cheat state and federal health-care programs by inflating prices, while giving secret discounts to non-governmental buyers. They also charge that they are selling more expensive drugs that aren't approved for the purposes they are being used for, instead of selling the right drug at a much lower price.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Peter Keisler, who oversees the Justice Department's civil-fraud unit, said that "the most frequent defendant in fraud cases today is in health care" and that the industry now accounts for "the lion's share of fraud, both in number of cases and dollar amounts -- and those numbers are going up."
The Journal goes on to give a shocking example of this behavior: [Drug maker] Abbott faces pricing-fraud claims brought two years ago by California's attorney general, based on alleged overcharges to government-paid drug programs for vancomycin, a powerful antibiotic. Abbott is alleged to have reported to the state Medi-Cal program an average wholesale price of $55 a dose while charging pharmacies only $6.29 a dose. The alleged scheme, apparently intended to help the drug gain market share, cheated taxpayers by falsely setting a high reimbursement rate, the suit said. Under Medicaid rules, companies are generally required to give the government the best price that they give to any purchaser of a drug.
But what do you expect from an industry that cares more about profits than lives?
The charges are that the drug companies cheat state and federal health-care programs by inflating prices, while giving secret discounts to non-governmental buyers. They also charge that they are selling more expensive drugs that aren't approved for the purposes they are being used for, instead of selling the right drug at a much lower price.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Peter Keisler, who oversees the Justice Department's civil-fraud unit, said that "the most frequent defendant in fraud cases today is in health care" and that the industry now accounts for "the lion's share of fraud, both in number of cases and dollar amounts -- and those numbers are going up."
The Journal goes on to give a shocking example of this behavior: [Drug maker] Abbott faces pricing-fraud claims brought two years ago by California's attorney general, based on alleged overcharges to government-paid drug programs for vancomycin, a powerful antibiotic. Abbott is alleged to have reported to the state Medi-Cal program an average wholesale price of $55 a dose while charging pharmacies only $6.29 a dose. The alleged scheme, apparently intended to help the drug gain market share, cheated taxpayers by falsely setting a high reimbursement rate, the suit said. Under Medicaid rules, companies are generally required to give the government the best price that they give to any purchaser of a drug.
But what do you expect from an industry that cares more about profits than lives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)