The article continues debunking this area. How much longer before the world realizes that the antidepressant emperor has not clothes?Antipsychotic drugs that are widely used to calm agitated patients with Alzheimer's disease help very few of them, and those modest benefits are canceled out by the frequent side effects, a comprehensive government-funded study has found.
The surprising finding is expected to trigger a broad reevaluation of the widespread use of the drugs in patients with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. As many as a quarter of the Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes are prescribed the powerful drugs, even though they have never been formally approved for this purpose.
"I wish I could say the odds are better," said Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, which funded the $17 million study. "This paper says most people are not going to be any different on these drugs than they would on placebo."
The researchers did not conclude that the drugs should never be used, and a minority of patients do benefit. But the study suggests that doctors would be well advised to prescribe the drugs sparingly and as a last resort, experts said.
The study is the latest to produce sobering data on the newer, expensive antipsychotics such as Zyprexa, Risperdal and Seroquel, which are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States at an annual cost of about $10 billion. Another government-funded study recently showed that the drugs were no better than an older and much cheaper drug called perphenazine in the treatment of schizophrenia.
Taken together, the government-sponsored clinical trials have highlighted two troublesome issues in the regulation and use of psychiatric medications in the United States.
The schizophrenia study showed that the short-term trials that pharmaceutical companies sponsor to gain Food and Drug Administration approval have limited value in telling doctors how patients will fare overall, or whether newer drugs are worth their higher cost.
The Alzheimer's study has revealed a different problem -- the extent to which physicians are prescribing and using medications in the absence of empirical data to guide them. None of the antipsychotic drugs is currently approved for Alzheimer's disease, and several short-term industry-sponsored clinical trials have failed to show a benefit. The FDA has required prominent "black box" warnings on the drugs' labels about side effects in elderly people following cases where the drugs were associated with strokes and death.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Antipsychotics not good for Alzheimer's
Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) is always trying to figure out ways to sell their most expensive drugs, whether they work or not. One of their scams has been the idea of using antipsychotics for Alzheimer's victims. Does that sound crazy? It is. Here's what the Washington Post has to say about it. Read the full article at this link.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
In an article in Britains The Independent, a clinical psychologist seriously questions the role of drugs and big pharma in solving brain "chemical imbalances" and handling depression. Dr. Rufus May has a different view. Note that when he refers to Arsenal and Tottenham, he is referring to British soccer teams. From the article:
I believe it's a myth that there is a worldwide epidemic of clinical depression that needs identifying and treating. The pharmaceutical companies have systematically promoted this myth. In the 10 years up to 2002 the use of antidepressants increased by 234 per cent. Yet still we are told we are more depressed than ever before. The World Health Organisation has a tendency to talk about the widespread and undiagnosed levels of depression internationally, but it also has close links with the pharmaceutical industry.
Yes, it's true that there's a lot of unhappiness in our society, but convincing people it is a medical condition does not help. I meet people who've bought into the idea that their sadness is caused by a chemical imbalance. Many of them have resigned themselves to one cocktail of medication after another. They have given up on their own ability to find a solution. After all, what can they do about their faulty brain-wiring? In fact, the chemical-imbalance theory is extremely dodgy. Joanna Moncrieff, from University College London, is a consultant psychiatrist who has taken a close look at the scientific evidence. She has argued that there is more evidence for psychiatric medication creating a chemical imbalance rather than correcting one. For example, despite it being commonly believed that depression is caused by a serotonin shortage, this relationship is unproven. Research on the serotonin theory is inconclusive, but such is the power of drug company propaganda that most of us accept it as fact.
We also need to question the idea that chemical changes are the main cause of emotional changes. If Arsenal lose to Tottenham I will experience a deep sinking feeling. This will probably be reflected by chemical changes in my brain but they did not cause this; football players did, combined with my attachment to Arsenal. Yet this logic is neatly overlooked by the "blame the brain" explanation for sadness. What we are distracted from is the fact that unhappiness is a social condition. It tells us about our relationships to others, both in the here and now and in the past.
Mother Teresa once observed that in the developing world there is an epidemic of poverty, while in the West there is an epidemic of loneliness. Similarly, the exiled Brazilian drama teacher Augustus Boal was surprised when he discovered that affluent Westerners were considerably unhappier than the deprived and disenfranchised Brazilian peasants he had worked with. His opinion was that the Brazilian peasants were happier because they knew who the enemy was and they had a collective sense of togetherness. In the West people seemed more isolated and unaware of who was oppressing them. He theorised that what had happened to Westerners was that they had internalised the bully - they had developed an inner critic, which he called a "cop in the head".
If you seek psychological help for inner critical thoughts you may well be offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). CBT tries to address the negative thoughts by training people to argue in their mind with their inner critic and substitute it with a rational, calm, optimistic personality. However, I, and many colleagues, have found that deep-seated emotional pain does not often respond to such tinkering. Perhaps, rather than trying to magic away pain with pills or positive thinking strategies, we should accept it, understand it and thereby start to transform it. For example, a friend of mine experiences periods of low mood episodically. Her mother died when she was young. Her problem is grief; fighting it won't make it go away. Some sadness will always be with her but understanding it and learning ways to not fear it will help.
Many psychologists want more resources so they can build an army of cognitive behaviour therapists to battle the beast of depression. In Bradford we are trying a different approach: community development through supporting the growth of self-help groups. I first became aware of the power of self-help groups eight years ago in east London. Dawn was adopted as a child. Now, in her thirties, she was low in mood and had episodes of self-destructiveness. Antidepressants had not helped and my psychological support was limited. Meeting her for limited periods every fortnight, I felt like a poor substitute for a friend. We decided to set up a self-help group called Helping Hands. At the group Dawn met Jean, an older woman who remembered Dawn as a baby. The stories she told Dawn about her early childhood encouraged Dawn to seek out her biological mother. This she did successfully, which led to a significant breakthrough in her sense of who she was.
In Bradford we have about 12 self-help groups, many of which are now jointly staffed by mental health workers and volunteers from the groups. Group members are gaining the confidence to go on to vocational training. We have also set up a network of public meetings that explore different approaches to mental well-being. What we have discovered is that people find a vast range of things helpful in dealing with distress, from diet and herbal medicine, through meditation and spiritual healing, to dance and artistic expression. As a result we have tried to make the mental health service more holistic, introducing t'ai chi and spiritual healing into the local psychiatric hospital.
But we also need to think about prevention. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s it was recognised both here and in the US that the root causes of mental illness were in social conditions. Initiatives focused on narrowing the gap between rich and poor and creating opportunities through education and community groups for self-expression and community regeneration. But with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came the denial of society and funding for these projects was pulled. Distress and confusion was due to faulty brains and the market opened up for the drug companies. We now need to reverse this trend. Numbing our minds is not the answer.
Are we more depressed than before? Its difficult to say - there is clearly a lot of loneliness, grief, despair and feelings of inadequacy out there. Modern lifestyles encourage levels of competitiveness that can make us feel very lonely. Advertisers aim to make us dissatisfied with our lives. I would argue that medicalising and numbing our pain does not help; it mystifies its meaning in our lives and ignores the social and psychological avenues to making our lives more fulfilling.
I work as a clinical psychologist in Bradford. Depression, or should I say pain and sadness, are part of life. Yesterday I counselled Celine, an asylum seeker who has been refused asylum despite strong evidence that she is a survivor of political torture. She is demoralised and her spirit is broken. She has no family here and no contact with her family in the Congo. Her problems are not due to a faulty brain, but oppression and isolation. Celine needs both individual support and to find a sense of community and belonging for as long as she is here. After seeing Celine, I felt tremendous shame at what human beings are capable of doing to each other for money and power. But I recovered quickly because I, unlike Celine, have a family and extended network of friends and colleagues who care about me.
I believe it's a myth that there is a worldwide epidemic of clinical depression that needs identifying and treating. The pharmaceutical companies have systematically promoted this myth. In the 10 years up to 2002 the use of antidepressants increased by 234 per cent. Yet still we are told we are more depressed than ever before. The World Health Organisation has a tendency to talk about the widespread and undiagnosed levels of depression internationally, but it also has close links with the pharmaceutical industry.
Yes, it's true that there's a lot of unhappiness in our society, but convincing people it is a medical condition does not help. I meet people who've bought into the idea that their sadness is caused by a chemical imbalance. Many of them have resigned themselves to one cocktail of medication after another. They have given up on their own ability to find a solution. After all, what can they do about their faulty brain-wiring? In fact, the chemical-imbalance theory is extremely dodgy. Joanna Moncrieff, from University College London, is a consultant psychiatrist who has taken a close look at the scientific evidence. She has argued that there is more evidence for psychiatric medication creating a chemical imbalance rather than correcting one. For example, despite it being commonly believed that depression is caused by a serotonin shortage, this relationship is unproven. Research on the serotonin theory is inconclusive, but such is the power of drug company propaganda that most of us accept it as fact.
We also need to question the idea that chemical changes are the main cause of emotional changes. If Arsenal lose to Tottenham I will experience a deep sinking feeling. This will probably be reflected by chemical changes in my brain but they did not cause this; football players did, combined with my attachment to Arsenal. Yet this logic is neatly overlooked by the "blame the brain" explanation for sadness. What we are distracted from is the fact that unhappiness is a social condition. It tells us about our relationships to others, both in the here and now and in the past.
Mother Teresa once observed that in the developing world there is an epidemic of poverty, while in the West there is an epidemic of loneliness. Similarly, the exiled Brazilian drama teacher Augustus Boal was surprised when he discovered that affluent Westerners were considerably unhappier than the deprived and disenfranchised Brazilian peasants he had worked with. His opinion was that the Brazilian peasants were happier because they knew who the enemy was and they had a collective sense of togetherness. In the West people seemed more isolated and unaware of who was oppressing them. He theorised that what had happened to Westerners was that they had internalised the bully - they had developed an inner critic, which he called a "cop in the head".
If you seek psychological help for inner critical thoughts you may well be offered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). CBT tries to address the negative thoughts by training people to argue in their mind with their inner critic and substitute it with a rational, calm, optimistic personality. However, I, and many colleagues, have found that deep-seated emotional pain does not often respond to such tinkering. Perhaps, rather than trying to magic away pain with pills or positive thinking strategies, we should accept it, understand it and thereby start to transform it. For example, a friend of mine experiences periods of low mood episodically. Her mother died when she was young. Her problem is grief; fighting it won't make it go away. Some sadness will always be with her but understanding it and learning ways to not fear it will help.
Many psychologists want more resources so they can build an army of cognitive behaviour therapists to battle the beast of depression. In Bradford we are trying a different approach: community development through supporting the growth of self-help groups. I first became aware of the power of self-help groups eight years ago in east London. Dawn was adopted as a child. Now, in her thirties, she was low in mood and had episodes of self-destructiveness. Antidepressants had not helped and my psychological support was limited. Meeting her for limited periods every fortnight, I felt like a poor substitute for a friend. We decided to set up a self-help group called Helping Hands. At the group Dawn met Jean, an older woman who remembered Dawn as a baby. The stories she told Dawn about her early childhood encouraged Dawn to seek out her biological mother. This she did successfully, which led to a significant breakthrough in her sense of who she was.
In Bradford we have about 12 self-help groups, many of which are now jointly staffed by mental health workers and volunteers from the groups. Group members are gaining the confidence to go on to vocational training. We have also set up a network of public meetings that explore different approaches to mental well-being. What we have discovered is that people find a vast range of things helpful in dealing with distress, from diet and herbal medicine, through meditation and spiritual healing, to dance and artistic expression. As a result we have tried to make the mental health service more holistic, introducing t'ai chi and spiritual healing into the local psychiatric hospital.
But we also need to think about prevention. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s it was recognised both here and in the US that the root causes of mental illness were in social conditions. Initiatives focused on narrowing the gap between rich and poor and creating opportunities through education and community groups for self-expression and community regeneration. But with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher came the denial of society and funding for these projects was pulled. Distress and confusion was due to faulty brains and the market opened up for the drug companies. We now need to reverse this trend. Numbing our minds is not the answer.
Are we more depressed than before? Its difficult to say - there is clearly a lot of loneliness, grief, despair and feelings of inadequacy out there. Modern lifestyles encourage levels of competitiveness that can make us feel very lonely. Advertisers aim to make us dissatisfied with our lives. I would argue that medicalising and numbing our pain does not help; it mystifies its meaning in our lives and ignores the social and psychological avenues to making our lives more fulfilling.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Pro-Drugging Principal Arrested For Assault
"An alert
New Trial For Zoloft User Pittman?
Christopher Pittman was only 12 years old when he killed his grandparents, set their house on fire and drove away in their stolen car. Today at the age of 17, he is asking for a new trial.
The first kneejerk reaction is to say, "This is one crazy kid." But when all the facts are in, one wonders whether in fact he might deserve a new trial.
There doesn't seem to be any disagreement regarding the facts of the situation. But one fact that was overlooked or insufficiently investigated was the fact that Pittman was on Zoloft. This SSRI anti-depressant is in the same family with Prozac, Paxil and other similar anti-depressants that have been proven to actually cause suicidal and homicidal impulses in children AND adults.
In 2004, years after Pittman's crime, The FDA required Zoloft and other anti-depressants in this family to carry a black box warning (so-called because the warning goes in a black box on the packaging) of an increased suicidal risk in children. More recently they have recommended expanding the warning to include homicidal risk as well. A high percentage of the "school shooters" in the last decade have been on anti-depressants in this class.
The black box warning is the last gradient below banning the drug.
Read the story here.
The first kneejerk reaction is to say, "This is one crazy kid." But when all the facts are in, one wonders whether in fact he might deserve a new trial.
There doesn't seem to be any disagreement regarding the facts of the situation. But one fact that was overlooked or insufficiently investigated was the fact that Pittman was on Zoloft. This SSRI anti-depressant is in the same family with Prozac, Paxil and other similar anti-depressants that have been proven to actually cause suicidal and homicidal impulses in children AND adults.
In 2004, years after Pittman's crime, The FDA required Zoloft and other anti-depressants in this family to carry a black box warning (so-called because the warning goes in a black box on the packaging) of an increased suicidal risk in children. More recently they have recommended expanding the warning to include homicidal risk as well. A high percentage of the "school shooters" in the last decade have been on anti-depressants in this class.
The black box warning is the last gradient below banning the drug.
Read the story here.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Try Limiting Sugar Before Using Prozac
Oslo teens who drank the most sugary soft drinks also had more mental health problems such as hyperactivity and distress, Norwegian researchers reported on Thursday.
Their study of more than 5,000 Norwegian 15- and 16-year-olds showed a clear and direct association between soft drink intake and hyperactivity, and a more complex link with other mental and behavioral disorders.
This story is from a Reuters article.It's remarkable that at this late date, some researchers finally publish what most mothers know: If you give Junior a lot of sugar you're going to be scraping him off the ceiling with a spatula. I remember my own son's reaction to donuts when he was six years old. We traditionally had donuts for breakfast on Saturdays and after several weeks of complete Saturday insanity we finally realized what it was. We dumped the donuts, and the problem went away.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Suicide-risk Screening Effort Blasted
The Fresno Bee
Suicide-risk screening effort blasted
By Anne Dudley Ellis
By Anne Dudley Ellis
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Critics, including a Fresno doctor, blasted the Fresno Unified School District on Wednesday for a suicide-risk screening program the district tried out at Hoover High School the past two years.
Concerns were raised during the public comment period at a meeting of the governing board.
The district is not using the TeenScreen Program currently but is working with Fresno County officials and other agencies on possible implementation at high schools, said Pete Summers, executive director of prevention and intervention for the district.
The program includes a 10-minute computer survey that asks students a variety of questions, including whether the teens have considered suicide.
About 400 10th-graders at Hoover High took the survey last year and the year before as part of a pilot program, Summers said.
Critics said students who answered "yes" to many of the questions could be unfairly categorized as suicidal and the program could lead students to take unnecessary psychiatric drugs.
Fresno physician Larry Scortt called TeenScreen "bogus." One of his criticisms was that the program seemed slanted toward psychiatric treatment, when some emotional troubles could be caused by allergies or poor nutrition.
Retired teacher Sharon Kientz said the questionnaire was "loaded for positive responses."
"How many [students] have been sucked into the psychiatric drug market?" Kientz asked the governing board.
Critics' harsh comments prompted alarmed murmuring through the board-meeting audience.
Board President Luisa Medina said Summers and John Marinovich, in charge of high schools for the district, would examine the concerns.
In responding to questions from the media outside the board room, Summers disputed the characterization of TeenScreen as a dangerous program that usurped parents' authority over their children. Summers said students must have their parents' permission to complete the survey, and subsequent counseling sessions with mental health professionals also required permission.
Summers said teen suicide is a significant problem and the questionnaire could help students in distress get help. He did not have statistics on students who have been helped because of the questionnaire.
The TeenScreen Web site says the program is overseen by the Carmel Hill Center at Columbia University in New York.
Media accounts indicate the program has attracted controversy nationwide.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Anna Nicole Smith's Son Killed By Antidepressants?
Anna Nicole Smith's Son on Prescribed Psychiatric Drugs at Time of Death
Antidepressants suspected as possible cause
Forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht, who performed the second autopsy on Daniel Smith, has announced that Daniel had been on antidepressants at the time of his death. Answers are being avidly sought by the media and the public for the unexpected death of the 20-year-old son of model/actress, Anna Nicole Smith. The recent revelation of his antidepressant use could likely lead to the answer.
Newer antidepressants, called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) have been connected with a life-threatening condition called "serotonin syndrome," caused by an excess of serotonin in the brain due to the drugs. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned on July 19, 2006, that SSRIs, when combined with certain migraine drugs, can cause "serotonin syndrome," which may result in headaches, dizziness, vomiting, coma and death. The New York Post and other papers report that Daniel Smith was vomiting uncontrollably before his death.
Antidepressants can also cause cardiac complications, including heart attack and stroke, as well as headaches, nausea, internal bleeding and seizures. Read the Report on the Escalating International Warnings on Psychiatric Drugs, published by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, to find out other dangers of psychiatric drugs.
Friday, July 21, 2006
INHUMAN BEINGS - The Chemicalized Personality
A mother murders her five children. High school students massacre their classmates. An Iraq vet stabs his wife 71 times. How can this happen?
A common thread in these occurrences is the fact that the killers have been taking psychiatric medications.
But that is too simple. So we hear about “post-partum depression” and “combat stress.” In the case of the teens, it's “the breakdown of the family" or it’s the music, the movies, the video games.
The real answer is the dehumanizing effect of drugs.
A human being has more than one aspect. There is a definite electro-chemical component. The body physically functions via electro-chemical processes.
Then there is that aspect which perceives and reasons and creates. This is not electro-chemical. When people communicate with each other, it is not chemical molecules that are exchanging ideas. This is the spiritual aspect; the conscious, aware individual.
There is also a mental component—a mind—which is an interactive link between the reasoning factor and the physical.
A healthy mind (motivated by the spirit) is analytical.
A less healthy mind is less analytical and more and more reactive. It operates on a stimulus/response basis, motivated by random factors. A troubled, unhealthy mind doesn't reason. It doesn't perceive well. It reacts to stimuli.
For a long time now, the mental health establishment has been telling us that we are chemical in nature. They would have us believe that they can solve our problems with mood-altering drugs—a little dash of this and a little dash of that.
That approach may work at the purely physical level, as in taking antibiotics to handle infection, but it is not the physical component that gives us our rationality, our humanity. It is not the molecules in the brain that are thinking and perceiving, loving and caring, creating great music and poetry.
No, the physical component is comprised of cells and electrical impulses, which are as reasoning and creative as an avocado or the electric current that powers your toaster.
When a person is troubled, he is already sliding in the direction of the reactive, unthinking, physical impulse side of his nature. To then give him chemical, mood-altering drugs, pushes him further in that direction. While the sedative effect may appear to calm him down, he is becoming, more and more chemicalized.
So is it any wonder that these killers seem less than human? They ARE less than human. Though they can appear bright and calculating at times, real judgment is gone. They are completely reactive; alienated.
Their minds bubble and boil like the mass of chemicals they have become. The analytical capacity is gone. The spirit is gone. Their humanity is gone. They respond randomly and literally to stimuli (enter music, movies and video games).
Then, in the extreme, they lash out with violence at the imagined demons and enemies in their own unreal world. They have been mentally short-circuited by the drugs that are supposed to be helping them. It is the ultimate betrayal.
And when their bizarre, chemically induced, nightmare world collides with the world of OUR reality—which consists of living people, loving families, children, teachers, learning, accomplishment—a slaughter ensues and we are left to wonder "WHY?" "WHAT HAPPENED?"
The answer: psychiatry happened. And why would anyone perpetrate such a crime as to drug children and adults, driving them insane, all in the name of help? It's too horribly simple. It’s a multi-billion dollar business. They do it for money.
The good news is that when society wakes up to these facts, we will cease to allow these evils to occur.
It's time.
Tom Solari
tom@tomsolari.com
Tom Solari is a professional writer and video producer, living and working in Los Angeles. He is concerned about a culture that promotes chemical dependency as a solution to problems, when logic and the evidence shows that this approach deepens the problem by numbing the brain, muddling the mind and undermining the human spirit.
A common thread in these occurrences is the fact that the killers have been taking psychiatric medications.
But that is too simple. So we hear about “post-partum depression” and “combat stress.” In the case of the teens, it's “the breakdown of the family" or it’s the music, the movies, the video games.
The real answer is the dehumanizing effect of drugs.
A human being has more than one aspect. There is a definite electro-chemical component. The body physically functions via electro-chemical processes.
Then there is that aspect which perceives and reasons and creates. This is not electro-chemical. When people communicate with each other, it is not chemical molecules that are exchanging ideas. This is the spiritual aspect; the conscious, aware individual.
There is also a mental component—a mind—which is an interactive link between the reasoning factor and the physical.
A healthy mind (motivated by the spirit) is analytical.
A less healthy mind is less analytical and more and more reactive. It operates on a stimulus/response basis, motivated by random factors. A troubled, unhealthy mind doesn't reason. It doesn't perceive well. It reacts to stimuli.
For a long time now, the mental health establishment has been telling us that we are chemical in nature. They would have us believe that they can solve our problems with mood-altering drugs—a little dash of this and a little dash of that.
That approach may work at the purely physical level, as in taking antibiotics to handle infection, but it is not the physical component that gives us our rationality, our humanity. It is not the molecules in the brain that are thinking and perceiving, loving and caring, creating great music and poetry.
No, the physical component is comprised of cells and electrical impulses, which are as reasoning and creative as an avocado or the electric current that powers your toaster.
When a person is troubled, he is already sliding in the direction of the reactive, unthinking, physical impulse side of his nature. To then give him chemical, mood-altering drugs, pushes him further in that direction. While the sedative effect may appear to calm him down, he is becoming, more and more chemicalized.
So is it any wonder that these killers seem less than human? They ARE less than human. Though they can appear bright and calculating at times, real judgment is gone. They are completely reactive; alienated.
Their minds bubble and boil like the mass of chemicals they have become. The analytical capacity is gone. The spirit is gone. Their humanity is gone. They respond randomly and literally to stimuli (enter music, movies and video games).
Then, in the extreme, they lash out with violence at the imagined demons and enemies in their own unreal world. They have been mentally short-circuited by the drugs that are supposed to be helping them. It is the ultimate betrayal.
And when their bizarre, chemically induced, nightmare world collides with the world of OUR reality—which consists of living people, loving families, children, teachers, learning, accomplishment—a slaughter ensues and we are left to wonder "WHY?" "WHAT HAPPENED?"
The answer: psychiatry happened. And why would anyone perpetrate such a crime as to drug children and adults, driving them insane, all in the name of help? It's too horribly simple. It’s a multi-billion dollar business. They do it for money.
The good news is that when society wakes up to these facts, we will cease to allow these evils to occur.
It's time.
Tom Solari
tom@tomsolari.com
Tom Solari is a professional writer and video producer, living and working in Los Angeles. He is concerned about a culture that promotes chemical dependency as a solution to problems, when logic and the evidence shows that this approach deepens the problem by numbing the brain, muddling the mind and undermining the human spirit.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
FDA Puts New Warning On Prozac And Other SSRIs
According to an article in Web MD, the FDA is warning us that taking certain migraine drugs with some types of antidepressants may create a life-threatening condition. The FDA's warning focuses on migraine medications called triptans when taken together with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), or with serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).
The question I've always pondered is; why did they ban the trytophan instead of banning the SSRIs? That question is more-or-less rhetorical, but the injustice is nevertheless manifest. I support the free market economy and I don't like bashing big corporations just because they are successful and doing well. But in the case of the Big Pharma drug companies, there is a constant undertow of amoral and corrupt manipulation, as well as distribution of drugs that cause harm rather than help. Without batting an eye, Big Pharma seems to be focused primarily on its profits, and the welfare of the public be damned.
Serotonin syndrome occurs when the body has too much serotonin, a chemical found in the nervous system. Triptans, SSRIs, and SNRIs all raise serotonin levels. As with tryptophan, the higher seratonin levels caused by triptans are an aid to helping with migraine headaches, as well as insomnia.
SSRIs and SNRIs are used to treat depression and mood disorders. SSRIs include Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Prozac. SNRIs include Cymbalta and Effexor.
"A life-threatening condition called serotonin syndrome may occur when triptans are used together with an SSRI or a SNRI," states an FDA news release.
An interesting side-issue here is that the triptan drugs are related to the natural remedy once available at health food stores, tryptophan. The FDA seized upon a contaminated batch of tryptophan to ban it from the market. But the back story seems to be that tryptophan was hysterically opposed by Big Pharma, because of its reaction when used with Prozac and the other SSRIs. It is more than interesting to note that the cheap health food product was simply banned, while the proven incompatibility with the profitable triptan drugs was solved with warning labels. In the meantime, there have been many more deaths from suicide attributable to SSRIs than ever occurred from sickness caused by the batch of contaminated tryptophan.The question I've always pondered is; why did they ban the trytophan instead of banning the SSRIs? That question is more-or-less rhetorical, but the injustice is nevertheless manifest. I support the free market economy and I don't like bashing big corporations just because they are successful and doing well. But in the case of the Big Pharma drug companies, there is a constant undertow of amoral and corrupt manipulation, as well as distribution of drugs that cause harm rather than help. Without batting an eye, Big Pharma seems to be focused primarily on its profits, and the welfare of the public be damned.
Serotonin syndrome occurs when the body has too much serotonin, a chemical found in the nervous system. Triptans, SSRIs, and SNRIs all raise serotonin levels. As with tryptophan, the higher seratonin levels caused by triptans are an aid to helping with migraine headaches, as well as insomnia.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Big Pharma (Drug Companies) Control Psychiatry
Ever wonder how much control the drug industry exerts on psychiatry? Here's a good one:
As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, Juy 10, 2006:
Dr. Alan F. Schatzberg, Stanford's long-time chair of the department of psychiatry, has reported financial interests with a number of companies that make psychiatric pills and devices, including:
Abbott Laboratories Inc.: consultant or scientific advisory board
Bristol-Myers Squibb: consultant or scientific advisory board; grant support
Corcept Therapeutics: scientific advisory board chairman; board of directors; stock
Elan Pharmaceuticals: stock or options
Eli Lilly and Co.: consultant or scientific advisory board; grant support
Forest Laboratories: consultant or scientific advisory board
GlaxoSmithKline: consultant or scientific advisory board; grant support
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products: consultant or scientific advisory board
Merck: stock or options
Neuronetics: consultant or scientific advisory board
Organon Pharmaceuticals: consultant or scientific advisory board
Pathway Diagnostics: stock or options
Pfizer: consultant or scientific advisory board; stock or options
Sanofi-Aventis: consultant or scientific advisory board
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals: consultant or scientific advisory board; stock or options
Somerset Pharmaceuticals: consultant or scientific advisory board; grant support
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals: consultant or scientific advisory board; grant support
Source: American Psychiatric Association; Corcept Therapeutics
Monday, July 17, 2006
Ethics Are Put In On Another Psych School Counselor
This article is from the Patriot Ledger, a Boston area newspaper:
Read it at http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/07/08/news/news10.txt
State reprimands counselor; School worker pressured parent, allowed ADHD evaluation of student without parental consent
By JACK ENCARNACAO
The Patriot Ledger
WEYMOUTH - A state department of education investigation concluded that a veteran adjustment counselor at the Thomas Hamilton Primary School violated federal law when she allowed a special education evaluation of a student without parental consent.
The mother pulled her children out of the school over the incident, said Andre Afonso, deputy director of the Massachusetts Citizens Commission on Human Rights, where the mother initially brought her complaints.
The commission on Human Rights was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate psychiatric violations of human rights.
‘‘This is a big issue right now with us,’’ Afonoso said. ‘‘Bypassing the written consent law ... it can lead to (unnecessary) drugging in the schools.’’
Under a law enacted in 1998 called the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, a student can not be required to submit to an evaluation of mental or psychological problems without prior written consent of a parent.
The state board of education also has a similar regulation about parental consent.
The state’s investigation followed complaints from the student’s mother that for three years the adjustment counselor pressured her to medicate her daughter for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
The student’s mother, who was not named in documents about the case and did not respond to a call for comment, did not give verbal or written permission for a mental evaluation, only for an academic evaluation.
‘‘The district acknowledged parental consent was not obtained for the administration of this test,’’ reads a letter from the department of education to the Weymouth school district.
In an affidavit filed with the commission, the mother said the counselor, Cora Hall, acted ‘‘outside of the scope of her job description and her unrelenting harassment over these past three years (have been) outside the legal barrier.’’
The mother was studying to become a nurse, and sensed something was wrong with the way her daughter was evaluated.
‘‘She knew her rights,’’ Afonso said of the mother.
The state investigation concluded that Hall, a 30-year veteran of school counseling, administered a test called the Connors’ Teacher Rating Scale in April 2005 to detect signs of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the student, a first grader who was enrolled in a special education class due to a speech delay.
‘‘I do think I rushed,’’ Hall said. ‘‘I regret that because we don’t want to alienate parents, we don't want to upset anybody.’’
Hall said a teacher, not her, conducted the evaluation with her direction.
The state concluded that no punishment is necessary. But officials did require the school district to hold review and training sessions on the issue, which were held in March.
‘‘The penalty is more corrective action to address whatever violations were in place,’’ said Nate Mackinnon, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. ‘‘If a district were to decide not to comply (with corrective action), then we'd take additional steps. But typically with situations like this, the law tends to be rather complex, and it’s more about ensuring that it doesn't happen in the future.’’
Copyright 2006 The Patriot LedgerFriday, June 30, 2006
The Fraud Of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
A letter from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights:
Last week, major international news outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal ran articles exposing that the psychiatrists who vote “disorders” into existence have ties to pharmaceutical companies who then sell drugs to “treat” those disorders!
American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM, lists the “mental illnesses” recognized by psychiatry. This “bible” of psychiatry has grown from mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 in the latest edition, and includes categories sufficiently broad as to label anyone as “mentally ill.”
Addicted to coffee? See “Caffeine-Related Disorders.” Have problem with math? See “Mathematics Disorders.” Have a child in their “terrible twos”? The DSM has a whole section on childhood disorders including “Conduct Disorder” and “Oppositional Defiant Disorder."
Yet despite there being no objective medical test to prove any chemical cause for any disorder in the DSM, billions of dollars of psychiatric drugs are prescribed each year to “treat” these conditions.
One might question how so many psychotropic drugs could be prescribed each year to treat conditions that don’t really exist—until you see that same people who create the arbitrary list of “disorders” have financial relationships with drug companies that “treat” them.
A report published last month found that 56 percent of 170 panel members responsible for overseeing the DSM had some type of financial tie to the drug industry. What’s even more alarming is that 100 percent of the “experts” on DSM panels overseeing mood disorders were financially involved with the drug industry. (“Mood disorders” are psychiatry’s cash cow and result in billions of dollars a year in revenue.)
The study is the first to document extensive monetary connections between drug companies, psychiatrists and other people responsible for the list of “disorders” in the DSM — an event or major importance given that the and Drug Administration will not approve a drug to treat a mental illness unless the condition is in the DSM.
With your support CCHR has been working to raise the public awareness in the fight for human rights. Witness the fruits of our labor as story after story in the international media are expositing the fraud being perpetrated by psychiatry their partners in crime, the psychotropic drug industry.
CCHR is on a full-out campaign to rid the planet of the dangers of psychiatry. We are winning, but we have much more to do.
Please give generously and give now to keep the momentum rolling.
All donations are welcome. Please donate to CCHR International at 6616 Sunset Blvd., LA, CA 90028 or call me at 800-869-2247 today. Your donations are tax deductible and you will receive the satisfaction of knowing you helped fund this crucial campaign.
Thanks for your help,
Yours truly,
John B. Fleming
Senior Director of Development
Email john@protectinghumanrights.org
CCHR OFFICE 800 869-2247
LOCAL 323 467-4242
FAX 323 467-7526
CELL 727 647-2692
www.cchr.org
Since 1969, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has worked to safeguard the public from psychiatric violations of human rights.
CCHR is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation that relies on public donations to carry out its humanitarian objectives.
Last week, major international news outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal ran articles exposing that the psychiatrists who vote “disorders” into existence have ties to pharmaceutical companies who then sell drugs to “treat” those disorders!
American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM, lists the “mental illnesses” recognized by psychiatry. This “bible” of psychiatry has grown from mere 119 pages in 1968 to 886 in the latest edition, and includes categories sufficiently broad as to label anyone as “mentally ill.”
Addicted to coffee? See “Caffeine-Related Disorders.” Have problem with math? See “Mathematics Disorders.” Have a child in their “terrible twos”? The DSM has a whole section on childhood disorders including “Conduct Disorder” and “Oppositional Defiant Disorder."
Yet despite there being no objective medical test to prove any chemical cause for any disorder in the DSM, billions of dollars of psychiatric drugs are prescribed each year to “treat” these conditions.
One might question how so many psychotropic drugs could be prescribed each year to treat conditions that don’t really exist—until you see that same people who create the arbitrary list of “disorders” have financial relationships with drug companies that “treat” them.
A report published last month found that 56 percent of 170 panel members responsible for overseeing the DSM had some type of financial tie to the drug industry. What’s even more alarming is that 100 percent of the “experts” on DSM panels overseeing mood disorders were financially involved with the drug industry. (“Mood disorders” are psychiatry’s cash cow and result in billions of dollars a year in revenue.)
The study is the first to document extensive monetary connections between drug companies, psychiatrists and other people responsible for the list of “disorders” in the DSM — an event or major importance given that the and Drug Administration will not approve a drug to treat a mental illness unless the condition is in the DSM.
With your support CCHR has been working to raise the public awareness in the fight for human rights. Witness the fruits of our labor as story after story in the international media are expositing the fraud being perpetrated by psychiatry their partners in crime, the psychotropic drug industry.
CCHR is on a full-out campaign to rid the planet of the dangers of psychiatry. We are winning, but we have much more to do.
Please give generously and give now to keep the momentum rolling.
All donations are welcome. Please donate to CCHR International at 6616 Sunset Blvd., LA, CA 90028 or call me at 800-869-2247 today. Your donations are tax deductible and you will receive the satisfaction of knowing you helped fund this crucial campaign.
Thanks for your help,
Yours truly,
John B. Fleming
Senior Director of Development
Email john@protectinghumanrights.org
CCHR OFFICE 800 869-2247
LOCAL 323 467-4242
FAX 323 467-7526
CELL 727 647-2692
www.cchr.org
Since 1969, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) has worked to safeguard the public from psychiatric violations of human rights.
CCHR is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation that relies on public donations to carry out its humanitarian objectives.
On Medication, Killed by Alligator
She was on medication, and her mother said she was "out of it" when she went for a jog. She was a drop-dead gorgeous model. The alligator must have found her attractive. They found part of her body in the water, and part in the stomach of the alligator.
The examiner said she was attacked on land, not in the water.
How much would the effect of being "out of it" on psych drugs contribute to the vulnerability of being successfully attacked on land by an alligator?
Read the story here.
The examiner said she was attacked on land, not in the water.
How much would the effect of being "out of it" on psych drugs contribute to the vulnerability of being successfully attacked on land by an alligator?
Read the story here.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
State Sponsored Child Abuse
“State Sponsored Child Abuse” trumpets the subhead in the influential e-mail e-zine What We Now Know (subscribe by clicking on this link).
The story recounts a grizzly story about the severe psychiatric misuse of children in the Montreal foster child system. It would be shocking if it was the first time we heard about such shenanigans in the world of psychiatry.
“Of course you have heard of the Nazi Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele, who became infamous for conducting grueling medical experiments on concentration camp inmates during WWII. Some of his victims were children. He tested unsafe drugs on them, injected them with lethal germs, removed their organs and limbs and performed sex change operations on them. His primary interest were identical twins,” says WWKN. It goes on:
“Thank goodness something like that could never happen here. Or could it?”
The children in this story are now called the “Duplessis Orphans”, in a dubious reference to Duplessis, the hard-nosed and seemingly heartless Premier of Quebec during the time the incident occurred.
In the 1940s and '50s, between 1,500 and 20,000 (some say up to 50,000) children living in Catholic orphanages in Quebec were subject to severe abuse. Practically overnight and without good reason, perfectly healthy children were declared mentally ill or retarded and entire orphanages were converted into psychiatric wards.
Why? Because psych hospitals were paid more than three times as much per “inmate” than orphanages. It became an obvious economic benefit to define an orphan as “insane”.
According to the article, Hervé Bertrand, one of the victims, remembers how a doctor visited his third-grade class and asked him what the word "compare" meant. "I didn't know," remembers Bertrand. "We hadn't studied it yet. That's how it was decided that I was retarded."
Surviving victims allege that some of the children underwent painful experiments, electroshock treatments, even lobotomies. Most were pulled from their schools and forced into farm labor or hospital maintenance and brutally beaten for non-compliance. Many were physically and sexually abused by the Catholic priests, nuns and administrators. Some died of their injuries. (According to unconfirmed news, a mass grave with the bones of hundreds of children was recently discovered just outside of Montreal.)
The Duplessis scandal was revealed when a 1961 commission on Quebec's psychiatric hospitals found that more than 30% of the 22,000 patients didn't belong there, most of the falsely diagnosed being illegitimate children. (Not all of the children were actual orphans; many were born out of wedlock.)
The Canadian Broadcasting Story on the subject is told at this link.
The story recounts a grizzly story about the severe psychiatric misuse of children in the Montreal foster child system. It would be shocking if it was the first time we heard about such shenanigans in the world of psychiatry.
“Of course you have heard of the Nazi Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele, who became infamous for conducting grueling medical experiments on concentration camp inmates during WWII. Some of his victims were children. He tested unsafe drugs on them, injected them with lethal germs, removed their organs and limbs and performed sex change operations on them. His primary interest were identical twins,” says WWKN. It goes on:
“Thank goodness something like that could never happen here. Or could it?”
The children in this story are now called the “Duplessis Orphans”, in a dubious reference to Duplessis, the hard-nosed and seemingly heartless Premier of Quebec during the time the incident occurred.
In the 1940s and '50s, between 1,500 and 20,000 (some say up to 50,000) children living in Catholic orphanages in Quebec were subject to severe abuse. Practically overnight and without good reason, perfectly healthy children were declared mentally ill or retarded and entire orphanages were converted into psychiatric wards.
Why? Because psych hospitals were paid more than three times as much per “inmate” than orphanages. It became an obvious economic benefit to define an orphan as “insane”.
According to the article, Hervé Bertrand, one of the victims, remembers how a doctor visited his third-grade class and asked him what the word "compare" meant. "I didn't know," remembers Bertrand. "We hadn't studied it yet. That's how it was decided that I was retarded."
Surviving victims allege that some of the children underwent painful experiments, electroshock treatments, even lobotomies. Most were pulled from their schools and forced into farm labor or hospital maintenance and brutally beaten for non-compliance. Many were physically and sexually abused by the Catholic priests, nuns and administrators. Some died of their injuries. (According to unconfirmed news, a mass grave with the bones of hundreds of children was recently discovered just outside of Montreal.)
The Duplessis scandal was revealed when a 1961 commission on Quebec's psychiatric hospitals found that more than 30% of the 22,000 patients didn't belong there, most of the falsely diagnosed being illegitimate children. (Not all of the children were actual orphans; many were born out of wedlock.)
The Canadian Broadcasting Story on the subject is told at this link.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
You Gotta Ask First!
The outcry over the Teenscreen program and its attempts to sneak past parents to test and label their kids without notice has reached a fever pitch. Check out the laws in progress at this site. In Tennessee, there are 71 legislators co-sponsoring the legislation!
Saturday, June 17, 2006
ADHD Fraud
There is a new book out by Fred Baughman, Jr. MD, called ADHD Fraud. It's subtitled "How Psychiatry Makes 'Patients' of Normal Children". This data is critical, and we need to stop feeding out children as sacrifices to the Great God Big Pharma, whose attitude seems to be, "There are plenty of children in the world, more than enough to go around. What is one child more or less compared with the kinds of profits we can make by pushing a drug that makes you crazy as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?"
Friday, June 02, 2006
A Message From Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Citizens Commission on Human Rights is a watchdog group that is exposing Psychiatry and its crimes. This is their latest newsletter:
On May 26, Health Canada (equivalent to the U.S. FDA) issued new warnings that stimulants prescribed for so-called “ADHD” can cause a risk of sudden death. The drugs, it said, increase heart rate and blood pressure which can lead to cardiac arrests and strokes.
Meanwhile, the FDA drags its heels while it considers whether or not its strongest “black box” warning is needed for these drugs in the U.S. And while the clock ticks away, so do the lives of innocent American children. There’s already been more than 200 child deaths from these drugs. In fact, every month a child could be potentially killed by a psychiatric drug prescribed for a “disease” that doesn’t even exist.
Yet Dr. Gerald Dal Pan, a division director in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said current warnings were “appropriate” given the agency's “current knowledge of the drugs.”
I don’t know about you, but such a complacent attitude toward drugs that can kill a child makes me angry. I can’t sit by while another parent loses a child to them. Years of exposing psychiatry’s dangerous “treatments” has taught us that the only way to turn this irresponsible attitude of FDA officials around is a massive public information campaign and pressure from those that oversee FDA operations.
If your response to this child drugging is also outrage, then you can help us do something about it. First, CCHR is producing a report that spells out very simply—with medical terms defined—the dangerous and potentially lethal side effects of all psychiatric drugs and providing a chronology of official drug warnings. This needs to be broadly distributed to all legislators and policy makers so that we are informing them about drug risks that the FDA and psychiatrists are failing to tell them about.
We also have to reach more parents with the truth about these drugs because every parent reached could be activated. They are the most powerful voice. When CCHR can headline a campaign about coercive psychiatric drugging of children and, along with parents and other concerned individuals, help secure protections such as the federal law that now prohibits schools forcing kids on to psychotropic drugs and ensure FDA “black box” warnings alert that antidepressants cause suicide in our youth, you know that we are no lightweight group.
Every CCHR membership provides the means to reach those still trapped in the web of lies and deceit spun for them by psychiatry. They are not bad parents; they are simply betrayed and desperate for the truth denied them. This is what CCHR brings.
That’s where you come in. The more than 20 international drug regulatory agency warnings last year against psychiatric drugs didn’t “just happen.” It took a combined effort and campaign, with CCHR backed up by the aligned power of its membership. An Advocate Member of CCHR International represents $2,000 and with this membership, you could help to secure the safety and survival of thousands of children by getting the truth to the parents and policy makers of America.
Recently, psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatric News, admitted that they feel they are “fighting an uphill battle.” Bemoaned one psychiatrist, Carl Bell: "Parents tell me that putting their kids on Ritalin is a genocidal plot.”
Good! We are impinging! So, before another child is placed at risk, I am asking for your help TODAY by becoming an Advocate—a tax-deductible membership of $2,000 that will step up this campaign. If you are already an Advocate, then make a membership contribution for a loved one, family member or friend. Of course, any membership gift is welcome.
Help put the FDA on notice that it has all the evidence that it needs to not only issue “black box warnings” on stimulants but to also ban them! They must be told that enough is enough—NO parent should be visiting the grave of their child killed by a drug they were deceived into believing was “safe and effective.” There is urgency in this. This is a call to action.
Click here to make your donation.
On May 26, Health Canada (equivalent to the U.S. FDA) issued new warnings that stimulants prescribed for so-called “ADHD” can cause a risk of sudden death. The drugs, it said, increase heart rate and blood pressure which can lead to cardiac arrests and strokes.
Meanwhile, the FDA drags its heels while it considers whether or not its strongest “black box” warning is needed for these drugs in the U.S. And while the clock ticks away, so do the lives of innocent American children. There’s already been more than 200 child deaths from these drugs. In fact, every month a child could be potentially killed by a psychiatric drug prescribed for a “disease” that doesn’t even exist.
Yet Dr. Gerald Dal Pan, a division director in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said current warnings were “appropriate” given the agency's “current knowledge of the drugs.”
I don’t know about you, but such a complacent attitude toward drugs that can kill a child makes me angry. I can’t sit by while another parent loses a child to them. Years of exposing psychiatry’s dangerous “treatments” has taught us that the only way to turn this irresponsible attitude of FDA officials around is a massive public information campaign and pressure from those that oversee FDA operations.
If your response to this child drugging is also outrage, then you can help us do something about it. First, CCHR is producing a report that spells out very simply—with medical terms defined—the dangerous and potentially lethal side effects of all psychiatric drugs and providing a chronology of official drug warnings. This needs to be broadly distributed to all legislators and policy makers so that we are informing them about drug risks that the FDA and psychiatrists are failing to tell them about.
We also have to reach more parents with the truth about these drugs because every parent reached could be activated. They are the most powerful voice. When CCHR can headline a campaign about coercive psychiatric drugging of children and, along with parents and other concerned individuals, help secure protections such as the federal law that now prohibits schools forcing kids on to psychotropic drugs and ensure FDA “black box” warnings alert that antidepressants cause suicide in our youth, you know that we are no lightweight group.
Every CCHR membership provides the means to reach those still trapped in the web of lies and deceit spun for them by psychiatry. They are not bad parents; they are simply betrayed and desperate for the truth denied them. This is what CCHR brings.
That’s where you come in. The more than 20 international drug regulatory agency warnings last year against psychiatric drugs didn’t “just happen.” It took a combined effort and campaign, with CCHR backed up by the aligned power of its membership. An Advocate Member of CCHR International represents $2,000 and with this membership, you could help to secure the safety and survival of thousands of children by getting the truth to the parents and policy makers of America.
Recently, psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatric News, admitted that they feel they are “fighting an uphill battle.” Bemoaned one psychiatrist, Carl Bell: "Parents tell me that putting their kids on Ritalin is a genocidal plot.”
Good! We are impinging! So, before another child is placed at risk, I am asking for your help TODAY by becoming an Advocate—a tax-deductible membership of $2,000 that will step up this campaign. If you are already an Advocate, then make a membership contribution for a loved one, family member or friend. Of course, any membership gift is welcome.
Help put the FDA on notice that it has all the evidence that it needs to not only issue “black box warnings” on stimulants but to also ban them! They must be told that enough is enough—NO parent should be visiting the grave of their child killed by a drug they were deceived into believing was “safe and effective.” There is urgency in this. This is a call to action.
Click here to make your donation.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
ifeminists.com and Teenscreen
Tony Zizza's article in ifeminists.com is incredible.
The Trouble With TeenScreen
May 24, 2006
by Tony Zizza
"It has ruined the taste of the sweetest lies. Burned through my best alibis. Every sin that I deny keeps hanging 'round my door. Oh, the trouble with the truth is it always begs for more."
—Patty Loveless, "The Trouble With The Truth"
I guess you know you are recently divorced when you start quoting lyrics from country singers. I suppose I've taken it a step further by weaving the lyrics from one of my favorite country singers into perhaps the most controversial subject matter facing our culture today.
And that is the screening of our school children FOR mental illness.
Advocates for mental health screening will tell us the truth is screening prevents suicide among our young people. There is no evidence that supports this at all. From what I understand, suicide among young people is actually declining. I believe I read something from the Centers For Disease Control, (CDC) that showed suicide among young people has declined over the last two decades. If this is the case, why is teen suicide and the obsession with alleged teen depression all the rage?
One of the reasons is that thankfully, subjective mental disorders like Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and its objectively dangerous drugs have come under fire. Critics from the left and right now have no fear in even questioning the existence of ADHD. Years ago, this would have never happened. Black box warnings on stimulants and psychotropic drugs are opening the eyes and ears of many parents and lawmakers. While we all dwell over Tom Cruise calling psychiatry into question, there is little doubt scientologists aren't the only ones fuming mad over the myth there is good work tied to what TeenScreen is doing.
So, what's the trouble with TeenScreen? TeenScreen is a subjective questionnaire that was developed by Columbia University to hopefully identify young people who allegedly have "undiagnosed" mental health issues. Students have been lured into taking the "test" by being given free movie tickets and food. From what I understand, TeenScreen is now in place in over 12 states, and in over 450 schools. To see if your state is supporting TeenScreen, check out this web site.
The screening is essentially a round of self-administered questions. Students who are screened and appear to have finally been diagnosed, are "in line" for treatment. Students have come home crying believing that they are now considered mentally ill because they have been labeled with subjective mental health disorders like OCD and ADD. Again, everything is shrouded in the alleged epidemic of suicide among young people. Both democratic and conservative members and officers of school boards accross the country are letting TeenScreen in, shutting out the trouble with it because these days anyone who speaks out against the false labeling and drugging of children must be a scientologist.
Imagine you are a parent of any race or political bent, and your child comes home believing they are mentally ill. How are they being stigmatized against seeking mental health treatment? Mental health advocates who think there is nothing wrong with America becoming one nation under medication have it backwards. A stigma of having a subjective mental disorder results when programs like TeenScreen label our young people in the first place! Our young people are being labeled mentally ill when they answer questions like these in the wrong light turned on by TeenScreen:
* Have you often felt nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?
* Has there been a time when you felt you couldn't do anything well or that you weren't as goodlooking or smart as other people?
* Have you often felt grouchy or irritable and often in a bad mood, when even little things would make you mad?
In regard to the first question, how much more subjective can you get? I mean, it sounds like TeenScreen is not acknowledging that people, young or old, are nervous when they have to do things in front of people such as what, give a speech? What's the big deal? I wonder why even "nerves" these days are associated with mental illness. What good does this kind of thinking do to our young people?
Looking at this second question, and remember, TeenScreen is comprised of 14-52 similar and equally asinine questions, I can't help but conclude TeenScreen denies the very existence of reality. The trouble with the truth is this, and get used to it: there will always be some people who are smarter than you, and more goodlooking than you. If you have trouble with that, it's not a mental health issue, it's an issue of being stubborn.
The third question must go over real well with young females who are suffering around that period of time in any given month. Being a teen and younger is a consistent exercise in being moody and mad. Again, when it comes to young people, it's not a question of mental illness, but one of what to do with stubborness and a self defeating attitude that is sometimes not helped with peer pressure. On the other hand, sometimes it is. Sometimes young people need to be instructed to suck it up. The world does exist outside of their subjective issues.
Again, you will hear people tell you TeenScreen is needed because of the epidemic of suicide among young people. Politicians are coming out in droves now because a young family member at one time commited suicide. Sure, all this is tragic. Terribly so. It is, however, incorrect to believe programs like TeenScreen can do anything about suicide or depression. Or the fact that a young person has to get through life to become what else, but older. What worries me most about TeenScreen is the obsession with the subjective, and the ties that ultimately bind to Big Pharma.
Mental health screening does not belong in any shape or fashion in our schools. There is nothing wrong with a student talking to a guidance counselor. Young people have a plethora of feelings to get through, and sometimes things do not go as planned. Talk therapy can be a good thing. A way of getting things off one's chest by talking and keeping a journal. Setting an action plan to feel better and forget about it over time.
Unfortunately, TeenScreen is quite frankly an exercise in promoting mental health in absolutely the wrong way. As our culture becomes more advanced and dynamic, should there not be a reduction of alleged mental health disorders among young people? If I was back in grade school or high school and someone from TeenScreen or the National Alliance For The Mentally Ill, (NAMI) told me that based on some slippery questions, I had a mental disorder, I would be insulted, and say: prove it! Problem is, and the trouble with the truth is - it's young people we are talking about. While some of our young people may properly rebel against TeenScreen and other dangerous mental health propoganda that helps Big Pharma in the short and long run, what about all the young people who come running home convinced they are - mentally ill?
Whether are not you sit on the left or right end of the political spectrum, TeenScreen is something we need to come together on and bounce out of our schools. It's an assault on the growing minds of young people. It's a slap in the face to all the hard working parents in this country. Bring the subject up at your next school board meeting, and watch the sparks fly. You'll see for yourself who truly wants young people in our schools to believe they are mentally ill. You can find out more about TeenScreen by visiting http://www.teenscreentruth.com.
Zizza is a freelance writer who lives in Atlanta, Georgia. He serves as Vice President for the State of Georgia for the non-profit organization, Parents For Label and Drug Free Education.
The Trouble With TeenScreen
May 24, 2006
by Tony Zizza
"It has ruined the taste of the sweetest lies. Burned through my best alibis. Every sin that I deny keeps hanging 'round my door. Oh, the trouble with the truth is it always begs for more."
—Patty Loveless, "The Trouble With The Truth"
I guess you know you are recently divorced when you start quoting lyrics from country singers. I suppose I've taken it a step further by weaving the lyrics from one of my favorite country singers into perhaps the most controversial subject matter facing our culture today.
And that is the screening of our school children FOR mental illness.
Advocates for mental health screening will tell us the truth is screening prevents suicide among our young people. There is no evidence that supports this at all. From what I understand, suicide among young people is actually declining. I believe I read something from the Centers For Disease Control, (CDC) that showed suicide among young people has declined over the last two decades. If this is the case, why is teen suicide and the obsession with alleged teen depression all the rage?
One of the reasons is that thankfully, subjective mental disorders like Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and its objectively dangerous drugs have come under fire. Critics from the left and right now have no fear in even questioning the existence of ADHD. Years ago, this would have never happened. Black box warnings on stimulants and psychotropic drugs are opening the eyes and ears of many parents and lawmakers. While we all dwell over Tom Cruise calling psychiatry into question, there is little doubt scientologists aren't the only ones fuming mad over the myth there is good work tied to what TeenScreen is doing.
So, what's the trouble with TeenScreen? TeenScreen is a subjective questionnaire that was developed by Columbia University to hopefully identify young people who allegedly have "undiagnosed" mental health issues. Students have been lured into taking the "test" by being given free movie tickets and food. From what I understand, TeenScreen is now in place in over 12 states, and in over 450 schools. To see if your state is supporting TeenScreen, check out this web site.
The screening is essentially a round of self-administered questions. Students who are screened and appear to have finally been diagnosed, are "in line" for treatment. Students have come home crying believing that they are now considered mentally ill because they have been labeled with subjective mental health disorders like OCD and ADD. Again, everything is shrouded in the alleged epidemic of suicide among young people. Both democratic and conservative members and officers of school boards accross the country are letting TeenScreen in, shutting out the trouble with it because these days anyone who speaks out against the false labeling and drugging of children must be a scientologist.
Imagine you are a parent of any race or political bent, and your child comes home believing they are mentally ill. How are they being stigmatized against seeking mental health treatment? Mental health advocates who think there is nothing wrong with America becoming one nation under medication have it backwards. A stigma of having a subjective mental disorder results when programs like TeenScreen label our young people in the first place! Our young people are being labeled mentally ill when they answer questions like these in the wrong light turned on by TeenScreen:
* Have you often felt nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?
* Has there been a time when you felt you couldn't do anything well or that you weren't as goodlooking or smart as other people?
* Have you often felt grouchy or irritable and often in a bad mood, when even little things would make you mad?
In regard to the first question, how much more subjective can you get? I mean, it sounds like TeenScreen is not acknowledging that people, young or old, are nervous when they have to do things in front of people such as what, give a speech? What's the big deal? I wonder why even "nerves" these days are associated with mental illness. What good does this kind of thinking do to our young people?
Looking at this second question, and remember, TeenScreen is comprised of 14-52 similar and equally asinine questions, I can't help but conclude TeenScreen denies the very existence of reality. The trouble with the truth is this, and get used to it: there will always be some people who are smarter than you, and more goodlooking than you. If you have trouble with that, it's not a mental health issue, it's an issue of being stubborn.
The third question must go over real well with young females who are suffering around that period of time in any given month. Being a teen and younger is a consistent exercise in being moody and mad. Again, when it comes to young people, it's not a question of mental illness, but one of what to do with stubborness and a self defeating attitude that is sometimes not helped with peer pressure. On the other hand, sometimes it is. Sometimes young people need to be instructed to suck it up. The world does exist outside of their subjective issues.
Again, you will hear people tell you TeenScreen is needed because of the epidemic of suicide among young people. Politicians are coming out in droves now because a young family member at one time commited suicide. Sure, all this is tragic. Terribly so. It is, however, incorrect to believe programs like TeenScreen can do anything about suicide or depression. Or the fact that a young person has to get through life to become what else, but older. What worries me most about TeenScreen is the obsession with the subjective, and the ties that ultimately bind to Big Pharma.
Mental health screening does not belong in any shape or fashion in our schools. There is nothing wrong with a student talking to a guidance counselor. Young people have a plethora of feelings to get through, and sometimes things do not go as planned. Talk therapy can be a good thing. A way of getting things off one's chest by talking and keeping a journal. Setting an action plan to feel better and forget about it over time.
Unfortunately, TeenScreen is quite frankly an exercise in promoting mental health in absolutely the wrong way. As our culture becomes more advanced and dynamic, should there not be a reduction of alleged mental health disorders among young people? If I was back in grade school or high school and someone from TeenScreen or the National Alliance For The Mentally Ill, (NAMI) told me that based on some slippery questions, I had a mental disorder, I would be insulted, and say: prove it! Problem is, and the trouble with the truth is - it's young people we are talking about. While some of our young people may properly rebel against TeenScreen and other dangerous mental health propoganda that helps Big Pharma in the short and long run, what about all the young people who come running home convinced they are - mentally ill?
Whether are not you sit on the left or right end of the political spectrum, TeenScreen is something we need to come together on and bounce out of our schools. It's an assault on the growing minds of young people. It's a slap in the face to all the hard working parents in this country. Bring the subject up at your next school board meeting, and watch the sparks fly. You'll see for yourself who truly wants young people in our schools to believe they are mentally ill. You can find out more about TeenScreen by visiting http://www.teenscreentruth.com.
Zizza is a freelance writer who lives in Atlanta, Georgia. He serves as Vice President for the State of Georgia for the non-profit organization, Parents For Label and Drug Free Education.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Another Antidepressant Attack
In another act of seemingly senseless and unexplainable violence, Larry Barnes, a 36-year-old Georgia man, jumped the curb, ran down a family of 5, including three small children. He smashed them against the building, then backed up and rammed them again, "smiling the whole time" according to an onlooking McDonalds employee.
Senseless it is. But is it unexplainable? No it's not. According to the man's mother, "He's been suffering with depression for years," she said, her voice shaking after learning what happened.
We know what that means, don't we? It's another antidepressant homicide.
Senseless it is. But is it unexplainable? No it's not. According to the man's mother, "He's been suffering with depression for years," she said, her voice shaking after learning what happened.
We know what that means, don't we? It's another antidepressant homicide.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
A Pharmacist Speaks Out
Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)
May 18, 2006 Thursday
DEAR PHARMACIST SUZY COHEN
ADHD DRUGS NOT A CURE
By: Suzy Cohen, a registered pharmacist, syndicated writer for the Tribune Media Services
Dear Pharmacist: My 8-year-old son just started medicine for ADHD. My husband disagrees with his taking the medicine; he says our son is "all boy" and that I can't handle him. But the doctor prescribed the medicine, I didn't force it. His teachers recommended it. Do you think I should continue? --
L.D., Fort Lauderdale
Dear L.D.: As a mother myself, I understand the emotional pain you must feel about a child who isn't faring well. The controversy surrounding ADHD and its treatments creates agony for many families.
You husband sees his rambunctious son as "all boy" and his concern has merit -- you shouldn't medicate a child who is merely distracted or fidgety. Impulsive dispositions need to be differentiated from human tornadoes who recklessly run into streets.
ADHD isn't completely understood, so it can't be cured, just treated. Parents struggle because diagnosis is subjective; there are no blood tests or MRIs to make a diagnosis conclusive. Controversy shrouds ADHD and its possible connection to everyday toxins, lead paint, food allergies, immunizations containing mercury, genetics and chemical imbalances.
Most prescribed medications for ADHD are amphetamine stimulants. In normal adults, they act like uppers, but in kids with ADHD, they slow the brain down. Popular ones include Ritalin (methylphenidate), Adderall, Dextroamphetamine and Concerta.
Amphetamines can speed heart rate, raise blood pressure, cause stomach aches, dizziness, insomnia and eye wiggling. Long-term use may cause agitation and hostility. ADHD drugs reduce appetite, which, by the way, can stunt growth, according to a new study presented at the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.
Toxic side effects occur more often in kids than adults. The question isn't: Should I treat my child? Rather, it is: What natural or pharmaceutical
options should I use to help my child feel better with little or no risk?
Generally speaking, Americans have been indoctrinated into taking heavily advertised drugs dispensed like candy, deemed by the FDA as "safe and effective" until one day ... guess what? They are no longer deemed safe and effective. I fear this will happen with some ADHD drugs.
This information is not intended to treat, cure or diagnose your condition. Always consult your physician. Suzy Cohen is a registered
pharmacist. For more information or to contact her, visit www.dearpharmacist.com
(Note: The above advice also appeared in Newsday (New York), May 16, 2006, The Times Union (Albany, New York), May 16, 2006,
Tulsa World (Oklahoma), May 13, 2006).
May 18, 2006 Thursday
DEAR PHARMACIST SUZY COHEN
ADHD DRUGS NOT A CURE
By: Suzy Cohen, a registered pharmacist, syndicated writer for the Tribune Media Services
Dear Pharmacist: My 8-year-old son just started medicine for ADHD. My husband disagrees with his taking the medicine; he says our son is "all boy" and that I can't handle him. But the doctor prescribed the medicine, I didn't force it. His teachers recommended it. Do you think I should continue? --
L.D., Fort Lauderdale
Dear L.D.: As a mother myself, I understand the emotional pain you must feel about a child who isn't faring well. The controversy surrounding ADHD and its treatments creates agony for many families.
You husband sees his rambunctious son as "all boy" and his concern has merit -- you shouldn't medicate a child who is merely distracted or fidgety. Impulsive dispositions need to be differentiated from human tornadoes who recklessly run into streets.
ADHD isn't completely understood, so it can't be cured, just treated. Parents struggle because diagnosis is subjective; there are no blood tests or MRIs to make a diagnosis conclusive. Controversy shrouds ADHD and its possible connection to everyday toxins, lead paint, food allergies, immunizations containing mercury, genetics and chemical imbalances.
Most prescribed medications for ADHD are amphetamine stimulants. In normal adults, they act like uppers, but in kids with ADHD, they slow the brain down. Popular ones include Ritalin (methylphenidate), Adderall, Dextroamphetamine and Concerta.
Amphetamines can speed heart rate, raise blood pressure, cause stomach aches, dizziness, insomnia and eye wiggling. Long-term use may cause agitation and hostility. ADHD drugs reduce appetite, which, by the way, can stunt growth, according to a new study presented at the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting.
Toxic side effects occur more often in kids than adults. The question isn't: Should I treat my child? Rather, it is: What natural or pharmaceutical
options should I use to help my child feel better with little or no risk?
Generally speaking, Americans have been indoctrinated into taking heavily advertised drugs dispensed like candy, deemed by the FDA as "safe and effective" until one day ... guess what? They are no longer deemed safe and effective. I fear this will happen with some ADHD drugs.
This information is not intended to treat, cure or diagnose your condition. Always consult your physician. Suzy Cohen is a registered
pharmacist. For more information or to contact her, visit www.dearpharmacist.com
(Note: The above advice also appeared in Newsday (New York), May 16, 2006, The Times Union (Albany, New York), May 16, 2006,
Tulsa World (Oklahoma), May 13, 2006).
Thursday, May 18, 2006
The Army Knows Better Than To Use Psych Drugs
It has long been a fact that the use of psych drugs can disqualify you for military service. One of the shooters in the Columbine Massacre school disaster had tried to get into the Army and had been turned down because he was on Luvox. But apparently once you're in, the Army has a different attitude. The current controversy is based on the Army taking psychotic soldiers, giving them psych drugs, and putting them back on the front line, where they become dangerous "loose cannons" (almost literally).
The following two quotes are from a Los Angeles Times article, "U.S. Redeploying Troops with Mental Health Issues":
"I can't imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on [antidepressants], when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal," said Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog Alliance for Human Research Protection. "You're creating chemically activated time bombs."
Sgt. Syverson, back in Kuwait after a breakdown, in an e-mail to his family: "Nearly died...out here on a nice and really mild night because of the medication that I am taking. Head about to explode from the blood swelling inside, the lightning storm that happened in my head, the blurred vision, confusion, dizziness and a whole lot more."
The following two quotes are from a Los Angeles Times article, "U.S. Redeploying Troops with Mental Health Issues":
"I can't imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on [antidepressants], when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal," said Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog Alliance for Human Research Protection. "You're creating chemically activated time bombs."
Sgt. Syverson, back in Kuwait after a breakdown, in an e-mail to his family: "Nearly died...out here on a nice and really mild night because of the medication that I am taking. Head about to explode from the blood swelling inside, the lightning storm that happened in my head, the blurred vision, confusion, dizziness and a whole lot more."
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
A Little Paxil Story...
Maybe it isn't so hard to understand why GlaxoSmithKline is bending over backwards to work with the FDA on warning the public about Paxil. Amongst the group of psych drugs known as SSRIs (like Prozac, Zoloft etc.) Paxil is definitely the baddest bad boy of them all. Web sites supporting Paxil victims are rife with horror stories. Click here to hear one of them in the form of a video -- it's a news article by a Texas news station.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
In a sharp turnabout from the usual behavior of Big Pharma companies, GlaxoSmithKline is participating with the FDA to disseminate the data that their version of the Prozac prototype, Paxil, may raise the risk of suicidal behavior in young adults. This is commendable, at least on the surface, because Big Pharma has been stiff-arming any attempt to get them to admit their putting out drugs that kill rather than cure.
It smells a lot like the period when the tobacco companies realized they were going to go down. They began to promote themselves as concerned about young people taking up smoking and so forth.
I don't think this is going to start a stampede this week amongst Big Pharma robber barons to step up to the responsibility of admitting their crimes, but sooner or later there will be just such a rush to appear to be concerned and responsible. It will happen when they realize that the public has discovered that the emperor has no clothers and that they are navigating the fine line between mere fiscal responsibility on one hand, and criminal responsibility on the other.
It smells a lot like the period when the tobacco companies realized they were going to go down. They began to promote themselves as concerned about young people taking up smoking and so forth.
I don't think this is going to start a stampede this week amongst Big Pharma robber barons to step up to the responsibility of admitting their crimes, but sooner or later there will be just such a rush to appear to be concerned and responsible. It will happen when they realize that the public has discovered that the emperor has no clothers and that they are navigating the fine line between mere fiscal responsibility on one hand, and criminal responsibility on the other.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Psychology Goes To The Dogs
Not content with imposing their failed methods on mankind, psychologists have begun extending their travesties to the animal world, with the advent of "psychology" for animals.
Perhaps we should applaud this. It is a step up from abusing animals in their ghoulish experiments (ala Pavlov et al) but the latest report in this dark carnival is worthy of note:
According to CNN, California man Flody Suarez is suing the owner of the "Dog Psychology Center", to whom he took his 5-year-old Labrador. The dog apparently suffered from fears of other dogs and strangers.
Apparently the techniques of the dog psychologist, who appears on a regular TV show and calls himself the "Dog Whisperer", left Suarez' lab in intensive care at the veterinarian, "bleeding from his mouth and nose, in an oxygen tent gasping for breath and with severe bruising to his back inner thighs,"
According to the article, "The facility's workers allegedly placed a choke collar on the dog, pulled him onto a treadmill and forced him to "overwork." Suarez says he spent at least $25,000 on medical bills and the dog must undergo more surgeries for damage to his esophagus."
It's too bad Suarez wasn't aware of what psychology does to its human victims. He might have been more chary of trusting his beloved dog to such a charletan. The best expose of psychology and psychiatry is at the CCHR Exhibit "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" in Hollywood.
Perhaps we should applaud this. It is a step up from abusing animals in their ghoulish experiments (ala Pavlov et al) but the latest report in this dark carnival is worthy of note:
According to CNN, California man Flody Suarez is suing the owner of the "Dog Psychology Center", to whom he took his 5-year-old Labrador. The dog apparently suffered from fears of other dogs and strangers.
Apparently the techniques of the dog psychologist, who appears on a regular TV show and calls himself the "Dog Whisperer", left Suarez' lab in intensive care at the veterinarian, "bleeding from his mouth and nose, in an oxygen tent gasping for breath and with severe bruising to his back inner thighs,"
According to the article, "The facility's workers allegedly placed a choke collar on the dog, pulled him onto a treadmill and forced him to "overwork." Suarez says he spent at least $25,000 on medical bills and the dog must undergo more surgeries for damage to his esophagus."
It's too bad Suarez wasn't aware of what psychology does to its human victims. He might have been more chary of trusting his beloved dog to such a charletan. The best expose of psychology and psychiatry is at the CCHR Exhibit "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" in Hollywood.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Kevin Trudeau's "Natural Cures"
One of the most popular and influential authors in the world of alternative solutions to medical problems is Kevin Trudeau, author of the best seller Natural Cures.
One of the points Trudeau makes in his book is the importance of avoiding psychiatric solutions. This is a quote from the book, available at amazon.com:
"Stay away from psychiatrists and psychologists.""Psychiatrists and psychologists do not help the people they treat. Statistics show that the majority of people who are treated by psychiatrists and psychologists actually get worse. Psychiatrists almost always prescribe drugs to their petients. These drugs are some of the most dangerous and deadly pharmaceuticals available today. Did you know that in the last ten years, virtually every violent act committed in schools was perpetrated by a person who either had taken or was currently taking a psychiatric drug? Finally, the research has become so compelling that there are warnings saying that certain psychiatric drugs actually increase the propensity to commit suicide. This is such an important issue that I encourage you to read PSYCHIATRY: THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL [Note: Also available on amazon.com] and if you are still not convinced that psychiatrists and psychologists should be avoided at all costs, I will personally make a donation to the charity of your choice."
One of the points Trudeau makes in his book is the importance of avoiding psychiatric solutions. This is a quote from the book, available at amazon.com:
"Stay away from psychiatrists and psychologists.""Psychiatrists and psychologists do not help the people they treat. Statistics show that the majority of people who are treated by psychiatrists and psychologists actually get worse. Psychiatrists almost always prescribe drugs to their petients. These drugs are some of the most dangerous and deadly pharmaceuticals available today. Did you know that in the last ten years, virtually every violent act committed in schools was perpetrated by a person who either had taken or was currently taking a psychiatric drug? Finally, the research has become so compelling that there are warnings saying that certain psychiatric drugs actually increase the propensity to commit suicide. This is such an important issue that I encourage you to read PSYCHIATRY: THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL [Note: Also available on amazon.com] and if you are still not convinced that psychiatrists and psychologists should be avoided at all costs, I will personally make a donation to the charity of your choice."
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Who's Behind It?
We are now experiencing a huge push for psychiatric evaluation in the school systems. They hope to find, through their minimal little tests, that your child needs some expensive drug like Prozac or Ritalin or Adderal.
No parent really wants their child "evaluated" and possibly labeled for life with a mental health issue, nor do they want to wrestle with this bureaucracy to keep from giving their kids drugs. No politician seems to really be behind it, except for a few rabid pro-pharmaceutical regulars. But it keeps moving forward. What is up with that?
Here's where you can see who's really behind it. Go to http://www.signsofsuicide.org/. The pharmaceutical companies that will benefit from this, known collectively as "Big Pharma" are funding it with millions of dollars. The page has actual documents to prove it.
No parent really wants their child "evaluated" and possibly labeled for life with a mental health issue, nor do they want to wrestle with this bureaucracy to keep from giving their kids drugs. No politician seems to really be behind it, except for a few rabid pro-pharmaceutical regulars. But it keeps moving forward. What is up with that?
Here's where you can see who's really behind it. Go to http://www.signsofsuicide.org/. The pharmaceutical companies that will benefit from this, known collectively as "Big Pharma" are funding it with millions of dollars. The page has actual documents to prove it.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Side Effect Blindness In Big Pharma
Aggressive marketing without regard for the safety of the public is a hallmark of the pharmaceutical drug industry. This poignant article by a former drug company rep illustrates the phenomenon.
After talking one doctor into prescribing a new drug against his better judgment, the rep wound up back in his office bringing a form for him to fill out regarding the life-threatening complications that occurred when he prescribed the drug for one of his patients. "Apparently the company's marketing strategy has been more thoroughly tested than the drug," he told her.
The rest of the site is also interesting.
After talking one doctor into prescribing a new drug against his better judgment, the rep wound up back in his office bringing a form for him to fill out regarding the life-threatening complications that occurred when he prescribed the drug for one of his patients. "Apparently the company's marketing strategy has been more thoroughly tested than the drug," he told her.
The rest of the site is also interesting.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Jeffrey Schaler
At the annual awards dinner of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), the Thomas Szasz (named after the famous critic of psychiatry) was given to Dr. Jeffrey Schaler. You must, must, must listen to his acceptance speech. It is at http://www.cchr.org/uploads/video/dinnerSchaler.wmv
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Demand the FDA Fulfill Its Obligation To Public Safety
I am sending this request to get your assistance on a very vital action that will only take a few minutes of your time. The issue is ADHD drugs. We have received confirmation that many of you have written your letters and THANK YOU. If you haven't yet done it, please write your letter immediately and email me confirmation that you've done it.
Recently, the FDA held hearings on “ADHD” drugs due to numerous reports of hallucinations and psychosis attributed to them. And while the FDA panel did recommend new warning language for these drugs, the panel refused to issue “black box” warnings – the agency’s most severe warning label.
Why? Consider this: There has been a lot of public outcry about millions of children being prescribed ADHD drugs with increasing reports of the drugs causing suicide, psychosis and hallucinations. A few months ago, a leading cardiologist recommended the FDA issue black box warnings due to reports of heart attack, stroke and sudden death from ADHD drugs. So this latest FDA panel --which included psychiatrists with ties to the pharmaceutical industry – had to take some action – so issued increased warning language about the drugs. But why not the black box? Because the FDA appears to be more interested in protecting psychiatric/pharmaceutical interests, than in the public’s interest. When black box warnings are issued, drug manufacturers have to disclose the risks in all advertising.
This is why many of the experts and medical doctors attending the FDA hearing on ADHD drugs called it a sham and said that the FDA yielded to the profit-driven psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry.
The Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Safety himself has stated, “…. products that carry box warnings also have to carry that in their advertising and quite frequently that makes it quite difficult to explicitly advertise that product in direct-to-consumer advertising."
So the issue is simple. Black box warnings mean drug sales go down. The FDA’s own mission statement says it is responsible for “protecting the public health and ensuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs.” So CCHR is asking everyone to fax letters to the FDA demanding black box warnings on these drugs – and reminding the FDA that they are there to protect the public’s safety and interests–- not psychiatric pharmaceutical interests.
Emails or letters should be sent to the Acting Commissioner of the FDA at:
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.,
Acting Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857-0001
Email: andrew.voneschenbach@fda.hhs.gov
(please blind copy your emails to CCHR at fieldactivities@cchr.org
We want to send copies of all these emails to Senator Charles Grassley, the member of Congress who has been addressing the need for oversight of the FDA.
Or you can fax him yourself at 202-224-6020
Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510-1501
Your help is needed on this. So thanks in advance for your assistance.
Recently, the FDA held hearings on “ADHD” drugs due to numerous reports of hallucinations and psychosis attributed to them. And while the FDA panel did recommend new warning language for these drugs, the panel refused to issue “black box” warnings – the agency’s most severe warning label.
Why? Consider this: There has been a lot of public outcry about millions of children being prescribed ADHD drugs with increasing reports of the drugs causing suicide, psychosis and hallucinations. A few months ago, a leading cardiologist recommended the FDA issue black box warnings due to reports of heart attack, stroke and sudden death from ADHD drugs. So this latest FDA panel --which included psychiatrists with ties to the pharmaceutical industry – had to take some action – so issued increased warning language about the drugs. But why not the black box? Because the FDA appears to be more interested in protecting psychiatric/pharmaceutical interests, than in the public’s interest. When black box warnings are issued, drug manufacturers have to disclose the risks in all advertising.
This is why many of the experts and medical doctors attending the FDA hearing on ADHD drugs called it a sham and said that the FDA yielded to the profit-driven psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry.
The Deputy Director of the Office of Drug Safety himself has stated, “…. products that carry box warnings also have to carry that in their advertising and quite frequently that makes it quite difficult to explicitly advertise that product in direct-to-consumer advertising."
So the issue is simple. Black box warnings mean drug sales go down. The FDA’s own mission statement says it is responsible for “protecting the public health and ensuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs.” So CCHR is asking everyone to fax letters to the FDA demanding black box warnings on these drugs – and reminding the FDA that they are there to protect the public’s safety and interests–- not psychiatric pharmaceutical interests.
Emails or letters should be sent to the Acting Commissioner of the FDA at:
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.,
Acting Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857-0001
Email: andrew.voneschenbach@fda.hhs.gov
(please blind copy your emails to CCHR at fieldactivities@cchr.org
We want to send copies of all these emails to Senator Charles Grassley, the member of Congress who has been addressing the need for oversight of the FDA.
Or you can fax him yourself at 202-224-6020
Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510-1501
Your help is needed on this. So thanks in advance for your assistance.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Legal Help For Psych Victims
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International has a new feature on their www.psychcrime.org website – a section for referral to attorneys.
CCHR is affiliated with the Church of Scientology. To learn more about the church and its social betterment programs, check out the site at Center for Studies on New Religions.
CCHR is contacted regularly by individuals who have been harmed or violated by psychiatry, or whose loved ones have been harmed, damaged or even killed.
For instance, psychiatric drugs are notorious for causing suicidal thoughts and actions. Indeed, thousands of such cases have resulted in compensation to victims. Psychiatrists often take sexual liberties with the patients, even calling it "therapy", causing substantial and indefensible harm.
These victims often seek attorneys and need attorneys to preserve their rights and to seek compensation for damages caused by psychiatric abuses and pharmaceutical injuries. CCHR therefore endeavors to get victims in contact with attorneys who are potentially interested in helping these individuals protect their rights and receive proper restitution for wrongdoing.
Therefore, as a non-profit, public benefit organization, CCHR has developed a section of our website, www.psychcrime.org where abused individuals can post information about the abuse they have been subjected to, sorted by state and type of abuse. Then attorneys can view these files to see if there is someone they feel they could assist. In addition to the cases posted at the time of the section's launch, new cases will be added regularly as we prepare the information from complaints received in recent months, as well as new ones coming in.
If you know individuals who have been abused by psychiatric treatments and are seeking counsel, have them fill out the Abuse Case Form on the website. If you know attorneys who want to assist such abused individuals, please have them fill out the Attorney Form on the site. The attorney's name will then be provided to the potential client.
This service is being offered as a public service and there is no charge for it.
CCHR is affiliated with the Church of Scientology. To learn more about the church and its social betterment programs, check out the site at Center for Studies on New Religions.
CCHR is contacted regularly by individuals who have been harmed or violated by psychiatry, or whose loved ones have been harmed, damaged or even killed.
For instance, psychiatric drugs are notorious for causing suicidal thoughts and actions. Indeed, thousands of such cases have resulted in compensation to victims. Psychiatrists often take sexual liberties with the patients, even calling it "therapy", causing substantial and indefensible harm.
These victims often seek attorneys and need attorneys to preserve their rights and to seek compensation for damages caused by psychiatric abuses and pharmaceutical injuries. CCHR therefore endeavors to get victims in contact with attorneys who are potentially interested in helping these individuals protect their rights and receive proper restitution for wrongdoing.
Therefore, as a non-profit, public benefit organization, CCHR has developed a section of our website, www.psychcrime.org where abused individuals can post information about the abuse they have been subjected to, sorted by state and type of abuse. Then attorneys can view these files to see if there is someone they feel they could assist. In addition to the cases posted at the time of the section's launch, new cases will be added regularly as we prepare the information from complaints received in recent months, as well as new ones coming in.
If you know individuals who have been abused by psychiatric treatments and are seeking counsel, have them fill out the Abuse Case Form on the website. If you know attorneys who want to assist such abused individuals, please have them fill out the Attorney Form on the site. The attorney's name will then be provided to the potential client.
This service is being offered as a public service and there is no charge for it.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Quest for Profit Yields New ADHD Patch
"Main ADHD stimulant more potent than cocaine", says D.E.A.
While billions in tax dollars are paid each year to fight the “War on Drugs,” psychiatrists continue to promote and prescribe addictive mind-altering ADHD drugs to children -- evidenced by the latest "ADHD patch". While two separate FDA panels have warned of ADHD drugs' lethal effects, Australia reported nearly 400 adverse reactions with children as young as 5 suddenly dropping dead and children as young as 7 having heart attacks or strokes caused by ADHD drugs. Many others worldwide suffer induced hallucinations, psychosis, mania or suicidal ideation.
Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says Ritalin is more potent than cocaine.
It is appalling that the FDA would allow a new ADHD patch when they should be issuing black box warnings on these addictive life-threatening narcotics known as ADHD drugs.
While billions in tax dollars are paid each year to fight the “War on Drugs,” psychiatrists continue to promote and prescribe addictive mind-altering ADHD drugs to children -- evidenced by the latest "ADHD patch". While two separate FDA panels have warned of ADHD drugs' lethal effects, Australia reported nearly 400 adverse reactions with children as young as 5 suddenly dropping dead and children as young as 7 having heart attacks or strokes caused by ADHD drugs. Many others worldwide suffer induced hallucinations, psychosis, mania or suicidal ideation.
Even the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says Ritalin is more potent than cocaine.
It is appalling that the FDA would allow a new ADHD patch when they should be issuing black box warnings on these addictive life-threatening narcotics known as ADHD drugs.
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Canadian School District Bullies Parents On Ritalin
A Quebec schoolboy was suspended for not taking Ritalin. The parents have filed a lawsuit against the school district, and the result is a much needed public inspection of the policies in that district.
According to an article in The Gazette, the attack on these parents when they refused to drug their child was merciless.
In the U.S. we have a shiny new law that prevents school districts from this kind of behavior. But the drug companies are trying to get around it by promoting TeenScreen. Read more about TeenScreen when you get a chance. It's insidious.
According to an article in The Gazette, the attack on these parents when they refused to drug their child was merciless.
In the U.S. we have a shiny new law that prevents school districts from this kind of behavior. But the drug companies are trying to get around it by promoting TeenScreen. Read more about TeenScreen when you get a chance. It's insidious.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thank God For Whistleblowers!
St. Louis, Wednesday, March 29, 2006: The Citizens Commission on Human Rights® of St. Louis (CCHR) filed a complaint against a psychiatrist with the Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts in the matter of psychiatric abuse of one of its clients and has just been notified that the psychiatrist has been disciplined
and lost his license.
Ronald P. McPike, D.O., of Bonaparte, Iowa, was engaged in the practice of psychiatry and licensed as a physician in Iowa and Missouri. The Iowa Board of Medical Examiners found that McPike demonstrated serious character deficits which negatively impacted his medical practice; his care and treatment of several of his patients constituted a pattern of professional incompetency and practice harmful to his patients, including inappropriate prescribing practices and inappropriate diagnostic practices. The Board suspended his medical license indefinitely in June, 2005.
In a legal settlement reached in February, 2006, McPike voluntarily surrendered his Missouri license in lieu of disciplinary action based on the findings of fact in the Iowa judgment.
CCHR regularly files complaints with local, state and federal authorities for psychiatric fraud and abuse; in this case, justice has been served and another fraudulent psychiatrist has lost his license to abuse patients.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights and to clean up the field of mental healing. Today it has more than 130 chapters in 31 countries and is recognized as an authority on psychiatric abuse. CCHR is primarily concerned with psychiatry's fraudulent use of "diagnoses" that are not based on
science or medical criteria. For more information, call the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of St. Louis at (314) 727-8307. To lodge a complaint against a psychiatrist or psychiatric facility for fraud or patient abuse, call (314) 729-2854.
and lost his license.
Ronald P. McPike, D.O., of Bonaparte, Iowa, was engaged in the practice of psychiatry and licensed as a physician in Iowa and Missouri. The Iowa Board of Medical Examiners found that McPike demonstrated serious character deficits which negatively impacted his medical practice; his care and treatment of several of his patients constituted a pattern of professional incompetency and practice harmful to his patients, including inappropriate prescribing practices and inappropriate diagnostic practices. The Board suspended his medical license indefinitely in June, 2005.
In a legal settlement reached in February, 2006, McPike voluntarily surrendered his Missouri license in lieu of disciplinary action based on the findings of fact in the Iowa judgment.
CCHR regularly files complaints with local, state and federal authorities for psychiatric fraud and abuse; in this case, justice has been served and another fraudulent psychiatrist has lost his license to abuse patients.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations of human rights and to clean up the field of mental healing. Today it has more than 130 chapters in 31 countries and is recognized as an authority on psychiatric abuse. CCHR is primarily concerned with psychiatry's fraudulent use of "diagnoses" that are not based on
science or medical criteria. For more information, call the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of St. Louis at (314) 727-8307. To lodge a complaint against a psychiatrist or psychiatric facility for fraud or patient abuse, call (314) 729-2854.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
A Nurse Writes To The Tucson Newspaper
Tucson Citizen (Arizona)
March 24, 2006 Friday
Effects of anti-psychotropic drugs
Re: your Friday article "Kids' anti-psychotic drug use soars":
This article is right on the money to question the use of anti-psychotropic drugs on children.
Considering that this is when the body and nervous system still are developing, even into the early 20s, this is an open case for attorneys to gather the facts and claim doctors are damaging their patients. This trend is already on the market; I have seen advertisements for attorneys taking cases against diabetes-induced side effects of Zyprexa.
As an RN working with our elderly population, I see the effects of long-term anti-psychotics and anti-depressants use.
Central nervous system damage and blunted emotional capability are the obvious.
When family members say to me, "Grandma just isn't herself anymore," and it's timed coincidental to being put on anti-depressants, I shake my head. Families are being robbed of their most cherished memories of a happy, laughing and communicative grandparent who now just lies in bed shaking uncontrollably from effects of anti-psychotics or sleeping most of the time from anti-depressants.
Shame on any program like TeenScreen for even thinking of offering these drugs to children.
(name withheld on this post)
March 24, 2006 Friday
Effects of anti-psychotropic drugs
Re: your Friday article "Kids' anti-psychotic drug use soars":
This article is right on the money to question the use of anti-psychotropic drugs on children.
Considering that this is when the body and nervous system still are developing, even into the early 20s, this is an open case for attorneys to gather the facts and claim doctors are damaging their patients. This trend is already on the market; I have seen advertisements for attorneys taking cases against diabetes-induced side effects of Zyprexa.
As an RN working with our elderly population, I see the effects of long-term anti-psychotics and anti-depressants use.
Central nervous system damage and blunted emotional capability are the obvious.
When family members say to me, "Grandma just isn't herself anymore," and it's timed coincidental to being put on anti-depressants, I shake my head. Families are being robbed of their most cherished memories of a happy, laughing and communicative grandparent who now just lies in bed shaking uncontrollably from effects of anti-psychotics or sleeping most of the time from anti-depressants.
Shame on any program like TeenScreen for even thinking of offering these drugs to children.
(name withheld on this post)
Friday, March 17, 2006
Pops Prozac, Kills Kids
In another classic SSRI murder, David Crespi killed his two kids, a few days after his doctor switched him from Paxil to Prozac. (SSRIs are the class of psych drugs that includes Paxil and Prozac and Zoloft and several other of those depressing "anti-depressant" drugs.)
Crespi lives in North Carolina. He killed his two kids in January. We noticed it in the news and thought "psych drug murder". But there wasn't a word about psych drugs. That happens a lot. There is an attitude that a person's psychiatric history is privileged information. And prosecutors don't like it when the psych drug thing comes out because they feel it makes it harder for them to get a conviction. In this case it was the media who got the scent and convinced the judge to unseal the psych history, over the objections of the prosecutor. There it was -- he's been on psychiatry lines for years. And as is so often the case, he didn't get better -- he got worse. Psychiatrists just haven't figured out how to actually do people any good. So they drug them instead, with SSRIs that make a percentage of them suicidal/homicidal.
In the case of Crespi, he went off Paxil and went on Prozac, and a few days later he killed his kids. Now he's so suicidal they've taken him out of the jail and put him in an asylum where they can keep him under control.
So let's repeat the big Prozac Causes Depression question: If he wasn't killing himself or his kids years ago, and if he's been under the care of psychiatrists ever since, why NOW does he do this? Shouldn't he be better after years of psychiatric care and psychiatric drugs? Of course, Dear Reader, we know better. The psuedo-science of psychiatry is the child of the same nuts that built Hitler's concentration camps and whisked away Russia's dissidents to Siberia on charges of insanity. They don't help people. They certainly didn't help Mr. Crespi -- or his children.
Crespi lives in North Carolina. He killed his two kids in January. We noticed it in the news and thought "psych drug murder". But there wasn't a word about psych drugs. That happens a lot. There is an attitude that a person's psychiatric history is privileged information. And prosecutors don't like it when the psych drug thing comes out because they feel it makes it harder for them to get a conviction. In this case it was the media who got the scent and convinced the judge to unseal the psych history, over the objections of the prosecutor. There it was -- he's been on psychiatry lines for years. And as is so often the case, he didn't get better -- he got worse. Psychiatrists just haven't figured out how to actually do people any good. So they drug them instead, with SSRIs that make a percentage of them suicidal/homicidal.
In the case of Crespi, he went off Paxil and went on Prozac, and a few days later he killed his kids. Now he's so suicidal they've taken him out of the jail and put him in an asylum where they can keep him under control.
So let's repeat the big Prozac Causes Depression question: If he wasn't killing himself or his kids years ago, and if he's been under the care of psychiatrists ever since, why NOW does he do this? Shouldn't he be better after years of psychiatric care and psychiatric drugs? Of course, Dear Reader, we know better. The psuedo-science of psychiatry is the child of the same nuts that built Hitler's concentration camps and whisked away Russia's dissidents to Siberia on charges of insanity. They don't help people. They certainly didn't help Mr. Crespi -- or his children.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Wanna Join The Army? Not If You're On Psych Drugs
Uncle Sam wants you! Unless you're a Ritalin user, that is.
One of several things that will disqualify a young man or woman from military service is use of Ritalin or other psychiatric drugs. Other limitations include severely overweight, specific diseases such as asthma, or a criminal record.
That's interesting company for the Ritalin ban.
You may recall that one of the Columbine School shooters had tried to join the Army but had been rejected because of use of psych drugs.
The Army has the right idea. They avoided a person who was capable of shooting a room full of his friends, then himself. Now if the schools would get the right idea, they'd be safe. There is no place in them for kids who are put on these psychiatric drugs. These drugs are the primary source of the severe decline in safety and discipline in schools.
One of several things that will disqualify a young man or woman from military service is use of Ritalin or other psychiatric drugs. Other limitations include severely overweight, specific diseases such as asthma, or a criminal record.
That's interesting company for the Ritalin ban.
You may recall that one of the Columbine School shooters had tried to join the Army but had been rejected because of use of psych drugs.
The Army has the right idea. They avoided a person who was capable of shooting a room full of his friends, then himself. Now if the schools would get the right idea, they'd be safe. There is no place in them for kids who are put on these psychiatric drugs. These drugs are the primary source of the severe decline in safety and discipline in schools.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Florida Rep Documents Youth Suicides on Antidepressants
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FLORIDA HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE GUS BARREIRO RELEASES REPORT DOCUMENTING 96 FLORIDA YOUTH SUICIDES LINKED TO PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATION
Florida State Representative Gus Barreiro will release a report on a study just completed which documents that 96 Florida children ages 18 and under who used psychotropic drugs, committed suicide over a five year period from 1999 to 2004.
This number represents an astounding 38% of the total youth suicides during that time period.
Rep Barreiro stated, “This report is significant in light of the September 2004 ‘Black Box’ warning given by the FDA for all antidepressant use in children due to the risk that they may cause suicidal behavior. This report suggests that the danger is even worse than indicated by the FDA.”
Additionally, in June 2005 an FDA advisory committee recommended placing warnings of suicidal behavior for children using the popular “ADHD” stimulant medications, which are being given to some 2.5 million children in America today. This report showed 36 children committed suicide while using these drugs, or with a history of using them.
The report states that the percentages may actually be higher as in some cases all information on use or prior history of use of psychiatric drugs was not available.
Rep. Barreiro intends to release the report and accompanying documentation to the press at a press conference at 12 noon, February 23, 2006 on the steps of the old Florida Capitol building. Rep. Barreiro will also be participating in a gathering at the same time and place of a coalition of human rights, education rights and youth rights organizations in support of a bill sponsored by Rep Barreiro in the Florida House and Sen. Victor Crist in the Florida Senate. The bills if passed will guarantee the right to full informed consent for parents whose children are referred for psychological type evaluations through the school system, which commonly result in recommendations that the children be given the type of dangerous psychotropic drugs identified in this report.
“These drugs are dangerous and there is no question that they kill children. Parents need to know the consequences. We fully expect this bill to pass through the legislature this year and we hope that the Governor will sign it into law. It is long past due,” Rep. Barreiro stated.
FLORIDA HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE GUS BARREIRO RELEASES REPORT DOCUMENTING 96 FLORIDA YOUTH SUICIDES LINKED TO PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATION
Florida State Representative Gus Barreiro will release a report on a study just completed which documents that 96 Florida children ages 18 and under who used psychotropic drugs, committed suicide over a five year period from 1999 to 2004.
This number represents an astounding 38% of the total youth suicides during that time period.
Rep Barreiro stated, “This report is significant in light of the September 2004 ‘Black Box’ warning given by the FDA for all antidepressant use in children due to the risk that they may cause suicidal behavior. This report suggests that the danger is even worse than indicated by the FDA.”
Additionally, in June 2005 an FDA advisory committee recommended placing warnings of suicidal behavior for children using the popular “ADHD” stimulant medications, which are being given to some 2.5 million children in America today. This report showed 36 children committed suicide while using these drugs, or with a history of using them.
The report states that the percentages may actually be higher as in some cases all information on use or prior history of use of psychiatric drugs was not available.
Rep. Barreiro intends to release the report and accompanying documentation to the press at a press conference at 12 noon, February 23, 2006 on the steps of the old Florida Capitol building. Rep. Barreiro will also be participating in a gathering at the same time and place of a coalition of human rights, education rights and youth rights organizations in support of a bill sponsored by Rep Barreiro in the Florida House and Sen. Victor Crist in the Florida Senate. The bills if passed will guarantee the right to full informed consent for parents whose children are referred for psychological type evaluations through the school system, which commonly result in recommendations that the children be given the type of dangerous psychotropic drugs identified in this report.
“These drugs are dangerous and there is no question that they kill children. Parents need to know the consequences. We fully expect this bill to pass through the legislature this year and we hope that the Governor will sign it into law. It is long past due,” Rep. Barreiro stated.
Friday, March 03, 2006
The Psychological Harm of TeenScreen
Commonwealth Education Organization Editorial in the state of Pennsylvania:
Much has been written about the use of TeenScreen in 9th and 10th grade as a tool for identifying potential suicide victims. A firestorm of objections has come from a cross-section of parents, political, educational, and health professional organizations – from Patch Adams to Phyllis Schlafly.
However, there is a disturbing aspect about the TeenScreen survey that has not been formally addressed by people opposing the use of this invasive screening test, and that is the impact of the questionnaire itself on the child.
For years, public relations experts and media specialist have known that besides gathering information, tests, surveys, and questionnaires also teach.
On the 10 minute TeenScreen “quick mental health check up” survey, a child sits in front of an impersonal computer screen answering questions about his or her worries, fears, family composition, interpersonal relationships, and even drug use.
Then, in an offhanded, abrupt manner, questions such as - Have you ever thought about killing yourself - appear. The unthinkable notion of killing oneself becomes a “thinkable” solution to his/her adolescent pain.
Killing oneself is further pounded into the adolescent psyche with an extended series of questioning on suicidal ideation:
§ Are you still thinking about killing yourself?
§ Have you seriously thought about killing yourself?
§ Have you thought of killing yourself for some time?
Preceding the “kill” questions, there is not one question that would seed hope in the child’s mind. Such questions might be:
§ Are you aware of the fact that your are not alone, and that many of your friends have the same worries and fears?
§ Are you aware of the fact that many of these feeling will pass as adults help you to learn to cope with adversity?
§ Did you know that there are trained professionals who can help you in private settings?
Dr. Arlene Seal, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, addresses the psychological harm of asking children such questions in her article, Questions, Questions: Do survey’s influence children? 1
The general purpose of any particular survey is evident by its questions. However, in addition to eliciting information, do the questions also influence the respondent? The simple answer is YES!”
First of all, the questions direct focus on the survey’s topics—making the respondent seriously think about them. Secondly, surveys can actually stimulate curiosity about those topics and spark possibilities of which the respondent was previously unaware.
The extent and the detail of the information pursued by the questions is related to the degree of influence that can impact the respondent’s thinking and affective behavior. The critical point..is what attitudes and potential behaviors are being stimulated by the awareness...In such surveys, children’s attention are directed to these negative behaviors and the manner of questions in many instances subtly sets the expectations in that direction…such surveys are actually socializing children INTO the problems that are intended to be prevented. (Emphasis added)
Not only do the questions set expectations in this negative direction, but they also “normalize” the behavior in the mind of the child. Can anyone say child abuse?
1 Seal, Arlene, PhD. ”Questions, Questions: Do surveys influence children?” Education Advocate, July/August 2000, Vol., No.4.
Much has been written about the use of TeenScreen in 9th and 10th grade as a tool for identifying potential suicide victims. A firestorm of objections has come from a cross-section of parents, political, educational, and health professional organizations – from Patch Adams to Phyllis Schlafly.
However, there is a disturbing aspect about the TeenScreen survey that has not been formally addressed by people opposing the use of this invasive screening test, and that is the impact of the questionnaire itself on the child.
For years, public relations experts and media specialist have known that besides gathering information, tests, surveys, and questionnaires also teach.
On the 10 minute TeenScreen “quick mental health check up” survey, a child sits in front of an impersonal computer screen answering questions about his or her worries, fears, family composition, interpersonal relationships, and even drug use.
Then, in an offhanded, abrupt manner, questions such as - Have you ever thought about killing yourself - appear. The unthinkable notion of killing oneself becomes a “thinkable” solution to his/her adolescent pain.
Killing oneself is further pounded into the adolescent psyche with an extended series of questioning on suicidal ideation:
§ Are you still thinking about killing yourself?
§ Have you seriously thought about killing yourself?
§ Have you thought of killing yourself for some time?
Preceding the “kill” questions, there is not one question that would seed hope in the child’s mind. Such questions might be:
§ Are you aware of the fact that your are not alone, and that many of your friends have the same worries and fears?
§ Are you aware of the fact that many of these feeling will pass as adults help you to learn to cope with adversity?
§ Did you know that there are trained professionals who can help you in private settings?
Dr. Arlene Seal, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, addresses the psychological harm of asking children such questions in her article, Questions, Questions: Do survey’s influence children? 1
The general purpose of any particular survey is evident by its questions. However, in addition to eliciting information, do the questions also influence the respondent? The simple answer is YES!”
First of all, the questions direct focus on the survey’s topics—making the respondent seriously think about them. Secondly, surveys can actually stimulate curiosity about those topics and spark possibilities of which the respondent was previously unaware.
The extent and the detail of the information pursued by the questions is related to the degree of influence that can impact the respondent’s thinking and affective behavior. The critical point..is what attitudes and potential behaviors are being stimulated by the awareness...In such surveys, children’s attention are directed to these negative behaviors and the manner of questions in many instances subtly sets the expectations in that direction…such surveys are actually socializing children INTO the problems that are intended to be prevented. (Emphasis added)
Not only do the questions set expectations in this negative direction, but they also “normalize” the behavior in the mind of the child. Can anyone say child abuse?
1 Seal, Arlene, PhD. ”Questions, Questions: Do surveys influence children?” Education Advocate, July/August 2000, Vol., No.4.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Shhh-hh-h-h
The good Dr. Reading emphasized to his patient, Ms. Blanco, that she "shouldn't tell anybody" about his conduct, according to testimony in a Florida case that stripped him of his right to practice medicine. But she told someone anyway.
The word "medicine" should probably be in quotes, because he wasn't really practicing medicine. He was really a psychiatrist. It is always jarring to recall that psychiatrists have medical degrees. The only part of a medical degree a psychiatrist needs is the right to prescribe drugs. In medical schools they are famous as the ones who couldn't cut it in real medicine. Doctors know the type. They can't hack the surgery and they go crazy trying to help someone with an actual medical problem so they retreat to the theoretical and imaginary world of psychiatry where no patient ever really improves until they stop coming to therapy and get off their drugs.
Reading chaired the psychiatry department at the University of South Florida. The first official complaint came in 2003 when a female patient complained to police that she had been molested. Although she passed her lie detector test and he failed his, the case was dropped. Then other victims began to come forward.
Still it is remarkable what it takes to pierce the veil of medical authority. An allegation of rape or sexual harassment from any reputable young woman is taken seriously in most of the world, unless the accused is a psychiatrist. To overcome the altitude of that position in the legal arena, it usually takes a series of allegations. And in the end, the penalty is usually remarkably light. In this case, Reading lost his license, and was not convicted of any crime – allowing him to keep his pension.
But it’s not over. He now faces a series of civil suits re his psychiatric abuse.
The word "medicine" should probably be in quotes, because he wasn't really practicing medicine. He was really a psychiatrist. It is always jarring to recall that psychiatrists have medical degrees. The only part of a medical degree a psychiatrist needs is the right to prescribe drugs. In medical schools they are famous as the ones who couldn't cut it in real medicine. Doctors know the type. They can't hack the surgery and they go crazy trying to help someone with an actual medical problem so they retreat to the theoretical and imaginary world of psychiatry where no patient ever really improves until they stop coming to therapy and get off their drugs.
Reading chaired the psychiatry department at the University of South Florida. The first official complaint came in 2003 when a female patient complained to police that she had been molested. Although she passed her lie detector test and he failed his, the case was dropped. Then other victims began to come forward.
Still it is remarkable what it takes to pierce the veil of medical authority. An allegation of rape or sexual harassment from any reputable young woman is taken seriously in most of the world, unless the accused is a psychiatrist. To overcome the altitude of that position in the legal arena, it usually takes a series of allegations. And in the end, the penalty is usually remarkably light. In this case, Reading lost his license, and was not convicted of any crime – allowing him to keep his pension.
But it’s not over. He now faces a series of civil suits re his psychiatric abuse.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
TeenScreen
MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
In Part 25 of this series, I referred to TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) and TeenScreen. As an update on these, it is useful to look at the testimony of Ellen Liversidge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 2, 2005. A speech pathologist and board member of AHRP (Alliance for Human Research Protection), Ms. Liversidge testified that "Dr. Peter Weiden, who is a member of TMAP expert consensus panel, has charged that the guidelines are based on opinions, not data, and that bias due to funding sources undermines the credibility of the guidelines since most of the guidelines' authors have received support from the pharmaceutical industry.
The invalid screening process of TeenScreen ensures that mostly healthy normal children will be brought into government subsidized mental health dragnet. Once children acquire a psychiatric label they may be branded for life. For example, between 55 and 60 percent of foster children in at least three states---Texas, Massachusetts and Florida---are on psychotropic drugs starting as young as age three....The diagnostic criteria upon which mental health screening instruments rest are scientifically invalid, vague and entirely open to subjective interpretation. TeenScreen was tested on 1,729 children in seven New York City schools using passive parental consent and teen active consent, which is legally invalid. TeenScreen is fraught with suggestive insinuations of failure and self-doubt.
Such questions can lead vulnerable teenagers to obsess about perceived inadequacies....By raising the possibility that suicide may be an option, and that's one of the questions, screening might lead to suicidal thinking....TeenScreen promoters fail to disclose that the risk for children who are screened to be falsely labeled as suicidal or mentally ill is 84 percent....AHRP opposes psychiatric screening of children without active, informed parental consent. Consent of parents must be documented and given voluntarily without a hint of coercion. TeenScreen has attempted to sidestep parental consent by claiming passive parental consent, which is invalid....According to its website, as of October 25th of this year (2005), TeenScreen is actively operating in 460 locations in 42 states and Washington, DC."
Mental health screening is also promoted as identifying ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). However, serious warnings have accompanied drugs used to treat these. According to Evelyn Pringle's article, "ADHD Drugs---Cash Cow For Pharma" (LAWYERS AND SETTLEMENTS, February 13, 2006): "In a February 6, 2006, letter to acting FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley pointed out that in September of 2005, the FDA had issued an alert to healthcare professionals regarding the use of Strattera (ADHD drug), after reviewing data showing an increase in suicidal thoughts in 12 separate studies, and directed Eli Lilly, to 'revise the labeling...to include a boxed warning and additional warning statements regarding an increased risk of suicidal thinking in children and adolescents.'
As an added pressure, Sen. Grassley asked for a complete list of names of participating panel members and a complete list of conflict disclosures for both the February 9-10, 2006, advisory committee and the March 22, 2006, Pediatric Advisory Committee....At the February 10 FDA advisory committee hearing, it was reported by Dr. Andrew Mosholder, a medical officer in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, that about 2.5 million children in this country, between the ages 4 and 17, currently take ADHD drugs....In 1991, schools began receiving educational grants of $400 annually for each ADHD child." Could this financial incentive be one of the reasons for the increase in children placed upon ADHD drugs?
The day before the FDA advisory committee hearings began, ABC News on February 8, 2006, covered an Associated Press report, "FDA reports 51 deaths of attention drug patients," by Andrew Bridges who revealed that "deaths of 51 U.S. patients who took widely prescribed drugs to treat Attention Deficit Disorder prompted regulators to start watching for heart attacks, high blood pressure and other problems in 2004, a report released on Wednesday said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff did not say the drugs were responsible for the fatalities, but they urged close monitoring for 'the rare occurrence of pediatric sudden death during stimulant therapy.'...The information was released one day ahead of an FDA advisory panel meeting on how best to study potential risks from the drugs, which include Shire Pharmaceuticals Group Plc's Adderall and Novartis AG's Ritalin....Use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, was controversial before the cardiac issue emerged, with many doctors and parents arguing the medicines are overprescribed....Through 2003, 24 deaths were reported from 1999 through 2003 among U.S. patients who took Adderall for ADHD, the FDA staff report said....Another 16 deaths were reported through 2003 in U.S. patients who took Ritalin or other ADHD drugs known as methylphenidates, the report said."
Further concerning ADHD, Vicky Dunkle (representing Ablechild of Pennsylvania) on February 10, 2006, had written testimony presented to the FDA that her daughter (Shaina) died on February 26, 2001, from drug toxicity. She wrote: "Parents are simply not being given the facts on these psychiatric labels and the recommended drugs' inherent dangers. Parents are all too frequently being pressured into placing their child on these psychotropic drugs by their child's school....We were never given full informed consent. We were never told that the label ADHD itself was both subjective and controversial or that the drug prescribed had many dangerous risks including death.
Desipramine was the drug given to my daughter and we were led to believe this drug was safe and effective in what was described to us as her 'treatment.' We were never informed that this drug was not FDA approved for children of Shaina's age, lacking both safety and effectiveness....Shaina died due to Desipramine toxicity. Little also did we know that we would be reading proof that there had been prior child deaths as far back as 1990 from this one drug. My husband (Steve) and I believed and trusted in the professionals and they only helped me bury our child at 10 years old....What is clear and definite to both my husband and me now is that if we would have been given the right information we would have NEVER placed our daughter on this drug.
If we had been informed correctly on the lack of objective testing used to determine this psychiatric label and the lack of science to back it as a true 'disease,' we would have NEVER placed our daughter on any drugs. We ask this panel to take the time to review the real risks involved in placing children on these drugs and ask yourselves, 'What if it had been my child or family member who was to die from one of these drugs prescribed?' 'What if I wasn't told the facts?' 'How would I feel?' More importantly, 'Does Death as a side effect outweigh any possible benefits?' At the very least, this panel must do something regarding the violation of informed consent rights occurring with the widespread use of these drugs being prescribed to children."
Testifying in person before the FDA was Clinton Libbey, an Ablechild volunteer, who told the hearing panel: "As a concerned parent, I investigated the drugs that were being considered for my son, many of which are being reviewed by this panel currently. What I found was misinformation and distortions pertaining to both the subjective psychiatric labels being assigned to our children and the drugs being prescribed to them....When dealing with drugs that have known side effects, the oath of first do no harm must be transformed to first do no harm without full informed consent....This is especially the case when the treatment may cause the one side effect that is irreversible---Death....I, for instance, was misinformed when several medical doctors told me that no one has died as a result of taking these drugs provided that they are taken in accordance with the dosage guidelines....Upon further investigation, I found parents who had lost their children due to these drugs with autopsy reports directly linking ADHD drugs with their children's deaths.
The fact is that children have died even though dosage recommendations on an approved label were strictly adhered....As a society, we must disclose potential side effects prior to treatment in order to guarantee an individual's right to full informed consent....While many say that there needs to be more research on these drugs, I, with the parents that make up Ablechild, many of whom are victims of the effects of these drugs, find that stronger warning labels and stiffer guidelines regulating full disclosure would be a more appropriate step. Furthermore, Medwatch filings should be mandatory for adverse reactions within the pediatric population....Please don't allow another child to lose her or his life without at least warning their parents."
According to Evelyn Pringle's article mentioned above, "On February 10, 2006, the Drug Safety and Risk Management advisory committee (of the FDA) said that ADHD drugs should carry the strongest warning label that they may be linked to an increased risk of death and injury." Pringle went on to warn that "for school age children, these drugs are providing a spring-board into early addiction."
--
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
February 20, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
In Part 25 of this series, I referred to TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) and TeenScreen. As an update on these, it is useful to look at the testimony of Ellen Liversidge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 2, 2005. A speech pathologist and board member of AHRP (Alliance for Human Research Protection), Ms. Liversidge testified that "Dr. Peter Weiden, who is a member of TMAP expert consensus panel, has charged that the guidelines are based on opinions, not data, and that bias due to funding sources undermines the credibility of the guidelines since most of the guidelines' authors have received support from the pharmaceutical industry.
The invalid screening process of TeenScreen ensures that mostly healthy normal children will be brought into government subsidized mental health dragnet. Once children acquire a psychiatric label they may be branded for life. For example, between 55 and 60 percent of foster children in at least three states---Texas, Massachusetts and Florida---are on psychotropic drugs starting as young as age three....The diagnostic criteria upon which mental health screening instruments rest are scientifically invalid, vague and entirely open to subjective interpretation. TeenScreen was tested on 1,729 children in seven New York City schools using passive parental consent and teen active consent, which is legally invalid. TeenScreen is fraught with suggestive insinuations of failure and self-doubt.
Such questions can lead vulnerable teenagers to obsess about perceived inadequacies....By raising the possibility that suicide may be an option, and that's one of the questions, screening might lead to suicidal thinking....TeenScreen promoters fail to disclose that the risk for children who are screened to be falsely labeled as suicidal or mentally ill is 84 percent....AHRP opposes psychiatric screening of children without active, informed parental consent. Consent of parents must be documented and given voluntarily without a hint of coercion. TeenScreen has attempted to sidestep parental consent by claiming passive parental consent, which is invalid....According to its website, as of October 25th of this year (2005), TeenScreen is actively operating in 460 locations in 42 states and Washington, DC."
Mental health screening is also promoted as identifying ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). However, serious warnings have accompanied drugs used to treat these. According to Evelyn Pringle's article, "ADHD Drugs---Cash Cow For Pharma" (LAWYERS AND SETTLEMENTS, February 13, 2006): "In a February 6, 2006, letter to acting FDA commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley pointed out that in September of 2005, the FDA had issued an alert to healthcare professionals regarding the use of Strattera (ADHD drug), after reviewing data showing an increase in suicidal thoughts in 12 separate studies, and directed Eli Lilly, to 'revise the labeling...to include a boxed warning and additional warning statements regarding an increased risk of suicidal thinking in children and adolescents.'
As an added pressure, Sen. Grassley asked for a complete list of names of participating panel members and a complete list of conflict disclosures for both the February 9-10, 2006, advisory committee and the March 22, 2006, Pediatric Advisory Committee....At the February 10 FDA advisory committee hearing, it was reported by Dr. Andrew Mosholder, a medical officer in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, that about 2.5 million children in this country, between the ages 4 and 17, currently take ADHD drugs....In 1991, schools began receiving educational grants of $400 annually for each ADHD child." Could this financial incentive be one of the reasons for the increase in children placed upon ADHD drugs?
The day before the FDA advisory committee hearings began, ABC News on February 8, 2006, covered an Associated Press report, "FDA reports 51 deaths of attention drug patients," by Andrew Bridges who revealed that "deaths of 51 U.S. patients who took widely prescribed drugs to treat Attention Deficit Disorder prompted regulators to start watching for heart attacks, high blood pressure and other problems in 2004, a report released on Wednesday said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration staff did not say the drugs were responsible for the fatalities, but they urged close monitoring for 'the rare occurrence of pediatric sudden death during stimulant therapy.'...The information was released one day ahead of an FDA advisory panel meeting on how best to study potential risks from the drugs, which include Shire Pharmaceuticals Group Plc's Adderall and Novartis AG's Ritalin....Use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, was controversial before the cardiac issue emerged, with many doctors and parents arguing the medicines are overprescribed....Through 2003, 24 deaths were reported from 1999 through 2003 among U.S. patients who took Adderall for ADHD, the FDA staff report said....Another 16 deaths were reported through 2003 in U.S. patients who took Ritalin or other ADHD drugs known as methylphenidates, the report said."
Further concerning ADHD, Vicky Dunkle (representing Ablechild of Pennsylvania) on February 10, 2006, had written testimony presented to the FDA that her daughter (Shaina) died on February 26, 2001, from drug toxicity. She wrote: "Parents are simply not being given the facts on these psychiatric labels and the recommended drugs' inherent dangers. Parents are all too frequently being pressured into placing their child on these psychotropic drugs by their child's school....We were never given full informed consent. We were never told that the label ADHD itself was both subjective and controversial or that the drug prescribed had many dangerous risks including death.
Desipramine was the drug given to my daughter and we were led to believe this drug was safe and effective in what was described to us as her 'treatment.' We were never informed that this drug was not FDA approved for children of Shaina's age, lacking both safety and effectiveness....Shaina died due to Desipramine toxicity. Little also did we know that we would be reading proof that there had been prior child deaths as far back as 1990 from this one drug. My husband (Steve) and I believed and trusted in the professionals and they only helped me bury our child at 10 years old....What is clear and definite to both my husband and me now is that if we would have been given the right information we would have NEVER placed our daughter on this drug.
If we had been informed correctly on the lack of objective testing used to determine this psychiatric label and the lack of science to back it as a true 'disease,' we would have NEVER placed our daughter on any drugs. We ask this panel to take the time to review the real risks involved in placing children on these drugs and ask yourselves, 'What if it had been my child or family member who was to die from one of these drugs prescribed?' 'What if I wasn't told the facts?' 'How would I feel?' More importantly, 'Does Death as a side effect outweigh any possible benefits?' At the very least, this panel must do something regarding the violation of informed consent rights occurring with the widespread use of these drugs being prescribed to children."
Testifying in person before the FDA was Clinton Libbey, an Ablechild volunteer, who told the hearing panel: "As a concerned parent, I investigated the drugs that were being considered for my son, many of which are being reviewed by this panel currently. What I found was misinformation and distortions pertaining to both the subjective psychiatric labels being assigned to our children and the drugs being prescribed to them....When dealing with drugs that have known side effects, the oath of first do no harm must be transformed to first do no harm without full informed consent....This is especially the case when the treatment may cause the one side effect that is irreversible---Death....I, for instance, was misinformed when several medical doctors told me that no one has died as a result of taking these drugs provided that they are taken in accordance with the dosage guidelines....Upon further investigation, I found parents who had lost their children due to these drugs with autopsy reports directly linking ADHD drugs with their children's deaths.
The fact is that children have died even though dosage recommendations on an approved label were strictly adhered....As a society, we must disclose potential side effects prior to treatment in order to guarantee an individual's right to full informed consent....While many say that there needs to be more research on these drugs, I, with the parents that make up Ablechild, many of whom are victims of the effects of these drugs, find that stronger warning labels and stiffer guidelines regulating full disclosure would be a more appropriate step. Furthermore, Medwatch filings should be mandatory for adverse reactions within the pediatric population....Please don't allow another child to lose her or his life without at least warning their parents."
According to Evelyn Pringle's article mentioned above, "On February 10, 2006, the Drug Safety and Risk Management advisory committee (of the FDA) said that ADHD drugs should carry the strongest warning label that they may be linked to an increased risk of death and injury." Pringle went on to warn that "for school age children, these drugs are providing a spring-board into early addiction."
--
Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.
Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Now He Has Three Names
Now his name is Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. We'll bet it was once "Richard Henderson" or "Dick Henderson". But as soon as you are charged with murder, you get three names. We're not sure why.
In 2001, Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. took a gun to school with him at age 16. It was a felony. But he didn't go to jail. Instead they sent him off to mental health counselors. He's in jail now, though. Because on Thanksgiving Day in 2005 he killed his parents, his grandmother and his 11-year-old brother.
But wait! Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (or Dick, or whatever his name is) was already a handful when they pulled him in on the gun charge. He hadn't killed anybody, though. Let's follow the thought through.
In 2001: Dick takes a gun to school, gets caught. There is evidence that he is a disturbed young man. The judge sends him off to a mental health program. That should have helped him with his problems, right?
In 2005: He pulled out his gun and shot his family. Whoa! Guess the mental health program didn't do much good!
But the side note that caught our eye was a conversation between Dick and the judge, as reported in Florida's Herald Tribune:
"Have you ever been treated for any mental illness?" the judge asked.
"Yes, your honor, depression."
"Are you seeing a doctor right now for that?"
"Yes."
Henderson said he'd been seeing a doctor for several months.
He was taking a medication called BuSpar.
"It takes away my depression, gives me . . . me energy so I can do stuff."
Henderson also said he was taking sleeping pills.
"I put it under my tongue so I can sleep at night," he said.
So... Dick -- or Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (take your pick) was newly on psychiatric drugs -- for several months.
This is the pattern we see again and again. People are a little nuts, go to the psychs, get psych drugs, then they start killing and committing suicide and it all goes into the deep end real fast. This daffy situation is going to looked at with some mirth and amazement by future generations reading history books somewhere down the line.
"They did what?"
"They took disturbed people, and ordered them sent off to supposed experts who couldn't do them any good, then they gave them psychiatric drugs and made killers out of them."
"You're kidding?"
"Nope. They did that."
In 2001, Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. took a gun to school with him at age 16. It was a felony. But he didn't go to jail. Instead they sent him off to mental health counselors. He's in jail now, though. Because on Thanksgiving Day in 2005 he killed his parents, his grandmother and his 11-year-old brother.
But wait! Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (or Dick, or whatever his name is) was already a handful when they pulled him in on the gun charge. He hadn't killed anybody, though. Let's follow the thought through.
In 2001: Dick takes a gun to school, gets caught. There is evidence that he is a disturbed young man. The judge sends him off to a mental health program. That should have helped him with his problems, right?
In 2005: He pulled out his gun and shot his family. Whoa! Guess the mental health program didn't do much good!
But the side note that caught our eye was a conversation between Dick and the judge, as reported in Florida's Herald Tribune:
"Have you ever been treated for any mental illness?" the judge asked.
"Yes, your honor, depression."
"Are you seeing a doctor right now for that?"
"Yes."
Henderson said he'd been seeing a doctor for several months.
He was taking a medication called BuSpar.
"It takes away my depression, gives me . . . me energy so I can do stuff."
Henderson also said he was taking sleeping pills.
"I put it under my tongue so I can sleep at night," he said.
So... Dick -- or Richard Edgar Henderson, Jr. (take your pick) was newly on psychiatric drugs -- for several months.
This is the pattern we see again and again. People are a little nuts, go to the psychs, get psych drugs, then they start killing and committing suicide and it all goes into the deep end real fast. This daffy situation is going to looked at with some mirth and amazement by future generations reading history books somewhere down the line.
"They did what?"
"They took disturbed people, and ordered them sent off to supposed experts who couldn't do them any good, then they gave them psychiatric drugs and made killers out of them."
"You're kidding?"
"Nope. They did that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)