Tuesday, June 17, 2008

VA treats Veterans Like "Disposable" Lab Rats

by Justice Lover


The following was emailed to me today by :

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org and http://ahrp.blogspot.com

FYI

The Washington Times reports:

"Currently, the VA and other federal agencies are conducting nearly 300
clinical studies involving veterans with PTSD. Most studies are behavioral,
including one that tests the effects of yoga on PTSD sufferers. Twenty-five,
however, are testing drugs on 4,796 veterans, more than half (2,488) of whom
are just returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to
clinical trials filed with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and
reviewed by The Times."

Perhaps no other news report involving unethical human experimentation
demonstrates how far along the slippery slope the American government and
the pharmaceutical industry have plunged. The report is about the
exploitation of the vulnerability of disabled U.S. veterans who served in
Afghanistan and Iraq.

The veterans are being enrolled in an unethical drug experiment with the
approval of the Department of Veterans Affairs, an experiment that exposes
them to Pfizer's controversial anti-smoking drug, Chantix, whose documented
serious risks include psychotic episodes, violence and suicide.

The FDA acknowledges that nearly 40 suicides and more than 400 incidents of
suicidal behavior have since been linked to Chantix.

"Just two weeks after Mr. Elliott began taking Chantix in November, the VA
learned from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug was linked
to a large number of hallucinations, suicide attempts and psychotic
behavior. But the VA did not alert Mr. Elliott before his own episode in
February. In failing to do so, Mr. Elliott said, the VA treated him like a
"disposable hero." "You're a lab rat for $30 a month," Mr. Elliott said.

In all, nearly 1,000 veterans with PTSD were enrolled in the study to test
different methods of ending smoking, with 143 using Chantix. Twenty-one of
the veterans testing Chantix reported adverse effects from the drug,
including one who suffered suicidal thoughts.

This government supported medical atrocity was uncovered by an investigation
by The Washington Times and ABC News which is airing the report under the
heading "Disposable Heroes"
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5180437&page=1


Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org
212-595-8974

~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/va-testing-drugs-on-war-veterans
/
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
VA testing drugs on war veterans
Experiments raise ethical questions

Audrey Hudson (Contact)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

The government is testing drugs with severe side effects like psychosis and
suicidal behavior on hundreds of military veterans, using small cash
payments to attract patients into medical experiments that often target
distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a Washington
Times/ABC News investigation has found.

In one such experiment involving the controversial anti-smoking drug
Chantix, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) took three months to alert
its patients about severe mental side effects. The warning did not arrive
until after one of the veterans taking the drug had suffered a psychotic
episode that ended in a near lethal confrontation with police.

Veteran James Elliott arrives at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in
Washington for his scheduled substance-abuse class in April. Mr. Elliott, a
chain smoker, served 15 months in Iraq as an Army sharpshooter and suffers
post-traumatic stress disorder.
Iraq war veteran James Elliott opted for a government clinical trial for a
smoking-cessation drug for $30 a month, starting in November. Two weeks
later, the FDA informed the VA of serious side effects.

Iraq war veteran James Elliott smokes on his porch in Silver Spring as he
talks about his experiences in war and dealing with post-traumatic stress
disorder. Mr. Elliott suffered a psychotic episode while taking the
anti-smoking drug Chantix.

James Elliott, a decorated Army sharpshooter who suffers from post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) after serving 15 months in Iraq, was confused and
psychotic when he was Tasered by police in February as he reached for a
concealed handgun when officers responded to a 911 call at his Maryland
home.
For photos, video of James Elliott, official FDA documents and more, visit
the interactive site for the Disposable Heroes report.
Mr. Elliott, a chain smoker, began taking Chantix last fall as part of a VA
experiment that specifically targeted veterans with PTSD, opting to collect
$30 a month for enrolling in the clinical trial because he needed cash as he
returned to school. He soon began suffering hallucinations and suicidal
thoughts, unaware that the new drug he was taking could have caused them.

Just two weeks after Mr. Elliott began taking Chantix in November, the VA
learned from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug was linked
to a large number of hallucinations, suicide attempts and psychotic
behavior. But the VA did not alert Mr. Elliott before his own episode in
February.
In failing to do so, Mr. Elliott said, the VA treated him like a "disposable
hero."
"You're a lab rat for $30 a month," Mr. Elliott said.

One of the nation's premier medical ethicists said the VA's behavior in the
anti-smoking study violated basic protections for humans in medical
experiments.
"When you're taking advantage of a very vulnerable population, people who
have served the country, and the agency that's responsible for their welfare
isn't putting their welfare first, that's a pretty serious breach of
ethics," said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the
University of Pennsylvania.
In all, nearly 1,000 veterans with PTSD were enrolled in the study to test
different methods of ending smoking, with 143 using Chantix. Twenty-one
veterans reported adverse effects from the drug, including one who suffered
suicidal thoughts, the three-month investigation by The Times and ABC News
found.

Mr. Caplan, who reviewed the consent and notification forms for the study at
the request of The Times and ABC News, said the VA deserved an "F" and that
it has an obligation to end the study, given the vulnerability of veterans
with PTSD and the known side effects of Chantix. "Continuing it doesn't make
any ethical sense," he said.
The VA continues to test Chantix on veterans, even as reported problems with
the drug increase and have prompted at least one other federal agency to
take action. On May 21, the Federal Aviation Administration banned airline
pilots and air traffic control personnel from taking Chantix, citing the
adverse side effects.

The VA responds

VA officials defend their use of veterans in medical studies, saying that
helping PTSD sufferers to stop smoking would prolong their lives. As for the
three-month delay in notifying its patients about the Chantix problems, the
VA said bureaucracy slowed down their warning because the alert letters had
to be issued through an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that oversees the
experiment at each VA location.

"We don't have the authority to just send directly to patients material that
has not been approved by the IRB sites,"said Miles McFall, director of the
VA's programs for PTSD sufferers. "We did sense urgency. And we respond to
that urgency doing just what we did here, which was, I think, incredibly
quick response for a governmental institution.
"We believe that we took responsible action by informing the clinicians who
are the people most in touch with the patients to be on the lookout for any
potential side effects and to respond appropriately," he said.

While Mr. Elliott blames Chantix for his mental breakdown and confrontation
with police, VA officials said they cannot be sure.
"We don't know that Chantix was the cause of this, first of all. And it's
presumed that that's the case. We don't know that to be a fact," Mr. McFall
said.
Mr. McFall said the veterans with PTSD in the anti-smoking study "are at
high risk to use tobacco" and the goal of the experiment is to determine how
best to deliver treatment - through a mental health counselor or a smoking
clinic. Chantix was one of several options tested on the veterans.

"FDA approved, and that drug is available to help individuals stop smoking
and VA makes that drug available," Mr. McFall said. "It does not deny access
to them."
Asked about adverse reactions now linked to the drug, Mr. McFall said: "We
are certainly aware of FDA warnings and we took all precautions ... so it
can be used safely. All drugs have side effects or potential side effects."

Dark history of medical tests
The government has a controversial history of using military personnel as
human research subjects.
Mustard gas was tested on the military during World War II, radiation during
the early Cold War period, LSD in the 1960s, herbicide in Vietnam and
Panama, and chemical and biological warfare drugs during the Gulf War,
according to Senate testimony given by the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
on July 10, 2002.

In most of those cases, few if any military test subjects were informed of
the potential health consequences of the exposure.
"We have a phrase to describe this phenomenon - the disposable soldier
syndrome," said Richard Weidman, former VVA director of government
relations.
The most infamous government experiment is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study
conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 through 1972, which
used 400 poor and uneducated black male sharecroppers who carried the
sexually transmitted disease.

The men were purposely undiagnosed and untreated for a disease that already
had progressed to late stages, and were studied through autopsy.
The government effectively blocked the unwitting participants, who also were
drafted in 1940 to serve in WWII, from receiving medical treatment for
symptoms they were told were caused by "bad blood." Of the participants, 28
men died of the disease, 100 others died from complications brought on by
syphilis, and the disease spread to 40 wives and 19 children.

Ongoing tests with vets
The VA has extensive screening of veterans who enroll in medical experiments
and requires detailed consent forms to ensure patients know about the
potential complications and benefits.

Currently, the VA and other federal agencies are conducting nearly 300
clinical studies involving veterans with PTSD. Most studies are behavioral,
including one that tests the effects of yoga on PTSD sufferers.

Twenty-five, however, are testing drugs on 4,796 veterans, more than half
(2,488) of whom are just returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
according to clinical trials filed with the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and reviewed by The Times.

One study conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health is using
virtual-reality exposure - sights, sounds and smells from the Iraq
battlefield, along with a drug called D-Cycloserine that reduces fear.

Other studies are testing drugs on veterans with PTSD, including the
antidepressants paroxetine, mirtazapine and citalopram - all carry warnings
of suicidal side effects.
"Over 150,000 soldiers are currently deployed in Iraq as part of Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 12 percent of returning OIF veterans have PTSD,"
said one study that is using the drug paroxetine on 160 veterans "who have
returned from the Iraq theater within the past six months."

Warnings about taking paroxetine include "suicidal thinking about harming or
killing oneself or planning to trying to do so" among young adults up to 24
years of age, according to NIH.

Another study on the use of mirtazapine for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan
is testing the efficacy and tolerability of the drug on 100 veterans.
Citalopram is being tested on 300 veterans "exposed to high levels of combat
stress."

The NIH warning for paroxetine also applies to mirtazapine and citalopram.

The VA has not revealed how many veterans are registered in an experiment to
study the effects of divalproex in the treatment of PTSD, but the FDA warned
health care professionals on Jan. 31 it had received reports of suicide and
suicidal thoughts linked to the anticonvulsant drug.
Smoking study's fine print
Mr. Elliott was one of 940 veterans with PTSD who participated in the
Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) # 519, "smoking-cessation
treatment for veterans with post traumatic stress disorder" ongoing at 10 VA
clinics.

The CSP studies date back to the 1940s, when 10,000 veterans suffering from
tuberculosis were recruited into VA studies to test different drugs to treat
the disease.

The smoking-cessation study uses nicotine replacement products like gum and
patches as well as Chantix - a drug that is supposed to block certain brain
receptors that make smoking pleasurable. The $11 million taxpayer-funded
study was approved in 2004, two years before the FDA approved Chantix for
prescription use.
The FDA says that nearly 40 suicides and more than 400 incidents of suicidal
behavior have since been linked to Chantix.

Mr. Elliott began taking Chantix on Nov. 6. Two weeks later, on Nov. 20, the
FDA issued its first alert that it had "received reports of suicidal
thoughts and aggressive and erratic behavior in patients who have taken
Chantix," also known as varenicline.

"A preliminary assessment reveals that many of the cases reflect new-onset
of depressed mood, suicidal ideation, and changes in emotion and behavior
within days to weeks of initiating Chantix treatment," the November FDA
alert said.
"The role of Chantix in these cases is not clear because smoking cessation,
with or without treatment, is associated with nicotine withdrawal symptoms
and has also been associated with the exacerbation of underlying psychiatric
illness. However, not all patients described in these cases had pre-existing
psychiatric illness and not all had discontinued smoking," the FDA said.

On Jan. 18, the drug manufacturer Pfizer revised its warning label to state
"patients who are attempting to quit smoking with Chantix should be observed
for serious neuropsychiatric symptoms, including changes in behavior,
agitation, depressed mood, suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior."

On Feb. 1, the FDA held a news conference to announce that new health risks
have been associated with the drug.
VA officials started addressing the FDA alert on Nov. 26 and Dec. 4 with
conference calls among government officials "to inform prescribers about
these potential problems and advise patients accordingly," according to a
timeline agency officials provided The Times.

On Feb. 4, VA officials were told to "formulate and approve an action plan,"
and on Feb. 13, a second consent form and letter was submitted for approval
by VA officials.
The letter received by Mr. Elliott and other veterans was dated Feb. 29,
more than three weeks after he already had suffered his mental breakdown and
confrontation with police.
VA letter watered down?
While the alerts from Pfizer and the FDA clearly mentioned suicide and
suicidal thoughts as possible side effects, the VA's letter to its veterans
used no such language.
"Scientists have recently learned that varenicline can sometimes have
serious side effects in some people," the VA letter said. "These side
effects may include an increase in psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety,
nervousness, tension and depression as well as untoward changes in
behavior."
Asked why the letter omitted the most significant side effect, Mr. McFall
said "the more verbiage you use, the more difficult and lengthy it becomes,
hard to read. It's more likely veterans won't pay attention to it if you
overdo."

However, a secondary research consent form sent with the letter that
participants are now being asked to sign cites "changes in behavior,
anxiety, nervousness, tension, depression, thoughts of suicide, and
attempted and completed suicide."
Mr. McFall said the serious side effects were included in the secondary
consent form, and not the notification letter, because "it's better to have
the letter be brief" so that it is not a "burden for people who sometimes
have problems reading."
"They have eyesight problems," Mr. McFall said. "Many of our veterans are
getting elderly, so we're trying to keep things simple and to the point,
while at the same time pointing them to the most important document, which
is the consent form."

Veterans who are participating in the smoking-cessation program are
carefully screened to ensure they are not suicidal, psychotic or homicidal,
Mr. McFall said.
According to the VA research consent form Mr. Elliott initially signed, he
would be required to fill out questionnaires "about some war zone events
that you may have experienced" and interviews "regarding symptoms of other
psychiatric disorders and your use of drugs and alcohol."
"Has there been a time in the past month when things were so bad that you
were thinking a lot about death or that you would be better off dead?" is
one example question listed on the consent form.

Mr. Elliott filled out monthly checklists on the extent to which he had
nightmares about his military experience or flashbacks, became "super alert"
or on guard, and whether he had a "feeling as if your future will somehow be
cut short."

Chantix debate
New York Magazine writer Derek De Koff detailed the nightmares and suicidal
behavior he suffered while on Chantix in a Feb. 10 article, and said that at
one point he felt like throwing himself in front of a tour bus or crashing
his head into a computer screen.
"All this seemed logical, but also weirdly funny, even at the time: I could
see how crazy these impulses were, I could recognize them as suicidal
cliches. But I couldn't make them go away," Mr. De Koff wrote.

In September, musician Jeffrey Carter Albrecht was shot by a neighbor who
mistook him for a burglar. The guitarist and keyboardist who once played
with Edie Brickell & New Bohemians went on a rant that friends say was
fueled by alcohol and the drug Chantix.

A spokesman for Pfizer could not be reached after three calls seeking
comment. However, in full-page ads published May 29 in several newspapers
including USA Today, Dr. Joseph Feczko, Pfizer chief medical officer, said
the company is "committed to patient safety" and "furthering our knowledge
of Chantix."
The FDA has declined to pull Chantix from the market, citing the health
benefits of smoking cessation.
"This actually is a very important drug," Dr. Celia Winchell, team leader
for the FDA division of anesthesia, analgesia and rheumatology, said during
the February teleconference announcing the new warning.

"Although we are getting these reports, there's also a lot of anecdotal
reports out there where this drug has worked when no other drug would," Dr.
Winchell said.
"Smoking itself has very serious consequences. And so I think it's important
to try to manage the risk associated with the drug, also realizing that it
has a lot of benefits for some folks," Dr. Winchell said.

More than 5,000 people were treated with the drug in preliminary trials
before it was approved for prescription use. However, patients with serious
psychiatric illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major
depressive disorder did not participate in those tests.

Ethics of future VA tests

Mr. Caplan, the bioethicist, said that using veterans with PTSD in clinical
trials carries a "high risk" that must be addressed by the VA. "Researchers
have a special obligation to vets with PTSD since they are a vulnerable
population somewhat prone to threats or even violence against themselves or
others," he said. "They need to keep a hawklike eye on subjects involved in
high stress experiments and make sure that families and friends are involved
and on board any research projects to help monitor subjects."
"I am not against research to try and improve the health of those with PTSD
but only if it is done with the highest levels of consent, transparency,
supervision and accountability," he said.

Mr. Caplan recommended several steps the government should adopt before
allowing future testing on vulnerable veterans, including more participation
by families and veterans on committees that review and approve research
proposals.

Future studies that involve veterans with PTSD also should receive special
approval from the VA secretary.
And a clear policy should be established that prohibits drugs reported to
have serious side effects be tested on populations at risk of those side
effects, including veterans with PTSD, he said.

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/06/post_8.html


Psychiatrists under fire supported by Mass. General

Posted by Elizabeth Cooney June 11, 2008 01:55 PM

Three Harvard psychiatrists facing a US Senate inquiry got a vote of confidence from their hospital as "beloved and trusted by thousands of grateful children and families." Senator Charles Grassley is looking into the doctors' failure to report payments of more than a million dollars in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007.

A memo from top officials at Massachusetts General Hospital obtained by the Globe praised Drs. Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens, and Thomas Spencer as "pioneers in the field of child mental health" while also endorsing "closely managed" collaboration with industry and promising a review of conflict-of-interest policies.

"They are beloved and trusted by thousands of grateful children and families who have counted on them for treatment, counseling, help and hope. We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them," Dr. Peter L. Slavin, hospital president, and Dr. David F. Torchiana, head of Massachusetts General Physicians Organization, write.

The three psychiatrists received money from companies that made the medications they researched and recommended. Biederman's work is widely linked to a steep rise in bipolar diagnoses among children.

On Sunday Biederman told the New York Times "my interests are solely in the advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective study."

The full Mass. General memo follows:

"As you may know, the Sunday New York Times contained a page 1 article regarding ongoing inquiries of the US Senate Finance Committee, led by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, focusing on relationships between drug companies and physicians and academic institutions. This story, which was picked up by the Boston Globe and other media outlets, described Sen. Grassley's inquiries into the financial disclosures of three MGH psychiatrists, Joseph Biederman, MD, Timothy Wilens, MD, and Tom Spencer, MD, all pioneers in the field of child mental health. During this process, the committee raised a number of questions about our institutional policies for interactions with industry and about the information provided by the physicians about the payments they received from certain pharmaceutical companies. We wanted you to be aware of a number of issues related to this situation.

First, we want to state that MGH firmly believes that appropriate and closely managed collaborations between academia and industry are important in the ongoing quest to discover treatments, cures and preventions for diseases that afflict millions of people worldwide. The innovative work of scientists at institutions like the MGH provides the intellectual and scientific foundation for so many of the therapies that industry has developed, tested, manufactured and carried to the marketplace to benefit patients.

Second, we want to emphasize that the three MGH physicians being reviewed have all been vital players in such productive collaborations with industry. Their impressive body of academic work, backed up by significant data and rigorous science, has earned them reputations as international leaders in the understanding and treatment of serious pediatric psychiatric disorders. Perhaps most important, they are beloved and trusted by thousands of grateful children and families who have counted on them for treatment, counseling, help and hope. We know this is an incredibly painful time for these doctors and their families, and our hearts go out to them.

You also should know that MGH has cooperated fully with Sen. Grassley. We have provided the disclosure forms requested as well as information about our conflict-of-interest processes and systems for disclosing relationships with and income from industry. As a recipient of significant public research funds, the MGH embraces its obligation to not only uphold science that is rigorous and sound, but also to conduct research according to the highest ethical standards and in compliance with rules and regulations designed to ensure quality, objectivity and accuracy.

Finally, we want you to know that the MGH takes Senator Grassley�s concerns regarding financial disclosures very seriously and has undertaken a thorough internal review of all the issues raised by him. Harvard Medical School is likewise doing the same with respect to compliance with its policies. In addition, the MGH is participating in a senior administrative
commission initiated by Partners HealthCare that aims to re-examine all of our policies relating to our interactions with industry to ensure that they appropriately address all issues in the relationships between Partners institutions and its physicians and industry.

Our ultimate hope is that after such a comprehensive review, our processes will be further enhanced, strengthened and streamlined. We will no doubt learn a great deal from this experience , as difficult as it may be , and we must be willing to share the insights and perspectives we gain to improve conflict-of-interest processes not just here, but at academic
institutions nationwide.

Peter L. Slavin, MD, President, MGH
David F. Torchiana, MD, Chairman and CEO, MGPO"

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Sunday, June 15, 2008

AN UPDATE ON REBECCA MERHAV : HER FATHER'S LETTER TO THE CHIEF PSYCHIATRIST HERE,FOLLOWING A LETTER FROM THE MINISTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH HERE, IN VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
by Justice Lover

Subject : The very urgent case of Miss Rebecca Merhav, my daughter
From:Benjamin Merhav
Sent:Saturday, 14 June 2008 11:34:11 PM
To: kuruvilla.george@dhs.vic.gov.au
Cc: lisa.neville@minstaff.vic.gov.au; sam.afra@parliament.vic.gov.au













Prof. Kuruvilla George,
Chief Psychiatrist
Melbourne, Victoria
============

Sir,


The Hon. Lisa Neville, MP, the Minister for Mental Health, In her reply to the Hon. John Pandazopoulos, the Member for Dandenong, regarding the case of Miss Rebecca Merhav, my daughter, referred me to you. She pointed out in her letter as follows :

"You may be aware that the Chief Psychiatrist has responsibility under the Mental Health Act 1986 for the medical care and welfare of persons receiving treatment or care for a mental illness. I am advised that the Chief Psychiatrist, Prof. Kuruvilla George, has had considerable contact with Mr. Merhav and has a longstanding interest in Rebecca's treatment and care.

Prof. George advises that he is satisfied with the clinical service provided to Rebecca by the Alfred Hospital.

Mr. Merhav is aware of the outcomes of the investigations and has been asked to liaise directly with the Chief Psychiatrist office (Phone 1300 767 299) should he have further concerns or issues in relation to Rebecca's treatment."

I have written to you directly several times, and have contacted your office by phone several times too, yet I have never received any reply from you to my emails, nor did ever your assistant at your office (who answers my call when I phone your office) took the initiative to reply to my emails or calls or let me know anything about the investigations (if any were made) regarding my daughter's treatment. Furthermore, the Director of Psychiatry at the Alfred Hospital, who committed himself to report to me by phone once a week about Rebecca's treatment, has not contacted me for over 3 months now, thus depriving me of the information I need on behalf of my daughter. This information has been denied to me for over 4 months now by the treating psychiatrist, and a ban has been placed on my phone calls to the Clinic so as to prevent me from phone contact even with the relevant nurse there.

All those hostile moves have been against the best interests of my daughter, and against her expressed wishes, and they are in violation of Section 19A of the Mental Health Act, 1986 ,which provides as follows :



"19A(2) In preparing, reviewing and revising a treatment
plan for a patient, the authorised psychiatrist must
take into account—


(a) the wishes of the patient, as far as they can
be ascertained; and


(b) unless the patient objects, the wishes of any guardian, family member or primary carer
who is involved in providing ongoing care or
support to the patient;"

Moreover, following my complaints regarding the irrational incarceration of my daughter and on her behalf at the psychiatric ward of the Alfred Hospital for nearly 2 months (from 9 March to early May, 2008), the director threatened me with legal action. He, like the treating psychiatrist considers my complaints as "harassment", and consequently ,on the 1st of April I , I received a letter from the Legal Counsel of BaySide Health threatening me with both civil and criminal proceedings, as well as with an intervention order, if I ever complain again to any member of the clinical staff, or if I ever "incite" other people to do so.
So much for "satisfactory" communications, cooperation and information given to me (or rather deprived me of ) as representative of my daughter.

However, the main concern of both my daughter and of myself on her behalf remain the "treatment" she is forced to get, as her 30 years long suffering and the deadly risks imposed on her clearly point out. Her continuous daily suffering under the imposed Antipsychotic drugs turn what purports to be a helpful medical "treatment" into a long painful and very harmful, very dangerous torture.

Below are the reasons why that "treatment" must stop and be replaced by supervised and gradual tapering off the Antipsychotics, and above all, by the cancellation of the CTO - using your powers according to the Mental Health Act, 1986 - and by giving my daughter the chance to survive and to return to normal life, rather than continue to suffer under the whim of her treating psychiatrist who is prepared to put her patient's life at risk for the drugs experimentations to continue. Rebecca is not a danger to herself or to others, therefore there is no rational reason to continue her torture, damage her well being and force her to risk death !


Looking forward to your early reply, Benjamin Merhav

1. Thirty years of compulsory drugs treatment have produced no positive results whatsoever for my daughter, not even from a psychiatric point of view.
This is not so because she has been "drug-resistant" or "treatment-resistant", but simply because she never needed any psychiatric treatment in the first place. It had been the combination of a wrong diagnosis, pushed by a bad mother, that had landed her in a psychiatric ward at the age of 15. Still, she was sent there for observation alone, and not as an involuntary mental health patient ! As a father who knows his daughter from the day she was born, I know that there was nothing wrong with her ! Which is why I supported her refusal to go for that "observation".

She absconded, of course, when the doctors at that first psychiatric ward incarceration forced her from the first day to consume psychiatric drugs. She did not know - and neither did I ! - that the Antipsychotic drugs are addictive, and that it would be disastrous to taper off them abruptly. As a result she was returned to the ward with psychotic symptoms, and this outcome repeated itself whenever she absconded again. Consequently, she was given the horrible labels which accompany her to this day in her file, namely, that she is "psychotic" "paranoic schizophrenic" and "chronic schizophrenic". To this day, not a single psychiatrist has attempted to check - let alone challenge !- this old and very wrong "diagnosis" of my daughter. As we shall see later, the Antipsychotics themselves are in effect pro-psychotic, and they prolong psychosis rather than do the opposite as their marketing propaganda claims.

Which partly explains the reluctance of psychiatrists to challenge the first diagnosis, or investigate it, at least, because they consider the Antipsychotics as effective "meciations".

2. Let us move now from the beginning of the disastrous treatment-torture to the present suffering of my daughter. She is forced to consume daily 350mg of Clozapine, 75mg of Risperdal which is injected into her every 10 days, and Cogenten to counter some side effects. This is what she told me.

The Clozapine is the most dangerous drug in the arsenal of psychiatry, and it had caused many deaths all over the world, including Australia. The following are the official dangerous adverse effects of this Antipsychotic :

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic3/clozapine.htm

"CLOZARIL® (Novartis)(clozapine) Tablets
Before prescribing CLOZARIL® (clozapine), the physician should be thoroughly familiar with the details of this prescribing information.
WARNING

1. AGRANULOCYTOSIS
BECAUSE
OF A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF AGRANULOCYTOSIS, A POTENTIALLY
LIFE-THREATENING ADVERSE EVENT, CLOZARIL® (CLOZAPINE) SHOULD BE
RESERVED FOR USE IN (1) THE TREATMENT OF SEVERELY ILL PATIENTS WITH
SCHIZOPHRENIA WHO FAIL TO SHOW AN ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE TO ADEQUATE COURSES OF STANDARD ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUG TREATMENT, OR (2) FOR REDUCING THE RISK OF RECURRENT SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR IN PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA OR SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER WHO ARE JUDGED TO BE AT RISK OF REEXPERIENCING SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR.
PATIENTS
BEING TREATED WITH CLOZAPINE MUST HAVE A BASELINE WHITE BLOOD CELL
(WBC) AND DIFFERENTIAL COUNT BEFORE INITIATION OF TREATMENT AS WELL AS REGULAR WBC
COUNTS DURING TREATMENT AND FOR 4 WEEKS AFTER DISCONTINUATION OF
TREATMENT. CLOZAPINE IS AVAILABLE ONLY THROUGH A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
THAT ENSURES MONITORING OF WBC COUNTS ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE DESCRIBED BELOW PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF THE NEXT SUPPLY OF MEDICATION. (SEE WARNINGS)

2. SEIZURES

SEIZURES
HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF CLOZAPINE. DOSE APPEARS TO BE AN
IMPORTANT PREDICTOR OF SEIZURE, WITH A GREATER LIKELIHOOD AT HIGHER
CLOZAPINE DOSES. CAUTION SHOULD BE USED WHEN ADMINISTERING CLOZAPINE TO
PATIENTS HAVING A HISTORY OF SEIZURES OR
OTHER PREDISPOSING FACTORS. PATIENTS SHOULD BE ADVISED NOT TO ENGAGE IN
ANY ACTIVITY WHERE SUDDEN LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS COULD CAUSE SERIOUS
RISK TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. (SEE WARNINGS)

3. MYOCARDITIS

ANALYSES
OF POST-MARKETING SAFETY DATABASES SUGGEST THAT CLOZAPINE IS ASSOCIATED
WITH AN INCREASED RISK OF FATAL MYOCARDITIS, ESPECIALLY DURING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE FIRST MONTH OF THERAPY. IN PATIENTS IN WHOM MYOCARDITIS
IS SUSPECTED, CLOZAPINE TREATMENT SHOULD BE PROMPTLY DISCONTINUED. (SEE
WARNINGS)

4. OTHER ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR AND RESPIRATORY EFFECTS ORTHOSTATIC HYPOTENSION, WITH OR WITHOUT SYNCOPE, CAN OCCUR WITH CLOZAPINE TREATMENT.
RARELY, COLLAPSE CAN BE PROFOUND AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY RESPIRATORY
AND/OR CARDIAC ARREST. ORTHOSTATIC HYPOTENSION IS MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR
DURING INITIAL TITRATION IN ASSOCIATION WITH RAPID DOSE ESCALATION. IN
PATIENTS WHO HAVE HAD EVEN A BRIEF INTERVAL OFF CLOZAPINE, I.E., 2 OR MORE DAYS SINCE THE LAST DOSE, TREATMENT SHOULD BE STARTED WITH 12.5 MG ONCE OR TWICE DAILY. (SEE WARNINGS and DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION)
SINCE COLLAPSE, RESPIRATORY ARREST AND CARDIAC ARREST DURING INITIAL TREATMENT HAS OCCURRED IN PATIENTS WHO WERE BEING ADMINISTERED BENZODIAZEPINES OR OTHER PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS, CAUTION IS ADVISED WHEN CLOZAPINE IS INITIATED IN PATIENTS TAKING A BENZODIAZEPINE OR ANY OTHER PSYCHOTROPIC DRUG. (SEE WARNINGS)

5. INCREASED MORTALITY IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH DEMENTIARELATED
PSYCHOSISELDERLY PATIENTS WITH DEMENTIA-RELATED PSYCHOSIS TREATED WITH
ATYPICAL ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS ARE AT AN INCREASED RISK OF DEATH COMPARED
TO PLACEBO. ANALYSES OF SEVENTEEN PLACEBO CONTROLLED TRIALS (MODAL
DURATION OF 10 WEEKS) IN THESE PATIENTS REVEALED A RISK OF DEATH IN THE
DRUG-TREATED PATIENTS OF BETWEEN 1.6 TO 1.7 TIMES THAT SEEN IN
PLACEBO-TREATED PATIENTS. OVER THE COURSE OF A TYPICAL 10 WEEK
CONTROLLED TRIAL, THE RATE OF DEATH IN DRUGTREATED PATIENTS WAS ABOUT
4.5%, COMPARED TO A RATE OF ABOUT 2.6% IN THE PLACEBO GROUP. ALTHOUGH
THE CAUSES OF DEATH WERE VARIED, MOST OF THE DEATHS APPEARED TO BE
EITHER CARDIOVASCULAR (e.g., HEART FAILURE, SUDDEN DEATH) OR
INFECTIOUS (e.g., PNEUMONIA) IN NATURE. CLOZARIL (CLOZAPINE) IS NOT
APPROVED FOR THE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH DEMENTIA-RELATED PSYCHOSIS.

http://www.tga.gov.au/docs/html/aadrbltn/aadr9912.htm
Clozapine induced neuroleptic malignant syndrome

ADRAC has received 11 reports describing NMS in males
aged 14 to 52 (median 40) years with clozapine being the only suspected
drug cause in all but one case. Onset occurred as early as 6 days and
as late as 9 months after commencing clozapine with most cases
developing in the first two weeks. Daily doses of clozapine ranged from
75 to 600 (median 400) mg. Presenting clinical features included fever,
confusion or disorientation, profuse sweating, tachycardia, and
delirium. Significant rigidity does not seem to occur in many cases of
NMS related to clozapine. Leukocytosis was noted in 7 cases and
elevated creatine kinase levels (230 to 12,800 units/litre) were
observed in 10 cases. All 11 patients required hospital admission. One
case was complicated by pulmonary oedema and in another, the onset of
acute renal failure was followed by cardiac arrest and death. All the
remaining patients recovered.The product information for clozapine
states that neuroleptic malignant syndrome is estimated to occur with
an incidence of less than 0.1%, but reports to ADRAC would suggest that
the incidence is considerably higher. Prescribers should be aware of
this rare but life threatening complication of clozapine therapy."

Also, in the case of Rebecca, she has been unable to get a much needed restful night sleep for many months now as a result of the excessive saliva production ( which is another well known adverse effect of the Clozapine) causing her to wake up several times during her sleep. This in turn not only makes it very hard to function during the day, but could cause her memory to be permanently damaged (see :
http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/06/11/sleep-problem-can-lead-to-memory-loss/2441.html

Please note that five of the Clozapine warnings are death warnings. They are the neuroleptic malignant syndrome (sudden death); Diabetes ( a long tortuous death);MYOCARDITIS ;SEIZURES;and AGRANULOCYTOSIS. The last one cannot be eliminated by the blood test counting of the white blood cells.

Your predecessor, Prof. Amgad Tanaghow, agreed to eliminate the Clozapine, and consequently the treating psychiatrist committed herself to gradually reduce it until completely eliminated. However, she soon after its elimination ordered Rebecca back on the Clozapine, following the failure of another capricious experiment with the drug Seroquel that she forced Rebecca to be incarcerated for on 9 March, 2008.

As for the Risperdal, it too is a very dangerous Antipsychotic. Thus, for example, it can cause death by malignant tumor in the consumer's brain as the following warning states :

Risperdal and Pituitary Tumours

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003760576
Risperdal May Cause 70 Percent Of Pituitary Tumors

May 31, 2006 3:00 a.m. EST
Yvonne Lee – "All Headline News" Staff Reporter

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A new study suggests Risperdal may be linked to 70 percent of pituitary tumors.

The Food and Drug Administration worked in conjunction with Duke University on the study, which found the antipsychotic and similar medications may cause pituitary tumors.

The researchers caution the study's findings suggest, rather than prove, a link.
Healthday News reports Risperdal is the most commonly-prescribed medication among atypical antipsychotics. These are used to treat schizophrenia, paranoia, and manic-depressive disorders.
Study co-author Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, a psychiatrist at Duke University Medical Center, says, "Atypical antipsychotics are lifesaving medications for a lot of people. By no means are we advocating that people stop using them, especially risperidone."

The official adverse effects of Risperdal also include : Abdominal pain ,Vomiting,Constipation,Diarrhea,Dry mouth,Sore throat,Abnormal walk,Agitation,Aggression,Anxiety,Chest pain,Coughing,Involuntary movements,Nasal inflammation,Decreased activity,Decreased sexual desires,Lack of coordination,Dizziness,Dry skin,Difficulty urinating,Heavy menstruation,Tremor,Weight gain,Lethargic feelings,Join pain,Tremor,Respiratory infection.

Risperdal too is a deadly Antipsychotic. It can cause death by stroke and in the following cases :

"Other dangerous effects of Risperdal that patients should be cautious about is difficult when swallowing that can cause a type of pneumonia to develop. A potentially fatal condition, Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome greatly affects patients if left untreated. Characterized by muscle stiffness or rigidity, irregular pulse, fast heartbeat, increased sweating, high or low blood pressure, and high fever these effects of Risperdal will add more pain and suffering to the lives of the patients. It is essential that potential effects of Risperdal be weighed prior to beginning Risperdal treatment."

3. Some more reasons to taper off any Antipsychotic drug.

First, they reduce the life span of the consumers by 25 % as the following news item reports :

“The Alternative Mental Health News,
Issue 67, July 2007
Editor's Note
(mail@alternativementalhealth.com)

A recent USA Today headline—quite startling, really—splashed across its pages: MENTALLY ILL DIE 25 YEARS EARLIER, ON AVERAGE. One would think this would strike the psychiatric world like a 9/11, stirring drastic changes. It did not.

They've known for decades that psychiatric patients die earlier that the average population. But since the early 1990s the lifespan gap has DOUBLED. That's right. Patients used to live 10-15 years less. Now it's 25. Still, psychiatrists are not storming CNN to get the message out.Even more damning is the fact that the research that discovered this 25-year gap was published in 2006 and is only now reaching a major newspaper.

We are left to wonder if the lives of the mentally ill are considered less important—so much so that the guardians of their care, modern psychiatry and its professional organizations, brushes off this news with a sigh and the usual finger-pointing.

If a headline announced that the general public was dying 10-15 years earlier, what do you think the response would be from the public and private sectors?Also, one would think that alarm bells would be ringing over two matters.First, the only thing that has significantly changed in psychiatry in the past two decades is the medications. "Modern" medications cause diabetes, obesity and other medical complications. A reasonable person could conclude that they are shortening the lives of millions of people by 10-15 years and that this could easily be regarded as a national crisis.

In fact, this was stated blatantly in the January 2007 issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry by researcher Mary Seeman: "The general health of individuals with schizophrenia suffers from neglect, poor life style choices, and current treatments that increase death rates."Secondly, while numerous explanations have traditionally been given for why the mentally ill die early, even before the 1990s, one reason that is never given is the most obvious reason of all: They are physically ill.

Perhaps most mental illnesses are caused by hidden physical disorders that not only affects the person's mind but his body as well and will kill him early if not detected and treated.When a population has a life expectancy of 1/3 less than the rest of the population, why is this most obvious conclusion not being addressed? Why are millions spent on more drugs for symptoms and almost no treatments being developed that detect and address underlying physiological causes?"We're going in the wrong direction and have to change course," says Joseph director of psychiatric services for the Missouri Department of Mental Health and lead author of the report."

Second, they are useless even from a psychiatric point of view according to a veteran British psychiatrist who had emailed to me as follows :

"Hi Ben,

You have my complete sympathy - for 50 years the evidence has been that all so called anti-psychotic drugs are in fact pro-psychotics - they prolong the psychosis. I cover what should be done in my recent book 'unsafe at any dose'.

I have been ejected from 6 consultant psychiatric posts - and effectively barred from ever working in the NHS again - however, my research into the software problems of mental disease convinces me, as evidence from long ago confirms, that all psychoses are 100% curable - whereas all drugs make things worse.

I wish you well in your campaign, and when I get a media pedestal I shall give you my full support.

Best Wishes,
Bob Johnson"

The above conclusions by Dr. Bob Johnson are confirmed by another veteran psychiatrist (of 38 years experience), Dr Michael Benjamin. In an article he wrote last year, under the title, A Psychiatrist Airs His Professional Doubts, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/07/22/141824.php he concludes that patients are better off and recover quicker without psychiatric drugs. See also http://www.jonmd.com/pt/re/jnmd/toccurrentrss.xml;jsessionid=LTlF9CzZrLNVPvVfFjSmqTdTtprwd6M4NPk6Htx9YcFLjNL6ThRN%21669148343%21181195629%218091%21-1

See also an article by an American psychiatrist,Douglas C. Smith, M.D. under the title, Why Psychiatric Drugs Are Always Bad, who states that he never tells any patient to consume any psychiatric drug http://www.antipsychiatry.org/drsmith1.htm

Third, Antipsychotic drugs are likely to cause the shrinking of the brain, thus causing permanent damage to it.

Dr. Baughman, the American veteran neurologist, warns people against brain damage caused by psychiatric drugs as follows :
http://adhdfraud.org/frameit.asp?src=commentary.htm

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: “…it is a known fact that all psychotropic drugs relieve mental, psychic pain by damaging the brain. All of them without exception damage the brain. No mental illness damages the brain. The only abnormalities detectible in such patients in life or, at autopsy are those due to the drugs they are on, have been on, ECT or psychosurgery. The empty promise of psychopharmacology rests on the fact that there is no disease/damage to begin with. Psychopharmacologists posit they can improve upon the normal brain with their drugs when they only damage it--they only damage the previously normal brain--the organ of adaptation, of learning.”

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

http://laceylibertarian.us/?p=1800

Psychiatry and Money

Much of psychiatry is a scam. Other than organic/structural/chemical brain damage, there may be no such thing as mental illness, as Thomas Szasz strongly argues in his book, The Myth of Mental Illness. Nevertheless, governments in many countries, especially ours, have latched onto the idea of mental illness as a way to control behavior. The height of psychiatric idiocy is the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition), a list of psychiatric disorders.

Many of these so-called disorders are behaviors that some shrink or psychologist does not approve of, and therefore gives those behaviors nasty sounding names that beg for treatment; e.g., Oppositional Defiant Disorder, a situation where a child objects strongly to some parental or parental figure’s commands. In other words, a highly spirited, non-conforming child. In many cases, children showing strongly independent behavior are not only classifed as having a mental disorder, they are then drugged into "appropriate" behavior. Public schools make money by diagnosing kids as mentally ill; they get funds from the federal government for every kid diagnosed and treated.

Psychiatric treatment no longer is mainly verbal and discussive. The transference reaction now is literally transferring some chemicals from a bottle or a syringe into the patient’s blood stream. The relationship between the doctor and patient has turned into the relationship between the drug manufacturer, its psychiatrists and their victims, us and our children.

In large part, the focus on diagnosing young children and treating them with anti-psychotic drugs formerly restricted to adults comes from the Harvard Psychiatry Dept. and particularly from Dr. Joseph Biederman in that department. Now it turns out that Biederman and several colleagues took large amounts of money (millions of dollars) from the drug companies that manufacture anti-psychotics pushed by Biederman et al. onto our kids.

In my view, the situation is immoral and horrible. We are making inappropriate wrong diagnoses based on inadequate criteria and then labeling our kids as mentally ill and forcing drugs upon them. Parents without MD degrees think the doctors must be right and cannot rationally argue with them. But even if the doctors were right, how does that justify browbeating parents into accepting the forcing of drugs into their children’s bodies when no one knows what the long term effects of the drugs are and many people question whether psychiatric diagnoses of young children mean anything at all?

If any class of people should be treated very conservatively it is children. So many developmental processes are going on in them that any outside agents like powerful anti-psychotic drugs should not be given to them for fear of damaging physical or mental development. But money rules in academia. Those with the government grants or private outside support get to be the big shots and influence everyone else’s academic behavior. Usually the victims of academia are other academics. In this case, the victims are at least one generation of our children and the ignorant adults who should be protecting them from people like Biederman and the bureaucrats who want to drug our kids into obeying them.

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10tue2.html
THE NEW YORK TIMES
June 10, 2008
Editorial

Hidden Drug Payments at Harvard

Three prominent psychiatrists at the Harvard Medical School and its
affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital have been caught vastly
underreporting their income from drug companies whose fortunes could be
affected by their studies and their promotional efforts on behalf of
aggressive drug treatments. Their failure to divulge their conflicts is
striking proof that today's requirements for reporting payments from
industry - essentially an honor system in which researchers are supposed to
reveal their outside income to their institutions - needs to be
strengthened.

What makes this case particularly troublesome is that the Harvard group's
research has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic
drugs to treat children, as was described in The Times on Sunday by Gardiner
Harris and Benedict Carey. Although supporters praise the most prominent of
the trio, Dr. Joseph Biederman, as a visionary who has saved many lives,
critics complain that the Harvard studies have been too small and loosely
designed to provide conclusive results. Critics say they also were subject
to biased interpretation through use of a subjective rating scale.

The previously unknown payments to the researchers were pried loose by
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate
Finance Committee, whose staff reviewed what the researchers disclosed on
conflict-of-interest forms at their institutions and prodded the university
to verify the data as accurate. Under pressure, two of the researchers
acknowledged receiving $1.6 million apiece in consulting fees from drug
companies between 2000 and 2007 and the third reported earning more than $1
million. That was far more than the researchers had originally reported, a
number that Mr. Grassley pegged at a couple hundred thousand dollars apiece.
Even the updated numbers left out other payments that drug companies
reported separately that they had made to the trio.

At this point, it is not clear whether the researchers inadvertently failed
to comply with reporting rules or consciously sought to hide their sizable
incomes from drug companies. But it is clear that relying on researchers to
report their outside incomes and on universities and hospitals to police the
disclosures won't suffice. Senator Grassley and Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat
of Wisconsin, have introduced a bill that would require drug and device
makers to report annually any payments to doctors that exceed $500 a year.
That is the best way to ensure that conflicts of interest are transparent to
all."

========================

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article614734.ece
St. Petersburg Times
A Times Editorial
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

"Medicine research corrupted


The pharmaceutical industry's corrupting influence on medical research has
reached a new low with a case that has stained the reputations of Harvard
University and three of its top researchers in child psychiatry. It took a
congressional investigation to uncover a conflict of interest that could
violate federal and university rules. As a result, the credibility of a
supposed breakthrough in treating childhood bipolar disease is now in doubt.


Dr. Joseph Biederman and two colleagues - who have promoted the use of
antipsychotic drugs to treat bipolar children - withheld information about
payments they were getting from drugmakers. While the Harvard faculty
members were doing their research, some of it paid for by taxpayers, they
were quietly taking millions of dollars from drug companies such as Johnson
& Johnson, Eli Lilly and others that profited from the findings, the New
York Times reported.

The researchers were supposed to report earnings in excess of $10,000 as
consultants for drug companies, but they failed to do so. Even after Senate
investigators forced Biederman to disclose his income, he reported receiving
less than the drug companies say they gave him. In all, the three
researchers accepted drug company payments of at least $2.6-million over the
past seven years.

Did such hefty inducements affect the outcome of their research? It's a
question that so far is unanswered. The doctors' findings have been
influential but controversial, with 500,000 bipolar children being
prescribed antipsychotic drugs. Some doctors say the medication saves young
lives, though the side effects can be serious. Others say it is an
experimental treatment that hasn't been proved effective over time.

There is no doubt what effect the scandal has had on the medical research
field, which relies on a voluntary honor system. "The price we pay for these
kinds of revelations is credibility, and we just can't afford to lose any
more of that in this field," said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey of the Stanley
Medical Research Institute.

Neither the pharmaceutical industry nor the medical researchers they try to
influence can be trusted under the current system. Sen. Charles Grassley,
R-Iowa, wants to create a national registry of drug research to keep track
of such payments. Maybe a new bureaucracy isn't the answer, but something
has to be done before people are injured and the public loses all trust in
medical research."

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Monday, June 9, 2008

MORE DISCLOSURES ON CORRUPTION WITHIN PSYCHIATRY AND AMONGST ITS PRACTITIONERS

by Justice Lover

Bribe money from Big Pharma to the shrinks and to their organisations keeps flowing, despite the publicity and despite public protest. However, Big Pharma needs to keep oiling the bribery machine if its colossal profits are to increase as they do.

The following article, downloaded from Dr. Carlat's blog (plus a comment from there), provides more of the shameless corruption among the shrinks, if any more proof is needed. However Dr. Carlat, a USA psychiatrist, is very forgiving towards his corrupt colleagues, concluding his article by stating his forgiveness. He still remembers, of course, the bribes he himself had accepted from Big Pharma, depriving him now of the higher moral ground. Besides, like most other shrinks, he accepts the continuation of the atrocities perpetrated by coercive psychiatry, using deadly drugs, electric shocks, and "psycho-surgery"against victim-patients.

http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/

Monday, June 9, 2008

"Big Troubles at Mass General

The blogosphere is buzzing with the Sunday New York Times article by Gardiner Harris and Benedict Carey in which we learn that three child psychiatrists at MGH did not report most of the payments they received from drug companies on conflict of interest disclosures.

I have been reading the pertinent documents in the Congressional Record
in order to figure out whether these three psychiatrists, all of whom I know from my training days at MGH, behaved very badly or just a little badly. All three are highly intelligent and committed researchers. During my residency days, I received a few lectures from Dr. Wilens, and he is a good, solid person. I didn’t have as much contact with Dr. Biederman or Dr. Spencer.

The issue at hand is a little complicated, but here’s my understanding. Whenever a researcher is awarded money from the NIH (National Institutes of Health) to conduct research, the employing institution (in this case, Harvard) must obtain detailed conflict of interest disclosures from these researchers. After all, this is public money, and the NIH wants to make sure that our hard-earned tax dollars are being spent responsibly. There are two big rules that are relevant to this controversy. Rule One is that researchers cannot accept more than $20,000 in payments from a drug company whose drug they are funded by NIH to research. Rule Two is that they must disclose any payments of $10,000 or more that they have received from any drug company.

The most serious of Senator Grassley’s allegations (Grassley being the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee) is that all three doctors broke Rule One. They all conducted NIH-funded studies of Eli Lilly’s Strattera (atomoxetine) for ADHD during years that they also received payments from Lilly—payments that exceeded the maximal payments permitted. If this is true, it represents a pretty significant breach in the integrity of the NIH funding process.

The other allegation is that the doctors chose to reveal only a fraction of all the money they actually received from drug companies. When Grassley and his aides looked over each doctor’s yearly disclosures, it appeared that they received no more than a combined few hundred thousand dollars over a seven year period. However, when the doctors were asked to look back over their financial records for the Senate Finance Committee, they suddenly discovered quite a few overlooked checks, to the tune of $1.6 million each for both Biederman and Wilens, and $1 million for Spencer.

I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue. I don’t think they hid these payments out of greed, sneakiness, or the thrill of getting away with something. They probably simply didn’t believe these earnings were relevant to the NIH funding they received. If you look at the charts detailing each doctor’s income in the Congressional Record, you can get a sense of why this might have occurred. Many of the large payments were not from drug companies directly but from third party medical education companies, with vague and uninformative names such as “Phase 5,” “MedLearning,” “Strategic Implications,” and “Primedia.”

For example, in 2005, Dr. Wilens received only $9500 directly from Eli Lilly, but $70,000 from “Promedix,” and $37,750 from “Advanced Health Media.”
A little googling reveals that Promedix is a division of Advanced Health Media, which in turn is a company that does “speaker program management.” So Wilens received a total of $107,750 for speaking programs, but the disclosure does not allow us to track things any more specifically. Who was he speaking for? Was this CME or promotional? How did this relate to his NIH funded research?

I’m willing to bet that most of this money came from Shire, because I have seen Wilens, Biederman, and Spencer headlining many Shire-supported CME programs on ADHD. (See here for some background).

So the psychology of non-disclosure may have gone something like this: “I’m doing NIH-funded research on an Eli Lilly drug, so I’d better be scrupulous about disclosing payments from Lilly. But the marketing work I’m doing for Shire is not relevant to my NIH research, and it’s indirect CME money anyway, so I won’t disclose that.
A little sleazy? Maybe. Malevolent? I don’t think so.

The big lesson here is that Congress must pass the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, because we will never be able to grasp the extent of the complex financial relationships between companies and thought leaders without this legislation."

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely unethical behavior. Giving them a pass on this puts you on the wrong side of this issue. You are telling me these guys are well-organized and smart enough to run big NIH research projects but 'accidentally' fail to disclose these monies?

If there were real ethical standards in psychiatry, they would be fired, no one would believe their research, and practitioners would be really angry at these guys, not making excuses for them."

Your stand on this issue is very telling.

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Sunday, June 8, 2008

IS PSYCHIATRY A RELIGION, RATHER THAN A DANGEROUS FASCIST QUACKERY, OR BOTH ?
by Justice Lover

As a secular person I am not concerned about "spiritual" problems, i.e. if the word serves as a euphemism for religious/superstitious beliefs. Therefore I do not subscribe to the definition of people's mental or emotional problems as "spiritual" problems. However, in the context of psychiatry - a fascist quackery which is based on delusions/speculations, rather than on medical science as it purports to be - there are many similarities between psychiatry and religion, as the author of the article below points out
(never mind the humorous aspect of it ).

This is a very serious matter. Both in the USA and in Australia the Constitutions forbid the imposition of religious rules on other people. In Australia Section 116 of the Constitution states as follows :

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth."

Thus ,The High Court of Australia decided in 1983 that
"
The conclusion to which we have ultimately come is that (the Church of )Scientology is, for relevant purposes, a religion" and therefore should be exempt from tax like any other religious institution. This legal ruling, based on the Constitution, must be regarded as a binding precedent also for regarding Psychiatry too as a religion. Consequently, it must lead to the abolition of psychiatric coercion, since the laws which legalise such coercion violate Section 116 of the Australian constitution !

The dogma of psychiatry is at best based on blind faith, and at worst it based on irrational delusions and horrendous lies . It is devoid of any scientific proof, therefore it is certainly more of a religion than the Church of Scientology.


http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Religion-of-Bio-Psychiatry&id=109330

"The Religion of Bio-Psychiatry
by Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D


If we examine the term 'psychotherapy' we will see that it literally means the 'healing of the soul'. Much of emotional distress is actually a spiritual problem, where an individual has lost meaning and hope. In today's society, we have lost sight of spiritual values and many have in turn decided to turn to the religion of bio-psychiatry.

Bio-psychiatry has a creed, the creed is that all problems of life are the result of so-called chemical imbalances. Any professional or individual challenging such conception is branded a heretic and subject to sanction.
The psychiatrist is the priest, and in some cases is also looked upon as a messianic figure. As the priest, the psychiatrist defines the Social Law and the infractions thereof.

The religion of bio-psychiatry has its 'sacraments.' The sacrament of initiation occurs at intake, and confirmation occurs when the individual is indoctrinated into the credo of bio-psychiatry and led to believe that their problems lie in 'wiring' problems in their brains.

The religion of psychiatry has absolution. Through their ritual, adults and institutions are able to be completely absolved from taking any responsibility for meeting the real emotional needs of a person or examining how their own actions and choices could have impacted the challenges faced by the individual.

Ordination occurs at the conferring of the Medical Degree and the completion of a residency in psychiatry.
The religion of bio-psychiatry has the 'sacrament' of Matrimony. Bio-Psychiatry is wedded to the pharmaceutical industry, and what a generous dowry the pharmaceutical industry has provided!

The American Psychiatric Association serves as the "Ecumenical Council" to promulgate the creed of bio-psychiatry and to institute the definitions of the Social Law and the infractions thereof.

The Bible of bio-psychiatry is the DSM-IV.

The Deity is the enormous ego of the bio-psychiatrists themselves".

Friday, June 6, 2008

http://www.rutilusallec.com/?p=600

Psychiatry Over Medicating Our Country

Over recent years, we in the U.S. have become accustomed to the seemingly never-ending parade of prescription drug commercials on television. It’s surprising to learn that the only two places advertising of this kind is legal is in the United States and New Zealand.

Would it surprise you to learn that the pharmaceutical industry not only targets Americans directly in this fashion, but also allocates approximately $25,000 per doctor per year? With the help of today’s technology, a pharmaceutical representative can know exactly how many prescriptions a doctor has written and for what drugs. Obviously, this information allows the industry to target certain physicians that fit certain profiles.

If you look at recent history, the field of “mental health” didn’t even exist until about 20 years ago. People were ignorant about psychiatric diagnoses and medications. Then over the next 10 years all of this changed. People learned all about the psychiatric diagnoses and many came to be on medications.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft burst onto the pharmaceutical scene. They were heavily advertised on television and high profile public figures were giving them the thumbs up. These things helped to bring psychiatry and their pharmaceuticals into the mainstream. Prozac is portrayed as a wonder drug, so people think it is.

Starting in the 1990s, certain terms and concepts also started appearing. For example, we started hearing about being “hard-wired” for some behaviors. Mental illnesses were thought to be the product of chemical imbalances. We also started hearing about being genetically programmed to be a certain way. These concepts have become immersed in our culture.

Something the psychiatric field of medicine has done is confuse very serious forms of illness with lesser serious forms. Case-in-point: depression. Severe depression can be an absolutely brutal, consuming illness and those who suffer from it are at real risk of self-inflicted harm. Conversely, nowadays it is very common to hear someone mention being “down” and their family doctor putting them on an antidepressant. This is a prime example of our confusion of serious disorders with lesser conditions. “Life issues” are being medicated when they should not be.

The clinical guidelines for mild depression recommend watchful waiting. Other included recommendations are diet and exercise, self-help and counseling, and cognitive behavioral therapy. If these things fail, then the next step is to try antidepressants. Currently, the practice in the U.S. seems to be the opposite of this.

When SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil first came out, they were considered to be free of side effects. This was mainly because in comparing them to the previous generation of antidepressants they seemed minimal by comparison. Most recently, it has become apparent that the majority of side effects connected with SSRI drugs are connected with getting on and off the medicine.

So, of issue is the fact that it is mostly family doctors who are writing these prescriptions. Often there is almost nonexistent follow-up treatment. This is of special concern because there is evidence pointing to the fact that most patients experience side effects when they are either going on or off of these drugs. If these patients are not being adequately supervised by physicians then potential problems will be missed.

Another trend of the pharmaceutical industry is to move away from the severe conditions that only affect a very small portion of people. It’s much more profitable to hit a larger market base with people with lesser conditions. For example, many of the big named drugs from recent years are not really about serious disorders. They are more about lifestyle issues: Viagra, Cialis, Lipitor, and the antidepressants.

One problem the drug companies had to overcome was the fact that they can’t advertise for diagnoses that aren’t FDA prescribed. So, there has been a huge expansion of diagnoses over the last 60 years. In the 1950s there were 50-60 diagnoses recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The most recent count came in at over 300.

One example of a relatively new diagnosis is “Adjustment Disorder.” This disorder is defined as essentially having a difficult time adjusting to a major life change. There also are categories such as “phase of life problem” and “sibling relational problem.” Admittedly, these can be very painful issues. They are not mental illnesses, however.

The American leaning is to be uncomfortable with unhappy feelings and get rid of them as quickly as possible. Interestingly, our obsession with happiness is somewhat recent. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that happiness became a human goal. If you make happiness your primary goal you will be disappointed in the long term. Happiness is better pursued as a byproduct and not a primary goal.

There are a lot of very simple, effective approaches to depression and anxiety that can work very well either alone or in conjunction with medications. They are not marketed like the medications, however, so they don’t make money. We are learning new information about how our brains work every day, yet there is more we do not understand.

There is a new book called Comfortably Numb written by Charles Barber. The subject of the book is the complex and frightening relationship between Americans and the pharmaceutical industry –- particularly antidepressants. Working in the mental health field with homeless shelters, Mr. Barber brings an insightful perspective to this issue.

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/2008/06/antipsychotics-global-buckets-of-money.html

Antipsychotics: Global Buckets of Money

Antipsychotics were the sixth best selling class of medications globally in 2007, according to IMS Health. They raked in a cool $20.7 billion, an increase of 10.7% from 2006. Thank God we are doing a better job of overrecognizing, er, appropriately treating bipolar disorder. Antidepressants were #7, at $19.7 billion, down nearly seven percent. This does not appear to be due to declining prescriptions. Blame generics, not decreased prescriptions for the lower numbers. With Cymbalta, Lilly has shown that new antidepressants don't have to be anything special, so it would behoove other companies to release other run of the mill antidepressants, attach a comical, er, highly educational marketing campaign such as Depression Hurts, then watch the money roll in. Just some free advice.

How about the top 10 drugs? Three of them were antipsychotics. No, I'm not kidding. Most surprisingly, Zyprexa had the best figures worldwide, which was interesting given the flat U.S. sales in 2007. Seroquel outsold Zyprexa in the U.S., but Zyprexa had a better run globally. Who knows what tricks are being used to sell Zyprexa internationally? Never mind, it's not like Lilly would do anything sly to market Zyprexa.

The new era of antipsychotics for everything appears to be in full swing.