The Veterans Administration continued allow testing of dangerous Neuroleptic Drugs which are known to have a risk of fatality particularly when given to elderly patients---on elderly Veterans with dementia. The FDA issued a Black Box warning in 2005 warning that this class of drug causes elderly patients to die precipitously; yet the NIH funded a Drug Study in 2006 for Seroquel, one of the drugs given a Black Box warning, to be tested on elderly veterans with dementia; patients who cannot give informed consent for participation in the drug study.
Why in the hell are Veterans being used as guinea pigs in Drug Trials? Who are the geniuses on the Institutional Review Board that approved this unethical marketing strategy disguised as a drug study? And why is the VA allowing a drug trial with a contraindicated drug for dementia to "treat" people who can not give Informed Consent? Why is the NIH approving funding for drug trials testing drugs that have been given a Black Box warning because they cause patients to die? It is unethical and just plain WRONG!
If any of the neuroleptic drugs were used to treat a "physical" disease or biological dysfunction, I suspect they would have been banned long ago; due to the iatrogenic illnesses, disability and increased mortality that neuroleptics cause. These teratogenic drugs have a lot in common with psychiatric treatments used in the past; treatments that in their turn, were proclaimed to be "safe and effective"--- insulin shock, cold water baths, and lobotomy, none actually were safe or effective, but all were decreed to be safe and effective treatments by the psychiatrists who used them. The claim was not based on the patient's outcome; but in spite of a high rate of adverse and even fatal real world outcomes of psychiatric patients.
Neuroleptics are neither safe nor effective for a significant percentage of people. Neuroleptics are being prescribed "off-label" to children, to the elderly and to traumatized Veterans---with devastating consquences. The number of bio-psychiatry's victims has to be in the millions since the advent of neuroleptic drugs; but this fact is not acknowledged by psychiatrists or mainstream mental health advocates. Proponents of Involuntary Treatment in fact lobby for unconstitutional Involuntary Treatment Laws.
I know from experience, that my son's rights were neither protected, nor defended, when court orders were sought and obtained by mental health professionals. My son's Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process were violated, and I know this is not an isolated incident---Perjury and Forgery were used by two licensed "mental health professionals," acting Under Color of Law as agents of the State of Washington; one of them a psychiatrist. There was no criminal investigation conducted of the crimes that were promptly reported. The blatant criminal conduct that AGAIN victimized and further traumatized my son compelled me to start writing this blog. I could not openly share the story without Isaac's permission--he wasn't willing to let people know what had been done to him as a psychiatric patient until the illegal court proceedings in the summer of 2010.
Neuroleptics are neither safe nor effective for a significant percentage of people. Neuroleptics are being prescribed "off-label" to children, to the elderly and to traumatized Veterans---with devastating consquences. The number of bio-psychiatry's victims has to be in the millions since the advent of neuroleptic drugs; but this fact is not acknowledged by psychiatrists or mainstream mental health advocates. Proponents of Involuntary Treatment in fact lobby for unconstitutional Involuntary Treatment Laws.
I know from experience, that my son's rights were neither protected, nor defended, when court orders were sought and obtained by mental health professionals. My son's Individual Rights to Substantive and Procedural Due Process were violated, and I know this is not an isolated incident---Perjury and Forgery were used by two licensed "mental health professionals," acting Under Color of Law as agents of the State of Washington; one of them a psychiatrist. There was no criminal investigation conducted of the crimes that were promptly reported. The blatant criminal conduct that AGAIN victimized and further traumatized my son compelled me to start writing this blog. I could not openly share the story without Isaac's permission--he wasn't willing to let people know what had been done to him as a psychiatric patient until the illegal court proceedings in the summer of 2010.
"Practice Parameters" are developed by members of the American Psychiatric Association by consensus---not derived from valid research or scientific data. Consensus, a quasi-democratic political process is not at all scientific, nor is voting a scientific method that can quantify the safety or effectiveness of a treatment standard. Nonetheless, psychiatrists rely upon consensus and a vote of the APA membership to "validate" the Standards of Care used in standard clinical practice.
Psychiatric diagnoses themselves are based on subjective observation and opinion, not empirical data; patients are diagnosed based on opinion, and a consensus of opinions is used to develop standard treatment protocols. The neuroleptic drugs have fatal risks, and their use as a first line treatment for schizophrenia is based not on empirical data demonstrating their effectiveness, but on the opinions of so-called medical experts more than fifty years after their introduction! Is this because the evidence base does not support using them as a first line treatment for people given a diagnosis of schizophrenia? Why are we Court Ordering people to take drugs with disabling and fatal risks, how is this justifiable when neuroleptics are helpful for about a quarter of the people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia?
In addition to this a egregious betrayal of psychiatric patients' and of the general public's trust, a betrayal that is ongoing; psychiatry has implemented standards of practice that make Medicaid and Medicare Fraud common in Standard Clinical Practice. I personally don't believe this massive fraud and deceit will stop until the professionals who prescribe the drugs "off-label" and the pharmacists who fill prescriptions that are fraudulently submitted for reimbursement are held legally accountable for submitting fraudulent claims for payment...
Psychiatric diagnoses themselves are based on subjective observation and opinion, not empirical data; patients are diagnosed based on opinion, and a consensus of opinions is used to develop standard treatment protocols. The neuroleptic drugs have fatal risks, and their use as a first line treatment for schizophrenia is based not on empirical data demonstrating their effectiveness, but on the opinions of so-called medical experts more than fifty years after their introduction! Is this because the evidence base does not support using them as a first line treatment for people given a diagnosis of schizophrenia? Why are we Court Ordering people to take drugs with disabling and fatal risks, how is this justifiable when neuroleptics are helpful for about a quarter of the people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia?
In addition to this a egregious betrayal of psychiatric patients' and of the general public's trust, a betrayal that is ongoing; psychiatry has implemented standards of practice that make Medicaid and Medicare Fraud common in Standard Clinical Practice. I personally don't believe this massive fraud and deceit will stop until the professionals who prescribe the drugs "off-label" and the pharmacists who fill prescriptions that are fraudulently submitted for reimbursement are held legally accountable for submitting fraudulent claims for payment...
Pharmaceutical companies are liable for the illegal marketing practices of their employees---both civil and criminal liability needs to be addressed---fines for the corporate entities has done nothing to stop the rampant fraud, corruption and "off-label" prescribing of harmful drugs to children and other vulnerable people. Individuals who are committing these crimes need to be prosecuted for the fraudulent claims that decimate publicly funded medical care programs.
A prescriber who fails to share what is known about the risks for iatrogenic illnesses, disability and sudden and/or early death; fail to inform people that psychotropic drugs can cause physical and/or psychological DEPENDENCE---not unlike illicit drugs or alcohol dependence; is guilty of medical negligence.
It took me years to forgive myself for not questioning or independently researching sooner the effects of the drugs given to my traumatized child. I started independently researching in 2001; by then, my son had been given several psychiatric drugs "off-label;" all of which were fraudulently billed to Medicaid over the previous 6 year period--and none of which, "effectively treated" the behaviors they were prescribed to treat. Quack Master Jack, Jon McClellan, the Medical Director at the State of Washington's psychiatric research facility for children, Child Study and Treatment Center, was less than forthcoming with information when I spoke with him; in fact McClellan avoided answering my questions about Isaac's diagnosis and treatment; and didn't even bother to pretend to be respectful or honest. McClellan was unable to be forthright and honest, when I would ask for information he was evasive. McClellan's evasiveness compelled me to start researching psychiatric diagnoses and the drugs used to treat them independently.
The data I found, horrified me. McClellan, one of the investigators funded in the TEOSS drug trials, which were being conducted while my son was his patient; minimized and even ridiculed my very real concerns about the obvious harm being done to my son physically and emotionally---For over four years while my son was in Child Study and Treatment Center, staff falsely claimed to be informing and educating me about his diagnosis and the drugs that were prescribed to my son.
Please note on the TEOSS Drug Trials---there is something seriously fishy about this expensive trial. There are conflicting reports about how many children were enrolled--some reports say 116, and others say 119. Two children died, and according to all of the reports, only 12% were helped by the neuroleptic drugs---This really begs the question, WHY ARE THESE DRUGS, WHICH ARE ONLY EFFECTIVE FOR A MINORITY OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH THE CONDITIONS THEY WERE DEVELOPED TO TREAT, BEING USED "OFF-LABEL" AT ALL, GIVEN THE SERIOUS RISKS??? EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY ARE THEY IN WIDESPREAD USE???
The data I found, horrified me. McClellan, one of the investigators funded in the TEOSS drug trials, which were being conducted while my son was his patient; minimized and even ridiculed my very real concerns about the obvious harm being done to my son physically and emotionally---For over four years while my son was in Child Study and Treatment Center, staff falsely claimed to be informing and educating me about his diagnosis and the drugs that were prescribed to my son.
Please note on the TEOSS Drug Trials---there is something seriously fishy about this expensive trial. There are conflicting reports about how many children were enrolled--some reports say 116, and others say 119. Two children died, and according to all of the reports, only 12% were helped by the neuroleptic drugs---This really begs the question, WHY ARE THESE DRUGS, WHICH ARE ONLY EFFECTIVE FOR A MINORITY OF PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH THE CONDITIONS THEY WERE DEVELOPED TO TREAT, BEING USED "OFF-LABEL" AT ALL, GIVEN THE SERIOUS RISKS??? EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY ARE THEY IN WIDESPREAD USE???
Jon McClellan claimed I had no say in what he was doing as my son's doctor---although my son was not in any condition to give Informed Consent, and his "assent" was coerced. My son was told he would not, "get better" and "would not get to go home," if he did not take the drugs given to him. So he took the drugs, only he never "got better," he was in fact disabled physically and cognitively impaired by the drugs. My son says, "They stole my intelligence, mom;" and asked in agony, "How could they take so much from me, mom?" No answer provides any comfort...
Doctors who lie to and mislead patients and parents whose patients develop iatrogenic illnesses and become disabled by the known, documented effects of psychiatric "treatment;" should lose their medical license and be criminally prosecuted. ( it's not the patient's or the parent's fault that psychiatrists have been lying to and misinforming one another and other medical professionals about the actual direct effects of neuroleptic drugs! )
When serious and well-documented risks are denied, or are not shared in an open and forthright manner, it is unethical; such dishonesty is not the behavior of someone who values patient trust, or the Hippocratic Oath or is ethically seeking an Informed Consent for treatment. When these risks are not even shared with the patient or a parent and the patient subsequently develops iatrogenic illness and/or disability, the "doctor" or other prescriber, often attributes these adverse effects (the drug's effects) to the patient's "diagnosis;" and do not report the adverse effects to the FDA database adverse events--even fatalities caused by the drugs are not required! This begs the question, WHY are we purposely not collecting the very information needed to ethically and accurately assess risk vs benefit for FDA approved drugs?
Psychiatrists who lie to their patients, family members, and the general public, should not be trusted with special authority OR be granted special Police Powers to detain patients! They certainly should not have the broad authority granted by the legislation passed with their "advocacy," strengthening Civil Commitment Laws. It is ludicrous: A profession that has historically practiced "medicine" without honoring the Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent of the American Medical Association; does not seem to value ethical research standards; and regularly deprives patients of their Human Rights in violation of the Nuremberg Code is granted broad authority including Police Powers to detain patients unwilling to be subjected to psychiatric "treatment." This broad authority allows psychiatrists to have people adjudicated in order to legally affix a diagnostic label and "treat" people who do not want to be treated.
People who are vulnerable due to experiencing a crisis who may have difficulty communicating or be difficult to understand; people who may have difficulty distinguishing what is real and imaginary; and people who need help staying safe when in an emotional crisis need compassion and assistance from people who are HONEST with them and in telling others about their difficulties! It is patently absurd that a "medical specialty" reliant upon manipulation and methods of social control to coerce a patient and their family member's cooperation to maintain treatment compliance; continues to wield authority and power that it has abused. It is simply foolish to blindly trust any profession; it is criminal to grant legal authority to professionals who use deceit and coercion as tools to control vulnerable people in distress.
People who are vulnerable due to experiencing a crisis who may have difficulty communicating or be difficult to understand; people who may have difficulty distinguishing what is real and imaginary; and people who need help staying safe when in an emotional crisis need compassion and assistance from people who are HONEST with them and in telling others about their difficulties! It is patently absurd that a "medical specialty" reliant upon manipulation and methods of social control to coerce a patient and their family member's cooperation to maintain treatment compliance; continues to wield authority and power that it has abused. It is simply foolish to blindly trust any profession; it is criminal to grant legal authority to professionals who use deceit and coercion as tools to control vulnerable people in distress.
Thus far, bio-psychiatry has done nothing to earn the trust it has been granted "legally." Psychiatrists and other medical professionals who fail to warn patients or guardians about the well known direct adverse effects of neuroleptic drugs, in cases where the patient experiences permanent disability are guilty of felony assault. When the patient dies as a result of this "treatment," it is the crime of Criminally Negligent Manslaughter; Homicide. Why is it that when the perpetrators are psychiatrists, no criminal charges are brought against them; they are allowed to continue practicing medicine and even be Federally Funded to conduct RESEARCH on vulnerable people.
How in the hell did psychiatry determine that criminal conduct, is acceptable, that coercion and prevarication can be used in Standard Clinical Practice to gain "treatment compliance?" Using dishonesty and coercion in the practice of "medicine" does not change the nature of the acts themselves--lying is still being dishonest and coercion is still a social control strategy; a manipulation of vulnerable people; calling these tactics "treatment strategies" does not in fact change the nature of the acts themselves; much less make them ethical medical practices! Stating that psychiatric drugs are "safe and effective" in spite of evidence to the contrary, does not make the drugs safe or effective either.
I may have been naive, and regrettably, I was way too trusting in mental health professionals in my pursuit to get appropriate treatment that would effectively help my son. Over the past 20 years, I have witnessed more crimes committed by mental health and social service professionals than I ever witnessed during my misspent youth on the streets of Seattle. Due to my experiences, I can assure you, I am no longer naive or trusting . I wonder if I am overly cynical, skeptical, or just too freaking angry from being lied to and disrespected by professionals with a lack of professional ethics or a moral compass? What is the appropriate response for a MadMother who bore witness to the Human Rights crimes that disabled my once brilliant son under the guise of "medical treatment?"
via Pharmagossip
Antipsychotics and brain shrinkage - Certified Fraud Examiner Andy Prough comments
A recent piece in PharmaGossip looking at Robert Whitaker's blog: here prompted a comment from Andy Prough.
Here it is in full:
I'm a big fan, having read everything you publish (sometimes several times, in order to understand the nature of the damage).
You've brought up some great questions here, related to Andreason's study. And clearly, you predicted this revelation yourself quite a few years ago when you first published Mad in America.
I think the bigger question is whether the manufacturers will be held liable? They've had the same information for at least as long as you have. What happens when the corporate whistleblowers start coming forward, showing evidence of Big Pharma board meetings at which brain shrinkage among juveniles was discussed and discarded? How big will the bill be under the False Claims Act? Fines of $11,000 per incident and triple damages can add up quick.
parts of this article were first published on June 1, 2011 with the title "Let's be real, there already exists ample data"
No comments:
Post a Comment