Update! August 20, 2011 around 10:30 pm
via the Syndey Morning Herald: McGorry aborts teen drug trial Jill Stark
read: Sydney Morning Herald
Patrick McGorry is claiming the decision to not not conduct the unethical neuroleptic trials on
youth was made in June; and has nothing to do with a formal complaint being lodged by an
international group protesting the trial. The original post below has an interview with
McGorry that was broadcast two days before he announced he was aborting the teen drug trial.
Original post: via:the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
Patrick McGorry televised interview requires windows media player
"The great news is that Professor McGorry has recently renounced the relevance of psychosis risk syndrome in the current practice of clinical psychiatry. He has done so in two separate and dramatic ways: 1) by withdrawing his support for the inclusion of psychosis risk in DSM 5; and 2) by promising not to include it as a target in Australia’s massive new experiment in early intervention. Psychosis risk syndrome is an extremely promising topic for ongoing research, but it is not nearly ready for current clinical application and if introduced prematurely could cause disastrous unintended consequences."
It appears that Dr. Francis's hope may be premature. In an interview broadcast on August 18, on the Australian Broadcasting Network, McGorry is quoted as saying, "Well, my colleague Alison Yung and I in the early days of our early psychosis work in the '90s, patients were presenting to the first episode psychosis programs with lot of distress, a lot of functional impairment, but with warning signs of psychosis.
"So, these patients were in need of some kind of assistance. So what we set about doing was first of all following up these patients in a supportive way and we learned that they had a very high risk of transitional to psychosis, something like 30 to 40 per cent within 12 months, which is very, very high, about 400 times higher than the general population.
"And so obviously there was a need to try to reduce that risk, so a number of research studies, which I think Jon Jureidini referred to, were conducted both here and overseas. There are about six randomised control trials, if he wants to talk evidence, showing that a range of treatments will reduce that risk to about 10 per cent.
"Now, the sort of things that work in reducing risk are cognitive behaviour therapy, a psychological treatment, omega three fatty acids, a fish oil, both of which studies we have done, and low-dose anti-psychotic medication. Now that's the controversial bit." (emphasis mine)
Referring to youth who are perceived to be or indentified as being AT RISK of developing psychosis; McGorry says, "So, I think we're on very firm ground knowing how to help these young people and they certainly need help. And they shouldn't be turned away" Sounds like he has no intention of giving up on this dangerous agenda of his. Proceeding with this dangerous agenda, to "treat" youth with NO identified illness, but who are perceived to be "at risk" is shortsighted and will cause harm. read the entire interview here.
another excerpt from Psychiatic Times:
"Now, the sort of things that work in reducing risk are cognitive behaviour therapy, a psychological treatment, omega three fatty acids, a fish oil, both of which studies we have done, and low-dose anti-psychotic medication. Now that's the controversial bit." (emphasis mine)
Referring to youth who are perceived to be or indentified as being AT RISK of developing psychosis; McGorry says, "So, I think we're on very firm ground knowing how to help these young people and they certainly need help. And they shouldn't be turned away" Sounds like he has no intention of giving up on this dangerous agenda of his. Proceeding with this dangerous agenda, to "treat" youth with NO identified illness, but who are perceived to be "at risk" is shortsighted and will cause harm. read the entire interview here.
another excerpt from Psychiatic Times:
"The most telling example of the McGorry blind spot was his ready dismissal of a recent Cochrane Review that has discredited his extravagant claims for early intervention. This independent, systematic, comprehensive, and rigorous review of the scientific literature concluded there was insufficient scientific evidence to support McGorry’s grand assertions that early intervention programs promote enduring change that can reduce the lifelong burden and cost of illness. Early intervention does seem to be helpful, but only while it is being provided and does not seem to have any lasting impact on the course or cost of illness once it is stopped.
So, the Cochrane group lines up on one side and McGorry lines up on the other. Who to believe? The Cochrane group is widely credited for its impartiality and esteemed for its expertise in all aspects of scientific review. Its reports are considered a gold standard, exerting great influence on state of the art, evidence based medical practice throughout the world, particularly in Great Britain. One might expect that Cochrane’s stainless reputation would daunt a person even of Professor McGorry’s extraordinary power and blind conviction. But no. When the Cochrane report disappoints his expectations and fails to nourish his prejudices, McGorry feels no hesitation in attacking it, criticizing its methodology, and dismissing its discouraging conclusions. His rebuttal of the Cochrane group consists only of his personal endorsement accompanied by the blithe (but empty) claim that there is strong supporting evidence. As far as McGorry is concerned, Cochrane be damned. Such idiosyncratic evaluation of scientific evidence cannot be trusted as a sensible foundation for mental health policy." read here.
No comments:
Post a Comment