 |
"You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it.You must learn to see the world anew."Albert Einstein |
via The British Journal of Psychiatry:
Extrapyramidal motor side-effects of first- and second-generation antipsychotic drugs
an excerpt:
Conclusions
The expected improvement in EPS profiles for participants randomised to second-generation drugs was not found; the prognosis over 1 year of those in the first-generation arm was no worse in these terms. The place of careful prescription of first-generation drugs in contemporary practice remains to be defined, potentially improving clinical effectiveness and avoiding life-shortening metabolic disturbances in some patients currently treated with the narrow range of second-generation antipsychotics used in routine practice. This has educational implications because a generation of psychiatrists now has little or no experience with first-generation antipsychotic prescription." here
TRANSLATION: The Standard practice of prescribing the so-called 'second generation antipsychotics,' or SGAs, instead of the older 'first generation' antipsychotics, became Standard Practice without any valid scientific evidence the drugs were safer or more effective---it was simply a claim made that the newer, much more expensive neuroleptic drugs were safer and more effective. There is now, and there never was, any scientific basis for the claim... There is ample evidence, however, that the claim of the superiority of the so-called second generation antipsychotics was repeated by academic researchers in order to market the drugs as first line treatments in the publicly funded mental health system. Federally funded academic psychiatric researchers and Key Opinion Leaders claimed the drugs were worth the expense since the drugs were a vast improvement over older, much less expensive neuroleptic drugs.
Neuroleptic, or 'antipsychotic' drugs and other psychiatric drugs are in widespread use, and are usually prescribed in an attempt to extinguish undesirable behaviors and other psychiatric symptoms; often without any relevant data necessary to support using the drugs for the conditions they are prescribed to treat. Indeed, the drugs are often used in dosages and combinations that are not recommended or are contraindicated; as well as for conditions that the drugs are not known to treat.
Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor of New England Journal of Medicine, believes that the 'off-label' prescribing of psychiatric drugs should be banned---I believe banning off-label use at this point it is the only ethical thing to do. Doing so would minimize the risk of further harm, and put a stop to the massive amount of Medicaid and Medicare fraud being committed. It is obvious that the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry are fully invested in a not yet validated hypothesis, invested in using the drugs first and foremost, with Psychosocial Treatments as an adjunct to drugs; if at all.
Apparently, the facts about the drugs and the Real World Outcomes of the patients who are being harmed, are not as important as attempting to shore up the 'professional integrity of psychiatry.' The hierarchy in the AACAP and APA seem to be pretending the compromised ethical principles of members who work in academic stettings, and on government funded research projects, can be overlooked. It is plain the APA and AACAP don't place much value on ethical medical practice, or ethical research adhering to ethical scientific principles. The obvious proof for this is the failure to censure and discredit Nemeroff, Schultz, and Biederman, among others... It boggles the mind: a group of professionals protect unethical psychiatric researchers with their silence, which makes them complicit; do they believe silent complicity protects the "integrity" of the psychiatric profession?
The practice of psychopharmacology developed by academic psychiatrists, has been protected under the umbrella of "Standard Medical Practice"---which is based on the Standard of Care principle. Basically, if it is accepted and widely recognized and used in Standard Clinical Practice, it is a part of the Standard of Care----However, psychiatry is the only field of medicine whose Standards of Care are derived from subjective opinions with a sprinkling of science; if any at all. Every other medical specialty uses subjective opinions to support scientific data, research psychiatrists use subjective opinions in lieu of data and 'professional status' to deceive others about the data itself.
If the FDA drug approval process was conducted ethically, and it's focus was the safety interests of the American people, some of the psychiatric drugs would have never been approved; and many would have been banned, or severely restricted in their use.
What is certain is that the pharmaceutical companies could not have committed any of their crimes which have defrauded the American people and preyed upon the most vulnerable among us without the cooperation of the FDA and the KOLs who are complicit in this fraud. The KOLs taught other medical professionals through "peer-reviewed" professional journals, CME, and professional symposiums. Ultimately, these 'doctors' are complicit in the ongoing financial fraud and the off-label prescribing of the drugs. They wrote the treament algorithms and practice parameters which other medical professionals relied on to prescribe drugs which cause a variety of iatrogenic injuries and illnesses; the recommendations were not derived from evidence, but are based on OPINIONS; in support of the pharmaceutical industry's marketing agendas. The same individual psychiatrists have continued to subvert the truth about the adverse effects of the drugs and the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnoses; while denying any responsibility for the harm being done to countless individual patients and to all of society. Psychiatrists seem to believe that the public's trust and the psychiatric profession's integrity remain undamaged by professional misconduct. It is ego-driven hubris fueled by Conflicts of Interest that enabled professionals to implement treatment standards, algorithms and practice parameters that are not supported by the clinical trial evidence base and are not grounded in sound ethical medical principles; but are based on a consensus of subjective opinions.
via PloS Medicine:
Apparently, the facts about the drugs and the Real World Outcomes of the patients who are being harmed, are not as important as attempting to shore up the 'professional integrity of psychiatry.' The hierarchy in the AACAP and APA seem to be pretending the compromised ethical principles of members who work in academic stettings, and on government funded research projects, can be overlooked. It is plain the APA and AACAP don't place much value on ethical medical practice, or ethical research adhering to ethical scientific principles. The obvious proof for this is the failure to censure and discredit Nemeroff, Schultz, and Biederman, among others... It boggles the mind: a group of professionals protect unethical psychiatric researchers with their silence, which makes them complicit; do they believe silent complicity protects the "integrity" of the psychiatric profession?
The practice of psychopharmacology developed by academic psychiatrists, has been protected under the umbrella of "Standard Medical Practice"---which is based on the Standard of Care principle. Basically, if it is accepted and widely recognized and used in Standard Clinical Practice, it is a part of the Standard of Care----However, psychiatry is the only field of medicine whose Standards of Care are derived from subjective opinions with a sprinkling of science; if any at all. Every other medical specialty uses subjective opinions to support scientific data, research psychiatrists use subjective opinions in lieu of data and 'professional status' to deceive others about the data itself.
If the FDA drug approval process was conducted ethically, and it's focus was the safety interests of the American people, some of the psychiatric drugs would have never been approved; and many would have been banned, or severely restricted in their use.
What is certain is that the pharmaceutical companies could not have committed any of their crimes which have defrauded the American people and preyed upon the most vulnerable among us without the cooperation of the FDA and the KOLs who are complicit in this fraud. The KOLs taught other medical professionals through "peer-reviewed" professional journals, CME, and professional symposiums. Ultimately, these 'doctors' are complicit in the ongoing financial fraud and the off-label prescribing of the drugs. They wrote the treament algorithms and practice parameters which other medical professionals relied on to prescribe drugs which cause a variety of iatrogenic injuries and illnesses; the recommendations were not derived from evidence, but are based on OPINIONS; in support of the pharmaceutical industry's marketing agendas. The same individual psychiatrists have continued to subvert the truth about the adverse effects of the drugs and the subjective nature of psychiatric diagnoses; while denying any responsibility for the harm being done to countless individual patients and to all of society. Psychiatrists seem to believe that the public's trust and the psychiatric profession's integrity remain undamaged by professional misconduct. It is ego-driven hubris fueled by Conflicts of Interest that enabled professionals to implement treatment standards, algorithms and practice parameters that are not supported by the clinical trial evidence base and are not grounded in sound ethical medical principles; but are based on a consensus of subjective opinions.
via The Last Psychiatrist:
a couple excerpts:
Dr. Kendall's editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry is titled, "The Rise And Fall Of Atypical Antipsychotics."
The story of the atypicals and the SGAs ['second-generation antipsychotics'] is not the story of clinical discovery and progress; it is the story of fabricated classes, money and marketing.
"His point is that the atypicals aren't really better than the typicals (duh.) Of course he's right, but in being factually accurate he is being deliberately deceitful. Observe:
"Yes, those are antidepressants. Note the progress from tricyclics. The misleading thing about this timeline is that "tricyclic" is a classification based on chemical structure, while "SNRI" is a classification based on pharmacology. Uh oh, trouble's coming. If you type "tricyclic" into Google Translate and select Pharmacology it comes back with "SNRI." In other words, they're the same. No progress has been made there, either. So what Dr. Kendall is not telling you is that psychiatry has always done this. He wants to make it sound like atypicals are some big lie, but all of the terms psychiatrists hold as "objective" are less meaningful than any term Freud used. Psychiatry has always been a branding game."
"I'm not saying this because I'm a psychiatrist. I'm saying it because it is impossible. Impossible because-- and I'm putting this in italics to make it harder for you to unsee it-- the point of the government's policy on psychiatry is to treat all patients as having exclusively organic diseases and not socially generated problems; and medications, regardless of cost, are absolutely necessary to maintain this narrative." read here"Yes, those are antidepressants. Note the progress from tricyclics. The misleading thing about this timeline is that "tricyclic" is a classification based on chemical structure, while "SNRI" is a classification based on pharmacology. Uh oh, trouble's coming. If you type "tricyclic" into Google Translate and select Pharmacology it comes back with "SNRI." In other words, they're the same. No progress has been made there, either. So what Dr. Kendall is not telling you is that psychiatry has always done this. He wants to make it sound like atypicals are some big lie, but all of the terms psychiatrists hold as "objective" are less meaningful than any term Freud used. Psychiatry has always been a branding game."via PloS Medicine:
Publication Bias in Antipsychotic Trials: An Analysis of Efficacy Comparing the Published Literature to the US Food and Drug Administration Database here
It's called "Publication Bias," such an innocuous term...
for something rather sinister.
for something rather sinister.
No comments:
Post a Comment