not looking good, in fact there's something terribly wrong here

photo courtesy National Park Service

via 1 Boring Old Man :
Saturday 22 September 2012
pilot error...
and few excerpts:
"Biological Basis of Mental Illness: While the focus of psychiatry has been biological, thedescriptive atheoretical DSM was well suited to other specialties involved in the treatment mental illness – psychology, social work, counselors, etc. The DSM-5, however, committed to the neuroscientific bent of most psychiatrists in high places – hardly atheoretical. So even with the failure to find biosignatures or define premonitory syndromes of adult illness, the DSM-5 is unmistakably biological, even proposing to change the definition of mental illness to "a behavioral or psychological syndrome that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction" – a definition that is unproven, self-serving, and surely incorrect. One can only wonder, "What were they thinking?" And even if they back off from that definition, the damage is done. As they say in games, "A card laid is a card played." We know what they’re thinking.


"The Revision: The DSM-IV had some areas that badly needed practical revision – Autism, ADHD, Major Depressive Disorder – the latter being the most blatantly in need. In the DSM-5 Revision, it was essentially untouched except to make it even less useful by adding grief to the already hopelessly over-inclusive category [removing the last vestige of common sense from the class]. And they were so busy doing other things, trying to do something new, that they ignored the basic task of revision.

"The Field Tests: As if driven to self destruction, they cancelled one of two scheduled sets of Field Tests and put all their eggs in one basket – then they dropped it. The Field Tests were a disaster, taking away the one concrete measure of their work – reliability, the bedrock justification for the existence of the DSM in the first place. And to compound the damage, they’ve kept the results largely to themselves. They’ve added un-reliable to non-atheoretical."  here

psychotropc talking points...

september 17, 2012

an excerpt:

At this point, I’d enjoy a rant eg "Who are these people? The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacologists?" but I’ll try to remain civil. And I’m not going to go on and on with this vetting of their web site. I think I’ve read enough. The AACAP is heavily infected with the pharmaceutical bug as far as I can see, and I find that disappointing [to say the least]. I’ve lived under the delusion that the reason they won’t retract Dr. Keller’s 2001 article about Study 329 is peculiar, maybe not wanting to hurt the feelings of the authors, or the editor. I retract that naive theory. They’re in the game. I didn’t know that, and it makes me feel kind of sad. It’s an organization I’ve looked up to in the past. I guess things change, sometimes for the worse… (emphasis mine) here 

something terribly wrong here...

Thursday 13 September 2012

a few excerpts:

"I actually doubt that because of the date, and because the quoted pieces above read like a travelogue of Gibbons publications [including the Netherlands reference]. But I frankly find it embarrassing that the APA and the AACAP are putting out pamphlets supporting off-label prescription and undermining the FDA Black Box warning. It seems like such a blatant drug industry message. And as for the AACAP, no wonder they are so resistant to retracting Study 329. They’re apparently part of the medication scene if these brochures and papers are any indication. And the guide for Bipolar Disorder in children and adolescents has been scrubbed of any mention of Dr. Biederman or his group except in the references, but the content is little changed from his heyday. But the most bothersome thing is that this brochure endorsing off label prescribing and demeaning the black box warning is recommended by this document:"

"This is a guide to protect vulnerable Medicare and Medicaid populations, yet it goes on to recommend the AACAP guide above.

"There’s something terribly wrong here…" here

1 Boring Old Man is right there's something terribly wrong here.

I hope you take the time to read what he has to say 

Antidepressants prescribed without a psychiatric diagnosis in spite of Black Box warnings

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ?

Why would psychotropic drugs, specifically, antidepressants be prescribed without a psychiatric diagnosis? The drugs have an FDA Black Box warning for suicide; the strongest warning issued by the FDA. A warning  is obviously useless if it is not shared with patients or parents of children who are prescribed antidepressants. The warning is minimized, if shared at all with patients prescribed the drugs. 


via Psychiatric News, an online publication of the American Psychiatric Association:


an excerpt from "Analysis Continues of Fallout from FDA's SSRI Warning"                                                                                             
“We observed a decline among children in the number of depression visits with an antidepressant prescribed after the FDA advisory, a trend that seemed to parallel an overall decrease in depression visits,” authors Shih-Yin Chen, Ph.D., and Sengwee Toh, Sc.D., wrote. “When we further assessed the trend in terms of proportion, the likelihood of prescribing an antidepressant among visits with a diagnosis of depression among children remained relatively stable at approximately 65 percent just before and after the advisory.... These findings suggest that the FDA advisory might have led to fewer numbers of depression visits overall and of depression visits with an antidepressant prescribed. But even with this decline, if children were actually diagnosed as having depression, they might not have been any less likely to have been prescribed an antidepressant after the advisory than they had been before.


Child psychiatrist and APA Treasurer David Fassler, M.D., said the study results are broadly consistent with several previous reports on the effects of the 2003 advisory. “The FDA hearings on SSRI antidepressants and the subsequent 'black box' warnings clearly had a significant impact on the recognition and treatment of depression in children and adolescents,” he told Psychiatric News. “Following the FDA's actions, young people were less likely to be diagnosed with depression, and many physicians became reluctant to prescribe SSRIs for pediatric patients.” read here     

The September 2011 issue of Health Affairs  had an article, "Proportion of antidepressants prescribed without a psychiatric diagnosis is growing" 

"Over the past two decades, the use antidepressants between 1996 and 2007, the proportion of visits ant medications has grown to the point that they are now the third most commonly prescribed class of medications in the United States.  Much of this growth has been driven by a substantial increase in antidepressant prescriptions by nonpsychiatrist providers without an accompanying psychiatric diagnosis.  Our analysis found that between 1996 and 2007, the proportion of visits at which antidepressants were prescribed but no psychiatric diagnosis were noted increased from 59.5 % to 72.7 percent." read here


One of the things that really bothers me about mental health research is the overwhelming bias towards drugs being used to treat depression and every other psychiatric diagnosis.  Psychiatric drugs used  have some pretty serious risks, including dependence.  This is troubling to me in that any ethical clinician is duty bound to share such risks with patients---but many do not. 

I am not a doctor, but this does not sound science-based, so it cannot be Evidence-Based Medicine.
   

 hat tip: Gary Schweitzer 

Without Informed Consent: When the State Decides Children Should Be Drugged

CPS: Abuse of Power and Authority 

Violation of Parental Rights

Originally posted December 17, 2010, the video features Liza Ortez, a mother from the State of Texas whose 13 year old son died from the effects of neuroleptic drugs. 


"Liza Ortez was having trouble with her and son and turned to Mental Health and Mental Retardation, MHMR for help. Her son was put a number of psychiatric drugs including antidepressants and antipsychotics by a psychiatrist. CPS or Child Protective Services soon became involved and demanded that Liza adhere to the mental health treatment or CPS threatened to take her child away. After being in the system her son become(sic) worse and eventually died from an overdose of antipsychotic drugs." via psychetruth on youtube


The reality is this is happening around the Country---When did CPS, a Federally-funded program, assume the authority to deny parents their Constitutional Rights Without Procedural Due Process of Law?  When was it determined that if a psychiatrist or other "mental health professional" prescribes drugs and a parent does not give an Informed Consent for their child to take them, that CPS will take over?!  CPS will threaten to remove or actually call for police to remove a child from a parent's custody and care (Maryanne Godboldo)---not due to abuse or neglect, but because a parent exercised their judgement, and their Constitutional Rights?!  The woman in the videos below buried her thirteen year old son because he was given unsafe and ineffective psychiatric drugs---at the insistence of CPS; whose involvement in this case, (and in every case where a parent does not give CONSENT to dangerous psychiatric drugs being used to "treat" their child) is a blatant abuse of power and authority.  It is also A Violation  UNDER COLOR OF LAW of Lisa Ortez's Parental Rights protected (in theory) by the United States Constitution.  

 Individual Rights are only a theory when they are not preserved or defended! 

4. Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584, 602-606 (1979)
"This case involves parent’s rights to make medical decisions regarding their children’s mental health. The lower Court had ruled that Georgia’s statutory scheme of allowing children to be subject to treatment in the state’s mental health facilities violated the Constitution because it did not adequately protect children’s due process rights. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upholding the legal presumption that parents act in their children’s best interest. The Court ruled:  Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is “the mere creature of the State” and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally “have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations." (emphasis mine)

video produced by psychetruth

http://www.youtube.com/psychetruth  

3-year-old placed on dangerous psychotropic drugs: “Child Protective Services operates in a manner that is detrimental”