Study 329 in the news

photo via Funny or Die

via Robinson Research Institute:

Study 329 Restored

via: Study329.org SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY THROUGH DATA BASED MEDICINE:

BMJ Publishes Study Revealing How Flawed Drug Research Fails a Trusting Public

Band of Intrepid Researchers "Sets the Record Straight" on Ghostwritten Study

an excerpt:

"Toronto (September 16, 2015) — Today the BMJ published Restoring Study 329, a decade-long effort by researchers to uncover the truth about the safety of an antidepressant approved for use by adolescents. Restoring Study 329 is a reanalysis and rebuttal of the original Study 329 ..." more here

via Mad in America: 

Psychiatry’s Thalidomide Moment

By REDMOND O'HANLON

an excerpt: 

Study Details and Findings

"The authors of Study 329 began recruiting adolescents for a comparative study of Paxil, imipramine and placebo in 1994 and finished their investigations in 1997. They dropped a large number of their original cohort, so the randomness element in the study must be open to question. Late in 1998, SmithKline Beecham, (henceforth GSK) the marketers of Paxil, acknowledged in an internal document that the study had shown that Paxil didn’t work for adolescents in terms of the two primary and six secondary outcomes they had established at the start of the study. In a nutshell, Study 329 was negative for efficacy and positive for harm, contrary to their succinct upbeat conclusion. Adjudging, of course, that this lack of benefit and presence of risks could not be communicated to an innocent public, the team’s task was now to see how bad news could be transformed into good. They decided then that they would cherry-pick the few positives they might glean from their mass of data and publish these. This, however, required them to abandon nearly all of their original outcome measures and dredge up a few new ones, abandoning the symptoms in the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D),which they originally invoked and which is the normal scale used in such studies.

"The article had first been rejected by JAMA..." read here

 

Dr. RICO Child Psychiatrist

updated April 25, 2014 first published May 20, 2012

Dr. RICO

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

I am disappointed by the lack of integrity that permeates the psychiatric profession. I see no evidence of any effort to be responsible or accountable for the harm done to patients. Bio-medical psychiatry has a foundation reliant on dishonesty. Psychiatrists who falsely reported of research results, fraudulently obtained FDA approval for drugs, and participated in illegally marketing of psychiatric drugs, help formulate public policy. It is plain that these psychiatrists are continuing to participate in what is a widespread ongoing criminal enterprise that continues to pick America's pocket and continues to harm thousands of patients. These doctors see nothing wrong with failing to warn other professionals away from corrupt 'evidence.' Psychiatrists don't petition medical boards to take away the medical licenses of the criminals among the APA and AACAP membership who have lied about 'the medicine;' not even those who have disabled and killed patients in drug trials and clinical practice. Doctors who buried the evidence of their wrongdoing, along with the bodies of their patients are considered 'Key Opinion Leaders.' Some are teaching in Institutions of Higher Learning using texts filled with their corrupt work. Discredited and fraudulent research remains in psychiatry's so-called 'Evidence-Base.' Coercive and manipulative social control strategies are standard clinical practices; this is social/political control by use of torture under color of law; if psychiatry is in fact an ethical medical specialty, I'm Mary Poppins...

At a Senate hearing that took place on December 1, 2011 Senator Tom Carper said the hearing was the culmination of the third investigation into the prolific use of psychiatric drugs particularly those prescribed off label then fraudulently billed to the Federal Medicaid program. What I want to know is WHY has there been no effort to prosecute obvious criminal activity, or better yet, STOP unethical pseudo-medical, i.e. fraudulent, standard practices? Psychiatrists adopting the bio-medical model by a political process have effectively functioned as social architects who willingly partnered with pharma and sold out their patients for financial and academic reward. Don't fool yourselves, psychiatrists are acting as eugenicists; psychiatrists have abused medical privilege, forgot ethical medical principles, lied about what is and is not known about psychiatric diagnoses---it is not the first time psychiatrists have done this. Psychiatrists have blatantly lied about the efficacy and the safety of prescribed drugs and their direct teratogenic mechanisms of action...Apparently lacking insight into the horrific human toll of their professional conduct, blinded to the iatrogenic harm inflicted on their patients, seemingly, absent any ability to truly empathize with or understand the meaning and the nature of their own tortured patients; psychiatrists determined by consensus that what they BELIEVE to be true about their patient is a fact, regardless of what their patient states. No need to ask the patient if they feel "effectively treated;" unless of course the patient is treatment compliant, i.e. successfully treated...

Somehow shared opinion is magically transformed it into scientific evidence by psychiatry. This 'evidence' is used by psychiatrists to 'practice medicine,' abusing their medical privilege to have noncompliant patients adjudicated as mentally ill in Courts of Law; while using subterfuge and coercion as 'medical instruments.' Psychiatrists are doctors treating 'brain diseases' but are not honest with their patients or the general public. Psychiatrists do not conform to ethical medical standards and violate the Human Rights of their patients as a matter of course. As a result, Human Experimentation has become the Gold Standard in clinical psychiatric care standards. The vast majority of psychiatric drugs are prescribed to people on Medicaid. When prescriptions are not FDA-approved, they are "off-label prescriptions;" e.g. prescribed experimentally. If the prescription is not supported by DRUGDEX, or another compendium of approved drugs recognized by Medicaid, both the prescriber and the pharmacist who cause a claim to be submitted for payment to Medicaid, are filing a fraudulent claim, it's a crime. This criminal activity continues unabated, and continues to cost billions; the human toll is inestimable.

The APA and AACAP professional associations are not regulatory bodies, both appear to be unable to accurately assess any ethical deficits in the "science" or the "medical practice" of psychiatry.  Albert Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.” Psychiatry's ethical failure is the antithesis to medicine in the Hippocratic tradition, made more pronounced by it's consistent failure to recognize or respect the human rights of psychiatric patients. It is indeed criminal medical negligence for an individual, let alone almost an entire profession to abdicate any and all responsibility for the iatrogenic harm done to psychiatric patients; patients who are disabled and killed, without regard for the fact disability and death are consistent, if not desired outcomes. Willful blindness to obvious iatrogenic harm done by psychiatric drugs, including homicide is evidence of psychiatry's non-medical nature. Thomas Insel crowing about the need for using psychiatry's "evidence base" and recommending psychiatry implement even more reckless prescribing "standards" through "Translational Science;" is indicitive that Insel doesn't seem to realize there has to be actual 'ethical, medical science' to translate.

In reality, any actual medical science is too often obscured with the APA's pseudo-democratic manner of gathering "evidence" to validate the APA consensus driven diagnostic and treatment standards. Consensus is no substitute for ethical medical research. The willful blindness to a wide variety of cognitive, neurological, and metabolic iatrogenic damage inflicted on psychiatric patients is compounded by the medical neglect of psychiatric patient's iatrogenic injuries. Society is paying for the mentally ill to be legally compelled to be "medically treated" with neuroleptic and other psychoactive drugs; sometimes in combinations known to be fatal. Psychiatrists recklessly abuse prescription privileges off label prescribing is NOT license to prescribe for no good reason, without any evidence.... Psychiatry's psychopharmacological pseudo-medical treatments with or without electro-shock are potentially fatal. The fact some people subjected to psychiatric treatment describe it as torture, should not be ignored. Far too many people "medically treated" in reality, have been tortured. One never hears of the APA or the AACAP validating survivors and victims of iatrogenic drug induced disabilities much less honoring the memory of victims of iatrogenic fatality.
 
Psychiatrists who willingly participated in research that effectively served as a marketing tool for pharma and published 'peer-reviewed' articles in support of marketing agendas are considered 'KOLs;' BMOC basically. The APA and the ACAAP membership fail to value ethical medical standards. As a whole, the profession has functioned without ethical integrity. Lead researchers have actively and passively participated in an ongoing criminal enterprise that is subverting science and defrauding the American people while using medical fraud as a standard clinical practice. It is little surprise that these geniuses who are so called KOLs are recommending that nothing in the practice of psychiatry change.

via AACAP The Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

FAQs on Child and Adolescent Depression

"What causes depression in children?

"Depression has no single cause. Both genetics and the environment play a role, and some children may be more likely to become depressed. Depression in children can be triggered by a medical illness, a stressful situation, or the loss of an important person. Children with behavior problems or anxiety also are more likely to get depressed. Sometimes, it can be hard to identify any triggering event."

The claim that depression is caused by a 'chemical imbalance' is no longer being made; paltry evidence of what should be a concerted effort to start providing factual information to the public. It is apparent to me that these professionals do not appear to concerned about regaining the public trust that has steadily eroded due to a serious lack of integrity in academic research, fraudulent marketing and abdication of ethical duty to patients. and . However, after reading this: "Are medications safe? Do they increase risk of suicide? When prescribed and monitored carefully, medications are both safe and effective ways to treat of depressed youth. Fluoxetine or Prozac, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, is the medicine that so far has proved most safe and effective. There are times, however, when other medications can and should be used. While medications have been associated with a small increase in thoughts of suicide, there is no evidence that antidepressants actually increase the risk of suicide. For moderate to severe depression, the potential benefits from medication treatment seem to outweigh the potential risks. Click here for a complete discussion of the use of medication in childhood depression." I realized that no real changes are planned (to actually become ethical or evidenced-based medicine) Psychiatric drugs will continue to be recommended as a "First-Line" treatment for depression; and apparently, other drugs as well. I also realized (once again) that psychiatrists in positions of leadership at the ACAAP, seem to have no problem at all flat out lying about the drugs they are using.

The use of SSRI antidepressants on children and adolescents is based on the TADS Drug Trial. In the trial there were a total of 18 suicide attempts all but one was a kid who was on Fluoxetine, or Prozac, and there was an obvious attempt made by the researchers to present the data in a way that would misrepresent the suicide data in journal articles. Robert Whitaker reported, "The TADS study has been used to justify the prescribing of Prozac—and really, by extension—other SSRIs to children and adolescents. The TADS researchers reported that the drug treatment was effective and didn’t increase the risk for suicidal events, as compared to placebo. Adding CBT to medication “enhances the safety of medication,” the TADS researchers wrote.

"All the while, the real suicide data was being hidden. The TADS investigators weren’t disclosing the number of suicide attempts, and they weren’t reporting that all but one of the suicide attempts were in fluoxetine-treated youth. Instead, they made it appear that a similar number of suicidal events had been seen in the placebo group, and, at one point, even wrote that 15 in this group had attempted suicide." read here

Dr. David Healy reports, "The FDA became party to a myth that somehow Prozac was ok where other antidepressants given to children weren’t.

"Because FDA had licensed Prozac for depression before the 2004 suicide controversy blew up, they became party to a myth that somehow Prozac was ok where other antidepressants given to children weren’t. Prozac in fact shows no more efficacy than other antidepressants for children and has just as bad a suicidality profile, along with a range of other harms such as sexual dysfunction, inhibited growth, and other problems, as other antidepressants. emphasis mine

"This is not an argument against Prozac. Suicidality can be anticipated and forestalled by warning patients. I once thought that an appeal to patient safety would get doctors on board." here

In a large NIMH trial of 4,041 “real-world” outpatients, only 108 patients remitted and stayed well and in the trial during the one-year followup. Efficacy and Effectiveness of Antidepressants. Pigott, H. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 79 (2010), 267-279.

Retract Study 329 from 1Boring Old Man

photo credit sciencephoto.com

Does the AACAP have an ethical, medical rationale for prescribing neuroleptics to kids? No, it does not.

It appears that prescribing neuroleptic drugs for children and youth with emotional and behavioral issues has proceeded without evidence the drugs even treat emotional and behavioral problems in the pediatric population. Worse than this, prescribing psychoactive drugs off label has become a "standard clinical practice" without any evidence the drugs are safe or effective for children and teen-agers. What is truly frightening: the wider medical community use these wholly unethical standards of "care." While off label prescriptions are not unusual in medicine, off label use of drugs requires sufficient evidence of safety and effectiveness to be considered an ethical standard of medical care! It is apparent that prescribing children and teen-aged youth neuroleptics and other psychotropic drugs has proceeded without even minimal evidence, forget definitive evidence, to support or validate the practice. Why are we using what are dangerous, teratogenic drugs to treat kids' emotional and behavioral symptoms?

Medical treatment in which drugs are used in ways that are not FDA approved, and not supported with definitive evidence of the drugs' effectiveness or safety is accurately described as "experimental use" of the drugs; not something that should be considered a "standard clinical practice!" Atypical antipsychotics or "Second Generation Antipsychotics," are neuroleptic drugs which alter many physiological processes. Although some of this class of psychotropic drugs have been FDA approved for pediatric use, for specific psychiatric diagnoses and/or behavioral symptoms, the approval was not based on what a reasonable person would consider to be robust data of safety or efficacy, much less effectiveness. The fact is, in real world practice, neuroleptics are prescribed to kids much more off label than they are prescribed for FDA approved conditions or symptoms. In effect, experimental use of teratogenic drugs on children and youth, i.e. human experimentation, is now a "standard practice" in psychiatry.

When children and youth are prescribed psychotropic drugs off label, particularly neuroleptics, what protection do they have from harm? In effect, they have little to none; using a "standard of care" is an affirmative defense against a malpractice claim for damages, whether it is an ethical standard or not...It is unconscionable that most of the prescriptions for neuroleptic drugs are for off label use; why is this ethically questionable standard of care casually accepted by the wider medical community? Drugs that have not been tested and clinically demonstrated to be safe and effective for children and youth, should not be widely prescribed in standard practice! Nonetheless, off label prescriptions for neuroleptic drugs continue to account for the largest percentage of prescriptions for neuroleptics in the pediatric population. Neuroleptic drugs cause a wide variety of adverse cognitive effects, i.e. brain damage, neurological impairments and metabolic dysfunction; they cause diseases---these are direct, adverse effects of neuroleptic drugs, it is how they "work." This "standard practice" has been investigated by the U.S. Senate at least three times in my memory, each investigation has quantified an increase in the numbers of children being prescribed teratogenic drugs and fraudulent Medicaid claims being paid. What is not quantified is the number of children who are disabled and killed. Using poor children on Medicaid who have behavioral and emotional problems as unwitting guinea pigs is now considered an ethical standard of care...

The standards of care, treatment algorithms, and practice parameters were developed by consensus, a quasi-democratic political process, not derived from clinical research data.  Psychiatric professionals who are members of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association, then disseminated these unethical standards in their professional literature, in symposiums and continuing medical education programs.  Psychiatrists in the AACAP really would like the NIMH to fund research to hopefully gather the supporting evidence that will validate the standards of care in widespread use (thanks to the AACAP).  These are the standards of care that the AACAP is simultaneously vehemently defending as "necessary medical treatment;" implying it is ethical evidence-based treatment...

The AACAP is acknowledging that the evidence for the ethical medical prescription of teratogenic drugs off label to children and youth is STILL needed---decades after the AACAP started using neuroleptic and other psychotropic drugs off label to "treat" the emotional and behavioral problems children have---decades after it became a "standard prectice." The AACAP implemented a standard of care absent the evidence required to validate it as a standard. It is not ethically possible to implement the use of psychiatric drugs "off label," i.e. experimentally, as a standard treatment without definitive evidence of safety and effectiveness. Obviously, this standard was implemented  precipitously; without regard for patient safety. It is a standard of care that is not based on sound scientific principles, or actual evidence; it is absent the use of ethical medical judgement altogether...

Off label prescription drugs that are unsupported by evidence that the treatment is safe and effective, is experimental by definition. Medicaid, in theory, functions like insurance for the poor.  Why are fraudulent claims for non-covered, non-approved off label prescriptions drug costs paid? It is only psychiatric drugs that are ALWAYS paid for without question, by the Medicaid program.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been defrauded from the American people since the vast majority of off label psychotropic drugs prescribed are written for poor children on Medicaid. We pay for it even though it is not ethical, even though it is fraudulent, even though it disables and kills children.

A few months ago, the AACAP applauded the AMA for seeking guidance from the NIMH about the off label use of neuroleptics for children and youth with emotional and behavioral problems.

via the AACAP:
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) applauds the American Medical Association (AMA) for adopting a report recommending the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) assist in developing guidance for physicians on the use of atypical antipsychotic medications in pediatric patients, and encouraging ongoing federally funded studies on long-term efficacy and safety.

AACAP delegate to the AMA and member of the AMA Council on Science and Public Health, Louis Kraus, M.D., testified that the report discusses the complex issues surrounding the clinical use of these drugs and evaluates the data currently available.

There has been an increased use in atypical antipsychotic medications which when used appropriately can be an effective part of a comprehensive treatment plan for children with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. However, these medications are increasingly being used "off label" when treating children and adolescents with other psychiatric disorders.

"Physicians and parents need more information about both the safety and efficacy of these medications, especially when they are used over an extended period of time," testified David Fassler, M.D., AACAP alternate delegate to the AMA.

Most research on the use of atypical antipsychotic medications on the pediatric population focuses on short term use, yet in clinical practice an increasing number of pediatric patients take these medications for many months or years.

"AACAP is pleased that the AMA is encouraging NIMH to conduct additional studies on these medications. We need to better understand both the short term and long term effects on our patients," said AACAP President, Martin J. Drell, M.D.

The AMA report is supported by the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law and the American Pediatric Association. here

Does the AACAP have an ethical, medical rationale 

for prescribing neuroleptics to kids off label?
No, it does not.  

via REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH CSAPH Report 1-I-12:
 a couple excerpts:

"The proportional use of atypical antipsychotics was 16% of treatment visits in 1995, but such use had surged to 93% of treatment visits by 2008. In two-thirds of these visits, the prescription was for an off-label use.5

"Antipsychotic treatment rates among privately insured youth ages 6 to 17 increased steadily from 1996 (0.21%) to 2006 (0.90%) with higher rates among those ages 13 to 17.7 The annualized rate of use in such patients ages 2 to 5 more than doubled between 1999 and 2007 to 0.16%, most commonly to help manage pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation.8

"More than 4% of Medicaid youth ages 6 to 17 filled at least one prescription for an antipsychotic in 2004, with 75% of these being for off-label uses.7 A number of children under 6 years of age enrolled in Medicaid programs receive ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medications.9,10" (page 3)

Discussion
Although certain atypical antipsychotic drugs are FDA-approved for specific uses in pediatric patients, the majority of prescribing (70 to 75%) is off-label for these drugs. Head-to-head comparisons of atypical antipsychotic drugs for off-label uses are few, and evidence from placebo-controlled trials for off-label use suggests that efficacy differs between drugs. Accordingly, one cannot anticipate that a “class effect” exists for atypical antipsychotics with respect to any specific clinical use or indication.  here

from a letter from Citizens for Responsible Care & Research, Inc. to The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Public Comment in Response to: Federal Register 76:41 (March 2, 2011) pp. 11482-11483:

a couple of excerpts:
"Part 1: Suggestions To Consider
As suggested in the Federal Register notice, in order assist the Commission in developing a thorough  understanding of the adequacy of current U.S. and international standards for protecting the health and well-being of human subjects in scientific studies supported by the federal government, we refer the Commission to the public comment of CIRCARE vice president Gerald Schatz, J.D., in which he describes international law, requirements of which the bioethics community is apparently oblivious. For your convenience we reproduce the relevant portion of his comment:
                “There is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights the United States
                ratified in 1992 and it makes informed consent an absolute requirement, no exceptions,
                not even in emergencies, subject to those normal legal fictions of consenting for the
                incapacitated patient to medical care and so forth. Additionally, the Geneva Conventions
                and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions make research very, very difficult
                or prohibited altogether for those individuals who are caught up in the war and armed
                conflicts.” (2)

Over the past several years the International Compilation of Human Subjects Protections posted on the OHRP website has been significantly strengthened by additions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. (3) A persistent problem, however, has been a lack of OHRP guidance on the significance and applicability of this law. An additional difficulty seems to be that not only is there failure to acknowledge this law and its applicability inside and outside the U.S., it is almost surely the case that neither OHRP nor FDA are adequately resourced to implementation of this law.(sic) Consequently we urge the Commission to recommend information about this law be distributed to appropriate U.S. agencies, research partner governments, research institutions, commercial research sponsors, and appropriate NGOs. Links to the Michigan State University faculty response as drafted by Gerald Schatz to the 2005 OHRP request for comment on equivalent protections as described above, two legal articles, and electronic versions of the law in question are provided in the references at the end of this document. (3)"

"CIRCARE holds FDA and OHRP in high regard and commends staff for their accomplishments. Practically speaking, our post hoc system means that failures of protections occasion the bulk of regulatory oversight of institutions or individuals. The opening paragraph of a typical FDA warning letter refers to an inspection conducted many months earlier and addresses objectionable conduct in one or more clinical investigations which ended years previously. (4) The definition of the verb “to protect” is “to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction; (to) defend.” (5) We challenge the Commission to consider if is it reasonable to believe post hoc action provides meaningful protection of human subjects in research."

"A typical FDA warning letter offers two challenging paradoxes the Commission should to consider. Prior to 2007 boiler-plate language informed warning letter recipients that FDA inspections are conducted under a program, one aspect of which is to ensure the integrity of data submitted in drug or medical device marketing applications, the other aspect of which is to ensure that human subjects are protected from undue hazard or risk in clinical investigations. More recently this language has been revised to state that inspections are conducted pursuant to FDA’s Bioresearch Monitoring Program to evaluate the conduct, i.e. data integrity, and to ensure that the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects have been protected. (op sit, p.1) The past tense of the copulative verb “have been” illustrates the paradox of a post hoc system in which the regulator proposes to protect the welfare of human subjects by inspection and enforcement after the fact." here

photo credit
4-16-2013

Psychiatry, Medical Treatment, and FDA Approved Fraud

1956 ADVERTISEMENT

From the above advertisement, it more than plain that neuroleptic drugs called,  "antipsychotics" were marketed and prescribed to control children's "unruly behavior" from the time they were first developed...

It is plain that every Federal authority with a legal duty to protect the American people from the adverse effects of prescription drugs, has failed to do so diligently. The illegal marketing continues, while the off-label prescriptions for dangerous teratogens, i.e., FDA-approved psychotropic drugs, are fraudulently billed to the Federal Medicaid program.  Fraud continues unabated while mental health professionals "monitor" the prescription rates of teratogenic drugs prescribed to children that can disable and even kill them. These young patients and their parents are often not informed or the risks.; many are never told what the drugs mechanism of action is, nor are they told of the potential for experiencing serious adverse drug effects that may disable, or eve kill them. Corporate criminals are aided and abetted by regulatory failure; unethical medical professionals who use "standard practice" as an affirmative defense i.e. off label prescriptions that are unsupported by definitive evidence of safety and effectiveness; and Key opinion Leaders whose professional opinions are used to aid and abet the criminal marketing of FDA approved drugs. They're making a killing...

FDA-approved drugs kill far more people 

than alcohol and illicit drugs combined...

via Public Citizen
(a nonprofit organization that does not participate in partisan political activities or endorse any candidates) 


In 2008, Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D. testified before a House subcommittee that, "The situation at the FDA has never been worse than now and this can be attributed to a confluence of 3 factors:

  1.Terrible leadership at the FDA, including the Commissioner and most of the Center                          

• Directors
• 
  
• 2. Increasing reliance on industry to fund FDA activities, with almost 2/3 of the drug approval     budget coming out of the $400 million+ Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) drug  allocation for FY 2008

  3. Relative to the 1970’s and 1980’s, a perilously low level of Congressional oversight and 

   oversight hearings by the same Congresses that have, since 1992, increasingly turned 

   over FDA funding to the industry" read here

via PloS Medicine:

Questionable Advertising of Psychotropic Medications and Disease Mongering

Jeffrey R. Lacasse1*, Jonathan Leo2 1 Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America, 2 Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, Tennesseee, United States of America 

an excerpt:
"Wayne Goodman, Chair of the FDA Psychopharmacological Advisory Committee, admitted that the serotonergic theory of depression is a “useful metaphor”—and one that he never uses within his own psychiatric practice [6]." read here

via the FDA Warning Letters and Notice of Violation Letters to Pharmaceutical Companies:

Shire Pharmaceuticals Warning Letter 2011 for Vyvanse an excerpt: "the subject of this letter is dated March 2008" --a warning sent three years after the fact?!

Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc warning letter for Pexeva® (paroxetine mesylate) Tablets here

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Focalin XR® here

Pfizer Inc. CHANTIX®  (varenicline) Tablets CADUET®  (amlodipine besylate/atorvastatin calcium) Tablets NORVASC®  (amlodipine besylate) Tablets here

Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. warning letter for Latuda, a neuroleptic, or 'antipsychotic' drug an excerpt: "The sales representative’s statements are false or misleading because they promote an unapproved use and minimize the risks associated with Latuda.  Thus, this promotional activity misbrands Latuda in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act"(emphasis mine) here these are all of the warning letters sent for psychiatric drugs in 2011 listed on the FDA website here.

via Mad in America Should the Medical Literature Be Cleansed of All STAR*D Articles?

Posted on May 5, 2011 by Robert Whitaker   a brief excerpt:

"In short, the falsely-reported results are driving prescribing practices and instilling a medical delusion about the effectiveness of these drugs." read here

The Code of Federal Regulations states that prescription drug advertisements must contain, "a true statement of the effectiveness of the drug for the selected purpose(s) for which the drug is recommended or suggested in the advertisement. The information relating to effectiveness shall include specific indications for use of the drug for purposes claimed in the advertisement"

Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the drug companies do not adhere to Federal Law.  Even when the drug industry is caught breaking the Law, the penalty does not serve as a sufficient deterrent; pharma has not stopped using illegal methods to gain FDA approval, or market it's products.  The FDA is failing as a regulatory authority; providing little, to no protection for the American people from iatrogenic harm and fatalities caused by FDA-approved drugs. It appears the drug industry is directing FDA approval and regulatory activity.  

The SSRIs (as the story goes) supposedly, 'safely treats depression thought to be caused by a 'serotonin imbalance.'   It is a disproved hypothesis, that became a fraudulent claim; a myth that has been used for decades to market SSRI antidepressants, and used to convince patients to take their antidepressants.  No serotonin imbalance, or any other neurotransmitter has ever been identified or validated as an actual biological cause of depression, or any psychiatric diagnosis!  It appears this hypothesis took on mythological proportions, and came to be accepted as a "fact, " but it is an "urban legend," without any basis in reality. This hypothetical myth, is a fraudulent claim that was repeated incessantly in drug advertisements, in professional journal articles, and in doctor's offices in "informed consent" discussions with patients and parents.  It is, and always was, a drug marketing strategy---a very lucrative and successful marketing strategy that has defrauded billions of dollars mainly from publicly funded medical programs...The FDA never sent a single warning letter to any of the drug manufacturers or the medical professionals who were promoting the chemical imbalance / brain disease mythology to advertise and market drugs; and to coerce patients into treatment compliance. The FDA allowed drug manufacturers, salesmen, medical professionals and Key Opinion Leaders to perpetrate fraud in order to sell FDA approved drugs with serious risks; risks that the FDA helped unethical researchers and manufacturers bury.  Not informing doctors or informing the American people in order to protect them from harm, makes it an FDA-approved fraud.

via NIMH Directors Blog December 14, 2011

Treatment Development: The Past 50 Years 

a few excerpts:

"Over the past year, several companies, including Astra Zeneca, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Sanofi Aventis, and recently Novartis, have announced either a reduction or a re-direction of their programs in psychiatric medication R&D. Some of these companies (such as Novartis) are shifting from clinical trials to focus more on the early phases of medication development where they feel they can identify better targets for treating mental disorders. Others are shifting from psychiatry to oncology and immunology, which are viewed by some as lower risk.

"There are multiple explanations for these changes. For instance, many of the blockbuster psychiatric medications are now available in inexpensive generic form. In addition, there are few validated new molecular targets (like the dopamine receptor) for mental disorders. Moreover, new compounds have been more likely to fail in psychiatry compared to other areas of medicine. Studying the brain and the mind has proven to be much more difficult than the liver and the heart. Most experts feel the science of mental disorders lags behind other areas of medicine. The absence of biomarkers, the lack of valid diagnostic categories, and our limited understanding of the biology of these illnesses make targeted medication development especially difficult for mental disorders." emphasis mine read here

The last sentence emphasized above is ample evidence that Thomas Insel does not understand basic scientific principles; yet, he is the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. The absence of an identified biological dysfunction or disease pathology, i.e. a treatment target, is characterized as a "difficulty" by Thomas Insel; it is a barrier. In medical research, development of targeted treatments follow the identification of a biological dysfunction or disease that is then "targeted" for treatment. Is it possible that Thomas Insel is unaware that conforming to scientific principles is required in ethical research?  An unknown, unidentified biological dysfunction or disease is a 'hypothetical' cause for psychiatric diagnoses; it cannot ethically become a target for treatment, unless it is a validated cause of a mental disorder. Without identifying a biological dysfunction or biological disease, it's impossible to validate the disease hypothesis. To proceed without valid evidence of a disease pathology, is unethical, unscientific and belies the ethical principles of scientific research. Using a hypothesis as means of explaining a diagnosis is entirely unethical, and dishonest; yet it is standard clinical practice, and has been for decades. Pharmachological treatment for undesirable emotional and behavioral symptoms in the belief they are caused by biological dysfunction or disease, without ever identifying or validating a biological dysfunction or disease that is validated as a cause of any mental disorder, is not and cannot be a valid or ethical medical treatment. Psychiatry's "medical diagnoses" that are not supported and validated by ethically conducted research, are mythological "diseases." Psychiatry's treatment standards that are supported not by empirical evidence, but by errors of attribution, corrupt data, and subjective, i.e. biased opinions;  are not medical treatments that conforms to ethical medical principles, or even "medical treatment"...

It is Human Experimentation and it is Standard Clinical Practice. 

It is standard "medical treatment" that can be forced Under Color of Law. 
Does that sound like good medicine that is "therapeutic? 

Update February 2, 2011 at 7 pm
Six FDA scientists and doctors have filed a Federal Lawsuit alleging the FDA retaliated against them  for voicing safety concerns about medical machines the FDA approved. 

via The Washington Post Federal Eye Blog on February 1, 2011 Grassley Investigates FDA monitoring of whistleblowers By Lisa Rein and Ellen Nakashima

an couple excerpts:  

"The plaintiffs contend the monitoring was a blatant form of retaliation. Information gathered this way eventually contributed to the harassment or dismissal of all six workers, the suit alleges.

"Grassley warned Hamburg that it is illegal for a government agency to interfere with an employee’s right to air concerns to members of Congress. He said the FDA had “no evidence” that one of the device reviewers, Paul J. Hardy, disclosed confidential business information about the devices, yet fired him after he exchanged Gmail messages with congressional staff, including an investigator who worked for Grassley."

“It is troubling to me to see your Agency actively pursue the dismissal of an employee ... not because they violated procedure and leaked genuinely confidential classified information, but simply because you “cannot trust him,” Grassley wrote. He told Hamburg the FDA’s retaliation against Hardy “directly contradicts” testimony she gave during her 2009 confirmation hearings of her intent to protect whistleblowers by “creating a culture that enables all voices to be heard.” read here

Fox in the hen house source
Vintage Drug ad source 
Regulatory and Ethical Failure in Mental Health Treatment and Drug Advertising 2-2-12

Selling Sickness Causing Death: "Mistakes" and Solutions

via Public Citizen: 

hat tip:

Warning: contains FDA approved drug bit.ly/ZBetjW

— Medicalskeptic (@medskep) March 11, 2013

vintage advertisement Bonkers Institute of Nearly Genuine Research

Abilifried: 3 takes on Abilify®

via Drug Discovery News' Virtual Break Room

by Amy Swinderman, ddn Chief Editor

Pharma news of the weird: Cartoons, government and beer

Have you ever seen a new drug commercial and literally said, out loud, “WTF?” Pharmaceutical company commercials often raise the ire of critics, but one in particular really has me scratching my head, and tops my little collection of weird news developments in the pharma arena.

A recent commercial for Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co.’s (BMS) antidepressant Abilify depicts a patient-doctor interaction, done in cartoon form, in which a patient sheds her “blue robe” of depression and heads in to ask her doctor if Abilify is right for her.

You can see the commercial on YouTube here.

BMS’ choice to use cartoons instead of real people is puzzling—but wait, the commercial is about to get weirder. Inexplicably, instead of telling his patient about the drug and its possible side effects and drug interactions, the doctor pulls down a projection screen … and allows a different cartoon version of himself to do the talking. Meanwhile, the animated blue robe looks on, blinking.

Are you following that? Me neither. Aren’t these commercials controversial enough without rocking the boat this much?

Meanwhile, in government news (which is frequently weird) … while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is often criticized for the speed by which it approves new drugs—and lawmakers continue to put forth legislation that aims to ease bottlenecks in the process—a recent report claims that new drugs are actually approved faster here in the United States than in Europe or Canada.

According to Yale University School of Medicine researchers, their recent study of drug-approval decisions made in the first decade of the new millennium refutes the common belief that the FDA’s drug-approval process is especially slow.

After studying decisions made by the FDA, Health Canada (the Canadian drug regulatory authority) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the researchers found that the FDA’s reviews were more than three months faster than those of its Canadian and European counterparts.  here

The study mentioned above, "Regulatory Review of Novel Therapeutics — Comparison of Three Regulatory Agencies" Nicholas S. Downing, A.B., Jenerius A. Aminawung, M.D., M.P.H., Nilay D. Shah, Ph.D., Joel B. Braunstein, M.D., M.B.A., Harlan M. Krumholz, M.D., and Joseph S. Ross, M.D., M.H.S.
N Engl J Med 2012; 366:2284-2293

Why would anyone want to take this drug? at Beyond Meds

Almost 2 million Americans are addicted to prescription opiates; addiction is not rare

Washington Post

There is no justification for corrupting the medical evidence base, 

undermining the ethical integrity of the medical profession, 

and causing the deaths of countless patients.

There are only excuses like this one:

“Because the primary goal was to destigmatize [opioids], 

we often left evidence behind." Dr. Russell Portenoy

The primary goal of medicine is to ethically treat patients, 
using sound medical judgement.  

Sound judgement requires careful consideration of all the available evidence. 

via The Alliance for Human Research Protection:

Rising Painkiller Addiction Shows Damage From Drugmakers’ Role in Shaping Medical Opinion

Tuesday, 01 January 2013
“You could say these marketing tactics are merely concerning. But I think of them as satanic. What the data are telling us is that these drugs are ruining people’s lives,” said Phillip Prior, MD

"Below is the latest in the Washington Post series--Can Medical Research be Trusted? its focus is the continued rise in painkiller addiction and the decisive role played by corrupt pharmaceutical marketing practices.

"Of note, more than a decade ago, in 2002, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reviewed medical examiners' toxicology reports from 32 states. The DEA reported that OxyContin was involved in 464 overdose deaths, few included alcohol consumption.

"But, over much of the past decade, the official word on OxyContin was that it rarely posed problems of addiction for patients. The label on the drug, which was approved by the FDA, said the risks of addiction were “reported to be small.”The New England Journal of Medicine, the nation’s premier medical publication, informed readers that studies indicated that such painkillers pose “a minimal risk of addiction.” Another important journal study, which the manufacturer of OxyContin reprinted 10,000 times, indicated that in a trial of arthritis patients, only a handful showed withdrawal symptoms.

"Those reassuring claims, which became part of a scientific consensus, have been quietly dropped or called into question in recent years, as many in the medical profession rediscovered the destructive power of opiates. But the damage arising from those misconceptions may have been vast.

"The nation is confronting an ongoing epidemic of addiction to prescription painkillers — more widespread than cocaine or heroin — that has left nearly 2 million in its grip, according to federal statistics.

“Around here, we call it ‘pharmageddon,’ ” said Lisa Roberts, the public health nurse for the town, whose primary job is to reduce the fatalities associated with drug use. “This has been absolutely devastating to Appalachia. From what we’ve seen, the risks of addiction were tremendous.”

· “It turns out that the doctors didn’t know what they were talking about,” said Barbara Howard, whose daughter Leslie, a home-care nurse, died of an overdose in 2009 in this small Appalachian town devastated by the epidemic. She had developed a habit after knee surgery. She left behind a 9-year-old son.

· “Leslie trusted the doctors. We thought the doctors knew what was best. But they didn’t. We — and lots of the other victims — had no warning.”

“You could say these marketing tactics are merely concerning. But I think of them as satanic. What the data are telling us is that these drugs are ruining people’s lives,” said Phillip Prior, MD

"To refine its policy on opioids, the FDA convened a key meeting in 2002 and invited 10 outside experts for advice. Five of them reported having served as speakers or investigators for Purdue. Three others reported working as speakers for or as advisers and consultants to other pharmaceutical companies.

"One of those FDA advisers, Dr. Russell Portenoy, who was then the chair of the Department of Pain Medicine and Palliative Care at the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, has since expressed regret for his evangelism on behalf of opioids.

"He was “trying to create a narrative so that the primary care audience would . . . feel more comfortable about opioids,” Portenoy said in a 2010 interview, “Because the primary goal was to destigmatize [opioids], we often left evidence behind. (emphasis mine)

“To the extent that some of the adverse outcomes now are as bad as they have become in terms of endemic occurrences of addiction and unintentional overdose deaths, it’s quite scary to think about how the growth in that prescribing driven by people like me led in part to that occurring.”

"In 2003, Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of OxiContin--whose sales reached $1.3 billion--had the gall to sponsor advertisements warning about prescription drug abuse!

Vera Sharav here

By Peter Whoriskey,

Rising painkiller addiction shows damage from drugmakers’ role in shaping medical opinion

  December 30, 2012    

"Portsmouth, Ohio — Over much of the past decade, the official word on OxyContin was that it rarely posed problems of addiction for patients.

"The label on the drug, which was approved by the FDA, said the risks of addiction were “reported to be small.”

"The New England Journal of Medicine, the nation’s premier medical publication, informed readers that studies indicated that such painkillers pose “a minimal risk of addiction.”

"Another important journal study, which the manufacturer of OxyContin reprinted 10,000 times, indicated that in a trial of arthritis patients, only a handful showed withdrawal symptoms.

"Those reassuring claims, which became part of a scientific consensus, have been quietly dropped or called into question in recent years, as many in the medical profession rediscovered the destructive power of opiates. But the damage arising from those misconceptions may have been vast. 

"The nation is confronting an ongoing epidemic of addiction to prescription painkillers — more widespread than cocaine or heroin — that has left nearly 2 million in its grip, according to federal statistics." read here

Clinically Tested or NOT: Using Risperdal for children's behavioral issues is NOT yobluemama approved!

NOT yobluemama approved!

My youngest son has paid a horrific price for the malfeasance of psychiatry, the FDA and the drug industry.  I would think no consumer's health should be risked because the prescriber's information and judgement is compromised by flawed, incomplete, or otherwise questionable data. Prescription drugs are marketed directly to the American public in advertisements with exaggerated claims of efficacy and safety, that minimize actual risks---No consumer protection laws prohibiting false advertising apply...


Altogether, psychiatry has failed to be honest about what is and what is not known about any and all psychiatric diagnoses and treatments!  The practice of psychiatry is permeated with deception, a lack of medical ethics, and a history of  using 'Standard Practices' that are not supported by clinical research.  Psychiatry uses social control strategies which are coercive and abusive.  The physical and emotional harm patients complain of is attributed to the patient's "lack of insight," or failure to be "treatment compliant."  Even worse, some practitioners deny the harm patient's experience altogether; or insist the harm is just the "tolerable" side effects of the "safe and effective" treatment they provide.  Using the Courts to force patients to take drugs or have "electro-convulsive therapy" because these are  the "only treatments" psychiatry has; it is the only treatments that the bio-psychiatry devotees use, but it is not the only treatments available.  It is morally reprehensible to state this as a justification for forcing people to have this "treatment."  Psychiatry has garnered the Force of Law using corrupt rearch, unethical medical practices and subterfuge.  A person targeted in this way has no rights at all once Court Ordered; my son was stripped of his Individual Rights to procedural due process just by having a Court Order sought.


via Jim Edwards on BNET on August 3, 2011:
"The FDA told Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) in 1997 that its(sic) request to market the antipsychotic drug Risperdal for children was “without any justification.” In the following years, J&J’s army of pharmaceutical sales reps made 100,000 sales calls on child and adolescent psychiatrists, justifying this by “qualifying” the docs if they had as few as one adult patient exhibiting signs of schizophrenia,"  


read the entire article:
Claim: J&J Wrongly Marketed Antipsychotic Drug Risperdal to Kids  on BNET by Jim Edwards


I am certain they started this crap before 1997 since my son was prescribed Risperdal in 1995---for a reason that is not an approved use for this neuroleptic to this day...I refer to the drugs called "antipsychotics" as neuroleptics; it is a more accurate term for the drugs.  It is misleading and deceptive to call them "antipsychotic," since the drugs are not "antipsychotic" for the majority of patients who experience symptoms of psychosis. The neuroleptic drugs are now more commonly prescribed for other psychiatric diagnoses and for symptoms other than psychosis. 


Neuro meaning nerve, or neurological and leptic meaning to seize, take hold of.  The drugs work on the central nervous system, and were first described as being as effective as a frontal lobotomy; no need for surgery.  How did neuroleptics become "treatment" for children with behavior problems?!  

Civil Rights violations are committed as a matter of course in stand practice which is not surprising given psychiatry's lawless conduct historically, acceptance of this fact permeates Academia, both in Educational and Research programs.  It is morally reprehensible that psychiatry's 'Standard Practices' were developed using fraud, deception, the Un-Informed Consent from patients, and coercion.  Why are patients and family members misled, and out right lied to about the 'safety and efficacy' of drugs, and why are people being given drugs that do not benefit them to the degree that the benefits actually outweigh the very serious adverse effects?   Why is  virtually every person who legitimately claims substantial harm due to psychiatric 'treatment' disparaged, mocked or ridiculed---if not ignored altogether?  


Why is psychiatry not demanding that adverse events caused by psychiatric drugs, including death, be reported to the FDA so they have a clearer picture how safe and/or effective the drugs really are?  


We know how many Americans are prescribed psychiatric drugs---we need to know how many are being harmed.  It seems to me that collecting this data is necessary to determine the validity of the safety and efficacy claims.  It is the real world outcomes that we need data on.  In the real world the damage caused by psychopharmachology is growing exponentially with a myriad of chronic iatrogenic illnesses, neurological impairments and social, moral, financial devastation. The iatrogenic harm experienced by psychiatric patients and their families must not be ignored any longer.  IMHO, the fiscal and social damage is contributing to the increase in discriminatory attitudes towards those who are labeled by psychiatric diagnosis and their families. Americans are bombarded with direct to consumer advertising  grass roots advocates allow education and advocacy programs to function as venues for pharmaceutical marketing campaigns.  Psychopharmacologists in effect, act as if the people they label are no longer worthy of having their Human Rights protected or defended.  The labeled are denied Equal Protection Under the Law---by 'doctors.'  


Psychiatry, as a profession does not hold it's practitioners accountable.  Discredited Harvard research psychiatrist, Joseph Biederman, is on the Scientific Advisory Board of a Consumer Advocacy group, CABF---or whatever they call themselves now.... The man is a crook who now 'advises' a nonprofit "consumer advocacy" group about the very condition he invented, and treatments he falsified research about which he then lied about it when he was caught!?!   


The so-called 'doctor' who insisted he had no duty to obtain Informed Consent for drugging my minor son, because in Washington State the Age of Consent for mental health and substance abuse treatment is thirteen; is still the 'Medical Director' of the only state-run psychiatric facility for children. My son could not have a conversation longer than two minutes, so there is NO WAY in HELL he had the capacity to give Informed Consent; and every staff member at that facility knew it.  This shining example of ego-driven psychiatry acted as if he were God; and needed no Informed Consent; his own approval for his 'treatment' plan which traumatized and disabled my son are all that Quack Master Jack required.  Apparently his intellectual superiority, allow him to abuse his authority and ignore medical ethics altogether.  Jon McClellan appears to not have a moral compass, professional integrity or sound clinical judgement. 

I almost vomited when I read in his CV he has received Awards for 'helping kids' recover and that he gives speeches on Ethics to non-profit groups.  The man is a thug in a white coat who broke the law, broke my son's spirit and Isaac says, "He stole my intelligence mom!"  This 'doctor' lied to my face so many times it makes me sick.  A doctor who uses his medical license as a symbol of infallible superior judgement while lying to patients and parents; and ignoring the Ethics Guidelines of the Medical Profession and the Hippocratic Oath, is not qualified to teach Ethics!  These two 'doctors' are not ethically qualified to be members of the Medical profession; let alone qualified to conduct reasearch and teach students, or advise patients, parents, and advocates or inform public policy!   


If you heard about a mechanic who had fixed a friend's car so well it that the car no longer could run; would you take your car to that mechanic?  Would you ask for advice from that mechanic?  Jon McClellan advises the State of Washington to this day; he is a criminal more than he is a "doctor."  


Massive financial fraud, corruption and the Civil Rights violations of those who are court ordered and forced to take drugs and/or receive electroshock  'treatment' both of which can disable or kill them; is not just,  is not Humane, and it certainly is not therapeutic; it is criminal.  The US District Court in Alaska dismissed a Medicaid Fraud claim brought by The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights, because fraud is widespread and ongoing!  What was the judge smoking!?!  This should in fact be a priority for the Department of Justice, as it has fiscal, social and moral relevance for all Americans.  The fraud and corruption has decimated Medicaid and Medicare budgets while causing some to became disabled and who then are forced to rely on other federally-funded social service programs.


This deception is eerily reminiscent of psychiatric 'Standard Practices' of the first half of the 20th Century. It is more than reminiscent, it appears to be using the same tactics.  A small group of individuals have laws passed which in effect, declare that some people are of a lower class, this is  determined by a psychiatric diagnosis; and being of this class means they do not need Equal Protection or have the same Human Rights as those without a diagnosis. Those who are labeled by psychiatry can lose their Liberty, and do not have the an effective means to defend against this loss of liberty, the loss of Liberty can be permanent, and may in fact cause their death.  Once Court Ordered, they must receive 'treatment' regardless of the treatment 's safety or efficacy, or lack thereof.  In Washington State people who have been Court Ordered to psychiatric treatment are entered into a tracking system for life; so they can be more easily identified and to make it easier to Court Order them again.  Didn't any of the so-called "advocates" for the mantally ill who lobbied for the passage of these Unconstitutional Laws, ever read any History books or the Constitution of the United States of America?   

The effects of drugs are commonly not shared with those who are taking them willingly; there must be a reason....Could it be they are not as safe or as effective as is being claimed?  To justify continuing this misguided 'treatment' strategy, and (inconceivably) to legitimize this pseudo-medical profession; more lies were told to subvert the truth. The 'treatments' were proclaimed to be, 'safe and effective' and psychiatric diagnoses were declared by psychiatric decree, to be 'brain diseases,' 'brain disorders' and 'chemical imbalances' which require life-long psychiatric 'treatment.'  


I am more than a little disappointed the American Medical Association has not taken a stand on the loss of health, liberty and life caused by psychiatry and it's pseudo-medical treatments. Psychiatry virtually ignores the Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent and the Hippocratic Oath to, "First do no harm..." 

"Whenever a doctor can not do good, he must be stopped."  Hippocrates.

a final note:

What is with our public servants, don't State and National elected officials take an oath to protect and defend the preeminent Law of the Land as WE the People's elected representatives?  There appears to be little evidence of representing the interests of the people when formulating public policy, or the legislation that effectively enacts those same public policies.  It appears that when formulating public policy, elected officials find ways to erode and subvert, rather than Protect and Defend the Law.   


Sworn Oaths do not have any significance once a person is in the grip of a new diagnosis being considered for the DSM 5 that afflicts psychiatrists, "advocates" of bio-psychiatry and those elected to Public Office it is called, "Special Interest Mania," is a disease that robs it's victims of ethical integrity, and allows them to abuse their authority. It's symptoms emerge when Conflicts of Interest are ignored and no longer recognized. Symptoms include a lack of remorse, a lack of empathy, and intense feelings of fulfillment and euphoria when close to a funding source, or special interest lobbyist. A unique feature of this condition is how it affects everyone who does not have it: It causes those who are not afflicted with it to be screwed over, and may lead to being stripped of their Human Rights and may include being labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis in need of life-long psychiatric treatment with or without consent.


graphic credit