contained 65 mg. morphine per fluid ounce
used for teething
"Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm."
Hippocrates
via
Office of Human Subjects Research
NUREMBERG CODE in part:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
When I first watched the ABC 20/20 reports on youtube on the investigation into the drugging of foster children, I was more than a little disturbed. When I read the testimony offered by Jon McClellan I was angered; and in truth, I was horrified he was considered an expert worthy of consultation. My horror is based on my personal dealings with this psychiatrist.
The impact of Jon McClellan's "expert " treatment which he forced upon my son; without consent, and without legal authority; was devastating. My vehement, and at times, belligerent protests were met with cold disdain; or arrogant superiority that left no doubt: Jon McClellan needed no one's consent or approval to 'treat' my son; his own judgement was sufficient. My son says, "they traumatized me over and over and over." and "They were supposed to help me, but they had no compassion for me mom." Ultimately, John McClellan drugged my precious son into a state of of disability. My son had an IQ of 146 and did triple digit addition in his head when he was seven. He did not use his fingers to count. Last year, my son needed to use his fingers to count the seven days remaining before Christmas.
While watching the
Senate Hearing presided over by Senator Tom Carper, what was bothering me about all of this came into sharp focus. I know that the widespread misuse of psychotropic drugs is not just victimizing foster children; Informed Consent is not being ethically obtained for children who are not foster children. In my experience getting help for my son from the time he was seven until this very day, no psychiatrist who prescribed drugs to my son had shared accurate and complete information about the potential risks of any of the drugs prescribed in order to obtain my fully informed consent.
In fact, now that my son is an adult and cognitively impaired due to Jon McClellan's unethical "treatment," I have his medical and general powers of attorney. In a meeting with his current psychiatrist in front of two witnesses the dorktor flat out lied to me about the known adverse effects of neuroleptic drugs; specifically, the "doctor" said that neuroleptic drugs do not cause brain damage. That morning I had
read the then current APA newsletter to it's membership discussing the brain damage the drugs do in fact cause. These drugs are called "antipsychotic" and have horrific negative effects, and very serious risks including causing sudden death. The drugs are only effective for a small minority (about 26% of adults and 12% of children) with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective, or psychosis Not Otherwise Specified.
The investigation which was reported on 20/20 seems surreal to me. This is not the first, or the second investigation into the unethical psychiatric drugging of vulnerable children. Off label use of psychotropic drugs without definitive evidence supporting the prescription is, in reality, Human Experimentation. It is not "Evidence-Based Medical Treatment" since it is not grounded in ethical medical principles or sound medical judgement, and it is not a decision that relies on the data ethically collected in clinical research and clinical practice; it cannot be "Evidence-Based" without using actual evidence...
How many times does an investigation, the subsequent reporting and public discussion of the results need to occur before actual solutions, accountability, and action which truly benefits children actually results?
Mr. Bryan Samuels, Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stated that any drug which is FDA approved is covered by Medicaid, yet this is only partly true, the drug must be approved for the reason and the population to whom it is prescribed, to be legally reimbursable by he Federal Medicaid program. Prescriptions for FDA approved drugs prescribed for non FDA approved reasons; "off-label," will not be filled until I agree to pay cash.
There is obviously a different standard and separate reimbursement protocol for psychiatric drugs. It is strangely an unwritten policy which has in fact been bilking the taxpayers fraudulently been billing the Federal Government in my son Isaac's case since he was seven years old.
This is how the pharmaceutical companies made it's obscene profits by defrauding the publicly-funded Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare programs. America's Children--NOT only those in foster care--who are on Medicaid have been the used as a means to achieve marketing goals; no matter the cost to society, or the deliterious effects on the children whose lives are altered irreparably or lost altogether. Drugged without their parents and guardians being informed of the risks, never told that the treatment protocols and the diagnoses themselves are based on subjective opinions. Children are told there is something wrong with their brain, when in truth their Brain is not even examined! Often, they have been traumatized, neglected, abused; or are simply poor and do not have their needs met consistently due to poverty, lack of appropriate consistent guidance, or parental immaturity.
Psychatric drugs are paid for by Medicaid, and have been for decades---whether or not they are FDA-approved for pediatric use. NO QUESTIONS, no special authorization needed. How else was the Risperdal which was illegally marketed and prescribed to my son, a full DECADE before it was approved for ANY reason whatsoever in children paid for by Medicaid?
The vast majority of the drugs my son was prescribed as a minor were not approved, and had not been safety-tested for pediatric use---yet never was this fact shared with me by the psychiatrists who prescribed them---including Jon McClellan. Imagine my overwhelming sense of betrayal and outrage when I discovered that known negative effects of the drugs were attributed to my son's worsening condition! Imagine when in my research, I discovered that my son's worsening condition was in fact caused not only by not getting the recommended treatment for his PTSD, but also by the known negative effects of the DRUGS which have ultimately disabled my once brilliant son! Imagine finding out that the drugs were not approved and had never safety tested in children---this is HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION!!!
It is not ethical, and is in fact, a violation of the Nuremberg Code!!!
I am thoroughly disgusted with how these so-called doctors continue to deceive patients and the general public, while continuing to claim the intent is to relieve suffering----as if a beneficent intent justifies using coercion, or being dishonest about what is and is not known about the diagnoses and the drugs used. If psychiatry is simply a "medical specialty" why is it not using sound scientific methods and ethical medical principles? If it were practiced with integrity, according to ethical medical standards, so much dishonesty, subterfuge, coercion, research fraud, illegal marketing, and the callous denial of harm done to patients would not be necessary and even common; let alone validated by consensus and considered standard practice! The abdication of any individual or collective responsibility for the suffering caused real people who have iatrogenic injuries from the recommended treatment that in some cases was forced upon them using coercion or legally mandated by Court Order, is an abuse of medical authority that legally mandates a patient to take teratogenic drugs, is not ethical medical practice, it is morally reprehensible to claim that it is. Drugs whose effectiveness is exaggerated while the serious risks are minimized, are prescribed without Informed Consent, under the guise of providing "necessary medical treatment." This is "medical treatment" for "diseases" and or chemical imbalances or neuro-biological conditions that have yet to be discovered. It is well established that psychotropic drugs in every class have serious risks, the neuroleptics, or "antipsychotics" in particular can and do cause neurological and cognitive impairments, metabolic, cardio-vascular and endocrine dysfunction and shorten the life span taken long-term. It is not "medicine" in the Hippocratic tradition. The coercion and the disease metaphor are dishonest methods used in order to gain treatment compliance, and Informed Consent is barely paid lip-service for obvious reasons. This all makes it clear, that is a biological psychiatry is makes a mockery of medicine, and subjugates jurisprudence; the Courts are psychiatry's "treatment compliance" tool.
Professionals who are practicing their craft with honor, would not find it necessary to lie to patients, lie to their parents, and lie to the general public. Medical professionals with honor and integrity would acknowledge potential risks and hoped-for benefits of the drugs being used; not bury the evidence of negative adverse effects or worse, attribute ill effects of the drugs to the "disease." I have yet to find a parent whose child takes psychiatric drugs or an adult who takes them, in this community who has been told the well documented, serious risks for SSRIs, neuroleptics, or the drugs used for ADHD, being prescribed to them. There is plenty of blame to go around, from the FDA, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare, to the doctors and pharmacists, among others---But, none of this fraud is possible, without the willing cooperation of psychiatrists, some are working as public employees at Federal Agencies. It is psychiatrists who write the practice parameters and the treatment protocols; but more significantly--it is psychiatrists who write prescriptions! Each and every doctor who participates in this ongoing fraud, damages the honor and integrity of the medical profession, and worst of all, can cause their patients grievous harm; incredibly, these 'doctors" still claim to be doing all of this to relieve suffering.
These acts were initially possible because of the respect and confidence human society historically has granted those in the medical profession; it is now only continuing, due to a societal FAILURE. I wish to God I had been at that hearing---I wish to God that it had not just been about foster children; but all children---because let's be real here, the report the GAO generated was about all the children on Medicaid in those five States, a minority of whom were in foster care. It is true that foster children are in need of our care and protection, and that we as a society are failing them in this obligation; but according to the GAO's report, the indiscriminate use of dangerous psychiatric drugs puts all the children who are on Medicaid at risk of being recruited as guinea pigs.
How many of these parents will be taking care of their disabled adult children like I am?
If we as a society allow this opportunity to do the right thing for our society, by doing the right thing for the Nation's children who are on Medicaid, we will be culpable in the the ongoing fraud, ongoing corruption and ongoing HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION now a Standard Clinical Practice of Psychiatry. How many more parents will end up taking care of a disabled adult who was once a normal children who was disabled by iatrogenic injury? How many more children will be buried because we did not defend or protect them?
Jon McClellan testified in the Senate Hearing on December 1, 2011, claimed in effect,that he has no insight whatsoever into why other doctors are doing the very thing he himself did to my son; and countless other children here in Washington State. He has been the Medical Director of Child Study and Treatment Center and a Federally funded "lead researcher" here in Washington State and Nationally known for over two decades.
Psychiatrists need to STOP the unethical practice of prescribing drugs without fully complying with Medical Ethics, particularly without Informed Consent of their patients/potential victims by using drugs EXPERIMENTALLY and calling it "OFF-LABEL" PRESCRIBING. Psychiatrists need to STOP telling patients and the public THEY ARE TREATING DISEASES, CHEMICAL IMBALANCES AND NEUROBIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS----to date, they have not produced one iota of proof that any psychiatric diagnosis labeled a mental illness, is caused by a genetic defect or an acquired neurobiological dysfunction.
These claims and psychiatric practices are based solely on quasi-democratic processes, not Clinical Trial evidence, making these claims and the Standard Practices that are used patently dishonest, a fraud that has no basis in sound medical or scientific principles. Psychiatry got away with perpetrating this fraud by relying on the unquestioning trust human society has historically granted those in the medical profession---but can only continue if we, as a society, choose to become willfully blind, to the overwhelming evidence of deceit, fraud, and corruption, and the utter lack of ethical integrity in how it is became so profitable for the pharmaceutical industry.
via The New Republic
Study Break NIH Secrets
a few excerpts:
"In 2004, an NIH-sponsored study was reported to show that Prozac was effective in treating depressed teenagers. But the NIH and the study authors have refused to release the data in response to foia requests—requests, significantly, that were made while Congress and the FDA were holding hearings on the safety of antidepressants. In another NIH study, published in 2003, researchers reported that the brains of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were smaller than those of children who had not been diagnosed with the disorder. Critics questioned whether the problem might actually be caused by the drugs used to treat ADHD. But, when a researcher asked for the underlying data, his request was denied."
"THIS ISN’T HOW it was supposed to be. The Shelby Amendment, passed in 1999, specifically directs federal agencies to “ensure that all data” from federally funded research are “made available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.” The NIH, in its data-sharing guide known as Circular A-110, asserts that data-sharing “is essential ... to improve human health.” Although the NIH officially encourages data-sharing, adherence to the policy is voluntary. It is ultimately left to the individual researcher or research institution to decide whether or not to share their data. As Norka Ruiz-Bravo, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, acknowledged, “Some people share their toys better than others.” But the explanation for why so much NIH data are kept under wraps may be more serious than that. Data secrecy is becoming the norm rather than the exception, in an era when researchers—even those who have public funding—are increasingly likely to have commercial interests to protect."
"According to a 2003 survey of 171 universities that received NIH grants by the then-General Accounting Office, 91 percent held equity options in the very companies for which they were developing technologies. Some academic institutions receive over $10 million in royalties per year for technologies they have developed. And individual researchers—including some who have refused to release their data in response—have also received funding from sponsoring drug companies. These commercial ties, and the secrecy they spawn, have real consequences for physicians who must rely on research results that may not be entirely disinterested."
"It is difficult to know how many dangerous treatments might remain on the market, unchallenged, because of data secrecy. In the case of Prozac for teens, the data withheld by researchers could show that Prozac is not safe for children—an important development, given that it is currently the only anti- depressant approved by the FDA for the treatment of children. In the case of the study showing that the brains of children with ADHD are smaller, it means that stimulant drugs continue to be prescribed even though it is not clear whether brain shrinkage in children with ADHD is caused by the disease—or by the drugs used to treat the disease."
"Wondering how widespread the problem of NIH secrecy was, I reviewed the data- sharing exemptions in Circular A-110 and all extramural grants awarded by the NIH in 2005. What I found was that, despite the lofty claims of data-sharing, there are so many exemptions in the guide and the Shelby Amendment that they actually serve to codify data secrecy. For example, only researchers conducting studies that cost more than $500,000 in direct costs annually are required to file a data-sharing plan. Data are also exempt if they are not cited as part of a federal policy or regulation that has the “force and effect of law”—an exclusion that single- handedly eliminates virtually all NIH data. After reviewing all of the grants awarded by the NIH during 2005 and finding that virtually none of the data would fall under the conditions of mandatory release, I asked the NIH to identify any studies that had been released under the Shelby Amendment. Their answer was surprisingly frank: I was told that, “despite numerous requests” for data since the Shelby Amendment was passed in 1999, “none met the criteria of the regulation.” read
here
Prescription Drugs associated with violence towards others
Drug induced Murder Suicides or suspected
School Violence
POGO letter to Francis Collins,
NIH Director on Ghostwriting Academics
hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms associated with ADHD drugs used in Children
vintage ad credit
