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

Mental Health Advocacy and the Ethics of Journalism

The above quote could and does apply to many aspects of human life. I don't believe I will ever become adjusted to the manner in which mental health issues are reported by mainstream journalists. Specifically, the manner in which "the news" is presented is as if speculation, supposition and gossip are in "news."

Ethical journalism or reporting the news is (at least theoretically) an unbiased presentation of facts and information of interest to the public. Much of the journalism in our country is biased, it's used by some as a tool to further a specific agenda, or promote an ideology, idea, or perspective; i.e. as propaganda.

When there are fatalities and the supect is known to have, or is suspected of having a psychiatric diagnosis, the vast majority of what is initially reported is gossip and speculation. Depending upon the event, the amount of morbid or prurient interest, fear or revulsion that can be generated; influences how accurately "the news" will be reported. When a story titillates, awakens fear, revulsion or morbid fascination in the general public, our individual biases are reinforced. An individual’s biases are based on ignorance and fear; fed misinformation, our biases become bigotry. When the source of misinformation is the evening “news,” our biases are in effect, "validated." Our subsequent discriminatory perspective is in this way basically justified as "natural" or "normal;" if  recognized at all.

The subtle changes are gradual and because the changes are based on shared experiences the shift in our perspective is almost imperceptable. Biases grow into bigoted perspectives and discriminatory treatment. When our biases are fed and validated by the media, endorsed by advocacy groups, the people who do not agree with the biologically biased perspective or condone the discriminatory treatment, are "uninformed;" or perhaps even, one of those "mentally ill" people the advocates are advocating for. In the case of "advocates for the seriously mentally ill" individual members and individual groups can have self-interests that are contrary to the best interests of "the seriously mentally ill" they are advocating for. One major glaring Conflicts of Interest is being funded by pharmaceutical companies and advised by the unethical "professionals" who sell their products through the advocacy group's education and advocacy programs; these groups fail to advocate for the people who are disabled and otherwise harmed by the “safe and effective” drug or electro-shock treatments.

In some cases, the people are in fact Court Ordered to treatment that never "worked" or "successfully treated" their symptoms. Self-appointed advocates enthusiastically support and insist coercive treatment "saves lives;" and proclaim it is "necessary medical treatment. Some people say their lives were saved, or that involuntary treatment "helped" them personally; how do these anecdotes justify court ordering other individuals? While it is true that some people are "successfully treated," i.e. get better, become more functional; it is equally true that some are harmed grievously, including being permanently disabled and killed by psychiatric treatment.

Court Ordering people to special treatment with teratogenic drugs and/or electro-shock devices that are not safe, only minimally effective, illegally marketed or never safety tested, when the "treatment" risks are both disabling and fatal, is despicable; morally reprehensible.

When a person with a psychiatric diagnosis is the victim of interpersonal violence due to their symptoms making someone target them, it's not reported as a hate crime; incredibly, reporters and self-appointed advocates alike seem to believe it is acceptable to blame the victim, or to blame the victim's "untreated mental illness" for having been victimized. Advocates do not advocate for the victim by demanding that perpetrators be held accountable for victimizing people who are already in distress... In reality, it is tragic when anyone is victimized and a victim is killed. It is particularly heinous when the victim and/or their psychiatric diagnosis is used to excuse the criminal acts of a perpetrator who victimized them.

Psuedo-reporting compounds the tragedy, and inevitably it leads to calls for increased forced treatment, as if forced psychiatric treatment is the panacea which will cure society. Do people really believe that coercion, subterfuge, and inflicting distress is required to simply provide ethical "necessary medical treatment" eve that it is acceptable to mislead patients and the public about the subjective, (not scientific) nature of psychiatric diagnostic criteria and standard psychiatric treatment protocols, are based on subjective observations of psychiatric professionals which are then put to a vote to develop a consensus. Empirical data must be the foundation of a "standard" treatment; having  a statistical record of successfully treating a variety of patients for a particular illness or symptom it is HOW a particular treatment becomes the "standard" of care for a particular condition or symptom.

An ethical standard of care would not require using deceit, or justify it with an abuse of power and authority. An ethical standard of care would not rely upon coercion, force, and deceit; no ethical physician would purposely mislead or misinform a patient and/or their family members about the nature of their diagnosis and the actual effects of the recommended treatment, much less claim that it's a using subterfuge and social control tactics actually successfully treats "seriously mentally ill" people! We don't even count how many psychiatric patients are iatrogenically disabled or killed; there is no way to accurately, ethically, balance the hoped for benefits of psychiatric treatment against the potentially disabling, and fatal risks. Without considering all the data, including the adverse event data, there no way to ethically determine whether the benefits are worth the risks to and for a particular patient.

As a result of unethical reporting, the general public is misinformed, and consequently, is at a disadvantage when attempting to analyze the issues involved; unethical reporting in the main stream media misinforms the general public. Journalists are not reporting the news if they merely sharing of press releases from marketing departments or public relations firms. The results of psychiatric research, clinical trials, people with a diagnosed mental illness and pharmacological  treatments, are seldom reported ethically; i.e. reported after an independent verification of the facts. Just as importantly, when the results are controversial or disputed, the controversies are seldom reported; as the Ethics Guidelines for Journalism suggest. Reports in print or broadcast news are frequently only press releases written by marketing departments of the drug company that funded the study, or public relations departments of the University where research was conducted. Regardless of the source, without independent verification of the facts, this practice, is not ethical reporting. The failure to even attempt to provide an unbiased recitation of the facts or the issues involved when mental illness and the treatments used, is simply irresponsible, and it is not ethical journalism. It is in recognition of the fact that reporting events and issues without bias is difficult, since all people and groups of people have biases; that a Code of Ethics for Journalism was developed.

Mainstream media's quest for market share, increased ratings and profits contribute (unintentionally) to the innate biases of the uninformed general public. These biases are further fanned into flame when the pseudo-news reports misinform and the product of lax journalism ultimately becomes propaganda used by extremists, “grassroots” advocacy groups, columnists and other rightwing extremists to advocate for increasing the number of people legally compelled under Court Order to receive forced psychiatric treatment.

Lax ethical standards in journalism are intended to garner higher ratings, which in turn lead to increased revenue. Low standards are used because the intended goal of increased profits are realized. While I understand this is how business is 'done,' this is pseudo-reporting disseminating misinformation. This type of misinformation is used to put a veneer of legitimacy on bigotry; and used to gain the general public's acceptance of the mistreatment of people with a psychiatric diagnosis. It serves to increase the discrimination experienced by people with a psychiatric diagnosis in general; and in particular, of the people who are targeted for forced treatment.

From the Ethics Code for Journalism Preamble:

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice." more here.

Rightwing extremists in the United States "reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." Rightwing extremists, "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue,"  according to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Assessment Analysis. One example would be advocates who are propoments of forced psychiatric treatment, inpatient or in the community. Court ordering people to take neuroleptic drugs to prevent violence is a seriously flawed strategy. Many advocacy groups for the mentally ill appear to see nothing wrong when the Constitutional Rights of individuals Court Ordered to Involuntary Treatment are violated, because their intent is to be helpful. These protections must be effectively preserved and defended for all people; they are Human Rights.

It appears rightwing mental health advocacy extremists reject government authority entirely. When I read the document the above bold face statements are in, I could not help noticing the description is applicable to right-wing mental health advocates who focus their efforts almost exclusively towards the strengthening and implementation of forced psychiatric treatment laws. This is due to an apparent belief that forced treatment is THE Holy Grail which will save the general public from being victimized. The outrageous claim that their advocacy is only to ensure these "poor unfortunates" receive needed “medical treatment.” These advocates further claim the only reason that the “seriously mentally ill refuse or object to "medical treatment" is because they have NO INSIGHT WHATSOEVER; and protest because they "don't know what is good for them." It is further claimed this lack of insight is due having a "brain disease." The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence that "serious mental illness" results from "brain disease." Besides, in medicine, brain diseases are treated by neurologists, not psychiatrists!

via The Free Library:

The loss of client agency into the psychopharmaceutical--industrial complex

Those disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR for which a clear, undeniable disease process is present (e.g., Alzheimer's disease and other various forms of dementia) or a clear genetic defect has been located (i.e., Rett's disorder) fall under the purview of neurology, not psychiatry (Ducommun-Nagy, 2003; Encyclopedia of Mind Disorders, 2005; Glasser, 2003). Psychiatrist Kenneth Kendler (2005), co-editor-in-chief of Psychological Medicine, stated, "We [psychiatrists] have hunted for big, simple neuropathological explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them. We have hunted for big, simple neurochemical explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them. We have hunted for big, simple genetic explanations for psychiatric disorders and have not found them" (pp. 434-435).

"Despite the lack of clear evidence for neuropathological, neurochemical, or genetic explanations for psychiatric disorders, the beliefs in such are heavily perpetuated by psychopharmacologists and physiological psychiatrists (Valenstein, 1998), who differ from the declining number of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurse practitioners who appreciate the contextual factors affecting mental health. Psychopharmacologists and physiological psychiatrists believe that mental health problems reduce down to chemical and electrical exchanges between brain cells (neurons). With this philosophy, psychotropic medications are marketed aggressively and prescribed indiscriminately (Rosenheck, 2005; Schultz, 2004, Wazana, 2000) with the message that these medications will correct alleged brain defects related to psychiatric disorders." read more here.

The US Constitution is the preeminent law in the United States; the provisions and protections of this document supersede any and all State, County, or Municipal Laws and Codes whether passed by legislation or statutory authority. Any Laws which diminish Individual Liberty must only be undertaken when such infringement has been determined necessary by a Court of Law, and is only done lawfully when the individual's Constitutional Rights to Procedural Due Process of Law are protected. These Rights include: Proper Notice given and Affidavits of Service being filed, Rules of Evidence followed, Standard Court Procedures used and Effective Assistance of Counsel provided. The Constitutional Rights of those who are court ordered are in fact NOT preserved, by being described within the law. These individual rights can only be effectively preserved and defended for individuals that are properly served, notice filed with the Court clerk, Rules of Evidence followed, Standard Court procedures adhered to, and Effective Assistance of Counsel is available. When any of these protections are denied an individual, Justice is conspicuously absent.

It is common for the Rules of Evidence to be modified by Involuntary Treatment statutes; an effective lowering of the standards required to deprive individuals of their Liberty. Mental health professionals and advocates believe that using coercion and gossip is not only acceptable, but that it's necessary to facilitate obtaining these Court Orders which deprive an individual of their liberty. In these cases, proper notice is often ignored altogether. When people are Court Ordered in this manner, whether it is to inpatient or outpatient involuntary treatment, the commitment orders are illegal since using these lower standards violates the individual's Constitutional Rights as a matter of course.

Mainstream media becomes complicit by the using biased reporting to garner ratings or sell more copies. Failing to report relevant facts in an unbiased ethical manner is irresponsible and capricious. The reasoning of right-wing extremist advocacy groups who claim to be advocates “for the seriously mentally ill” seems to be based on bigotry; and is fueled by ignorance and fear. It's no surprise that this type of advocacy effectively serves the advocacy groups primary benefactor's financial interests. The majority of mainstream advocacy groups receive a significant percentage of their financial support from drug companies, and it is the drug companies who are the primary beneficiaries of compulsive psychiatric treatment.

Right-wing extremists in the "Mental Health Advocacy" movement exploit a variety of social issues and political themes to increase visibility and recruit new members; this has always been the case with extremist groups throughout history. These extremists remain focused on a predetermined agenda, forced treatment, regardless of new information, legal ramifications, financial and societal costs, or the real world outcomes of the individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis who are victimized. It is patently absurd for any advocate to claim that any negative effect of their advocacy is justified by their altruistic intent.

Why does psychiatry, with it's history of lobotomies, water tortures, Electric Shock, forced sterilizations and other outrageous tortures and it's ongoing collusion in pharmaceutical fraud have Police Powers? What has this profession done that could conceivably justify granting it such power? How has society allowed psychiatry to effectively gain unprecedented authority and society's passive participation in the inhumane treatment of an entire class of people?

I doubt the families of American Veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq traumatized who have died in their sleep, here and here or who commit suicide/homicide here due to drug induced psychosis, would agree the drugs are "safe and effective." In 2008, 52 Marines taking psychiatric drugs took their own lives.

Children are given psychiatric drugs that are approved and not approved for pediatric use; psychiatry calls drugs which are not approved for pediatric use, "off label" drug use, the FDA, "experimental" drug use. Would the parents of children who have died suddenly from cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, other drug induced causes; or parents whose who child is now brain damaged and/or disabled by iatrogenic illness or disease from psychiatric drugs agree the drugs are "safe and effective?" Between 2000 and 2004 the FDA adverse drug reaction reporting system linked antipsychotic drugs to 45 child deaths and 1,300 serious adverse reactions, such as convulsions and low white blood cell count. These are the very same drugs recently approved by the FDA for widespread use in children. Child Deaths here and here.

Psychiatry does not, and never has held itself to the Ethical Guidelines of the Medical Profession, or to any law or social norm recognized. The tactics utilized and the position of power granted to psychiatry validate oppression, elevated the oppressors; placing them above the law.

Lobotomies and mass sterilizations were still happening when I was a kid, and I am the mother of a son who was used in Drug Trials. Drug trials of the "new safer more expensive" antipsychotics; now APPROVED based on these trials for WIDESPREAD use in children!? I am horrified. I am my son's caregiver, and I am grateful he is still alive. How many children will die or become disabled before the FDA and the Department of Justice prosecute the psychiatrists and other "mental health professionals" are complicit in a massive criminal enterprise that is defrauding public health systems and who fail to disclose the risks, and fail to obtain Informed Consent?

Psychiatry is a specialty whose methods are unethical; they are often not therapeutic, but harmful. These methods and treatments are killing our children, our traumatized Veterans and our elderly; with impunity. Claiming to be treating “brain diseases,” yet failing to provide any empirical data, e.g. scientific evidence “brain diseases;” even exist! Any and all signs and symptoms of distress are now considered evidence of "brain diseases;" if they actually were diseases, these "diseases" would be treated by a neurologist.

When will the general public realize that the "special treatment" provided by force is not therapeutic; not only does it not enable recovery, but it can cause those "treated" to die? Psychiatry now has been given Police Powers and has perverted the Court System to sentence people to treatments which can cripple and kill them; without preserving their individual rights to Procedural Due Process of Law. It is inhumane, unjust and is unconstitutional!

Members of America's Armed Forces take an oath to defend Our Country and The Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Some of those lucky enough to return home have then been killed by psychiatrists "practicing medicine." None of them have been jailed for their crimes, it is unconscionable. 

 

Jon McClellan, the psychiatrist who gave my son huge amounts of neuroleptic drugs without Informed Consent for either the drugs or for inclusion in the TEOSS drug trials; repeatedly stated my consent was not needed; my opinion was irrelevant, my parental rights denied. My boy's protests were met with coercive tactics: specifically, he was told he would never get to leave the locked psychiatric facility he was held in as a “voluntary” patient, if he did not take the drugs. The fact is, no psychiatrist who has caused death or iatrogenic illness and disability with "safe and effective treatments," drugs or Electrical Shock, has been held accountable.

Incredibly, unethical research psychiatrists like Harvard’s Biederman, can become a Scientific Advisor to the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, a "patient advocacy" group. Psychiatry continues to use his fraudulent research to teach those who diagnose and treat our Nation’s children. No articles in psychiatric journals from this or any other discredited researcher are redacted out of psychiatric journals. Jon McClellan is still the Medical Director of a Washington State Psychiatric Facility, and a professor at the University of Washington, and has participated in an ethics workshops at the The Hastings Center.

Psychiatry is more a system of political and social control than a "medical" specialty; of this, I have no doubt. Whether you agree with me or not, I urge you to consider if it's prudent to allow psychiatry to use the Police and the Courts as it's medical instruments of treatment compliance. These are the very same tactics used in Germany that enabled the Third Reich to "legally" torture and kill millions of people; and the very same standards that psychiatry utilized in the United States to "legally" strip people of their dignity and their Human Rights in order to lobotomize and/or sterilize them.

Psychiatry is still using the same tactics, calling the new ways of causing brain damage, terror, trauma, iatrogenic injury and iatrogenic disease "safe and efficacious medical treatment" for "brain diseases;" without producing any evidence of a disease pathology that is being treated, or even exists. Psychiatry has a history when carefully considered, does not justify the position of power and authority that it wields with impunity. As a medical specialty, it has not demonstrated the integrity required to be trusted or respected.

If psychiatry's treatments are safe and effective, why are so many children, the elderly and traumatized Veterans, (among others) disabled before dying prematurely? More importantly, why are the Courts and the Police needed to practice medicine? Why are psychiatric diagnoses legally adjudicated instead of medically diagnosed? Psychiatric diagnoses become a permanent legal record, even though the diagnoses are the result of subjective opinion, and are not verified by facts that would comply with the Rules of Evidence required for every other Civil or Criminal Court proceeding.

Do journalists who simply "report" without independently verifying facts have a conscience? Do they not remember World War II? It was psychiatry that provided the efficient methods of control used to exterminate millions--it was psychiatry that was already killing the "mental defectives" in institutions so efficiently that the Third Reich asked psychiatrists to help carry out Hitler’s diabolical plan.

People are inundated with direct-to-consumer marketing pf prescription drugs on the internet, in print and broadcast news stations; does this contribute to the type of "reporting" that is done by journalists? Has the income from the advertising and direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs created a Conflict of Interest and compromised the integrity of the Journalism profession?

My sense of morality will not allow me to adjust to unethical psychiatric standards. Advocacy groups champion unethical psychiatric standards and pharmaceutical fraud and corruption. Extremist mental health advocacy groups ignore victims whose lives are laid to waste, while proclaiming they are advocating for what is in the victim's "best interest." Victims are further traumatized and victimized in no small part due to this type of advocacy. I will not adjust to the Constitution being set aside for psychiatry to "safely treat" emotional and behavioral difficulties they rename "brain diseases" in an effort to validate their questionable practices. I will not adjust to psychiatry being given the power to maim and kill under Color of Law, by Court Order.

It is definitely unethical for advocacy groups for the seriously mentally ill to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and use the information developed by marketing departments of the pharmaceutical industry in educational and advocacy activities conducted "in the public interest."

If I were to adjust to how psychiatry is currently practiced, I would in effect be approving and supporting crimes against humanity, crimes that have been perpetrated by mental health professionals which have seriously harmed my son and my fellow man.

"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, 
even if we are but one voice" 

Richard B. Sanders

"God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless." 

Chester W. Nimitz

"Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm." 

Hippocrates

I pray for Humanity to heal and hope to see evidence of it in my lifetime

Until then, I can only imagine...

First posted on January 21, 2011 in response to the shootings in Arizona, and titled, 

"Mental Health Advocacy Extremists are Aided by Lack of Journalism Ethics"

Political approval needs no evidence of safety or effectiveness

Health Freedom and Freedom of Speech

via Corbett Report

I find it more than a little odd that the FDA is so gung-ho on regulating the advertising, the growing and the marketing of raw organic foods, vitamins, and nutritional supplements.  Pretty stark contrast to the failure to regulate the advertising or the marketing of FDA-approved drugs with even half the zeal as they are using regulating non-fatal food 'threats.' This regulatory authority has utterly failed to protect the American people from being harmed by FDA-approved drugs used carelessly and inappropriately, without any evidence to support the prescribing of the drugs; simply because they can be prescribed, "off-label." In this respect, the FDA has caused and allowed patients to become unwitting guinea pigs in the illegal marketing of FDA-approved drugs. Political approval is what the FDA provides when a drug's approval cannot be supported by the scientific evidence.  

The FDA is acting as if it owes no duty whatsoever to the American people.  Blatant evidence of this is how DTC advertisements for SSRI and SSNRI antidepressants were allowed to use the fraudulent claim that depression is caused by a 'chemical imbalance,' to sell depression as a disease; AND to sell the drugs as 'safe and effective' treatment. For some people, the SSRIs and SSNRIs have been safe and effective.  But for others, the drugs did not help, but did harm them--and far too many have been killed, and were uninformed of the risks altogether...

Those huge settlements being obtained by State's Attorneys General and the Department of Justice, in no way benefits the primary, or direct victims not even if they were disabled or killed...

Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food. ~ Hippocrates 

Madison Ruppert Interviews Dr. Yolande Lucire on End the Lie Radio

End the Lie Radio with Madison Ruppert - Episode 11

via Dove Press:

Antidepressant-induced akathisia-related homicides associated with diminishing mutations in metabolizing genes of the CYP450 family

Authors: Lucire Y, Crotty C

Published Date August 2011 Volume 2011:4 Pages 65 - 81

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PGPM.S17445

Yolande Lucire, Christopher Crotty
Edgecliff Centre, Edgecliff, NSW, Australia

Purpose: To examine the relation between variant alleles in 3 CYP450 genes (CYP2D6, CYP2C9 and CYP2C19), interacting drugs and akathisia in subjects referred to a forensic psychiatry practice in Sydney, Australia.
Patients and methods: This paper concerns 10/129 subjects who had been referred to the first author’s practice for expert opinion or treatment. More than 120 subjects were diagnosed with akathisia/serotonin toxicity after taking psychiatric medication that had been prescribed for psychosocial distress. They were tested for variant alleles in CYP450 genes, which play a major role in Phase I metabolism of all antidepressant and many other medications. Eight had committed homicide and many more became extremely violent while on antidepressants. Ten representative case histories involving serious violence are presented in detail.
Results: Variant CYP450 allele frequencies were higher in akathisia subjects compared with random primary care patients tested at the same facility. Ten subjects described in detail had variant alleles for one or more of their tested CYP450 genes. All but two were also on interacting drugs, herbals or illicit substances, impairing metabolism further. All those described were able to stop taking antidepressants and return to their previously normal personalities.
Conclusion: The personal, medical, and legal problems arising from overuse of antidepressant medications and resulting toxicity raise the question: how can such toxicity events be understood and prevented? The authors suggest that the key lies in understanding the interplay between the subject’s CYP450 genotype, substrate drugs and doses, co-prescribed inhibitors and inducers and the age of the subject. The results presented here concerning a sample of persons given antidepressants for psychosocial distress demonstrate the extent to which the psychopharmacology industry has expanded its influence beyond its ability to cure. The roles of both regulatory agencies and drug safety “pharmacovigilantes” in ensuring quality and transparency of industry information is highlighted.

Keywords: adverse drug reaction, drug therapy, safety pharmacogenetics, CYP1A2, CYP3A4 CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, drug metabolism, public health, suicide, violence, human rights

Download entire article PDF from Dove Press

Pepsi Advertisement found at Bonkers Institute 

direct-to-consumer marketing of FDA approved drugs...

Whitney Houston's death has given the world another opportunity to look at FDA approved drugs in this country.  The 'news' reports are always biased; particularly when the death results from FDA approved drugs, but perhaps it is due to a Conflict of Interest---a whole hell of a lot of money is spent on direct-to-consumer marketing of FDA approved drugs...  

A couple of doctors minimizing the ethical responsibility of doctors and the FDA

NOT ETHICAL and NOT 'NEWS.'

It's just crappy journalism.

The doctor that killed Michael Jackson got a few freaking years in prison...The docs who prescribe multiple psychiatric drugs concomitantly even though prescribed concomitantly the drugs are KNOWN to be fatal, ineffective, or ill-advised; are allowed to continue "practicing medicine" after actually causing a recklessly causing a patient's death. Most deaths caused by the adverse effects of  psychiatric drugs are classified as "natural" deaths. Acts of violence, from FDA approved drugs,  including suicide and homicide, are rarely reported to the Adverse Events Reporting system...

via Plos ONE:

Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others

a couple of excerpts:

Results

We identified 1527 cases of violence disproportionally reported for 31 drugs. Primary suspect drugs included varenicline (an aid to smoking cessation), 11 antidepressants, 6 sedative/hypnotics and 3 drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The evidence of an association was weaker and mixed for antipsychotic drugs and absent for all but 1 anticonvulsant/mood stabilizer. Two or fewer violence cases were reported for 435/484 (84.7%) of all evaluable drugs suggesting that an association with this adverse event is unlikely for these drugs.

Conclusions

Acts of violence towards others are a genuine and serious adverse drug event associated with a relatively small group of drugs. Varenicline, which increases the availability of dopamine, and antidepressants with serotonergic effects were the most strongly and consistently implicated drugs. Prospective studies to evaluate systematically this side effect are needed to establish the incidence, confirm differences among drugs and identify additional common features. here

This may explain why we have so many drugs on the market that are fatal:

The FDA is there to serve the drug industry, not the public says Dr. David Graham of the FDA

hat tip: PharmaGossip

NIMH Director showing his lack of ethics (again!) relying on STAR*D

via NIMH The Director's Blog:

December 06, 2011

Antidepressants: A complicated picture

"But what about long-term effectiveness and true remission of symptoms? In the NIMH-funded Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) Study, the outcome measure was remission of depressive symptoms, e.g., becoming symptom-free. (emphasis mine) This outcome was selected because people who reach this goal generally function better socially and at work, and have a better chance of staying well than do people who only achieve a response but not a remission. STAR*D reported remission rates of 31 percent after 14 weeks and 65 percent at six months. These results may seem modest (placebo response rates are often over 30 percent in antidepressant trials). But STAR*D was not a good test of efficacy or effectiveness because it did not have a placebo comparison. While STAR*D was helpful for comparing antidepressants, in the absence of placebo, one does not know how many people would have been in remission without active medication."


Thomas Insel is using falsely reported results in his column on the NIMH website which amounts to fraud---definitely unethical conduct---As the head of the NIMH, it is his ethical duty to rely on an accurate analysis of the raw data collected; not on the biased reporting of results which misinform the public; and which serve only to advance the pharmaceutical industy's marketing agenda.


Thomas Insel is taking liberty with the facts---there is no way in hell this is being done unknowingly. As the Director of the National Instituties of Mental Health, he should definitely have his facts straight.  The actual percentage of trial participants in STAR*D who remitted and remained well was 3%; and the actual number of trial participants who remitted and remained well was 108 people out of 4,041!   The STAR*D trial cost the American people $35 million dollars and was funded by the very agency that Thomas Insel is the Director of; it is wholly inappropriate, and unethical for this guy to be lying about the results to the American people on the NIMH website.  Why is he still the Director of the NIMH?!


via Psychology Today:
We Need a Thorough Investigation of the STAR*D Scandal" 


an excerpt:
"We need to know all of the scientific sins that were committed, and we need an accounting of the investigators' financial conflicts of interest. STAR*D was hailed as the largest trial of antidepressants ever conducted, at a cost of $35 million to the American taxpayers, and we deserve to know why the results weren't honestly reported."



via Psychiatry Online

The STAR*D Trial: Revealing the Need for Better Treatments

Thomas R. Insel; Philip S. Wang Psychiatric Services 2009;60:1466-1467.

A single sentence in the conclusion speaks volumes---apparently, Thomas Insel is not aware---relapse is something that can only happen once a patient is in remission...

"The study also documented the frequency of relapse,


especially among those who were not in remission."

More on STAR*D:


Ed Pigott has spent 5 years investigating and documenting the numerous errors which were made by the Federally funded investigators.   Ed has also questioned the "peer-review" process which continues to disseminate the flawed and outright fraudulently reported exaggerated rates of efficacy to Medical Professionals through "peer-reviewed" professional journal articles.  There is a lot there, it is well worth the time to read through. Ed has written letters to some of the journals asking them to retract the articles, with some pretty interesting responses; and a lack of response which is equally telling. 


MedScape article August 24, 2010 —" A new review of 4 meta-analyses of efficacy trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that antidepressants are only "marginally efficacious" compared with placebo and "document profound publication bias that inflates their apparent efficacy."

The Last Psychiatrist begins his critique, "STAR*D Augmentation Trial: WRONG!" with the question, "I can't be the only person who actually reads the articles and not just the titles, can I?"

"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, even if we are but one voice"

"I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it even if we are but one voice"  

Richard B. Sanders

This article was first posted on October 6, 2011. In light of the recent publicity from the ABC News investigation and the Senate Hearings which were held by Senator Tom Carper last week; I have updated it.

I was thoroughly disgusted, and I have felt physically ill since I read Jon McClellan's testimony offered in last week's Senate Hearing on the drugging of children in foster care.  As I see it, this psychiatrist decrying the drugging of foster children is questionable at the very least; in my opinion, the man is either disingenuous, delusional, or simply lacks any professional insight.  I say this primarily due to my personal experience with how unethically he conducted himself when he "treated" my son at what he referred to as, "my State hospital," in his testimony.  I  also say this because I know that he has in fact written the book, so to speak, on how to drug children in distress, using teratogenic drugs off-label.  He advises and teaches other professionals how to do this very thing, and actually is the AUTHOR of the Practice Parameters and Treatment Protocols which guide other professionals in this disgusting practice!  So, the real question is HOW can he not realize his own writing and teaching has had a great deal to do with the drugging of children with dangerous drugs?!  

The fact of the matter is, the way the man ignored State, Federal and International Law in the "treatment" of my son, leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind he should not even have a medical license.  Much less, be relied upon to give truthful testimony; allowed to treat children; or teach students of psychiatry.  Jon McClellan has committed Crimes against Humanity in his role as Medical Director of Child Study and Treatment Center, and he should be in Federal Prison; not being hailed as a "lead researcher" funded by the NIMH!

"DOCTORS and academics risk "professional suicide" if they reveal the adverse side-effects of anti-depressants and other psychiatric medicines, a leading academic psychiatrist has claimed."  Dr. David Healey, is quoted in  the The Irish Examiner on September 24, 2011 under the title, "Doctors risk 'professional suicide' with drug alerts" This is one of the ways used to exert power and control over people and the dissemination of information while stifling dissent.

Evidence or Science-Based medical research is conducted within parameters: ethically and honestly; seeking scientifically valid information, that can be reliably duplicated and validated, by others.   All data from research is valid; while not all data collected may be relevant for the purpose that the research is being conducted, it is still data that should not be hidden, even data considered "statistically insignificant." 


Historically, pharmacological research with respect to psychiatric conditions has relied heavily on poorly constructed research models, discarding of data which does not serve the outcomes hoped for---usually to validate prescribing a particular drug for another purpose or for submitting a drug for FDA approval.  True scientific inquiry requires safeguards be established and adhered to, to minimize the potential for bias and maintain the ethical integrity of the scientific method.  Ethical research also recognizes that subjective observation is the weakest type of data and should not be relied upon without being validated by data gathered by other means.  The potential for subjective bias and errors of attribution--which are part and parcel to being a human being; can not be entirely "controlled for," this reality is taken seriously by ethical  researchers.  


We now know, as a society, that a great deal of fraud and corruption have in fact occurred in the FDA drug approval process, and in the marketing of drugs.  Conflicts of Interest have permeated every aspect of psychiatric research, education, and practice; including public policy formation.  Students of psychiatry in medical training are taught utter bullshit about the history of the practice of psychiatry; the efficacy and safety of the drugs used; and what is and is not known about the etiology of mental illnesses, and even the validity of psychiatric diagnoses themselves.  Students in our Institutions of Higher Learning are using texts written by some of the worst offenders known for conducting unethical, or otherwise questionable research; which is then falsely or incompletely reported.  Conflicts of Interest and corrupt reporting of Federally funded research; i.e., academic fraud.   Moral and ethical deficits that allow a psychiatrist/researcher to ignore scientific research ethics, the Hippocratic Oath, the Ethical Guidelines of the Medical profession and/or the Nuremberg Code, would certainly make an individual unsuitable to inform the next generation of psychiatrists, and/or to treat patients?  

The same psychiatric researchers have then relied on this unethical psychiatric drug research, to suppport the researched drug becoming FDA-approved.  Many have then participated in illegally marketing of the drugs to boost corporate profits; in careless disregard for patient safety.   Illegal marketing schemes rely on the fact that the FDA allows drugs once approved for any purpose or population to be used "off-label;" for anyone and any diagnosis.  "Off-label" prescribing is in reality, is more accurately described as "EXPERIMENTAL."  In effect, and by definition, "off-label" prescribing of psychiatric drugs is HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; which is now STANDARD PRACTICE.


Another result of unethical psychiatric research and unethical psychiatric standard practice, is  that we now have Laws which mandate that people who are given a psychiatric diagnosis lose upon diagnosis the equal protection under the law of their individual rights.  The standards for obtaining a Court Order lower this standard, so that Rules of Evidence, Proper Notice and Proof of Service, Standard Court Procedures, and Effective Assistance of Counsel that people without a diagnosis have, are diminished for people with a psychiatric diagnosis.  This is to make it easier for them to be Court Ordered to take teratogenic drugs which are, in all reality, mimimally effective for a minority of the people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  


Whether the drugs are effective for a particular patient or not, the people who take them risk developing the debilitating iatrogenic illnesses the drugs are known to cause.  Illnesses that can be disabling; and include the risk of sudden death.  Neuroleptics, called 'antipsychotics,' can cause permanent brain damage: e.g., loss of intellectual and cognitive abilities; loss of executive function, the very thing that makes us human.  The treatment protocols for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are now legally mandated in most states as "necessary medical treatment;" even though these treatment protocols exist in spite of the evidence, they are not derived from the evidence; but are in fact validated by a consensus of subjective opinions in committee and voted on; as is the diagnostic criteria itself.  This is not a 'scientific' process; it is a quasi-democratic process.

Instead of being held accountable for their crimes, psychiatrists are allowed to continue damaging the ethical integrity of the medical profession while subverting the purpose of genuine ethical medical research; causing real harm to real people, directly and indirectly.   All the while attempting to maintain political control over valid academic inquiry.  All medical research and scientific discovery which is conducted for the benefit of man should be conducted ethically, openly, and honestly; with uninhibited respectful debate being encouraged.  This is not how psychiatric research is done under the auspices of the NIMH; under Thomas Insel's leadership.  

The lack of open honest discussion and valid scientific inquiry is distorted by commercially driven motives.   Drug treatment protocols are developed, then implemented using coercion and abuse of authority.  These methods are used on other professionals, on the patients/victims, and on family members of those with a psychiatric diagnosis.  Not like any other field of medicine, this is how psychiatry is practiced.  Thoughtful criticism is treated with contempt and those who are critical of the effects of the drugs and the real world outcomes of the patients themselves are censured or ridiculed instead of simply being  responded to, respectfully.   Valid medical science can always stand up to being challenged; it  can even be invalidated when research leads to new information, or when analysis of existing information leads to a different perspective or a deeper understanding. 



How did the practioners of bio-psychiatry get away with using unethical procedures and manipulation of data to subvert the scientific integrity of medical research?  By using political control to quell dissent.  Bio-psychiatric research is sometimes a very weak imitation of scientific inquiry; in reality, pseudo-science.  The reality is that much of standard practice relies on Practice Parameters and treatment protocols which were developed by a quasi-democratic process; not a scientific one, and often are entirely unsupported by clinical research data.


Psychiatric diagnoses and Practice Parameters are developed by a consensus of subjective  opinions, and loosely based on scientific evidence; if at all.  The Evidence-Base consists of: clinical trial data---all of it--not just what is published, or favorable to using a particular drug.  It also includes the real world outcomes of those who have been treated with the drugs---including adverse events and fatal outcomes.  (it is estimated only 10% of adverse events are reported--Prescribers are not required to report fatal outcomes or other adverse events, so we are actually not collecting the very data needed to quantify risk vs. benefit in Real World Practice.  The evidence base also includes the people with a psychiatric diagnosis, who have not been treated with psychiatric drugs.  


In the bio-medical pardaigm of care, psychiatry relies on anecdotal evidence and consensus to develop treatment protocols.  The bio-medical model uses manipulation, coercion and abuse of authority and claims that "medical treatment" is absolutely necessary.  It uses these same social control strategies to institute and enforce "treatment compliance protocols;" and now has Court and Police powers to force treatment compliance.  Simultaneously, psychiatrists attempt to control the dissemination of information; including attempting to stifle dissent or discredit any professional who is critical of the bio-medical model.  The methods used in clinical psychiatric practice and the methods used to censure or discredit professionals who are critical of psychiatry's standard practices have much in common with social and/or political control strategies.   These methods are contradictory to open scientific inquiry and contradictory to the principles required to provide therapeutic psychiatric care in compliance with the Ethical Guidelines of Informed Consent of the American Medical Association.


The supposed "elite" who are Key Opinion Leaders, "KOLs," are also the same psychiatric researchers who have conducted the unethical research and participated in illegal marketing schemes; and who do not taking kindly to having their work critically analyzed; to say the least.  Many are defensive and disrespectful of those whose question how they arrived at their conclusions.  


Some are strangely callous towards those who have been grievously harmed, and family members who are witness to psychiatric malfeasance as well as those who grieve a loved one killed by psychiatric drugs.  The real world outcomes of those who are killed, disabled and who are not "effectively treated" are dismissed, as irrelevant.  People who have been harmed are not even quantified for statistical purposes, in spite of valid scientific reasons to do so.  Surely it is important to consider not only the benefits experienced by these Court Ordered 'patients' but also the harm done the victims?  


Mainstream advocacy groups apparently do not consider the people who speak of harm done to them by psychiatry or their families as people in need of advocacy, support or consideration.  These people are in effect, considered collateral damage by bio-psychiatry practitioners and are not acknowledged, let alone supported by mainstream " 'advocates' for the 'seriously mentally ill'."

Watch out for people who begin with another's concern to end with their own. 

Balthasar Gracian

God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

Chester W. Nimitz

Whenever a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm.
Hippocrates

Psychiatry: 60 Years in an Increasingly Corrupt Specialty Dr. Nathaniel S. Lehrman  


Integrity and Misconduct in Research Report 1995


Psychrights: ADHD Total 100% fraud By Fred A. Baughman Jr., Neurologist, Pediatric Neurologist


Mind Freedom: A list of investigations of the undue influence by companies producing psychiaric medications


POGO: Chair of Obama's Bioethics Commission Ignores Ghostwriting on Her Own Campus


Psychology Today: Child Bipolar Disorder Imperiled by Conflict of Interest