Recently in Psychiatry Category

The psychiatry profession has finally come clean and confessed on a national media outlet that there is no evidence to support the Serotonin Theory of Depression. Today, on NPR’s Morning Edition there is a segment about the chemical imbalance theory, and virtually all the psychiatrists who are interviewed acknowledge that the there was never any evidence in support of the idea that low serotonin causes depression. But then, amazingly, they go on to say that it is perfectly fine to tell patients that serotonin imbalance causes depression even though they know this isn’t the case.

Several years ago in PLoS Medicine we wrote a long piece about the serotonin theory and the disconnect between what research psychiatrists say in professional journals and textbooks and what the advertisements say. While the advertisements presented the theory as scientific fact, the scientific sources clearly did not. Given the enormous marketing programs that pushed this theory combined with the media’s lack of skepticism, we were sympathetic to the general public who could hardly be faulted for thinking that theory had some foundation in fact. Following the publication of our piece a reporter contacted us and suggested that we were attacking a well accepted theory. We pointed out to the reporter that we weren’t attacking a sacred cow but that instead we were pointing out the mainstream psychiatry didn’t even accept this theory. We urged the reporter to contact the FDA, NIMH, APA, etc and ask them about the science behind the advertisements. He did, and as expected, an expert from the FDA explained that the theory was really just a metaphor. The problem is that patients who heard their physician explain the serotonin theory thought they were hearing real science. They weren’t told it was a metaphor and hence thought it was a fact. When a doctor talks about high cholesterol, diabetes, or hypothyroidism, they are talking about scientific measurement, not a metaphor. How is a patient with high cholesterol and depression who listens to their doctor’s explanation of their conditions supposed to know when the doctor has moved from science to metaphor?

NewsWithViews.com
by Jonathan Emord, Constitutional Attorney and Author
November 28, 2011

Psychiatric drugs are big sellers. They are among the best selling drugs made. In 2010, Americans or their insurers doled out some $16.1 billion for anti-psychotics; $11.6 billion for anti-depressants; and $7.2 billion for ADHD treatments.

Within the last two decades the field of psychiatry has mushroomed from a fringe body of Sigmund Freud admirers to a mainstream player in the field of medical pharmacology, largely because of an unseemly union between that profession and the drug industry, leading to the creation of many never before known disease states and profitable ways to exploit those alleged diseases with psychiatric services and drugs.

The field of psychiatry has persistent and well-informed critics who point to the excessive drugging of institutionalized patients, of children commonly misdiagnosed as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and of the elderly misdiagnosed with treatable dementia, among others. The drugs given these patients have their own side-effects, including increased risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, birth defects, and even death. Because of the movement of psychiatry from the fringe of medicine to its heart, a majority of Americans are likely to come into contact with psychiatric drugs, either recommended for use by their children or for use by them at some point in their lives. Indeed, presently some 1 in 5 adults take anti-depressants, anti-psychotic, or anti-anxiety drugs.

In the latest reason for concern about prescribing antipsychotics for children, a study finds that foster kids are being prescribed combinations of antipsychotics just as frequently as some of the most mentally disabled youngsters on Medicaid. And the findings underscore a growing trend to prescribe these meds, which are approved only for schizophrenia and bipolard disorder, for any psychiatric issue.

The study, which was published in Pediatrics, found that about 2 percent of foster kids were given at least one antipsychotic, even though schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are very rare in young children. The findings resemble a recent report that kids in Florida’s state-run jails and residential homes are regularly given large doses of the meds but not for approved uses (see this).

The study in Pediatrics analyzed Medicaid records from 2003 of nearly 638,000 children from a mid-Atlantic state who were either in foster care, getting disability benefits for a diagnosis like severe autism or bipolar disorder, or in a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The upshot: nearly 17,000, or 3 percentl, had received at least one prescription for an antipsychotic (read the abstract).

There was a day when it seemed like everyone was on antidepressant "happy pills" like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft. But then the pendulum began to swing. Patients objected to the weight gain and feelings of not being "themselves," sexual side effects and the withdrawal symptoms. There were even reports and warnings about suicide and other "neuropsychiatric" effects.

Now, WebMD, the gigantic, pro-pill web site whose original partner was Eli Lilly, is doing damage control for SSRI antidepressants. New articles, sounding like they're from crib makers or cantaloupe growers, urge patients not to panic or quit taking their pills just because of things they read.

Don't believe all the hooey about antidepressants turning "you into a zombie," ruining your sex life or costing too much, says an article called Fears and Facts About Antidepressants on WedMD. And don't be impatient! " If the first antidepressant medication doesn't help, the second or third often will . Most people eventually find one that works for them." Ka-ching. Don't listen to all that suicide talk either! "Switching to a different antidepressant may help," say the damage control articles.

CCHR

September 23, 2011

Note from CCHR: While the FDA and its Pediatric advisory panel sit around pondering if one antipsychotic drug is more likely to cause diabetes in children than another while continuing their stall tactic of “let’s study it some more ” routine, we’d like to point out the simple solution: Considering that antipsychotic drugs are already documented by international drug regulatory agencies to cause not only diabetes but obesity, psychosis, blood clots, heart problems, cardiac events, seizures, toxicity, confusion, coma and stroke (and that’s just in kids) as well as brain atrophy (meaning they actually shrink brains); considering there is no medical test to prove any child has a brain malfunction, chemical imbalance or any physical condition requiring the administration of these lethal drugs—and considering these drugs are literally killing kids that have nothing medically wrong with them in the first place— Do the job you are paid by U.S. Taxpayers to do and BAN their use on children. Period.

NaturalNews

September 15, 2011 by: M.K. Tyler

(NaturalNews) If you have ever seen a commercial for a pharmaceutical drug, you are probably familiar with the long list of dangerous side effects that are rattled off in the last five seconds of the advertisement, just after viewers are told how Drug "X" is going to save their lives, improve their memories or give them unlimited energy. What was that? Did he just say that pill might cause bleeding out of my eyes?

Drug companies do a great job - and spend a lot of money - to ensure that most consumers aren't aware of the harmful side effects of common drugs prescribed for conditions like depression, heart disease, arthritis, ADHD or high blood pressure. Unfortunately, the result of this has created a society where the average person with a health problem is captivated by the promises delivered in clever advertising. There is a drug for everything? All I have to do is talk to my doctor? How convenient.

But what if there was a way to take back control of our lives and our health? What if, despite talking to your doctor, you still have questions or concerns about the safety of a drug?

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) has a database that allows you to do just that. It's called the Psychiatric Drug Database, and it allows consumers to research the potential side effects of common psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin or Wellbutrin.

AHRP
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Vera Sharav

"Consumer protection laws were enacted to regulate product safety and advertising aimed at children... the “best interests of the child” became a touchstone for legal reform. But the 20th century [ ] witnessed a momentous shift, one that would ultimately threaten the welfare of children: the rise of the for-profit corporation."

An Op Ed in The New York Times by Joel Bakan, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, is the author of “Childhood Under Siege: How Big Business Targets Children,” provides insight into the conflict between laws enacted to protect children's best interest and the newly emerging laws that protect corporate best interests.

This conflict of interest has resulted in devastating consequences: children's best interest--their health and welfare have been sacrificed for corporate profits.

Bakan cites childhood obesity resulting from irresponsible advertising by the purveyors of junk food. And the proliferation of toxic chemicals in children's environment that have undermined children's health. And he cites under-regulated pharmaceutical industry practices, noting that corporate deception led to widespread prescribing of psychotropic drugs for children

Taking Antidepressants Nearly Doubles Your Chance of Relapse

Not only does this study demonstrate that antidepressants worsen the condition, it also shows that the underlying theory of a chemical imbalance is a bunch of hooey.

by Heidi Stevenson

21 July 2011

Image:
Woman in Anguish, by Gina Tyler
This wonderful painting is by Gina Tyler,
both a talented artist and a talented homeopath.

A new study demonstrates that using antidepressants nearly doubles the chance of suffering a major depressive relapse—and soon after discontinuing the drugs. This, of course, creates a vicious cycle that results in dependence on the drugs.

Published in the journal, Frontiers of Evolutionary Psychology, another highly signficant finding was made. Not only do antidepressants worsen the condition they're meant to treat, the underlying theory that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain is pure nonsense. Antidepressants do not treat an imbalance. These drugs actually create it!

The Study

The study, entitled "Blue again: perturbational effects of antidepressants suggest monoaminergic homeostasis in major depression", shows that these drugs interfere with the brain's homeostasis. The meta-analysis discovered that people who don't take any antidepressants have a 25% chance of relapsing, while those who do have a relapse rate of 42%.

The studies reviewed included virtually every permutation of antidepressant use: those who started on placebos and were switched to the real medications, those who started on real medications and were switched to placebos, those who took placebos throughout the studies, and those who took only placebos.

AlterNet

By James Ridgeway, Al Jazeera English

July 15, 2011

Has America become a nation of psychotics? You would certainly think so, based on the explosion in the use of antipsychotic medications. In 2008, with over $14 billion in sales, antipsychotics became the single top-selling therapeutic class of prescription drugs in the United States, surpassing drugs used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux.

Once upon a time, antipsychotics were reserved for a relatively small number of patients with hard-core psychiatric diagnoses - primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - to treat such symptoms as delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder. Today, it seems, everyone is taking antipsychotics. Parents are told that their unruly kids are in fact bipolar, and in need of anti-psychotics, while old people with dementia are dosed, in large numbers, with drugs once reserved largely for schizophrenics. Americans with symptoms ranging from chronic depression to anxiety to insomnia are now being prescribed anti-psychotics at rates that seem to indicate a national mass psychosis.

It is anything but a coincidence that the explosion in antipsychotic use coincides with the pharmaceutical industry's development of a new class of medications known as "atypical antipsychotics." Beginning with Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel in the 1990s, followed by Abilify in the early 2000s, these drugs were touted as being more effective than older antipsychotics like Haldol and Thorazine. More importantly, they lacked the most noxious side effects of the older drugs - in particular, the tremors and other motor control problems.

One of the basic rules of logic is: define your terms. This particularly applies to science. We can talk all day, but if we don't know what the basic words and terms mean, we're hopelessly lost.

To get rigorous, a further step is needed when it comes to scientific definition: how did you arrive at it? Where did the definition come from? What experiments were done to support it?

IF YOU ARE A SCIENTIFIC PROPAGANDIST, which is a whole other game, involving deception-you often have to PRETEND to have clear and good definitions of terms.

That's your job. You're not doing science, you're persuading people. You're trying to slip vague terms past them. You're claiming these terms are very useful. You're claiming they represent breakthroughs.

In short, you're saying non-science is science.

Think about this. In the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), which is the bible of the psychiatric profession, there are 297 separate mental disorders, each one with its own name and definition.