While their heart is in the right place, their facts are a little off-center, definitely. They are basically using the word "psychosis" as a synonym for "mental disorder." Depression and bipolar disorder are definitely not examples of psychotic disorders (while a person can have psychotic symptoms and still be diagnosed with one of these, it would be the rare exception, not the norm).

So I'm a little wary of any program that goes to such great efforts, but gets so much of their information just plain wrong. Incorrect education is probably nearly as bad as no education, since people reading their website or promotional materials may start thinking they too should be on an antipsychotic medication...

I gave a cursory look over of the article and website about the above referenced program. I don't have a lot of time right now. I'm preparing for a cross country trip which is demanding a lot of emotional commitment on my part right now, but I wanted to say something.

I absolutely question the use of any antipsychotic to prevent so-called schizophrenia. I imagine these kids are kept on these "low-doses" to prevent full-blown psychosis into the future. I think that until long-term studies prove continued remission no conclusions can be made.

I suggest that psychosis should be treated with therapy and round the clock support in order to work through what is ultimately a psychological problem. I've mentioned before the success of treating "schizophrenia" in programs like Soteria House.

http://www.moshersoteria.com/soteri.htm

Drugs were used in only 3 percent of the population and people recovered 80 percent of the time. There is much evidence that drugging increases the risk of relapse over time.

In "Mad in America" Robert Whitaker reports:

"The WHO first launched a study to compare outcomes in different countries in 1969, a research effort that lasted 8 years. The results were mind-boggling. At both two-year and five-year follow-ups, patients in three poor countries--India, Nigeria, and Colombia--were doing dramatically better than patients in the United States and four other developed countries. They were much more likely to be fully recovered and faring well in society--"an exceptionally good social outcome characterized these patients," the WHO researchers wrote--and only a small minority had become chronically sick. At five years, about 64 percent of the patients in poor countries were asymptomatic and functioning well. Another 12 percent were doing okay, neither fully recovered nor chronically ill, and the final 24 percent were still doing poorly. In contrast, only 18 percent of the patients in the rich countries were asymptomatic and doing well, 17 percent were in the so-so category, and nearly 65 percent had poor outcomes....the WHO researchers concluded that living in a developed nation was a "strong predictor" that a schizophrenic patient would never fully recover.....

....The notion that "cultural" factors might be the reason for the difference has an obvious flaw. The poor countries in the WHO studies--India, Nigeria, and Colombia--are not culturally similar....The obvious place to look for a distinguishing variable, then, is the medical care that was provided. And here there was a clear difference. Doctors in poor countries did not keep their mad patients on neuroleptics, while doctors in rich countries did. In the poor countries only 16 percent were maintained on neuroleptics. In rich countries 61 percent were kept on such drugs."

I've commented on this before and another of your readers dismissed it quickly saying it had been refuted. Fine. Refuted by whom I'd like to ask? Most assuredly by people who have a stake in psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industries. The WHO study was done twice with the same results. I just think we need to question medication being the first line of treatment in every single case and especially in the case of vulnerable young people who may simply need intensive psycho-social supports. Throw in diet and nutritional supports and the chances of recovery, I have no doubt, are quite high.

The problem here is societal and bolstered by an incorrect paradigm. The supports needed are non-existent--but certainly not impossible--but because of the current paradigm no one with any influence will question the supposed success of the above program.

I think this opens a whole new and exciting field of medicine, psychic medicine. I hope I can get in on the ground floor. All they need is some certified psychic's to diagnose patients. Now how do I get that certification...? I'll be right to medicate if the patients don't get ill, and I'll be right if they still get ill. It's win win!

This stuff is darn scary because it's based on so many false assumptions about "illness" and treatment. I think you're spot on with your comments. And yes, I'm all for helping troubled teens early on too but not like this -- not by labeling them with "prodomal" mental illness and treating them with meds that are guaranteed to make them worse over the long term not better. There are lots and lots of other interventions that make a lot more sense but of course they don't make big corporations any money.

I am going to take some time to pick this apart; but wanted to start with school, clothes and personality.
I am fortunate to work with mostly Junior High students. I also remember being a 13, 14 --17 year old. Basic self-expression at those ages is most always via clothing, make up, music and even the way we decorated our bedrooms. Everyone one of us here, as adults cannot deny we worried that others were talking about us; would we have friends; and all of us wanted to "fit in".

We still do.. We are, as adults, no different. Thus the cool clothes, the desire for social scene approval, nice car, house, hair, body, all of it. We just self-express ourselves differently.
If expression of self, or personality is medicated, we become dull, and lose a piece of us that sometimes is obvious. Some may attempt to appear to 'fit in', yet the meds prevent us from being social, or even appearing "normal".
Every single day in the Junior High lunch room, there are groups of kids. Tables that are "taken", and it's still the same...boys, girls, some are boys/girls,some are wanna-be jocks and cheerleaders, some are kids reading as they eat, and yes, some kids still have no table. I actually sat outside as much as possible to avoid that entire scene.

I raised 3 kids with an open mind. I always told them to be yourself. I meant it. I allowed it. I wanted them to express themselves. As a result I have 2 in college, one about to graduate has piercings up both ears, tried the nose but that didn't work out, she's got tattoos, and she also laughed at me when I got a 2nd ear piercing and made her go with me, and I had to lay down for almost fainting. She introduced me to her music, and as a result have tons of cool memories and know the words to more songs of her generation than most mothers.

That being said, I want to add that moodiness is a natural part of being a teenager, and some of my most favorite students are "the ones" who dress goth, are pierced, etc. if you sit and talk with them, they have all of our same dreams.

I think we as a society are forgetting that we were once kids too. God, it's a development stage. Yes, rebellion is an important part of growing up, and doesn't need medications.

Now I am off to read that teachers kit.

P.S. I just looked at the site a bit more carefully and all the people working there. They all look so nice and well meaning. This is what makes all this stuff so insidious. So many people have been beguiled by the biomedical model and the lure of pharmacology. It's very appealing but grossly inadequate for the social, cultural and political ills facing a generation of young and old people alike. That's where the work needs to occur.

This does look like PRIME (a huge failure) all over again.

Create an artificial situation in which your drug can be shown to be successful to boost sales of said drug. NAMI has no shame.

This also reminds me of TMAP, which Johnson and Johnson was the largest investor and supporter of.

I'm all for mental health, but these programs seem to be more about product validation than the well beings of individuals.

Thanks for posting this story, I would have missed it.

A bit off topic, but not really:
While in the neurosurgeon's waiting area yesterday, the most well-dressed man and woman in there were the Pharma reps that strolled in with their suitcases with wheels. I mean, these were head to toe dressed impeccable, and stood out like beacons there. I am happy to report that they tried to gain access to the doc--and a staff came out and denied them.
Of course I sat there reading Science Magazine and tried not to laugh when they got sent out.

French manicures, perfect hair, expensive suits and shoes--Lord have mercy I wonder what that feels like to pimp pharmaceutical shit out all day with a nice outfit on, and a company credit card.

I'd rather drive my junk car and wear bad clothes any day vs. that.
I'm sure they were annoyed when my daughter didn't understand she needed to move so they could get their Pharma selves out of the door.
I'm sure they had no clue that most of the people in there will never be able to afford their clothes.
End of rant.

It seems like you have been posting at a Tasmanian devil-like rate and so while I still read everything, I am often playing a little catch up too with the blog and then am a little overwhelmed in terms of commenting since I usually read the blog only 1-2x a week.

But I bet it is a bit of Easter and spring fever.. After months of 10 to -10 F, well, I just want be outside and not glued to the screen reading and commenting on blogs.