The medspeak for their screwups is "adverse health events" and I am willing to bet that this suffers from massive under reporting.

"As for Novartis, makers of Clozaril, and whomever makes its generic form: you asshats killed 3,277 Americans. The doctors who prescribed these drugs are just as responsible, ethically if not legally."-Dawdy

Excuse me while I sob, and send the link to my article I wrote after reading this entry.

Thank you Philip, for writing this, everyone please pay attention. Not only has my daughter been prescribed Clozaril, it appears to help her mind, and that of 60% of a local residential care facility accord to the onsite psychiatrist who has 60% of his patients using it.

A Mother's Love:the advocacy journey, and Clozaril-Soulful Sepulcher

Your article is interesting and it is important to raise awareness to the precautions that need to be taken with these drugs.
However; the side effect related to Vioxx was heart failure and was unkown in initial trials. When discovered that this was an unpreventable and unpredictable side effect with no warning signs-the medication was pulled.
While the main side effect you are referring to with the psychotropic meds is an increased risk of suicide. There are MANY precautions and guidelines for these meds in regard to the increase in suicidal ideations. Patient education is key here.
While the possibility of an increase in suicidal thought related to these drugs is extremely important; the responsability lies also with the physicians, the patient and the families to observe closely for any increase in increased symptomatology.
I am not defending the pharmacuetical industry. However; you cannot bash these companies without realizing that there is accountability on all sides. These drugs have also SAVED millions of lives. A point you seem to have forgotten.

thanks maggie. as far as the antipsychs go, the main causes of death appear to be diabetes, pancreatitis and cardiac problems, not suicides as is more common with the anti-depressants. i'm not sure what patient education would do about pancreatitis

Point well taken in general--many of these drugs are directly dangerous. But to deal narrowly with the antidepressants for a minute, which have not been shown to cause any physiological disturbance even sort of similar to the antipsychotics: these drugs are usually prescribed to depressed people, and depressed people are at risk of suicide whether or not they are medicated.

I can't find any reporting of what the adverse events actually were (heart attack? stroke? suicide?), which would go a long way towards clearing the issue up. But let's say that most or all of the adverse events relating to the SSRIs were suicides. Then there is a correlation between the drugs and suicide. And correlation is not causation.

Why is it okay to kill psych patients but Vioxx gets pulled to protect people in physical pain? Who's protecting us?

This is not pleasant reading. However, I've determined not to get embroiled in a debate about side effects until somebody explains what the benefit of these psychotropic drugs is - "efficacy" being the first criteria, in assessment. If you think that this is a diversion, you should take a look at the way the MHRA, in the UK, squirmed, when I started quizzing it on this point:

http://itsquiteanexperience.blogspot.com/

Read back through July and August, principally. Rather than stand and argue its position, it stonewalled me. It seems pretty plain that these drugs don't work: that's the upshot, and the regulatory licensing process appears to be designed not to pick this up.

Matt

When I go to the doctor I expect my doctor to make the determine what is wrong with me. If the doctor is to write me a prescription I expect the doctor to know exactly what will happen while on the medication. This is the doctors job. This is what makes them the doctor. If I make a suggestion as to what I might feel is the better medication, because maybe I heard it has fewer side effects, I am told flat out "I'm the doctor. I know what is best for you". (In another words, "don't question me") Yes, I suppose if I had money and or insurance I could pick another doctor. One willing to educate me instead of ridiculing me. But hey, in the real world thats just not possible. So, I leave my decission making to the educated doctor, who has made it prefectly clear, he knows whats best! I leave the office educated and assured that my doctor knows best and I needn't have any concerns. There really is no reason for me to question it any further. Maybe someone can explain to me just where am I suppose to get educated about drug safety? We just learned my doctor really isn't interested in me knowing anything except how smart he is. The websites listed on the TV ads the drug company's display? Heck, their websites would surely educate me to all the deaths and other serious side effects associated with their drugs. Maybe you think I should be able to pull up the actual research done on each drug I am prescribed. Yep, could probably learn alot from those with my high school degree! But then again, since it is only a couple doctors with their names on all the research, I might get confortable in their writting styles and actually learn alot. The fact is, I pay my doctor to know what he is prescribing me . I expect the doctor to stay current on what he/she is prescribing. I expect the doctor to file and adverse effect report. I expect my doctor to encourage me and advise me to write a report. I expect my doctor to question the research. I expect my doctor to question the authors of the study, who paid for the study, the results of the study. I expect to be helped, not harmed when taking a medication and it is the doctors responsiblity to assure me that does not happen. Oh, and to tell me someone else's life was saved on the same medication that killed, caused diabetes, caused serious MI symptoms, heart disease in a love one will not resolve the abuses of the drug companies and doctors and make the drugs safer. The drug companies, researchers, prescribing doctors and the FDA all have a responsibilty in assuring my safety. Don't blame me for a lack of education, especially when there is no place to be educated. Thanks to these blogs the general public is getting assess to information that has been kept hidden.

My post pretains to the posted comment from Maggie

Jane how about this: my daughter when she was 17, researched Zyprexa diabetes on her own, took the paperwork to her psych and he told her to "take a walk" to lose weight. She FIRED him. [She had been on that drug since she was 11, and it's only because of MY research that I knew to watch for pancreatitus re: Depakote, and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome[black box warning].She didn't get pancreatitus, but DOES have Polycystic Ovary syndrome, a permanent DAMAGE that leaves a 19 yr old most likely unable to have kids and has increased cancer risk.

Educating patients is something doctors do not do. I was also told "I'm the doctor". "If your mother wanted to be a psychiatrist then she should go to school to become one." "In my 30 years experience, and I'm the doctor." ---the list goes on and on and guess what? I was right ALL of the time, per topic that had been raised. One doctor did tell me due to my SSRI information and suicidal ideation[per Zoloft in 2001 when my daughter was 13]that he was going to "re-think how I medicate patients now due to your mother's research."[he told that to my daughter.]

I WISH I didn't have to learn so much about chemistry, medications, and see adverse affects in someone I love and try and convince a doctor it was the med.

You're right, Zyprexa and Risperdal aren't just
so-called "crazy people" drugs. I was prescribed Risperdal and Seroquel (at different times) for SSRI and SNRI induced insomnia. I was being treated for recurrent major depression, not psychosis. Antipsychotics for insomnia, it's all the rage these days.

I was actually quite surprised with the numbers of reported adverse events from psych meds. It's nice to see that some doctors are reporting.

Maybe part of the problem when to it comes to reporting adverse effects with psych meds is that so many patients these days are on more than one at a time. It's probably not that easy to isolate the culprit. I was on Effexor, Wellbutrin, Lamictal, and a couple of others thrown in to the mix. Then, they take you off one and put you on another, increase this one, decrease that one. So, who knows what caused what.

I realize that taking any drug involves risk. I would, however, like to be the one to choose what risks I am willing to accept. That should always be the patient's decision. I'm not willing to risk diabetes, weight gain, and tardive dyskinesia to address problems with insomnia. If that made me a bad psych patient, sorry.

I've been treating patients who are under the watchful eyes of good psychiatrists who watch them carefully when they are on these types of medications. To me this isn't about the drugs, which usually save lives not take them, it's about the management of the patient and poor history-taking.

Maggie,
Actually it took Merck 4 years to pull Vioxx and they buried the first study that warned of problems.

therapydoc said: "...To me this isn't about the drugs, which usually save lives not take them, it's about the management of the patient and poor history-taking."

This is about the drugs, therapydoc, and it is also about the way that both the manufacturers and the drugs are controlled.

Can you honestly tell me that these things (SSRIs, for example) work? How do you know that they work, and how do you know that they work outside the acknowledged benefit of the placebo effect? I don't believe that you can tell me that, any more than the MHRA could.

This whole business looks like a scam, where those in charge are incapable of presenting the very information that should have been established as a primary consideration. And this is done on the basis that the information is proprietary, commercial data? Purr-lease.

Matt

"To me this isn't about the drugs, which usually save lives not take them, it's about the management of the patient and poor history-taking."

I have always understood this website to be pro-patient and pro-information. In light of that, I am appalled by your statement. FYI, doc, "history-taking" is what slots people into DSM-dictated boxes. Secondly, I'm a person, not a "patient" and I don't need to be "managed." Thanks for your contribution, "therapydoc." Eli Lilly has a website you might want to check out.

Word. And a cyber-bouquet for Franseca.

I agree with a lot of what you had to say on this topic. The media should really step it up and bring more light to such issues on reported adverse events. This, in turn, would increase public awareness. However, I could not help but wonder if more media coverage on these drug related deaths would ultimately lead patients to experience feelings of betrayal and mistrust toward their health care providers. In other words, patients being handed prescriptions will no longer trust the doctors issuing them. This might even cause them to avoid seeking treatment for their illness or deny drug therapy altogether. It hurt me most to hear that “Risperdal, a drug associated with over 1,000 deaths, is used in children--and the FDA approved its use”. How can drugs such as this one, which is used to treat schizophrenia, continue to be prescribed? It might be true that this drug has helped many. But, the FDA has to ask itself the pressing question: do the benefits outweigh the serious risks. I believe that risks such as death and disability outweigh the benefits. More research needs to be conducted on these drugs, in order to properly label all the side effects and to determine whether it is best to simply take the drugs off the market as was the case with Vioxx.

I think this article is great and really informative, but what is this about "crazy-people" drugs? What about the so called "crazy people" diagnosed with so called serious mental illnesses that these drugs are killing? I guess they dont matter? It dosnt matter if they r prescribed for "crazy people" or "lighter" things like bi polar they r still harming people and all these people are humans and dont deserve to be forced or coerced onto these drugs whether they are so called "crazy people" or "normal" people.

You have to address the risk vs benefit in psychiatric drugs. The drugs should NEVER be prescribed unless absolutely neccessary. Perhaps, there should be stricter rules for prescribing. Clozaril is already controlled. A patient had to have been treatment-resistant to at least 3 other antipsychotics. Blood tests are given often and the pharmacist must get the results before dispensing. Schizophrenia is a very serious illness. It can be fatal or make the patient wish it were fatal. Fatalities are caused by suicide or poor decision making that puts the patient in dangerous situations. The suffering from this illness is horrible. Untreated, people with schizophrenia often end up homeless or in institutions. Even with treatment, many people are never able to do what the rest of us take for granted, like marriage, children, or a job. If you'd ever watched a loved one struggling with severe mental illness, perhaps you'd understand why family members, psychiatrists, and the patient if capable, make the decision to take clozaril, the antipsychotic of last resort. When that doesn't work, the only recommendation left is electoshock therapy, which will make you long for the days that dangerous medication was effective.

Mary, good point--the one about psych meds not being RX unless necessary. I'm perplexed by psychiatrists who use these meds so casually, and in the case of my daughter--I think a few who saw her are now questioning their reason for medicating her. Considering she was dx "Impulse Control Disorder" a year ago and sent out of a hospital on CLozaril--every 2 weeks a blood draw, not all pharmacies carry it, and yes the test is mandatory--by law--because it is THAT dangerous. In my opinion, ALL antipsychotics are THAT dangerous, each one carries deadly side effects, and Clozaril is actually so far not the last resort antipsyhotic given to my daughter. It appeared to help "bring her back" as a 18 yr old w/second grade reading level--but once off of it, she crashed. Now back on it, she is at zero reading level, ability to function has become questionable, and now they say it's Schizophrenia. After 8 years, starting with OCD in 1999. One doc off record has told me he agrees the meds could have caused brain damage. A doc off record asked me about ECT. She won't have it. Unless she can read, write and understand her own consent for treatment form--no one has permission to do that to her. What's left? this is where doctors give up. They send them to long term care in institutions. Oh, I've seen suffering, far too much, and the pain I feel is equal, with an added dimension of being told I will never see her again, the girl I once knew. The doc said it so casually too. I think that has to be worse than telling someone they are dying. Because she isnt dying. But she is only 19 and what now.
This is what people need to understand--using psych meds for casual use such as what the drug companies are pushing so much for antipsychotics to be mainstreamed for --is not just dangerous, it is reckless endangerment of a life. Anyone needing a wake up call re: Zyprexa use should read Ellen's story, and my daughters. Because when my daughter used Zyprexa it was not for schizophrenia, it was for OCD/Bipolar in 1999, at age 11, that is a crime.

Mary, I'm curious, what specifically does someone have to do to be given this drug? Do people request it ever? If someone who is labeled schizophrenic is not going to be able to marry, work, or have children, and is so disliked by his family that he is not allowed in their home and is thus on the streets, what benefit can clozaril be to them?

I've worked for a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic (can't say who, it's destroy his life) who is a divorced father with custody of his children and is off all psych meds living in an apartment, paying rent and working on an advanced college degree.

Among the things that concern me about Mary's last post on this thread is this: She's flat out saying schizophrenics are not like you and I, they're not fully human, therefore, it's okay to give them drugs that will make them very very uncomfortable, unhappy and physically sick. Here's where she says it:

"Untreated, people with schizophrenia often end up homeless or in institutions. Even with treatment, many people are never able to do what the rest of us take for granted, like marriage, children, or a job."

Underneath all of the AOT is NAMI/TAC's pretty clear rage over deinstitutionalization. How far are we from a NAMI mandatory sterilization legislative initiative? A prohibition against people labeled schizophrenic and bipolar marrying?

Think about it, their current policy is based on the idea that some people are mentally ill and thus are not fully human, are in fact so sick that if allowed to act on their own ideas, are dangerous. Scary stuff.

In the 70's if a stay at home mother was unhappy and frustrated with her children, she went to therapy and changed to become happy. Today, she takes the child to get drugged and blames all of her feelings on the child.

There's some much potential for good and healing in the mental health field. It's ashamed its being drowned out by the bad.

Eli-Lilly have only agreed to settle diabetes and weight gain claims out of the goodness of their heart. The crimes are about off-label deaths of men, women and children. Lawyers are offering settlements for small amount of money. Today I noticed the judge plans to clean his docket of settled claims. Lawyers received a lump sum then offer settlements. To me this means my cry for justice will happen only if I go with my state sueing. I live in mississippi, no more waiting for my lawyer to communicate with Eli-Lilly for me. I know now my lawyer cheated and was not working for me. My lawyer is from Viriginia.

Eli-Lilly was forced to admit to diabetes and weight gain. Eli-Lilly is also guilty of off-label marketing that they have not accepted blame. I live in Jackson Mississippi where this drug company target their zyprexa for dementia. My husband had Blue Cross and Blue Shield plus medicare he was only 45 years old when he died in 2005. Now my lawyer is trying to force my dementia case into settlement with diabetes, offering 15 Thousand after lawyer fees (which I refused). I want to go to trial but the law and our courts are not ready because of mass tort problems Eli-Lilly caused. That is what happens when you spread your poison around, but they are back to business as usual.

Does anyone know exactly what CLOZARIL does to the body that causes weight gain? More importantly, does anyone know how to reverse it after it's done the damage and you're no longer taking it? I'm so sick of being fat because of this stupid crap!

Risperdal is a dangerous drug that needs to be pulled off the market. Although it causes diabetes, it's mainly damages the heart.

My son, Chris, was prescribed Risperdal in 1998. Two months later he began having heart issues. I carried him to a cardiologist who assured me that he would be ok. Then one night in 1999 I had to rush him to the ER because his heart was racing and beating hard. Chris is non-verbal and has autism. He could not relay to me what was going on, but I could tell that his heart was beating fast and hard from watching his chest.

After taking an x-ray in the ER and having an EKG, I was told he had a hole in his heart. I carried him to another cardiolgist who confirmed that he has a leaking valve, which could someday lead to Pulmonary Hypertension.

I can imagine that other non-verbal people have suffered the same injury that my son has and there are people out there who are aware of this, yet no one is saying anything.

Risperal is a dangerous drug that needs to be pulled off the market as well as a lot of other psych medications. In Canada, this drug is being exposed for what it does to people. Only in America is Risperdal being held as a safe remedy for autism and bipolar disorder.