I'm very, very, very, very... angry.
This is another crime.
I never understood using drug for quit smoking.
First it was bupropion: Zyban, Wellbutrim...
That was beyond any comprehension.
Now this Champix...
And that's the result.
People are getting very sick because of these drugs.
How many more... blah, blah, blah...

What she and the others need is to stop taking anti-psychotics before it's too late!
Dear Lord!
Treating side effects with drugs that don't even help those who are really sick!
Pharmageddon is making more and more sense for me.

I also have heard some amazing success stories on Chantix. It always astonishes me I'm afraid and I almost wish it weren't the case which shows my bias. I guess the same thing can probably be said about antidepressants but at least in the case of Chantix people do stop it after they have successfully stopped smoking. I can't explain why some people have such terrible reactions and others don't notice anything adverse at all. Philip has often remarked on the incredible diversity there is in how people respond to psych drugs. I think dosage has something to do with it. How people respond to the same dose varies dramatically with antidepressants and it probably does with Chantix as well. Since these drugs are marketed with a one size fits all it's not surprising that reactions vary. Heaven forbid that one should be a poor metabolizer and get the standard dose because it's effectively like getting a much larger one. Other than that I guess it's a matter of luck as to just how toxic the drug is to a particular individual. Maybe some of us can tolerate having certain brain cells damaged and killed better than others, because don't kid yourself, that is the mechanism by which these drugs are working. It sure would be great if this was all a lot better understood before these drugs were so widely prescribed.

Interesting how the people who are most enthusiastic about jumping to the conclusion that mental and emotional distress are caused by endogenous chemical imbalances (even in the absence of credible evidence that such imbalances exist, let alone that they are causative) are the same people who are most reluctant to see any connections between taking psych drugs (which have as their sole mechanism of action altering the brains natural biochemistry) and subsequent mental problems.

Philip,
I took the liberty to put some excerpts from this review of Consumers International about the pharmaceutical industry influence on the developing contries;

You can download it on their site:

http://www.consumersinternational.org/

Drugs,doctors and dinners
How drug companies influence health in the developing world

I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity; I will practise my
profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration…
Declaration of Geneva (amended 2006)
Adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical Association

“The scheme of the [pharmaceutical] company was as follows: ‘On sale of 1,000 samples of the drug, get a Motorola handset. On sale of 5,000 samples get an air cooler. On sale of 10,000 samples get a motor bike.’”
Doctor from India
Mumbai India (2003)

Member governments are urged, ”to enact new, or enforce existing, legislation to ban inaccurate, misleading or unethical promotion of medicines, to monitor drug promotion, and to develop and implement programmes that will provide independent, non-promotional information on medicines.”
Resolution Rational Use of Medicines (WHA 60.16)
Adopted by the 60th World Health Assembly
May 2007

In this report, Consumers International seeks to highlight the marketing practices 3 in emerging and developing economy markets 4 by leaders in the pharmaceutical industry. Since direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) is banned in most countries health professionals are the primary targets for the sales tactics of the drug companies. Consequently, the scope of our report focuses on doctor-directed promotion.

Poor regulation by governments In developing countries the systems and resources to effectively monitor and regulate the marketing of medicines are not necessarily in place. In 2004, the World Health Organization established that less than one-sixth of countries had a well-developed system of drug regulation, and one-third had little to no regulatory capacity.6 Therefore, frameworks to enforce unethical, irresponsible or even illegal promotion to consumers are a major problem in the context of developing and emerging economy countries. p.7

… results in risks to consumer safety
Campaigners for the rational use of drugs say that regulatory authorities in India are slow to protect consumers from drugs that have been banned, withdrawn, or marketed under restrictions in North America, Europe, and many other Asian countries. For example, Rofecoxib, the internationally recalled anti-arthritis drug sold by Merck & Co. as Vioxx, Ceoxx and Ceeoxx, was among some of the controversial drugs available in the domestic market in 2005. 8 The drug was
officially banned in India, in October 2004, a month after the official Merck recall. p. 7

Brazil, like India offers another case example to highlight the limits of existing legislation in controlling irresponsible advertising in emerging markets. In 2005, Patrícia de Carvalho Mastroianni and colleagues at the Department of Psychobiology of the Paulista Medical School of the Federal University of São Paulo gathered advertisements from Brazilian, American and British psychiatry
periodicals.13 They analysed 24 Brazilian advertisements for the same psychoactive drugs as advertised in American and/or British publications from the same period. They observed that “Brazilian advertisements omitted information on usage restrictions, such as contraindications, adverse reactions, interactions, warnings and precautions, and that such information was present in American and British advertisements.” p. 7

Up to 50% of medicines in developing countries are inappropriately prescribed, dispensed or sold.23 The problem is compounded when drug companies also
release misleading messages and information to the public and patients. It is also estimated that 50% of patients in developing countries improperly use medicines.24 Such high levels of irrational use are likely to be having a disastrous impact on people’s health resulting in reduced treatment efficacy and contributing to problems like drug resistance.25 The UK’s Department for International Development concludes that poor people in developing countries often receive little health benefit for their spending on drugs. p. 9

Pushing the wrong pills
Finally there is the question of whether the pharmaceutical industry is simply too market driven. Operating in a competitive market and with falling revenues there is
immense pressure on companies to deliver the next ‘block buster’ drug. The inevitable pressure on companies is to focus on the wealthiest markets and the most marketable conditions. This has led to a concentration on ‘me too’
drugs that tap into lucrative markets but add little additional medical value and even ‘disease mongering’ or the medicalisation of conditions that had previously been seen as lifestyle issues and only in extreme cases a cause for medical intervention. p 10

The World Health Organization defines drug promotion as including: “all informational and persuasive activities by manufacturers and distributors, the effect of which is to induce the prescription, supply, purchase and/or use of
medicinal drugs.” The main aim of promotion is not to inform but to persuade. Consumer goods advertisements rarely convey much information about the features of the product. Instead the emphasis of much advertising is on associating consumption of the product with positive feeling. p. 15

Drug companies also appear to be heavily promoting drugs in developing countries that have been recalled, or the subject of safety scares, in developed countries. Such incidents include the well reported VIOXX case, GSK’s Seroxat-Paxil and Avandia 106 and AstraZeneca’s Crestor.107 ) However, despite these scares, the drug companies continue to promote these products – as indicated by the example to the right - particularly in non-European and North American markets, where pharmacovigilance standards are lagging. p. 29

CI recognises that effective regulation of drug promotion is difficult for several reasons including:
• Many drug companies are economically larger than many nations. p. 30

“Why do less developed countries not implement laws to rationalise drug advertisements and consumerism? We have asked these questions for a long time, but still we have no answers.”109
Felipe Dal-Pizzol
Department of Medicine, Universidade do Extremo Sul Catarinense, Brazil p. 30

The pharmaceutical vigilance - ANVISA - in Brazil does nothing.

Philip,
You wrote on Rozerem on May 07, 2008
It was one of the winners of the International Bad Product Awards:

http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=97120

The world federation of consumer organisations, Consumers International (CI) today announced the winners of the International Bad Product Awards, to be presented at CI’s World Congress in Sydney, Australia, 29 Oct – 1 November 2007.

The awards aim to highlight failings of corporate responsibility and the abuse of consumer trust by internationally recognised brands. The announcement comes as 400 delegates from national consumer organisations and governments, convene in Sydney to attend CI’s World Congress.

This year’s winners* are:

Coca-Cola – for continuing the international marketing of its bottled water, Dasani, despite admitting it comes from the same sources as local tap water.

Kellogg’s – for the worldwide use of cartoon-type characters and product tie-ins aimed at children, despite high levels of sugar and salt in their food products.

Mattel – for stonewalling US congressional investigations and avoiding overall responsibility for the global recall of 21 million products.

With the overall prize going to:

Takeda Pharmaceuticals – for taking advantage of poor US regulation and advertising sleeping pills to children, despite health warnings about pediatric use.

Richard Lloyd, Director General of Consumers International, said:

Company: Takeda Pharmaceuticals
Action: Advertising sleeping pills to children The US subsidiary of Japanese drug firm Takeda Pharmaceutical took out a TV advertisement in September 2006 for its sleeping drug Rozerem. It was a ‘reminder’ ad which, under US direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) law, pharmaceutical companies can use to keep consumers aware of the need to buy their drugs.

This particular ad was released at the beginning of the school year and used images of children, chalk boards, school books and a schools bus. The accompanying voiceover stated:

“Rozerem would like to remind you that it’s back to school season. Ask your doctor today if Rozerem is right for you.”
Under the tagline ‘Back to School’

It doesn’t take a PhD in marketing to see that this is an effort to persuade parents to seek out the sleeping drug for their children – to help them get through the stress of term starting.
The advertisement ran without noting the very serious side effects that this drug can have, including increased thoughts of suicide in already depressed patients. Takeda pharmaceuticals also failed to mention the precautions on its packaging about children using this drug. According to the product labelling:

PRECAUTIONS (relating to pediatric use)
Use in Adolescents and Children ROZEREM has been associated with an effect on reproductive hormones in adults….It is not known what effect chronic or even chronic intermittent use of ROZEREM may have on the reproductive axis in developing humans.

Pediatric Use
Safety and effectiveness of ROZEREM in pediatric patients have not been
established. Further study is needed prior to determining that this product
may be used safely in pre-pubescent and pubescent patients.
That such a potentially harmful drug should be geared towards young children is outrageous. Almost as outrageous was the token action taken by the Food and Drugs Agency (FDA) – the body that regulates pharma company behaviour in the US:
It took six months for the FDA to tell Takeda to remove the ad - long after the relevance of a ‘back to school’ promotion had gone. Takeda is a US$10 billion dollar pharmaceutical company. It spent $118 million on advertising ROZEREM last year, yet the FDA issued no fine and no penalty. Just a slap on the wrist.

CI says:
‘This case demonstrates the lengths to which some drug companies will go to increase sales of their products, how direct to consumer advertising can promote irrational drug use, and how weak regulation can foster irresponsible corporate behaviour. This company is our overall award winner for irresponsible behaviour for 2007.’

"These multi-billion dollar companies are global brands with a responsibility to be honest, accountable and responsible. In highlighting their short-comings Consumers International and its 220 member organisations are holding corporations to account and demanding businesses take social responsibility seriously."

The next day at work, apparently I flipped out. One of my co-workers told me that I threatened to blow my brains out. My boss took me to a psychiatric hospital; I was brought there in a manic state, threatening suicide.

Which would make this woman collateral damage if the "no force" wingnuts had their way, which they won't but bless their hearts for trying to make the world safe from the overarching evil of interfering with a person's right to kill themself. Yes I know, taking difficult stands is all part of being a human rights advocate.

"Can I just stress that first episodes of mania are virtually non-existent once one is out of their 30s?"

Got data?

So what else is new? 100's of thousands of people, possibly in the millions, have been diagnosed as "bipolar" after taking an antidepressant.

There are countless cases of this happening that have been recorded on www.SSRIstories.com

It seems instead of blaming the drug for the psychosis and/or mania, the docs blame the "latent" bipolar illness.

Terrible tragedy that Chantix causes this also. The nicest people you would ever want to know are smokers [at least that used to be true - now they have all quit or are trying to quit]. Practically every writer, journalist, news reporter was a smoker back in the early 1960's. They all puffed away. The only writer I can think of "off the cuff" who lived to be really old, though, was Somerset Maughmn. He lived to be 93 and every book of his I have has a picture on the back cover of him smoking. Almost everyone of his short stories consists of people smoking or talking about smoking.

As the famous saying of Mark Twain's goes: "Quitting smoking is easy - I have done it hundreds of times".

Glad Mark T. didn't have to deal with young doctors and Chantix.

It doesn't say that she was forced at all. She was probably coerced to some degree, being taken there by her boss, but to me her story sounds pretty different from the experience of people who are violently captured by the cops operating under the government's police power.

I would hate to see this woman kill herself under a "chemical suicidal ideation".
If I killed myself because I wanted to kill myself I would be very happy. It's my right not wanting to live.
But if I killed myself during the "chemical suicidal ideation" promoted by withdrawing Effexor I would be very angry.
There's a huge difference between both feelings.
I don't think that Phil Hartman's and her wife's death was a "choice" and a right.
Rosie C.,
I smoke and don't think about quit smoking.
If I wanted to stop I would use the old fashion way.
I love M. Twain!
"A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the other one."

We just get such bogus information about all drugs, tobacco included. I would agree that the anti-smoking movement is similar in hysteria to the temperance movement but then so is the hysteria around diagnosing folks as "mentally ill" so they (those scary others that maybe irresponsibly walking around moody, unhappy, or deluded)can take toxic drugs and die earlier making us "normal" folk safe.

What the mainstream doesn't say is that it is possible to use tobacco in moderation, just like alcohol and pretty much any other drug. So we go with crap like Chantix. I guess if there really were accurate information about both tobacco and Chantix out there, a potential Chantix user could realistically determine which drug was the most risky and society could determine if drugs like Chantix which apparently cause mania and psychosis should be legal.

Sally...it is not possible for me to smoke in moderation...I am not addictive with any other substance in the way I am with tobacco...it's all or nothing for me...and I know that's the case for most people with cigs, unlike alcohol where most people can moderate and the addict is the exception. (common exception perhaps, but not the norm)

I also chose to stop smoking cold turkey. No drugs to help---they never worked and kept me addicted to nicotine(the patch for example) But relapsed many times before it stuck---simply because I THOUGHT I could moderate each time I started up again.

Hey!

I was just doing some research on here with some of my spare time.

Chantix did the same thing to me. It tottally changed my personality and turned me into the incredible Hulk. I took chantix for 2 1/2 months and then quit because it wasnt working. well I started acting really strange and about ruined a relationship with the love of my life.

6 months later Im on meds and im rapidly becoming the man i used to be. Im loving it!

I took Chantix a year ago and quit smoking until the stress of my job and other influences caused me to restart. I took it again here recently. my wife just about divorced me I was a complete and udder disgrace of a human being. I would rip peoples heads off at the drop of a hat. I would go through boughts of extreme paranoia and then depression. I have dealt with the chemical cocktails the doctors are giving people and I just quit taking them all. they would start to treat symptoms caused by other meds with harder more addictive medications. Listen, there are people in this world who need bi-polar meds... this woman was not one of them they needed to detox the chantix out of her system. Also people need to understand that if you let the doctors do this it's just a never ending cycle. I mean for what it's worth aspirin is good and I can see uses for some depressant medications in small short term doses for seasonal depression. But children at the age of 5 being put on Adarall or Ritalin becuase a teacher doesn't want to teach them or there is a failing else where. What is the point. The medical community needs to wake up and realize that smoking is a bad habit yes, but the almost Zealot-like crusade against it is only going to cause more hurt than good. Yea I smoke, but i would rather deal with that than go through life so chemically imbalanced do to "modern medicine" where I will probably die of cancer and or organ failure due to toxicity far before smoking got me.