July 31, 2008Risperdal And Abilify Lead To Hundreds Of Adverse Events Reports For Kids, TeensYesterday, I posted an item wherein the FDA says it accepts as valid the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder, despite much controversy within psychiatry about the validity of the disorder. I also noted that a Harvard child psychiatrist had written to a newspaper stating that Risperdal and Abilify, two atypical antipsychotics, are "safe and effective" for youngsters. Let's see what the FDA's adverse events database has to say about that. First, let's forget about whether pediatric bipolar disorder even truly exists for a moment because Risperdal and Abilify have both been approved by the FDA for use in kids aged 10 to 17 who allegedly have pediatric bipolar disorder. There is some level of consensus in psychiatry that bipolar disorder can appear in the early teen years--somewhere around 12 or years old--so this 10 to 17 business is kind of an overlap diagnosis for both children and teens. What's more, Risperdal has been approved for use in treating autism in children since 2006. The two drugs are also approved for use in schizophrenia in children. Further, we know that some doctors have been prescribing these two drugs off-label for several years in advance of their recent approvals. Abilify was approved for use in treating pediatric bipolar disorder in 10 to 17 year olds in 2007. Risperdal was approved for use in 2007. What this means is that, regardless of what the clinical trials showed for these drugs (does anyone trust short-term clinical trials as a measure of safety anymore? I sure don't), there are several years of real world experience in the use of these drugs that will be captured in the FDA's adverse events database. And, the nice folks at Psychdrugdangers.com have compiled the FDA's adverse events database for various psych meds at least through 2006. For Abilify used in kids aged 10 to 14 from 2003 to 2006, we find 227 adverse events reports. For teens aged 15 to 19 (so we are getting a bit into adult use here, but that's how the database is organized), there are 215 adverse events reports. Keep in mind this is for a time period when the drug was mostly being used off-label for ANY indication in children under 18 in this age group. There are reports of suicidal ideation, deaths, attempted suicides (that the doctor involved in the case found worthy of passing along to the FDA), aggression, drooling, tremors, heart problems and so on. Taken together, that's 442 adverse events reported in advance of the drug's approval for use in pediatric bipolar disorder. For Risperdal used in kids aged 10 to 14 from 2004 to 2006, we find 103 adverse events reports. For 15 to 19 years old, there are 92 reported cases in those years. There are reports of suicidal ideation, attempted suicides, deaths, completed suicides, aggression, mania induction, paralysis, tremors, diabetes, heart problems (including cardiac arrests causing death), pancreatitis and so on. Taken together, that's 195 adverse events reports. Yes, these drugs are safe for use in youngsters. Even more stunning on the safety front is what turns up when we look at adverse events reports for the use of these drugs in children aged 0 to 4 (where most of the use would be accidental or in utero) and ages 5 to 9. For Abilify exposure (as opposed to intended use) and use (as in prescribed to the kiddo) in kids 0 to 4 from 2003 to 2006, we find 22 adverse events reports. Loss of consciousness, convulsions (in the case of a 4-year-old girl with alleged child bipolar disorder), hyperglycemia and so on. For Risperdal exposure in kids aged 0 to 4 from 2004 to 2006, we find 19 adverse events reports. There are reports of babies experiencing drug withdrawal syndromes, cardiac problems, respiratory problems and so on. For Abilify used in kids aged 5 to 9 from 2004 to 2006, we find 122 adverse events reports, mostly in kids being given the drug for alleged child bipolar disorder and ADHD. Dystonia (abnormal muscle movement), weight gain, tardive diskinesia, tremors, aggression and blurred vision and so on. For Risperdal used in kids aged 5 to 9 from 2004 to 2006, we find 56 adverse events reports, mostly in kids being given the drug for alleged child bipolar disorder, ADHD and oppositional defiance disorder. There are cases of white cell counts being decreased, convulsions, aggression, weight gain and tardive diskinesia. There's even one death reported. How Harvard's Wozniak can claim these drugs are safe is beyond me. Why do I say that? The clinical trials for Risperdal for use in pediatric bipolar disorder in kids aged 10 to 17 involved 169 patients, a very small number by clinical trials standards. Yet, as noted above, over a three year period of the drug's use off-label and for autism, there are 195 adverse events reports, more than were even in the clinical trials. If I were a doctor I'd use the term safe very carefully. A lawyer might ask you what you mean by that term someday. As for the FDA, I'd say that what exists in its adverse events database as real world experiences in advance of the approval for the use of these drugs in kids aged 10 to 17 raises all sorts of questions about whether the FDA is aware of its own data. And that's regardless of whether pediatric bipolar disorder exists or not. Posted by Philip Dawdy at July 31, 2008 12:01 AM
del.icio.us
Digg it
reddit
Comments
Doctors need to be tested to see if they're sociopathic before they are put in a position to harm innocent children. Posted by: Sophia at July 30, 2008 11:22 PMThis is the sort of piece that is so discouraging. The treatment causes symptoms worse than any the alleged disease could ever cause and no matter how loud and how long many of us shout about it, nothing happens. Children are being destroyed by these drugs and it's considered okay because they're labeled bipolar. It's unbelievable and yet it's happening. Good reporting on a terrible situation. Posted by: Sally at July 30, 2008 11:52 PM"Yet, as noted above, over a three year period of the drug's use off-label and for autism, there are 195 adverse events reports, more than were even in the clinical trials. If I were a doctor I'd use the term safe very carefully. A lawyer might ask you what you mean by that term someday." You're on fire, Philip. I've never been angrier and more upset at something I have read probably since 9/11. It's going to destroy what ever chance I had for sleep tonight. and I can tell you, I've been on all those drugs since I was 23. I cannot imagine a doctor giving them to an innocent pre-teen or teenager. So what is it going to take? Is it like the dangerous intersection or jug handle that has a high mortality rate but no one does anything about it until some socially prominent person dies in it, and then everyone wants to re adjust it? I cannot help but wonder if any of this assat doctors had a child of their own and was diagnosed bipolar, would they be writing scripts for their kid or not? And what about the parents and siblings of these children who have to live with the fact these drugs are destroying their children/siblings minds and souls? Parents would give up their lives for their children. It must be hell on earth watching this happen to your child. Posted by: susan at July 31, 2008 01:50 AM"...raises all sorts of questions about whether the FDA is aware of its own data. " Yep! Posted by: Ana at July 31, 2008 02:07 AMYou quote numbers of patients who have experienced side effects without the total number who were treated. This can be very misleading since it ignores people who have been helped by these medications. Every medication has its side effects, and there are always people who are particularly sensitive to them. But these medications can potentially help a great number of people. The only way to find out is to try them. Many medications are prescribed for years off label before getting official FDA approval. Lithium and clozapine are two particular examples. They have horrible, even deadly in the case of clozapine, side effects but were used off label before it was understood how to prescribe them properly. This is simply how the process works. Posted by: A Believer at July 31, 2008 03:15 AMtell ya' what true believer using an anonymizer system no less: you get me the exact data for each drug for each age group for each year and give me your sources and i'll cite it. as far as i know that level of detail doesn't exist. so what's your point? Posted by: Philip Dawdy at July 31, 2008 03:18 AMI was put on lithium at 17. I've tried others since then but always come back to lithium. The side effects are minimal for me anyway and its got some bonuses too (I never get cold sores when on lithium) Posted by: Erik at July 31, 2008 06:46 AMI'd disallow any off-label use of psychotropics. If you want to experiment on humans, write up a protocol, get IRB approval, and ensure someone of standing is liable for damages when things go wrong. The fact that we have little understanding of how the drugs work nor of the brain is problematic. The hubris in psychiatry is worse, however. Posted by: Paul at July 31, 2008 07:01 AMPutting aside whether pediatric bipolar really exists or not (I personally have my doubts), this analysis of adverse side effects for Risperdal and Abilify is very misleading. From my understanding of clinical trials, the FDA requires that *ANY* potential symptom is reported as an adverse event, whether the symptom is eventually proven to be due to the medication or not. The result of this? Open up any standard drug reference, and you get a whole laundry list of "adverse effects", a huge number of which it makes absolutely no sense for the medication to cause. Look at some of the adverse effects listed above: "suicidal ideation", "attempted suicides", "completed suicides", "aggression", "mania"... these are all symptoms that psychiatric patients (including bipolar patients) commonly have, whether they're on medications or not. Look at some other effects: "respiratory problems", "palpitations", "convulsions", "hyperglycemia", "aggression", etc. All of these are common occurrences in even normal children, on no medications at all. The bottom line is: when you look at "adverse event profiles", you do have to be a bit skeptical. Some of the listed effects are probably legit, but the vast majority usually aren't. Posted by: Innocent bystander at July 31, 2008 07:07 AMNice job not citing the rate of adverse events as a function of the number of total prescriptions. 442 pediatric adverse events for Abilify, for example, means nothing without knowing how many kids were given Abilify during that same period of time. Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2008 09:11 AMLOL Please "A believer" we have discussed these questions so many times that they are not of great help any longer. Anyway, it's always good to answer the same because some people are just arriving and lost the discussions. Using these drugs off-label is never safe and there is NO evidence of long-term safety in children. Period. The data does not cover hundreds of thousands of kids who have been on these drugs and been taken off of them for side effects then another drug replacing that one. Prove, just prove true believer how many kids are HELPED by these drugs and I will show you the same kids my daughter went to psych wards as a pre-teen/teen and adult---and you'll see the kids grown up now, these drugs are bullshit. My daughter for the first time is on ONE drug, and that happens to be Clozaril. She's fortunate to be on a low dose compared to her residential peers who are so doped up they sit in chairs all day. My daughter is lucky to have survived this last decade, and she is a beacon of hope for other kids--an example--of what NOT TO DO. (don't use these drugs on kids). I can show you what life is like after a decade, not to mention the PBS program "The medicated child" online for free viewing. Innocent kids with permanent movement disorders and crap for lives. Posted by: Stephany at July 31, 2008 09:35 AMBeliever is correct to criticize you for giving decontextualized information about risk without also offering information about the number of exposures to each med and without any information about the benefit side of the equation. Without number of exposures you can't calculate a rate for these adverse effects, and without benefit information, you can't weigh the risks against the benefits. You have also failed to discuss the well-known deficiencies of FDA's adverse event database. These are case reports only. They are subject to unquantified underreporting and overreporting biases. They offer no evidence of a causal link between exposure and the adverse effect, etc. They are an important source of safety signals, but they are only suggestive, not definitive. I actually agree with you about taking these risks seriously and about the possible overdiagnosis of juvenile bipolar, but the information you present is not balanced or complete enough to support your conclusions. The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey will provide national estimates as to the number of prescriptions dispensed (actually "drug mentions") per year in the US, and with the right stats software you can break this down by age, gender and diagnosis. Public use data files can be downloaded for free: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/ahcd/ahcd1.htm Posted by: Bruce Lambert at July 31, 2008 09:58 AMThank you for having the courage to report these issues.
Intelligent people know how popular drug activists are nowadays, I am sure in some blog somewhere you are being vilified and compared to Jennie McCarthy, kudos for your dedication and conviction. Posted by: drgonzo at July 31, 2008 11:17 AMDoctors need to be tested to see if they're sociopathic before they are put in a position to harm innocent children. Posted by Sophia at July 30, 2008 11:22 PM I thought that being a "sociopath" was a prerequisite for psychiatrists?...
Healy and ECT? Let me at him! Let me at him. As I stated here a year ago (my it doesn't seem that long ago does it?) that after my ECT ended, had I had a gun I would have pulled a Hemingway. I could see why Hemingway blamed it for ruining his life- It was a brilliant cure, but we lost the patient. As for Breggin, he is too busy the last week or so hanging out with his new friend Michael Savage and kissing his butt after Savage made his comments on Autism. Savage is should be truly grateful that Breggin saved not only his ass but his career and wiped away all the mess as well. Sigh. Oh brave new world that has such creatures in it. The more I learn about some people the more I prefer the company of my cat and the friends I have who are fellow Beepers.
One of the things I find most difficult to believe is that there are no long-term studies after 2 years of any of these treatments, say, 10 years down the road. I have read that people in countries where these treatments aren't available will generally get better by two years later, while Americans tend to stay as disturbed or worsen while in treatment. It seems like a relatively simple thing to continue following up on people. It still shouldn't be experimented on children, even if they could watch how screwed up these kids will turn out to be as adults. What I personally want to know if I am having treatment offered to me is what road am I traveling down? That wise Native American saying, "If we continue down the path we are on, we are liable to arrive where we are headed." Posted by: Sophia at July 31, 2008 01:01 PM... raises all sorts of questions about whether the FDA is aware of its own data. People are often not aware of anything beyond the scope of their own motivation. And it's the motive of anyone who suggests these drugs are safe for developing children that I would seriously call into question. Does such a person really believe that a service to children is being done by saying these medications are safe for kids? Or does such a statement serve some other purpose or interest? Posted by: Stormgazer at July 31, 2008 01:29 PM Philip: A Believer and Bruce Lambert have legitimately called you on this posting as not being complete in the pros/cons matter with this issue. The one good thing (I guess?) about the posting is it brought out all the bigotry and extremism of your followers. Sociopath as psychiatrist? I'm sure there are some in this field. Some at this site too, not addressed to you though, Philip. It is a shame you have such a one sided view in these commentaries, as you raise valid issues. I can't in good faith participate further, but I'll read on and direct others to read your postings, just also advise them to read the threads at their own risk. Hostility has no depths, eh? As Mike Myers' character Linda on SNL says so eloquently: talk amongst yourselves! Philip: be good, report responsibly, and strive to survive, you do good work here. A painful but educational experience about blogging. If you are interested in collaborating on a book between a patient's and psychiatrist's travails in the mine field of psychiatry, contact me, you have my email address, I have tons of literature we could have some fun with. Or not! therapyfirst Posted by: therapyfirst at July 31, 2008 01:46 PMyou get me the exact data for each drug for each age group for each year and give me your sources and i'll cite it. The burden of proof here lies with you, Phil. so what's your point? I'm not clear what your point is. You seem to imply that these drugs are bad because adverse events are reported. As Innocent Bystander said, you have to be skeptical of these event reports. Prove, just prove true believer how many kids are HELPED by these drugs ... Again, it's up to you to prove your claims. Posted by: A Believer at July 31, 2008 01:48 PMProve, just prove, that the drugs do some good? I have one friend who has diabetes from Zyprexa but it has kept her from being stark raving mad. I have my son and two other sons, only children in their twenties, KILLED by Zyprexa. My solution would be to ban this drug from anyone under the age of 24 (black box warning, SSRI) and for everyone over that age, to present proof that all other less lethal drugs have failed. I am not surprised at the hostile comments here - you are striking a nerve here, Phillip. I guess a follow on question to ask is: what is safe or safe as what? Look at aspirin. Innocuous enough, right? You wouldn't think so if you saw the AE listings. It's often remarked that aspirin would be unapproved if submitted today. Fortunately, we know quite a bit about analgesics. We know how they work and how to use them. We also have a really good idea of the sorts of populations that should avoid aspirin and why. The case for psychotropics is not so rosy. Firstly, the issue of failed studies that never see day's light skews the perception that these drugs actually do anything useful. We know they are highly addictive, have serious withdrawal problems, and are widely used outside the uses for which they were originally approved. In my opinion, prescribers are running their own clinical studies without IRB oversight and calling it treatment. Anyone who tells you you havea chemical imbalance is either directly lying to you or is an ignoramus - take your pick. Yet, you'll be dosed until some effect (unmeasurable by objective tests) desired by your prescriber is achieved. AE listing are interesting at best. You also like to know which ones were attributed to a marketed/investigational drug and who reported the AE (patient/medical provider/other). A distinction should also be drawn between the use of drugs to manage a discreet serious event and so-called prophylactic "you need to take this for life" usage. The former may indeed carry a worthy benefit/risk ratio. However, I think it can be definitely show the latter carries an unacceptable risk. I'd further venture that most psychotropics should only be used in the rarest and most extreme circumstances because the efficacy potential is so low and the risks are really unacceptable ofr any other use. We can fiddle whilst Rome burns, no? Posted by: Paul at July 31, 2008 05:32 PMin the population at large, the slice that is most vulnerable to social whim are the kids in the system. it is all too easy for kids who fall to the fate of our institutions, who have behavior problems (bipolar etc. . . real or imagined), to get diagnosed and drugged and carry that burden for the rest of their lives. it'll be kids from single mother households, minorities, foster children, kids who are traumatized,difficult who are fed into the system who will be given again drugs, side effects, stigma. They are already represented in psychiatric treatment in arresting numbers. wherever the public discourse of this diagnosis winds and settles, i am weary weary weary of the purport of another label label label. Ellen's son is dead and my daughter's life is less than quality. So, we the mothers sit back and let ppl tell us these drug help others? I would like someone who is ON any of these meds to say they have for a decade or longer speak up. If there's any book to be written here, let me tell you who would write it for me. Philip. Posted by: Stephany at July 31, 2008 06:22 PMOne more thing: yes, there are people here like myself who are passionate about this topic, and that is because some of us (like Ellen who has a son buried as a result of Zyprexa) and my daughter who I have witnessed suffer for a decade--these are painful, very, very painful stories we attempt to tell in a internet forum. I write my strong worded comments based on extreme grief. I think that might clarify a bit. I also have a psychiatrist who is a terrific support for me, that allows me to talk and check in for free, since my bankruptcy. I am not anti psychiatrist or anti med. I am pro-truth, and completely scared for the children based on living horrible horrible days with my daughter on so many medications. I am lucky she is alive, and Ellen as well as Sara who post here have lost their children as a result of Paxil and Zyprexa. These are the passionate women who testify on behalf of consumers and advocate for those without a voice. I appreciate this forum, and all of the commenters here, heated as this may get it's the one way we can all "straight from the chute agree on something" as Philip wrote the other day. I don't think anyone should stop commenting when it heats up. There is no other way to understand this magnitude of a problem we have going on here, and we DO have one. Drugging of children with these meds is dangerous. Live and learn, I hope no one else has a child suffer like mine did for no reason. Posted by: Stephany at July 31, 2008 06:30 PMI think hubris is the only word that fits. It's come the point where psychiatry believes it's own lies. It's amazing that you still find people that actually believe the "chemical imbalance" theory is true. These same people are given the keys to some of the most deadly brain poisons and hand them out without a single diagnostic lab test. Oh wait, there aren't any. My bad. The bigger issue (IMHO) is psychiatry's use of the law to force these drugs on people against their will, to be complemented with incarceration/commitment if one resists. How many more must be harmed? Not enough for some apparently. Posted by: Paul at July 31, 2008 07:54 PMStephany has me all riled up...
Good luck trying to get a grant for any research challenging the big bang/string theory/dark matter-energy oligarchy. Maybe the plasma physicists will entertain you, but say goodbye to any prospect in astrophysics or astronomy. Certain power centers just won't allow any dissent or disruption to their prestige=cash flow. This is akin to the KOL syndrome CL Psych (Philip has a link on his site) posited on his blog. These guys are too entrenched/compromised to admit their theories are fatally flawed or invalid. Too much money at stake. I guess one key difference is that fewer people are now put to death for questioning the cause and mechanism of reality. Or, is it that people doing the killing are wearing different frocks now? Or, to quote Poul Anderson: "Drugging of children with these meds is dangerous." Stephany, I have no doubt saying: "Drugging of children with these meds is a crime." Posted by: Ana at July 31, 2008 11:02 PMPaul said: Mike wrote: "Nice job not citing the rate of adverse events as a function of the number of total prescriptions. 442 pediatric adverse events for Abilify, for example, means nothing without knowing how many kids were given Abilify during that same period of time." This line of reasoning seems to be the consensus of the folks who find fault with Philip for this piece, their only weak argument. It's a bogus, specious, intellectually dishonest line of reasoning, analogous to arguing that it's unfair to list all of the people killed by Charles Manson without also always listing all of the people he came into contact with and didn't murder or saying, “hey, that Ted Bundy fellow isn’t all that bad because he didn’t rape all of the women he dated.” It’s a patently absurd, morally reprehensible argument.. There is of course another crucial difference in Manson, Bundy, and Big Pharma/Psychiatry.. While it’s likely Manson didn’t murder everyone he met before his arrest and that Bundy didn’t rape and murder every woman he dated, we haven't seen any convincing proof that these drugs help children, so were not even sure that there are any kids out there who had the drug prescribed and didn’t experience adverse effects. Since the side effects of the drugs and the symptoms of the purported disease are almost identical, it'd be impossible to tell anyway. Therapy First said: in a comment addressed to Philip: "It is a shame you have such a one sided view in these commentaries, as you raise valid issues. I can't in good faith participate further, but I'll read on and direct others to read your postings, just also advise them to read the threads at their own risk." What the heck? Here we go again! Posted by: Stephany at August 1, 2008 10:54 AMTF, i don't think they were bringing out problems in my approach so much as they were asking me to do the same level of analysis as is done in peer reviewed journal articles on drug exposure. those articles are usually produced by tenured academics making many 10s of thousands of dollars a year and with access to software analysis programs. i am not making 10s of thousands of dollars a year doing this work, but i am goign to see if there's a quick a dirty way for me to compute exposure rates in the future. that said, i am being asked to go above and beyond what is reported in major newspapers in the world when they report on adverse events. show me the last time the nyt or washpo used exposure rates in an article. as for my one-sidedness, please show me where i wasn't reporting facts to my readers. all in all, i think antipsychotics for kids are an utterly terrible idea and medical practice. if you'd like to defend their use, feel free. Posted by: Philip Dawdy at August 1, 2008 12:31 PMSally wrote: "This line of reasoning seems to be the consensus of the folks who find fault with Philip for this piece, their only weak argument." Actually, it's a very fair argument. Take an extreme, hypothetical case (just to make a point) where a particular drug potentially caused 1 adverse event, but helped 100,000,000 people without major side effects. 1 in 100 million... That's less than the chances of walking across the street and getting hit by a car, or getting hit by lightning (to use a common analogy). I believe most reasonable people would tell you those are reasonable risks if the medication benefits are worth it. Again, this is just a hypothetical situation, but it's just to illustrate what Mike is saying: you really do have to know the "numbers" on the other side if you're going to make a fair and logical assessment. Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 1, 2008 12:38 PMSally wrote: "Since the side effects of the drugs and the symptoms of the purported disease are almost identical, it'd be impossible to tell anyway." Which was really my point in the first place. If your purported drug "side effects" are identical to the symptoms of the disease, then you can safely bet that the "side effect" was actually due to the disease instead of the drug. For example, if I were to undergo a new drug trial for heart disease, and ended up having a heart attack tomorrow, you can bet that "heart attack" would be listed as an adverse event in the medical literature. Does that really mean that "heart attacks" are a true side effect of this hypothetical drug? Almost certainly not. A Believer and Bruce Lambert have legitimately called you on this posting as not being complete ... ... the posting [is it] brought out all the bigotry and extremism of your followers.
... It is a shame you have such a one sided view in these commentaries, ... I can't in good faith participate further, ... Hostility has no depths, eh? And another good person with invaluable insight and experience is driven off by the rabble. I honestly don't believe you want to see this site become so insular that it becomes irrelevant in the wider world. Driving off even reasonably presented objections, who's authors are open willing to discuss and debate, only achieves this in the end. You're reputation precedes you in blogature, but I have to say I've been disappointed. And I don't think I'm an isolated case. Posted by: A Believer at August 1, 2008 01:02 PMInnocent Bystander, As an abstraction, what you say is correct. Let's look at what is. 1. The drugs being given/forced on kids are known to be dangerous and lethal in adults. 2. We also know that kids brains are unlike the adult brains they grown into in that they are still maturing. 3. We have no real understanding how these drugs work in the brain. 4. We know little about the brain and less, it seems, about the mind. 5. The theoretical underpinning of biopsychiatry are inherently flawed in substance and logically. 6. Somehow none of this matters since a psychiatrist can pronounce you ill or well, fit or unfit, by fiat, without a single objective test to validate his/her declaration. You can choose to agree or disagree with this, but nothing I've listed is especially controversial. I think most reasonable people should be highly suspicious of any diagnosis of mental illness in a child. They should be even more wary to allow the administration of substances that are, in essence, experimental. We know the efficacy response in adults is unremarkable and the safety profile is very concerning. The fact that we see the types and numbers of AEs that we do should set off all your alarms. The treated child population is necessarily small compared with adults. I don't need an exact number to see that pattern replicates what we see in adults. What we have yet to see are the long term consequences of drugging children, en mass. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but for some the pile of bodies isn't quite tall enough to be of concern. If your a believer, you might not even see the pile. Posted by: Paul at August 1, 2008 01:56 PMFor those of you asking Philip to come up with statistics, consider this: 1 to 10% of all adverse affects are reported to the FDA. So how can he come up with valid statistics if he has nothing to go on? AA Posted by: AA at August 1, 2008 02:20 PMTo Paul I won't argue your points, because my thoughts actually do coincide with many of them. However, my point still stands that in order to truly and accurately assess the situation as it stands, you really do have to do a more complete analysis, as many others above have pointed out. And this article above, in not doing so, is not doing any justice to the situation. Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 1, 2008 02:47 PMTherapy first writes :"Philip: A Believer and Bruce Lambert have legitimately called you on this posting as not being complete in the pros/cons matter with this issue. The one good thing (I guess?) about the posting is it brought out all the bigotry and extremism of your followers. Sociopath as psychiatrist? I'm sure there are some in this field. Some at this site too, not addressed to you though, Philip. It is a shame you have such a one sided view in these commentaries, as you raise valid issues. I can't in good faith participate further, but I'll read on and direct others to read your postings, just also advise them to read the threads at their own risk. Hostility has no depths, eh? Therapy first .. Do you happen to be a psychiatrist by any chance? http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. ( the history of psychiatry is rampant with flagrant abuse of human rights , ECT, lobotomy etc etc) Rampant Sexism ( Psychiatry is male dominated and also has a hugh rate of abuse between doctor and patient, usually male to female patient) Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. (the pharmaceutical industry which funds psychiatry also provides validation , power , prestige and accolades through sponsorship, training , symposia , events etc) 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment (Psychiatry and its standing in the legal system, defining prisoners mental health for trail etc etc) 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. (APA : American Psychiatric Association , the zenith and embodiment of psychiatry as a corporate business model ) Psychiatry is definite ideology and like all ideologies you have some who believe in it, some who don't and some who are ambivalent , and usually those who believe in the ideology and benefit from the ideology are those who are its greatest proponents. Just as, those whom are damaged by the ideology are usually its biggest opponents and those who are ambivalent are those whom are usually little affected either way. Psychiatry is no different although it is more insidious than the obvious fascist ideology because it comes under the guise of healing , health and the offer of cures and solutions to mental illness. The Mentally ill are one of the easiest demographics of a society to exploit. Psychiatry has the monopoly on it. It seems to me though that psychiatry hasn't grown much farther than its sordid and disturbing incarnation which was at the very heart of Naziism and the defining moment of mans inhumanity to man, yes, I'm talking about the holocaust... So it would be ironic for me to be referred to as a bigot by a psychiatrist because I believe that a belief system which embraces the pharmaceutical industry as its saviour yet totally disregards the human spirt and soul is nothing but a dangerous, fascist and delusional ideology with power, prestige , fear and money as its core principles of being.. (and no I am not a scientologist!) Yes, I am anti-psychiatry , but that does not make me a bigot.. But , if we were to be ridiculous for a minute and imagine the profession of psychiatry not as an ideology but as one individual human being, what kind of human being would psychiatry be?.. I would associate the word "sociopath" with psychiatry because it displays many common signs of a sociopath . Signs like Glibness and Superficial Charm Manipulative and Conning Grandiose Sense of Self Pathological Lying Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt Shallow Emotions Incapacity for Love Need for Stimulation Callousness/Lack of Empathy Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Irresponsibility/Unreliability Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html For those of you asking Philip to come up with statistics, consider this: 1 to 10% of all adverse affects are reported to the FDA. So how can he come up with valid statistics if he has nothing to go on? He is goading you to come to conclusions that suit his agenda with no valid evidence to back up his claims. Then he pushes the burden of proof onto anyone who criticizes and declares victory. So much for journalistic standards. And where is this "one to ten percent" of adverse effects being reported to the FDA? In all respect, what is your primary source? Posted by: A Believer at August 1, 2008 03:46 PMInnocent Bystander, You make an important point. If you had heart disease, you wouldn't take a drug that had the side effect of causing heart attacks, or even a drug that didn't prevent heart attacks. Even if you were correct and kids taking these drugs weren't having adverse effects from the drugs but instead symptoms of diseases the drugs are supposed to treat, you would at least know the drugs don't work, so why would you take the drug or give it to a child? Oh I forgot those dangerous knife wielding 2 year olds. Better give them drugs that cause seizures! Posted by: Sally at August 1, 2008 03:49 PMhey a believer, i tried emailing you but you are using a phony email address and an anonymous web browsing system from germany. very cute. to respond to your most recent point, care to show me any major paper in the us that reports exposure rates for drugs each time they talk about adverse events reports? i'm pretty certain the way that i have reported the adverse events reports is well within bounds of journalistic propriety. and since i am a journalist i have a pretty darn good idea what those standards are for drug stuff. or do you have evidence of like the nyt reporting things differently than i am? if you do, i want to hear it. what's more i've written about adverse events reports before for other drugs and there's never been a challenge from readers like you to present exposure rate numbers. would i like to use them? yes, but they are kinda tricky to both find and interpret and then turn into a rate. which is why it's generally only done in academic journal articles. Innocent Bystander, You're right. If you want to do a meaningful meta-analysis, you do need the data. That's really hard to come by. Peer reviewed studies are fraught with the limiting assumptions and bias in which studies to include/exclude. This is obviously not "ALL" data, but people always choose where to draw the line - inherent bias, which is ok as long as we know what it is. The volume of data to do what is being asked of Philip would challenge any academic dept. Even if you could get the data you wanted, it would vary in quality and state. Vasts amounts would be held by private corps that aren't just going to let you fish around. Heck, they don't even let the employees do that - for all the obvious reasons. The FDA AE listings are also not comprehensive. Many AEs don't get reported. How many, who knows, but I'd wager many more than get reported. We also don't have the data from negative studies. The best we can do is look at what we know about the diseases, the drugs, how they are used, and not just what's on the label. You are necessarily going have some qualitative aspect given the nature of the data. Summarized data has already been sifted, so it too have underlying assumptions that may not be sufficiently transparent. I think the message we can draw from the AEs is that an unexpected large number of children are being dosed with powerful psychotropics for a condition that has a most dubious foundation. I'd really like to know which medical centers treated these kids. Is this a problem localized in psychiatric strongholds (Biedermanville?) or what extent have (p)docs taken up the torch as well? Is it spreading, where and how fast? It would be interesting to apply some algorithms used in bioterrorism defense planning to assess the viral propagation of this treatment. It's similar data problem - lost of missing, incomplete, incompatible data. [Humor] TF, you said: "I can't in good faith participate further" I'm sorry but I can't let this pass. This is the second time in just a few weeks that you've threatened (promised?) to become a lurker when things haven't suited you. This is incredibly childish. Please try to take some responsibility for your behaviour and either make good on your threats or stop making them. This kind of juvenile interaction gets old fast. Respectfully yours. Posted by: Sherry at August 1, 2008 05:53 PMStats or not antipsychotics are dangerous, and the fact that children are being rx'd these meds now like candy is a crime. The data available as far as adverse events are only ones that patients/consumers and a few doctors report to the FDA. Doctors are not required by law in the U.S. to report adverse events. The consumer rarely knows they can. (who tell them?) There is a "med watch" FDA site where a person can report any adverse event, but who tells them? The patient/consumer is left to take care of themselves far too often. (always). Truthman asks if therapy first is a psychiatrist: Yes he/she is, and admittedly so in this forum. Honest to God seriously those who are flaming this up expecting Philip to give stats? do it yourself! I'd like to see it...it is not up to "us" to defend our view points. I have just returned from spending time with 44 people who are existing on antipsychotics, their lives are less than desirable and one of them is my daughter. I don't need stats to tell me antipsychotics are shit, not a cure, brain killing garbage. And it's all some people have for any sign of "hope" in this medical model in America. Want to challenge this article? Try seeing a child grow up on this dope and be thankful you don't. Posted by: Stephany at August 1, 2008 07:37 PMPlease Philip or any of you who has been on psychiatric care: think twice if you're considering making part of a book written by a psychiatrist. "Psychiatry is male dominated and also has a hugh rate of abuse between doctor and patient, usually male to female patient" It's not unusual that women who replies "-No!" to the question "-Are you married?" It does not happens to men. I've already received this "smile" once. I didn't had the attitude I have with physicians today. lol Do you believe I'm joking? Nope! "-Do you feel any pain?" "-Nope! i have already seen the doctor there and was misdiagnosed." I left... LOL I've just forgot one thing: "-Hey! Wait a minute! You see this body here? This 1,60 m 50 kg? It's MY BODY! It's me! Next time, next time... I'm sorry! They disrespect their patients. I saw the way this man treated others! What is the post all about? Sorry!
Hey Ana, thank you! I wish I had a nickel for every time some assat pdoc has told me I wouldn't be this way if I could get laid, or was being laid regularly. You are right, they would never ever say that to a man. I'll tell you one worse. When I was 17 I had to get a gynecological exam before I could live on the college campus. Some strange rule they had for women. Anyway, I went to the one my mother used. He got me up in the stirrups, I was petrified and abashed. He poked around in there, and in front of my mother and the assisting nurse he says "Holy cow Mary, I got a virgin! I haven't seen one of those in years!". I started crying. I was never so embarressed or mortified in my entire life. You wouldn't see a doc say that to a man, "Holy cow, I got one that is circumsized/uncircumsized, I haven't seen one of those in years". I'm lucky now, I got a good female doc who cares. But sometimes I think they should teach med students to have a bit of hubris and care a bit more. Be less like House and more like Marcus Welby. But then I can say that about almost any profession. I just wanted to say you aren't the only other one to have that experience. Posted by: susan at August 2, 2008 06:51 AMDebating the indoctrinated brainwashed psych pushers / victims is pointless. Comes down to one thing. No diagnostic biotechnology is applied to these children (or adults) in determining who has these fake 'brain diseases'. No biology is ever sampled, observed, tested. These psychotropic drugs are not found in nature, they are fraudulent masks and chemical lobotomies, simply bloodletting for the modern age. They rob these kids of the full lucid human experience, and there is no greater crime against humanity going on today. The fundamental blanket mind rape that will be these kids' childhood memories should they live long enough to ever experience the world the way nature intended, is a moral obscenity and is not justifiable without diagnostic biotechnology and explainable treatments that directly correlate to any known provable understood disease action. The perfect storm of capitalism and pharmaceutical development, direct to consumer ads, the quick fix society, the absentee parent epidemic, has written a blank check with these childrens' bodies that they will cash in blood and misery on a level never seen in human history. A few months in Auschwitz followed by a quick death pales in comparison to an entire childhood smeared and marred by every synapse being adulterated and hindered, as your human experience comes on blunt, manipulated, synthetic, cognitively reduced, the relationships formed with your false self, the clouded eyes of your own son living a nightmare of iatrogenic goose chase fraud. There can be no defense for those who would adulterate neurology wholly and completely with 2008's primitive level of knowledge on the mind. No defense. And no diagnostic biotech employed whatsoever? Even more reason why there is no defense. Anyone involved in drugging an adult or child is a brainwashed faith based zealot in dire need of a session with some wetwork, some rubber gloves, a post mortem brain that was on psych drugs to have a play around with, and a post mortem brain that was never on psych drugs. They need to see what the fuck they are fucking with. Then again, a billion human beings let smoke race in and out of their lungs every day for five minutes at a time 10, 20 times a day. So if 1 percent of you are foolish enough to believe the man telling you have a brain disease when he's never seen your brain in action with any diagnostic biotechnology.... Psychiatry is up there with world war for the misery it causes. Long term, we will see that this piece of shit 'science' needs to put on the scrap heap of human history and thought of in the same hushed tones as Hitler himself. Only an irrational, dumb, sheep-like person, would stand by and let their child believe he or she has a brain disease, without any evidence. Your child's body isn't a toilet for polypharmacist assholes to piss in. Nor is your own body. Harrass and mangle your neurology daily with toxic drug assault, and you can expect your brain to throw out some ups and downs. Unfortunately, they have that covered, and it just serves as further 'evidence' of the 'brain disease'. Not only is psychiatry a religion, it seems to be a religion these days your priests have to rape kids and enter their bodies with evil. Psychiatrists fit this bill as well as catholic priests. If you haven't got an understanding of the most complex organ in the universe, how DARE you drown it in neurotoxic sludge for years. How dare you. Hubris, the kind that kills, but not before years of torture, and not the kind you read about in the paper torture.... diabolical torture, emotional torture, identity torture, all iatrogenic, all needless, all real. The only thing real in a psychiatrist's career are the rivers of blood that he set in motion with his hubris. Just by way of logic, psychiatry as practiced today guarantees that every psychiatrist has caused massive human destruction during his years 'diagnosing and treating brain diseases with a checklist and a script pad'... The children tug our heartstrings... yes. But that is always a simplistic red herring. The adults currently being raped by psychiatry were children once too. Posted by: Erin at August 2, 2008 11:21 AM > And where is this "one to ten percent" of adverse effects being That wasn't addressed to me, but here's what I found after spending some time with Google: 1. "Any analysis of the actual frequency of adverse events is complicated by the problem of under-reporting inherent in a voluntary reporting system such as the FDA AERS. Under-estimation of the frequency of actual events causes an under-estimation of the risks associated with a given drug based on spontaneous reporting alone. Estimates of the extent of under-reporting vary, usually ranging from 1% to 10%, and the reporting itself may be subject to biases relating to reporting environment, length of time on the market, and quality of data. In light of these limitations, it should be understood that the reports discussed in this petition represent an extremely conservative estimate of the true magnitude of the risks discussed."
posted at http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7051 2. "It is generally believed that the number of reports is much smaller than the actual number of events." from: Postmarketing Adverse Drug Event Signaling, by Yi Tsong, in posted at http://books.google.com/books?id=M8S8WVRUIY0C&pg=PA776&lpg=PA776&dq=fda+adverse+event+reporting+frequency&source=web&ots=lu4d4U_Srx&sig=ausMlC8VUoPTPwQN2n48DqKineM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result Re: the author: http://www.statisticalsource.com/meeting/icsa/shortcourse.doc "Yi Tsong, Ph.D., is currently a mathematical statistician of Quantitative Methods and Research Staff of CDER, FDA. He specializes in postmarketing risk assessment and quality assurance. He received CDER and FDA level awards for contributions in postmarketing drug risk assessment, for advisory on CDER postmarketing risk assessment external contracts, medication errors, quality control evaluation, drug compliance, in vitro bioequivalence, adaptive design and non-inferiority tests. Dr. Tsong is currently the President Elected (2006) of ICSA. He received his Ph.D. in Mathematical Statistics from The Univ. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill in 1979."
cited to Yi Tsong, Biostatistics and clinical Data management workshop,1999 from: Monitoring the Safety of Medical Products: Historical Approaches, by Charles Anello, Sc.D., Deputy Director, Office of Biostatistics posted at http://www.fda.gov/CDER/Offices/Biostatistics/Anello_320%5B1%5D/Anello_320%5B1%5D.ppt 4. "Conclusions: The extent of reporting of adverse events to FDA varied by statin and may be influenced by publicity. For statins-associated rhabdomyolysis, the estimated extent of reporting appears to range from 5-30% but in the absence of stimulated reporting appears to be 5-15%." from: Mara McAdams, Judy Staffa, Gerald Dal Pan Published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (2008) Posted at: http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/7/10/1254845/Pharmacoepidemiology%20%28McAdams%29.pdf Posted by: Laura Ziegler at August 2, 2008 11:22 AMI reread your post Philip. It got me thinking (I know not always prudent...) Here's what bipolar kids has to say about it: Behaviors reported by parents in children diagnosed with bipolar disorder may include: * an expansive or irritable mood Pardon me, but this sounds like typical child behaviour. Is it any surprise a parent reading this catalogue might leap to conclusion there is a medical problem with their child. It's preposterous. Is as if people lose their minds completely because children act as children do BECAUSE THEY ARE CHILDREN and that's how children behave. Some are more complinant, some less. Some more introverted, some less. How one leaps to a biological brain disease from this boggles logic and common sense alike. We, the public, need to demand greater rigor from psychiatry. It needs to be able to demonstrate that the they know what the drugs do and how. They need to prove the diseases they expound can be objectively tested and confirmed. Until this is possible, psychotropic drugs should be ring fenced for short term, emergency use only in adult populations. If rigorous proof can be ascertained in adults, then I might see if any such applications exist in younger populations. Posted by: Paul at August 2, 2008 12:03 PMNice summary Laura. My own AEs aren't listed. I had expected my treating physician to submit this, but there is another list, yet. Oddly, I should have reported them myself, but I didn't really care about much in those days, which seemed ok with the pdoc. I eventually found "not caring about anything" to be unacceptable which led to my rejection and withdrawal from all psych drugs (story for another time...) A problem is that pdocs mistake symptoms that are actually AEs. Pauk Posted by: Paul at August 2, 2008 12:15 PMI consider myself a relatively sophisticated medical consumer but I didn't know until I read these comments that there's a website to report adverse drug effects. I knew the lying sacks of sh*t who've treated me sure didn't report the fact they nearly killed me with benzos. Now that I know I can do that, I will. Thanks for this info. Posted by: Sherry at August 2, 2008 02:23 PM"If you haven't got an understanding of the most complex organ in the universe, how DARE you drown it in neurotoxic sludge for years. How dare you" A comment worth highlighting.. :) Posted by: truthman30 at August 2, 2008 05:32 PMHere is a link to report your swollen ankles, lack of sex drive, or psychosis (for example) to the FDA re: the drug you are taking that did/does those or anything else to you: Consumers, report ALL of your adverse events via drugs HERE. Who wrote about sex and hormones, getting laid etc? it is true that the transfer of hormones via sex (no need to get into how this happens we know)is a biological event that effects the brain in a good way. Posted by: Stephany at August 2, 2008 07:26 PMre: Erin comment: Children pull at the heartstrings and they grow up. Why not start with where pharma is attacking the market for antipsychotics today? My daughter was a child and is now an adult. The one thing that has changed? Zyprexa documents online (here), lawsuits, the diabetes alerts that came out AFTER my daughter grew up.... Adults who have suffered? take what you've lived and advocate for the children that are now 2-5 yr olds on these drugs! Rebecca Riley was 4 years old and she died with these drugs in her body. Those of us who have walked this path owe it to the children now, to speak out. Otherwise they shall suffer, and worse! Posted by: Stephany at August 2, 2008 07:47 PMI find it strange that, in regard to homicide, there were 142 reports of this occurring on antidepressants for the three year period and only 32 reports of homicides happening while on the antipsychotics [all 32 of which happened on the atypical antipsychotics which are half antidepressant and half antipsychotic]. An ordinary citizen would presume that just the opposite would happen. After all, the antipsychotics are supposed to be given to the real "nut" cases, the schizophrenics, the bipolars, the paranoids, etc. etc. The antidepressants are given to the depressed who traditionally have not been viewed as particularily dangerous people. So there it is! The antidepressants, in particular the SSRIs and SNRIs, are linked to homicide! It is harder to judge what is happening in regard to suicides, suicidal ideation, etc. because depressed people are "supposed" to be more suicidal [even though this is not true - this only applies to the extremely severely depressed.] It is obvious that the antipsychotics are causing more deaths, though, from natural causes than are the antidepressants, especialy the atypicals. These statistics are a real eye opener. So if we give the children antidepressants, they are more likely to commit murder and if we [the psychiatris & docs, that is] give them antipsychotics, they are more likely to die from some disease like diabetes or neuroleptic malignant syndrome. God Bless the little children. Thanks you for posting these statistics. Susan, This discussion happens once a month. I'll just highlight some phrases that has catch my attention: "...because children act as children do BECAUSE THEY ARE CHILDREN and that's how children behave." Hubris, the kind that kills, but not before years of torture, and not the kind you read about in the paper torture.... diabolical torture, emotional torture, identity torture, all iatrogenic, all needless, all real. "If you haven't got an understanding of the most complex organ in the universe, how DARE you drown it in neurotoxic sludge for years. How dare you" A comment worth highlighting.. :) Posted by truthman30 at August 2, 2008 05:32 PM I don't need stats to tell me antipsychotics are shit, not a cure, brain killing garbage. And it's all some people have for any sign of "hope" in this medical model in America. Posted by Stephany at August 1, 2008 07:37 PM There are others but I would have to copy and paste a lot. About the stats: Aren't we here part of this stats? If you want stats take a look on those who are manipulated to achieve a certain goal. If you want stats take a look at ssristories and other sites. Gee! I'm asleep.... Posted by: Ana at August 2, 2008 11:42 PMIf you want stats: but it doesn't count, does it? No it doesn't because it's not from an official institution with a name such as IHLMR, or NMHST, or any good combination of letters. Ok! Yes! We are. But there's another reason. As we had this "knowledge" that we had to learn while suffering the hell we don't want other people to be misdiagnosed or be put on drugs that can do lots of harm. I believe I'll wait till the next post with the same discussion. "-As far as I'm concerned please refer yourself to answer 768, 646, 12 an 327." Posted by: Ana at August 3, 2008 12:06 AM"I have my son and two other sons, only children in their twenties, KILLED by Zyprexa." I hadn't see it. I'm deeply sorry! You have lost your sense of morality, ethics and common knowledge when you ask for statistics.
IB, your argument is of course the primary defense for all drug companies regardless of whether the med attacked is a child's drug or not. Eli Lilly used it in arguing that it's not that zyprexa causes diabetes but that people who have the (recently determined to be nonexistent) schizophrenia gene also have the diabetes gene so diabetes and schizophrenia are linked. Of course it was coupled with the implicit argument that "schizophrenics" are subhuman and any drug that shortens their lives is a good thing. This is the argument recently made implicitly in the Newsweek article about child bipolar about the 10 year old boy that it was determined would never lead a "normal life," so really killing him is humane...this argument is implicit in your deliberately obtuse downplaying of adverse effects. It's a specious argument, like yours, but it appears convincing at first. Causation and correlation are important and always litagatable. There's the famous case of thalidomide, which caused severe birth defects when taken by pregnant women. Lots of tragedy there and the drug companies used your argument to attempt to prove that the problems with children would have happened anyway. Finally thalidomide was pulled off the market. These days it turns out thalidomide is useful in a very limited context for a very few people but not for the treatment of morning sickness in women for which it was first designed. "The adverse events don't matter because they're just side effects argument" isn't effected by how many prescriptions are written because those of you who believe this way will never stop believing. You're not making the argument based on the frequency of adverse events but instead based on your definition of the condition purportedly treated by the drug which is why any argument about this always breaks down into a fight over whether "infant bipolar" is real and if it is whether it's an illness. There may be limited circumstances in which these drugs help, but the adverse events in children and infants taking them prove that these drugs should not be given to children. Posted by: Sally at August 3, 2008 06:07 AMRosie C. said: "I find it strange that, in regard to homicide, there were 142 reports of this occurring on antidepressants for the three year period and only 32 reports of homicides happening while on the antipsychotics [all 32 of which happened on the atypical antipsychotics which are half antidepressant and half antipsychotic] ... So there it is! The antidepressants, in particular the SSRIs and SNRIs, are linked to homicide!"
If we just look at the numbers that Rosie C. quoted, it would appear that antidepressants are more highly linked to homicide than antipsychotics. But if you look at the rest of the numbers, though (in particular, total number people treated with antidepressants as opposed to antipsychotics), you'll probably find that there are vastly more people treated with antidepressants than antipsychotics. Why is this important? (Note: I'll just make up some numbers to make my point) If 1 million people are treated with antidepressants (with 142 homicides), and... Only 100,000 are treated with antipsychotics (with 32 homicides), then you end up with: 0.014% chance of homicide on antidepressants In other words... you'd be about *twice* as likely to have a homicide if you're taking antipsychotics instead of antidepressants. Again, I made up some of the numbers, but if you look up the real numbers, you'll probably end up with a fairly similar conclusion. I'm just trying to illustrate dangers in not looking at all the numbers, and the incorrect conclusions you can make if you don't. Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 3, 2008 07:32 AMSally wrote: "IB, your argument is of course the primary defense for all drug companies regardless of whether the med attacked is a child's drug or not. Eli Lilly used it in arguing that it's not that zyprexa causes diabetes but that people who have the (recently determined to be nonexistent) schizophrenia gene also have the diabetes gene so diabetes and schizophrenia are linked...." Sally, I assume by "IB", you're referring to me. A couple of points:
Ana, I would like to take the high ground say ONE suicide during ANY clinical trial is ONE too many. Any suicide is one too many The day after Thanksgiving last year I was placed in the hospital, the same mental hospital where Godel died. For all I know I might have been in the same room as I was living in. My doctor, who I fired shortly after, had me on Remeron. I never experienced panic attacks before, I always thought I was lucky. Remeron gave me my first panic attack. It was also the first drug I ever took that gave me suicidal ideation. Those in real life and cyberspace know I have been struggling with suicidal ideation since I was 12. Yes, I have attempted and I know it is by a miracle I am here typing this right now on my laptop. I AM GRATEFUL. But while the voices I have always heard are a phantom of my brain, it's never been because something alien to my brain went in there and told me what to do. I KNEW enough to know it was something the drug was making me think and want to do. So I went to the safest place I knew and survived. And found out that Remeron had a black box warning and no one had told my pdoc that, nor did he look that up before he wrote the script for me. I cannot imagine what a young person would feel when they hear those chemically induced voices telling them to go to the dark side. I cannot imagine in my worst nightmares the agony parents go through when their children die before they do. I've known completed suicides, and I've seen the broken bodies of would be suicides in the hospital, borrible things from gunshots, falling, things I don't want to think about lest I cry. I can tell you first hand how messed up my own body was from two attempts that almost succeeded. The comments on this post are amazing and thought provoking. Philip, once again, not only thank you for reporting it but allowing your readers the forum to go back and forth on the issues that effect them. I cannot think of another place on the internet where this back and forth banter is done so civilly.
Susan, We have to much to discuss and there's no time left to play statistics. One more time: Susan, "Gödel mistrusted our ability to communicate. Natural language, he thought, was imprecise, and we usually don't understand each other. Gödel wanted to prove a mathematical theorem that would have all the precision of mathematics—the only language with any claims to precision—but with the sweep of philosophy. He wanted a mathematical theorem that would speak to the issues of meta-mathematics. And two extraordinary things happened. One is that he actually did produce such a theorem. The other is that it was interpreted by the jazzier parts of the intellectual culture as saying, philosophically exactly the opposite of what he had been intending to say with it." REBECCA GOLDSTEIN: To me the affinities are natural. It's a matter of different forms of beauty. Mathematicians and physicists are just as guided by principles of elegance and beauty as novelists and musicians are. Einstein told the philosopher of science Hans Reichenbach that he'd known even before the solar eclipse of 1918 supported his general theory of relativity that the theory must be true because it was so beautiful."""...... Posted by: Ana at August 3, 2008 10:52 AMI forgot to mention that if we want real statistics on this it would be necessary to search for data from all the countries where these drugs are being consumed. LOL I'm sorry but they are making such a mess that the thing has become a joke if you're in a good moment of your bipolarity. I have many stories to tell. to be continued.... the story of the day I ended up on a mental institution ward for half an hour, was restrained and got out because of this. The psychistrist could not see that as he changed medication and I hadn't sleep for three days I was feeling terrible. One of the "crazy" interns "-They want to use her as a guinea-pig." I followed the crazy person advice! I hope Philip is in a really good mood. I hope he is really in a good mood and the weather is fine. I'll check it. If yes I'll be relieved. People in Seattle hate when it's damp. I saw it on Kramer. Nice psychiatrist his brother Niles! Posted by: Ana at August 3, 2008 11:41 AMhey a believer, i tried emailing you but you are using a phony email address and an anonymous web browsing system from germany. very cute. Apologies for the anonymity, I have a personal reason, however. Perfectly valid; nothing nefarious.Ich bin einer der Guten. As far as how difficult it is to pull useful (and balanced) material out of the available literature, public and scientific, tough. Quit whining about it, dig in and get to work. Blogging isn't journalism. And just cutting and pasting from publicly available web sites and essentially cherry picking the numbers you see that you know will kick up your blog meter a notch is again not journalism. BUT ... BIG TIME ... you've a tremendous fan base here, but it's my perception, and please take this in the sincerity it's meant, that you have so much to contribute actively outside of here, amongst the Philistines. Therapy First sees a great deal of value in the work you do here. And he is quite willing to help extend it to people who may not take their information from a blog. I may have something to contribute as well. I respect you and the belief in yourself in your work here tremendously. It's a rare thing. And of course we'll disagree here and elsewhere, but I'm only trying to bring a balance, and outside view, being a gnat perhaps. But it's only to make people think, if they will. I've just found far too many will not. But I offer what I can. I believe it's the readers and non-posters that this all is the most valuable for anyway. Posted by: A Believer at August 3, 2008 12:05 PMHey, A Believer, what do you think of it being statistically more likely for me to commit suicide if I am on anti-depressants than if I am not? Also, you're theoretical random samples you've come up with at being either a million or 100,000 are 100 to 1000 times larger than the actual requirement for rigorous statistical accuracy, which is about a 1000 population. Posted by: Sophia at August 3, 2008 02:10 PMA Believer, Innocent Bystander, You missed my point. Since we don't have the numbers [yet] of how many were on antidepressants vs. how many were on antipsychotics, I made the point that the average citizen would believe that people on antipsychotics, who are suppose to be sicker than depressed people, would be the ones to commit homicides. So you missed my whole point. In the meantime, we do need the numbers although one time several years ago I read that antipsychotics were the 9th most widely prescribed drugs in the U.S. Too bad that we ordinary citizens have to do stat work like this. Where are the statisticians? It is like the case of the father who did his research and found 12 more cases in his surrounding three states of soldiers who had died while taking an SSRI and Seroquel. His own soldier son had died from this combo. My question is: Why did a father have to do this kind of work? Where are the epidimiologists? It is really disgusting. Of course, I knew that we didn't have the numbers on the antidepressant vs. the antipsychotics! Did you think I was that stupid. I was trying to make a different point. So think about it, Innocent Bystander. What was I trying to say? Ah... my apologies, Rosie C. It wasn't entirely clear to me the exact message of your post. If I misconstrued it, then I sincerely apologize. Posted by: Innocent Bystander at August 3, 2008 04:13 PMRosie C, It's sickening, but I think we should expect an increasing number of events like this. I suspect psychiatry will be out in front deflecting blame on to the soldiers (and the war) and the drug toxicity/withdrawal issues will get whitewashed. It's an opportunity to expose the biopsychiatry paradigm for what it is, but this could easily backfire I fear. I also have great difficulty wishing for more death for a cause, even a just one (ends justifying means conundrum...) I don't think psychiatry will have any such misgivings - death has never served as a restraint for them. That's our weakness. Given pharma's financial inversiture and the entanglement with the legal system, I afraid the number of dead and maimed will need to be very significant. It's going to take a popular uprising to force the government to act and severely restrict the use of these drugs. Pharma and pdocs won't be leading the way on this. Senator Grassley notwithstanding, I'm not optimistic. So, I'll continue to fight the small battles. Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Posted by: Paul at August 3, 2008 05:47 PMOne voice can and does make a difference, whether spoken or written or via actions. Anyway you look at this topic it's about drugging of children with medications that are not proven to be safe in a growing child's brain or body. They yanked cold medications off the market faster than this stuff!! I speak out about what happened to my daughter and get hail emails as a result. People can have their opinions, but the point is: parents need to be warned that these drugs are dangerous, life-altering, and not always necessary(if ever!) in children! I hate to say this, but it's not about DATA. There is NO data out there. It's just not. The best thing that can happen from this thread of discussion is that psychiatrists see a SMALL example of people willing to speak out and though it sounds extreme to a psychiatrist, oh well, try being on this end of that stick. The best thing also is that people remind themselves to advocate for themselves and others, and spread the word that these drugs are deadly. I applaud people here who are speaking out for the safety of children who are not parents. That is something I appreciate very much. It's those people who have experienced this stuff first hand who we need to listen to. I've also used antipsychotics w negative adverse effects; so I come into the discussion with a lot of first hand experience besides what ive witnessed inside 1/2 dozen psych wards. Awful! Report adverse events to the FDA medwatch, or the data won't have YOUR statistics! Posted by: Stephany at August 3, 2008 06:42 PMForgive me for being cynical, but I don't have any high hopes that even if adverse effects are reported that they will be taken seriously. My experience with every psychiatrist I've seen is that it's never the drug that's the problem, it's always the illness. I was talking to a woman about a week ago who was given Abilify for major depression. No psychosis, not bipolar, doesn't even have insomnia. I am just disgusted with what's going on. So, I guess next we'll be seeing children given antipsychotics for insomnia and major depression like they're doing now with adults? God help us. Posted by: Lisa at August 3, 2008 08:17 PMInnocent Bystander, Your apology is accepted. Perhaps you could come up with the numbers. Put you to work here :-). Posted by: Rosie C. at August 3, 2008 08:31 PMRosie C said the following disgusting comment "After all, the antipsychotics are supposed to be given to the real "nut" cases, the schizophrenics, the bipolars, the paranoids, etc. etc." This should never have been approved for posting by the blog comment approver. There is no excuse for this crap. Rosie you haven't got a clue. Posted by: Erin at August 3, 2008 10:56 PMAnecdotal evidence is no substitute for mandatory reporting or a meaningful, accessible data base. But I'll contribute this much: "An ordinary citizen would presume that just the opposite would happen. After all, the antipsychotics are supposed to be given to the real "nut" cases, the schizophrenics, the bipolars, the paranoids, etc. etc. The antidepressants are given to the depressed who traditionally have not been viewed as particularily dangerous people. " Whenever you take a period from it's original context you can do whatever you want. It can ruin reputations. I've wrote about the ward half an hour time on the mental institution ward. Philip, All was said. It's becoming an arena. IB, I agree that thalidomide is a good example of what we are arguing about. I'm not sure how it was determined that thalidomide caused birth defects, but I my research indicates that it started with conflicting reports unsubstantiated by documents, the continual activism of doctors who suspected thalidomide, and parents who believed it had harmed their children, combined with the reporting of journalists. Much like what is going on here, much like the history of the drugged up, US version of tobacco cigarettes. When the evidence started rolling in, the only counter was the one you are pushing, the denial strategy. Philip is reporting the information that he has in a straight forward way. Here's a history of thalidomide http://www.thalidomide.ca/en/information/history_of_thalidomide.html That site has a pretty cool quote in it, btw: "They tried to split hairs, but their hairs were not from my fur." Rosie C--your comment about "real nut cases" is completely offensive. Posted by: Stephany at August 4, 2008 09:47 AMI read Rosie C.'s use of quotation marks to indicate she was reflecting the attitude of the general society, not her own belief. So I wasn't offended because, sadly, I think that IS the belief of the mainstream society. Posted by: Sherry at August 4, 2008 11:38 AMOf course it's the mainstream belief of society, and that's why I find it intolerable to use it at all. My daughter is ill, and lives w 44 or so other people that are human beings, and not "nut cases w/paranoia etc". I learn more from them than anyone else about how crappy this world is, and they love more than any one group of people I've ever spent time with. But as w everything I say here I am speaking about people I see every single day, and cry about at night. (and the drugs DON'T WORK). Maybe some passer-by of this site will hear my words when they have a doctor offer their child Abilify or Seroquel or Haldol or Clozaril or Zyprexa or Melleril and wait a decade and then see their child a lifeless zombie and wonder what the fuck happened. Posted by: Stephany at August 4, 2008 12:54 PMAs a teenager I was put on Risperdal, Abilify and Seroquel for generalized anxiety disorder. They all sucked. I was put on Risperdal when I was 14 or 13, I think when I had just turned 14. Then I was later put on Abilify, which had horrible akathisia. Later I was on Seroquel for a bit. I've been on medication since I was 7 years old. They waited until I was 13 or 14 before they started the antipsychotics. They all sucked. Eventually I ended up going off all my medications. It was awesome. Being on antipsychotics in middle school sucked. Luckily, I was very skinny to start with because of the ADD stimulant meds, so I was still able to be thin on antipsychotics. Being on antipsychotics as a teenager sucks. I know lots of people who were also put on antipsychotics as a teenager. I remember in eighth grade I had this class and everyone on antipsychotics would just fall asleep in class and none of the teachers knew why. Antipsychotics are being given to teenagers and pre-teens like candy for off label use, ADD, ADHD, OCD, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, PTSD, you name it. The scariest side effect was the akathisia on the Abilify. That is scary shit developing a temporary movement disorder as a teenager and having no idea what the hell was going on. Luckily, it went away when the Abilify wore off. That was so many years ago. Posted by: Princess at March 7, 2009 09:01 AMPost a comment
|
Patient Blogs. Sites.
The Trouble With Spikol
Icarus Project Blog John's Bipolar Stories Seroxat (Paxil) Sufferers Stand Up! Seroxat (Paxil) Secrets The Bipolar View Writhe Safely soulful sepulcher Electro Boy Spiritual Emergency Mental Nurse Deborah Gray Mental Mommy The Splintered Mind bipolar.and.me Nurse Ratched Psych Person Trick Cycling for Beginners depression introspection Salted Lithium Living With A Purple Dog Polar Trippin' Mercurial Scribe Bipolar Chicks Blogging Beyond Meds Off Label Jung At Heart Graphic Truth Joysoup Apesma's Lament Soapy Water Outlaw Psychiatry Empirical Insanity Patient Anonymous Beyond Blue Psych Survivor Postpartum Progress The Happiness Project Finding Optimism The Gimp Parade Midlife and Treachery Secret Life of a Manic-Depressive Psych Tech Going Through Hell
Doctor Blogs. Sites.
Clinical Psych
World of Psychology CorePsych The Last Psychiatrist Carlat Report Blog Intueri Emotional Well-Being Scientific Misconduct Aaron Beck Cognitive Therapy Today Treatment Online Shrink Rap David Healy Dr. Dork NHS Blog Doctor Dr. X's Free Associations Dr. Sanity Anxious Mind Everyone Needs Therapy Counselling Resource
Activists. News.
Charlottesville Prejudice Watch
The Icarus Project MindFreedom AHRP Blog SSRI Stories Healthy Skepticism Psych Rights Treatment Advocacy Center Peter Breggin Schizophrenia News eDrugSearch Blog Nuts R Us News Disapedia WSJ Health Blog Alison Bass
Social Networking. Forums.
Beyond Meds Social Network
Mood Garden Paxil Progress Crazy Boards Forums Psych Central Forums Icarus Project Forums DepressionTribe MySpace Bipolar Group Bipolar World Pendulum.org Bipolar Planet About.com Bipolar
Science. Big Pharma. Ethics.
PharmaLot
Pharma Gossip Science Blogs Mind Hacks GoozNews Integrity in Science Neurophilospohy bioethics.net Drug Wonks Pharma Marketing Blog Pharma's Cutting Edge On Pharma Health Care Renewal
Current Affairs
Buzz Machine
To The People Andrew Sullivan Michelle Malkin Daily Kos Reason's Hit&Run The Agitator Press Think Jim Romenesko Rough Type Gawker The Graphic Truth Tail Rank Huffington Post Instapundit Little Green Footballs Talking Points Memo MoJo Blog
Seattle Stuff
Smoking. Stuff.
|
