The negative lethal side effects are being published. I was in the waiting room of a general clinic , waiting to see a doctor, opened a magazine and found the statistics of 3 children died from antipsychotics 1998 to 2005. I lucky had a pen on me and wrote in the margin 3,455 people.
Furious Seasons LINK

P.S. That 3,500 death total was from just one drug. If one collected the totals from all the antipsychotics the death totals would be larger. I hate that the disfigured and hurt from the drugs don't show up. What is the ratio of dead to damaged from antipsychotics? ten to one? hundred to one? 350,000 damaged sounds like a reasonable estimate to me.

Slightly less bad news is what I would call it.

It's about time...

While it is certainly good news that antipsychotic use in kids is decreasing, I think the (negative) attention is being paid to the wrong parties. Yes, these drugs cause complicated (and unnecessary) side effects, and yes, they were inappropriately marketed for children, but let's not ignore the thousands of doctors who, aware of the dangers of these drugs (and if not, they should have been), still chose to use them instead of other, safer agents. Not to mention the doctors who gave the diagnosis in the first place-- and much has been written about whether there even IS such a thing as child bipolar disorder.

As a psychiatrist, I don't know what's more unpalatable: the fact that drug company influence can foster the creation of new diagnoses "out of thin air," as it were, which create instant markets for new-- and relatively untested-- medications; or the fact that so many of my colleagues fall for the song-and-dance without using the critical-thinking skills they've spent so many years to develop.

Peace be with you

Interesting article. I wish I could get a number of how many children we're talking about here. This percent and that percent have no bearing with out some reference point. For instance 5.2 percent of 586 million is still 30.472 million children. I know that is not correct, but without a number nobody really knows what damage has been done, or how many children were saved from the rope 'em and dope 'em policies of modern psychiatry.

It's bullshit to only discuss the drugging of little children in terms of profits. It is and should be about allowing every child to grow up free of chemical pollutants. Louis Kraus is wrong the shown "benefits" don't outweigh the risks of diabetes. "For those children who are seriously mentally ill" - whenever did a pharmaceutical company get invited to a new party and they kept their dick in their pants?

love eternal
tad