Psyched Out - How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness & Pushes Pills That Kill
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:45 pm
Psyched Out - How Psychiatry Sells Mental Illness & Pushes Pills That Kill
http://www.psychedout.net/
Excerpt 1:
Chapter One: Psychiatric Suicidal Therapy
The FDA found that the alleged “antidepressants” are neither safe nor
effective for an unknown percentage of the adolescent population and, based
on the evidence that twice as many children in clinical trials showed a
greater risk of suicidality taking the antidepressants, coupled with the
evidence that the antidepressants in the majority of the clinical trials
were no more effective than sugar pills, the FDA had little choice but to
“request” the pharmaceutical companies add the black-box warnings. The
initial version of the warning is as follows.
Suicidality in Children and Adolescents:
“Antidepressants increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior
(suicidality) in children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder
(MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.”
Based on the data reviewed by the committee, this seemed like appropriate
language. But, when all was said and done, the FDA’s final black-box
warning was a skeleton of the initial language:
Suicidality in Children and Adolescents:
“Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior
(suicidality) in short-term studies in children and adolescents with Major
Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.” (italics added)
Talk about shoving the knife in a little deeper! The original draft of the
warning intimated that the risk was serious and ongoing within the
pediatric and adolescent population. But in the final version, the FDA
appears to suggest that the risk posed by the antidepressants is limited to
the clinical trials or “short-term studies” that occurred in the past—as if
what happens during the clinical trials doesn’t carry over into the general
population.
The FDA clearly took the low road on this language and the point can well
be made by the simple fact that the word “increase” has been replaced to
reflect the past tense in the final version and that “short-term studies”
has been inserted. In what can only be described as what many believe as
the standard operating procedure of putting the public’s best interest
behind that of the psychiatric community and pharmaceutical industry, the
FDA’s language changed from advising the public that “antidepressants
increase the risk of suicidal thinking,” to “antidepressants increased the
risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in short-term studies.”
This pathetic compromise looks as if the FDA is taking a bold step in
advising the public that there were problems just in those darn short-term
studies. If it wasn’t for the explanation provided by a mouthpiece of the
APA, one might rightfully conclude that the FDA committee had itself
suffered from some weird collective mental deficit.
David Fassler, M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist and clinical
associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont School of
Medicine and a trustee of the APA made it clear which group was responsible
for the language change when, during an interview with Jim Rosack of
Clinical and Research News, the APA spokesman said “the change in wording
brings the FDA warning closer to the actual science. I’m glad they
responded to the extensive and detailed input from both practicing
psychiatrists and the research community. Hopefully, the FDA will consider
further revisions in the future, as more long-term and follow-up data
become available.”
One has to wonder, though: If the APA’s spokesman is right and the language
is closer to the actual science, that the threat is only in the short-term
clinical trials, what exactly was the reason for the FDA to warn the public
about the possibility of violent behavior and self-harm? Furthermore,
referring back to Graham Aldred’s accounting of just the top three
antidepressants, Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, if the FDA’s conclusions are
accurate and the 4% greater risk of suicidality is carried over into the
general public, at a minimum the number of people susceptible to the
adverse reactions to the drugs could be in the millions. But, hey, the
FDA’s “warning” intimates that it was only those people who participated in
short-term studies that experienced violent and even suicidal thoughts.
Those other 68 million people taking just three of the top-selling
antidepressants shouldn’t have a problem. But, if the reverse logic is
applied to the FDA’s and APA’s language, this psycho-pharma yah yah is the
equivalent of saying that the percentage of the people who reportedly
benefited from taking the mind-altering drug also doesn’t carry over into
the general population—that the benefits are limited just to the short-term
studies.
Mental-health officialdom doesn’t want to go down that road because the
FDA’s data reveal that sugar pills were as effective as the drugs in a
majority of the clinical trials, but this astounding fact didn’t prompt the
drug approval agency to pull the mind-altering drugs from the market. This
is no small point when one considers that the agency’s overriding purpose
is to ensure that the drugs are safe and effective.
Excerpt 2: Chapter Three: Chemical Imbalance: A Measure of Madness?
There always are people who want to believe in the “chemical imbalance”
theory, regardless of the evidence or, in this case, the lack of evidence.
In fact, the APA, governmental bodies, pharmaceutical companies and private
mental health organizations have spent billions on advertising campaigns to
educate and reassure those afflicted with the reported psychiatric mental
illnesses that it isn’t their fault and that they shouldn’t be stigmatized.
So for those skeptics that still believe that the “chemical imbalance” is
more than a theory—indeed a hypothesis—there is one sure-fire way to know
the truth on a very personal level: Ask your treating physician or
psychiatrist for a paper copy of the results of the test that was conducted
to measure your brain chemical levels. Something along the lines of:
grossly, minimally, or just a smidge out of balance, providing the
physician a template to determine the necessary dosage and, more
importantly, the duration of treatment. And, one might assume, this test
presumably would also be used at the completion of treatment to determine
if the chemical “imbalance” had been sufficiently corrected or balanced.
Researchers would be unable to locate a single psychiatric drug user
capable of providing such results. It is fair to say that if objective,
confirmable proof of a neurological “chemical imbalance” were required
prior to filling a prescription for any of the psychiatric mind-altering
antidepressants that reportedly “correct” the “chemical imbalance” in the
brain, not a single prescription would be written because to date the only
known method of determining chemical levels in the brain is during autopsy.
Jonathan Leo, associate professor of anatomy at Western University of
Health Sciences and author of Broken Brains or Flawed Studies? A Critical
Review of ADHD Neuroimaging Research, hit the nail on the head about the
legitimacy of “chemical imbalance” when he explained in his 2004 paper “The
Biology of Mental Illness”: “If a psychiatrist says you have a shortage of
a chemical, ask for a blood test and watch the psychiatrist’s reaction. The
number of people who believe that scientists have proven that depressed
people have low serotonin is a glorious testament to the power of marketing.”
Pfizer is not the only pharmaceutical company to link the “chemical
imbalance” theory to the cause of the alleged psychiatric mental illness
for which a drug has been approved to treat. In fact, virtually all of the
antidepressants reviewed by the FDA for “black box” warnings mention the
chemical levels in the brain as possible causes of the alleged mental
disorders. The following is a list of what some of the other pharmaceutical
companies have to say about the chemical imbalance theory and key words to
focus on that provide a glimpse into what really is known by the makers of
psychiatric drugs about the alleged mental illnesses the drugs reportedly
treat and how the particular drug works on the alleged psychiatric disorders.
While the following explanations are heavy in medical/scientific jargon,
what is clear is that none of the pharmaceutical companies know exactly how
their drugs work on the reported psychiatric mental illnesses.
Eli Lilly and Co., the makers of the first SSRI antidepressant, Prozac
(fluoxetine hydrochloride): “Depression is not fully understood, but a
growing amount of evidence supports the view that people with depression
may have an imbalance of the brain’s neurotransmitters, the chemicals that
allow nerve cells in the brain to communicate with each other. Many
scientists believe that an imbalance in serotonin, one of these
neurotransmitters, may be an important factor in the development and
severity of depression. Prozac may help correct this imbalance by
increasing the brain’s own supply of serotonin.” Furthermore, how
Prozac works—its clinical pharmacology—is explained by the FDA this way:
“The antidepressant, antiobsessive-compulsive, and antibulimic actions of
Fluoxetine (Prozac) are presumed to be linked to its inhibition of CNS
neuronal uptake of serotonin…” Key words: believe, may, presumed.
Organon Pharmaceutical, the makers of the antidepressant Remeron: “Remeron,
introduced by Organon in 1994, is a noradrenergic and selective
serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA), the first of a new class of therapy.
Its active compound, mirtazapine, has a dual-action effect aimed at
rectifying the chemical imbalances in the brain that are understood to
cause depression.” [ii] The FDA explains Remeron this way: “The mechanism
of action of Remeron (mirtazapine) Tablets, as with other drugs effective
in the treatment of major depressive disorder, is unknown. Evidence
gathered in preclinical studies suggests that mirtazapine enhances central
noradrenergic and serotonergic activity…” Key words: unknown, suggests.
Forest Laboratories, Inc., the makers of the antidepressant Lexapro: “As a
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), Lexapro helps restore the
brain’s chemical balance by increasing the available supply of serotonin, a
substance in the brain believed to influence mood.” [iii] The FDA: “The
mechanism of antidepressant action of escitalopram (Lexapro), the
S-enantiomer of racemic citalopram, is presumed to be linked to
potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system
resulting from its inhibition of CNS neuronal reuptake of serotonin
(5-HT).” Key words: presumed, believed.
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the makers of antidepressant Effexor: “Effexor XR is
known as an SNRI (serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and is
believed to help treat depression and the associated symptoms of anxiety by
affecting the level of two chemicals in the brain—serotonin and
norepinephrine. These two chemicals are thought to play a key role in
depression and the associated symptoms of anxiety. Correcting the imbalance
of these two chemicals may help relieve depression symptoms and the
associated symptoms of anxiety…” [iv] The FDA: “The mechanism of the
antidepressant action of venlafaxine in humans is believed to be associated
with its potentiation of neurotransmitter activity in the CNS…” Key words:
believed, thought, and may.
GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Wellbutrin:
“Research suggests that depression may be caused by an imbalance of brain
chemicals called neurotransmitters. Scientists believe that Wellbutrin XL
helps balance the levels of two of these neurotransmitters called dopamine
and norepinepherine.”[v] The FDA: “While the mechanism of action of
bupropion, as with other antidepressants, is unknown, it is presumed that
this action is mediated by noradrenergic and/or dopaminergic mechanisms.”
Key words: suggests, may, believe, unknown, presumed.
Solvay Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacia & Upjohn jointly market the
antidepressant Luvox, GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of the antidepressant
Paxil, and Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of the antidepressant
Celexa, all report similar “understanding” of their drugs, using similar
scientific jargon about how the antidepressants are “presumed” to work on
the brain chemicals.
While all of the above pharmaceutical companies claim or suggest the
particular mind-altering drug either “helps correct,” “helps restore,”
“enhances,” or “mediates” the chemical balance in the brain, nowhere on any
of the company Websites is information provided about any objective,
confirmable neurological/biological testing conducted to determine the
levels of the alleged “chemical imbalance.” All of the above pharmaceutical
company Websites except Solvay (Luvox) and GlaxoSmithKline (Wellbutrin)
offer a “quiz” “checklist” or “self-test” to help determine if an
individual may be suffering from one or several of the alleged mental
illnesses that the company’s drug will “treat.”
In other words, the extent of testing for a variety of alleged mental
abnormalities, which all of the named pharmaceutical companies either state
is due to or suggest may be due to a “chemical imbalance,” is as easy as
answering questions on a self-test or quiz. Not one of the pharmaceutical
company “quiz” questions ask if the would-be patient has had their brain
chemical levels evaluated or measured and, if so, what those chemical
levels may be.
The above pharmaceutical companies do not understand “completely” how their
mind-altering drugs work on the indicated alleged mental illness(s) for
which the drugs have been approved for treatment, nor do they provide any
objective confirmable evidence of a “chemical imbalance.” But the
pharmaceutical companies are not alone. In fact, the “chemical imbalance”
theory is rampant among private mental health organizations and even in the
top echelon of the mental-health experts in the federal government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
http://www.psychedout.net/
Excerpt 1:
Chapter One: Psychiatric Suicidal Therapy
The FDA found that the alleged “antidepressants” are neither safe nor
effective for an unknown percentage of the adolescent population and, based
on the evidence that twice as many children in clinical trials showed a
greater risk of suicidality taking the antidepressants, coupled with the
evidence that the antidepressants in the majority of the clinical trials
were no more effective than sugar pills, the FDA had little choice but to
“request” the pharmaceutical companies add the black-box warnings. The
initial version of the warning is as follows.
Suicidality in Children and Adolescents:
“Antidepressants increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior
(suicidality) in children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder
(MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.”
Based on the data reviewed by the committee, this seemed like appropriate
language. But, when all was said and done, the FDA’s final black-box
warning was a skeleton of the initial language:
Suicidality in Children and Adolescents:
“Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior
(suicidality) in short-term studies in children and adolescents with Major
Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders.” (italics added)
Talk about shoving the knife in a little deeper! The original draft of the
warning intimated that the risk was serious and ongoing within the
pediatric and adolescent population. But in the final version, the FDA
appears to suggest that the risk posed by the antidepressants is limited to
the clinical trials or “short-term studies” that occurred in the past—as if
what happens during the clinical trials doesn’t carry over into the general
population.
The FDA clearly took the low road on this language and the point can well
be made by the simple fact that the word “increase” has been replaced to
reflect the past tense in the final version and that “short-term studies”
has been inserted. In what can only be described as what many believe as
the standard operating procedure of putting the public’s best interest
behind that of the psychiatric community and pharmaceutical industry, the
FDA’s language changed from advising the public that “antidepressants
increase the risk of suicidal thinking,” to “antidepressants increased the
risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in short-term studies.”
This pathetic compromise looks as if the FDA is taking a bold step in
advising the public that there were problems just in those darn short-term
studies. If it wasn’t for the explanation provided by a mouthpiece of the
APA, one might rightfully conclude that the FDA committee had itself
suffered from some weird collective mental deficit.
David Fassler, M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist and clinical
associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont School of
Medicine and a trustee of the APA made it clear which group was responsible
for the language change when, during an interview with Jim Rosack of
Clinical and Research News, the APA spokesman said “the change in wording
brings the FDA warning closer to the actual science. I’m glad they
responded to the extensive and detailed input from both practicing
psychiatrists and the research community. Hopefully, the FDA will consider
further revisions in the future, as more long-term and follow-up data
become available.”
One has to wonder, though: If the APA’s spokesman is right and the language
is closer to the actual science, that the threat is only in the short-term
clinical trials, what exactly was the reason for the FDA to warn the public
about the possibility of violent behavior and self-harm? Furthermore,
referring back to Graham Aldred’s accounting of just the top three
antidepressants, Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, if the FDA’s conclusions are
accurate and the 4% greater risk of suicidality is carried over into the
general public, at a minimum the number of people susceptible to the
adverse reactions to the drugs could be in the millions. But, hey, the
FDA’s “warning” intimates that it was only those people who participated in
short-term studies that experienced violent and even suicidal thoughts.
Those other 68 million people taking just three of the top-selling
antidepressants shouldn’t have a problem. But, if the reverse logic is
applied to the FDA’s and APA’s language, this psycho-pharma yah yah is the
equivalent of saying that the percentage of the people who reportedly
benefited from taking the mind-altering drug also doesn’t carry over into
the general population—that the benefits are limited just to the short-term
studies.
Mental-health officialdom doesn’t want to go down that road because the
FDA’s data reveal that sugar pills were as effective as the drugs in a
majority of the clinical trials, but this astounding fact didn’t prompt the
drug approval agency to pull the mind-altering drugs from the market. This
is no small point when one considers that the agency’s overriding purpose
is to ensure that the drugs are safe and effective.
Excerpt 2: Chapter Three: Chemical Imbalance: A Measure of Madness?
There always are people who want to believe in the “chemical imbalance”
theory, regardless of the evidence or, in this case, the lack of evidence.
In fact, the APA, governmental bodies, pharmaceutical companies and private
mental health organizations have spent billions on advertising campaigns to
educate and reassure those afflicted with the reported psychiatric mental
illnesses that it isn’t their fault and that they shouldn’t be stigmatized.
So for those skeptics that still believe that the “chemical imbalance” is
more than a theory—indeed a hypothesis—there is one sure-fire way to know
the truth on a very personal level: Ask your treating physician or
psychiatrist for a paper copy of the results of the test that was conducted
to measure your brain chemical levels. Something along the lines of:
grossly, minimally, or just a smidge out of balance, providing the
physician a template to determine the necessary dosage and, more
importantly, the duration of treatment. And, one might assume, this test
presumably would also be used at the completion of treatment to determine
if the chemical “imbalance” had been sufficiently corrected or balanced.
Researchers would be unable to locate a single psychiatric drug user
capable of providing such results. It is fair to say that if objective,
confirmable proof of a neurological “chemical imbalance” were required
prior to filling a prescription for any of the psychiatric mind-altering
antidepressants that reportedly “correct” the “chemical imbalance” in the
brain, not a single prescription would be written because to date the only
known method of determining chemical levels in the brain is during autopsy.
Jonathan Leo, associate professor of anatomy at Western University of
Health Sciences and author of Broken Brains or Flawed Studies? A Critical
Review of ADHD Neuroimaging Research, hit the nail on the head about the
legitimacy of “chemical imbalance” when he explained in his 2004 paper “The
Biology of Mental Illness”: “If a psychiatrist says you have a shortage of
a chemical, ask for a blood test and watch the psychiatrist’s reaction. The
number of people who believe that scientists have proven that depressed
people have low serotonin is a glorious testament to the power of marketing.”
Pfizer is not the only pharmaceutical company to link the “chemical
imbalance” theory to the cause of the alleged psychiatric mental illness
for which a drug has been approved to treat. In fact, virtually all of the
antidepressants reviewed by the FDA for “black box” warnings mention the
chemical levels in the brain as possible causes of the alleged mental
disorders. The following is a list of what some of the other pharmaceutical
companies have to say about the chemical imbalance theory and key words to
focus on that provide a glimpse into what really is known by the makers of
psychiatric drugs about the alleged mental illnesses the drugs reportedly
treat and how the particular drug works on the alleged psychiatric disorders.
While the following explanations are heavy in medical/scientific jargon,
what is clear is that none of the pharmaceutical companies know exactly how
their drugs work on the reported psychiatric mental illnesses.
Eli Lilly and Co., the makers of the first SSRI antidepressant, Prozac
(fluoxetine hydrochloride): “Depression is not fully understood, but a
growing amount of evidence supports the view that people with depression
may have an imbalance of the brain’s neurotransmitters, the chemicals that
allow nerve cells in the brain to communicate with each other. Many
scientists believe that an imbalance in serotonin, one of these
neurotransmitters, may be an important factor in the development and
severity of depression. Prozac may help correct this imbalance by
increasing the brain’s own supply of serotonin.” Furthermore, how
Prozac works—its clinical pharmacology—is explained by the FDA this way:
“The antidepressant, antiobsessive-compulsive, and antibulimic actions of
Fluoxetine (Prozac) are presumed to be linked to its inhibition of CNS
neuronal uptake of serotonin…” Key words: believe, may, presumed.
Organon Pharmaceutical, the makers of the antidepressant Remeron: “Remeron,
introduced by Organon in 1994, is a noradrenergic and selective
serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA), the first of a new class of therapy.
Its active compound, mirtazapine, has a dual-action effect aimed at
rectifying the chemical imbalances in the brain that are understood to
cause depression.” [ii] The FDA explains Remeron this way: “The mechanism
of action of Remeron (mirtazapine) Tablets, as with other drugs effective
in the treatment of major depressive disorder, is unknown. Evidence
gathered in preclinical studies suggests that mirtazapine enhances central
noradrenergic and serotonergic activity…” Key words: unknown, suggests.
Forest Laboratories, Inc., the makers of the antidepressant Lexapro: “As a
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), Lexapro helps restore the
brain’s chemical balance by increasing the available supply of serotonin, a
substance in the brain believed to influence mood.” [iii] The FDA: “The
mechanism of antidepressant action of escitalopram (Lexapro), the
S-enantiomer of racemic citalopram, is presumed to be linked to
potentiation of serotonergic activity in the central nervous system
resulting from its inhibition of CNS neuronal reuptake of serotonin
(5-HT).” Key words: presumed, believed.
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the makers of antidepressant Effexor: “Effexor XR is
known as an SNRI (serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) and is
believed to help treat depression and the associated symptoms of anxiety by
affecting the level of two chemicals in the brain—serotonin and
norepinephrine. These two chemicals are thought to play a key role in
depression and the associated symptoms of anxiety. Correcting the imbalance
of these two chemicals may help relieve depression symptoms and the
associated symptoms of anxiety…” [iv] The FDA: “The mechanism of the
antidepressant action of venlafaxine in humans is believed to be associated
with its potentiation of neurotransmitter activity in the CNS…” Key words:
believed, thought, and may.
GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Wellbutrin:
“Research suggests that depression may be caused by an imbalance of brain
chemicals called neurotransmitters. Scientists believe that Wellbutrin XL
helps balance the levels of two of these neurotransmitters called dopamine
and norepinepherine.”[v] The FDA: “While the mechanism of action of
bupropion, as with other antidepressants, is unknown, it is presumed that
this action is mediated by noradrenergic and/or dopaminergic mechanisms.”
Key words: suggests, may, believe, unknown, presumed.
Solvay Pharmaceuticals and Pharmacia & Upjohn jointly market the
antidepressant Luvox, GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of the antidepressant
Paxil, and Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of the antidepressant
Celexa, all report similar “understanding” of their drugs, using similar
scientific jargon about how the antidepressants are “presumed” to work on
the brain chemicals.
While all of the above pharmaceutical companies claim or suggest the
particular mind-altering drug either “helps correct,” “helps restore,”
“enhances,” or “mediates” the chemical balance in the brain, nowhere on any
of the company Websites is information provided about any objective,
confirmable neurological/biological testing conducted to determine the
levels of the alleged “chemical imbalance.” All of the above pharmaceutical
company Websites except Solvay (Luvox) and GlaxoSmithKline (Wellbutrin)
offer a “quiz” “checklist” or “self-test” to help determine if an
individual may be suffering from one or several of the alleged mental
illnesses that the company’s drug will “treat.”
In other words, the extent of testing for a variety of alleged mental
abnormalities, which all of the named pharmaceutical companies either state
is due to or suggest may be due to a “chemical imbalance,” is as easy as
answering questions on a self-test or quiz. Not one of the pharmaceutical
company “quiz” questions ask if the would-be patient has had their brain
chemical levels evaluated or measured and, if so, what those chemical
levels may be.
The above pharmaceutical companies do not understand “completely” how their
mind-altering drugs work on the indicated alleged mental illness(s) for
which the drugs have been approved for treatment, nor do they provide any
objective confirmable evidence of a “chemical imbalance.” But the
pharmaceutical companies are not alone. In fact, the “chemical imbalance”
theory is rampant among private mental health organizations and even in the
top echelon of the mental-health experts in the federal government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936