PROZAC/SSRIs: Problematic [DEADLY!] For Bipolars: Dr. David Gratzer

NOTE FROM DR. TRACY (www.drugawareness.org):

Problematic???!!!!!” How about using the term DEADLY? How did
we get to the point that using SSRIs is the standard “treatment” for Bipolar
patients when initially doctors would not prescribe them due to their strong
potential to induce Bipolar?! Time has certainly proven the initial fears to be
true when the number of diagnosis for Bipolar Disorder increased by a whopping
4000% from 1996 to 2004!! No wonder every third person you meet any more has the
Bipolar label!
The simple truth of the matter is (as I discuss at length in
my DVD “Bipolar, Shmypolar! Are You Really Bipolar or Misdiagnosed Due to the
Use of or Abrupt Discontinuation of an Antidepressant?”) that antidepressants –
especially the SSRI antidepressants – are by far the BIGGEST CAUSE on
this planet of Bipolar Disorder! And doctors prescribing these drugs as
“treatment” for Bipolar is not only unethical, it is downright criminal! Why
wouldn’t the placebo outperform the drug?! Placebos don’t CAUSE Bipolar Disorder
– Antidepressants do!
Paragraph 14 reads:  “As a physician myself, I know a
thing or two about going by the book and getting it wrong. When I was in
residency, the standard treatment for bipolar patients suffering
depression was Prozac or its sister drugs
. It turned out that

Prozac intervention was not only highly problematic, but also bested by
placebo.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Manhattan-Moment/Medicine-isn_t-perfect_-Obamacare-is-even-less-perfect-8582816-72875022.html

Dr. David Gratzer: Medicine isn’t perfect, Obamacare is even less
perfect

By: Dr. David Gratzer
Op-Ed Contributor
November 25, 2009

Pay for the blue pill that works, not the red one that
doesn’t. That’s the president’s simple prescription for improving American
health care, one that relies on government panels and committees to set
guidelines for doctors and patients alike.

At least, that’s the
theory.

The theory met messy reality last week when the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force recommended that women in their 40s shouldn’t get
mammograms. But the secretary of health and human services — who, incidentally,
oversees this panel — thinks women probably should. And the American Cancer
Society believes that they definitely should; major private insurance companies,

for the record, will continue to fund the tests.

Confused
yet?

Recommendation from a largely unknown government panel hardly seems
like typical material for national headlines. But when it involves breast cancer
and the announcement is made in the heat of debate over health reform, people
are — understandably — concerned.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force, as it turns out, is not part of a larger Obama White House rationing
conspiracy, as some would have it. Task force members were appointed by
President Bush, and they voted on this recommendation before Obama’s
inauguration.

As for cost considerations, the task force had none:
Members are mandated not to weigh dollars and cents when considering the risk
and benefits of recommendations.

That’s not to suggest that their
conclusion isn’t highly controversial. For starters, it seems counterintuitive:
Early screening for cancer makes sense.

No wonder, then, that a full 87
percent of Americans believed that routine scanning was “almost always a good
idea” in a 2004 poll published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association.

Today, American panels and doctors groups are moving away
from the “scan first, ask questions later” philosophy. We aren’t the only ones
having second thoughts.

In Japan, all newborns were screened for

neuroblastoma starting in 1984, but the program was scrapped a few years ago
when more babies died from unnecessary surgeries than the obscure
cancer.

For many, such reversals are deeply unsettling, a reminder that
medicine is far from an exact science.

“The history of medicine is a
record not only of brilliant success and stunning progress,” Theodore Dalrymple,
a British physician, wrote in 2002. “It is also a litany of mistaken ideas and
discarded treatments, some of which came to appear absurd or downright dangerous
after having once been hailed as unprecedented advances.”

As a physician
myself, I know a thing or two about going by the book and getting it wrong. When
I was in residency, the standard treatment for bipolar patients suffering
depression was Prozac or its sister drugs. It turned out that Prozac
intervention was not only highly problematic, but also bested by
placebo.

For those on the left, the answer to the chaos of medicine is to
establish government panels. With Obamacare, for instance, White House officials
propose a commission to cut hundreds of billions from Medicare by improving the
quality of care.

How? By setting up an Independent Medicare Advisory
Commission that would guide clinical decisions for doctors and patients
alike.

The controversy over breast cancer screening, however, shows the
political and practical limitations of this one-size-fits-all approach: Medical
organizations have difficulty in setting and agreeing upon clinical guidelines,
and patients are apt to resent mandates from bureaucrats.

Leaving health
verdicts in the hands of centralized authorities is a sure way to keep making
mistakes in a field where re-examination and reversal are an unavoidable
reality.

David Gratzer, a physician, is a senior fellow at the
Manhattan Institute and author of “Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health
Care Will Be a Disaster” (Encounter Books,
2009).

483 total views, no views today