PLACEBO PERFORMS AS WELL AS ANTIDEPRESSANT IN TREATING DEPRESSION

NIH study

 PLACEBO PERFORMS AS WELL AS ANTIDEPRESSANTS

THIS INFORMATION FIRST CAME TO LIGHT 5 YEARS AGO BUT FEW SEEM TO HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE, SO IN CASE YOU MISSED IT THIS INFORMATION DEFINITELY BARES REPEATING AND WE NEED YOU TO SHARE IT SO THAT OTHERS BECOME AWARE. WHAT IS LEFT OUT OF THE ARTICLE BELOW ON THIS NEW STUDY BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH IS THAT UNLIKE AN ANTIDEPRESSANTS, A PLACEBO COSTS MUCH LESS, LACKS WITHDRAWAL SYNDROME, AND HAS FEWER SIDE EFFECTS OR AFTER EFFECTS!!!

Study: Placebo performs as well as antidepressant drugs in treating depression

by: Jonathan Benson,

(NaturalNews) The more that researchers truly study the effects of antidepressant drugs on depression patients, the more it becomes painfully obvious that these mind-altering medications are utterly useless. A new study conducted by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has revealed that antidepressant drugs work no better than talk therapy, placebo pills, or basically anything else, at relieving depression.

Funded in part by the drug industry, the new study follows the same pattern as several other recent studies that, even though they were not intended to do so, actually expose antidepressant drugs as a scam.

WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!

The FDA also now warns that any abrupt change in dose of an antidepressant can produce suicide, hostility or psychosis. And these reactions can either come on very rapidly or even be delayed for months depending upon the adverse effects upon sleep patterns when the withdrawal is rapid! You can find the CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here: http://store.drugawareness.org/

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

(Click link below to read full article) myscienceacademy.org/2013/01/09/study-placebo-performs-as-well-as-antidepressant-drugs-in-treating-depression/

Continue reading

Glaxo Is Testing Paxil on 7-Year-Olds Despite Well Known Suicide Risks

The only word for this news is “Criminal!” I hope they are watching these children 24-7 to keep them from committingsuicide or homicide while in the study. I recall the seven year old boy on Paxil I worked with who wanted to cut the baby out of his mother’s belly and the 17 year old who impulsively jumped off an overpass in front of a semi-truck to end his life. Then there was the 10 year old brother and 15 year old sister, both on Paxil, who stabbed their 7 year old brother and buried him in the back yard. Sounds like a great drug for kids, doesn’t it?
I just finished a court report (I have been testifying as an expert in these cases for almost two decades) on a Paxil case and noted that 18 of the listed side effects were indicators of mania. If Glaxo had labeled those effects for what really are instead of the labels they gave those reactions then no one would be surprised to know that in children the rate of Bipolar Disorder increased 4000% from 1996-2004.
As for Paxil being beneficial apparently someone missed the news that came out just over two years ago where the original studies done on SSRI antidepressants finally surfaced – many the FDA had never seen – indicating that the drugs offer no more benefit than a placebo. So if even the worst drugs perform better than placebo, where does that leave the SSRI antidepressants?
Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.orgwww.ssristories.drugawareness.org

Glaxo Is Testing Paxil on 7-Year-Olds Despite WellKnown Suicide Risks

By Jim Edwards | May 21, 2010

It was established years ago that Paxil carries a risk of suicide in children and teens, but GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has for the last 18 months been conducting a study of the antidepressant in kids as young as seven — in Japan. It’s not clear why the company would want to draw more attention to its already controversial pill, but it appears as if GSK might be hoping to see a reduced suicide risk in a small population of users — a result the company could use to cast doubt on the Paxil-equals-teen-suicide meme that dominates discussion of the drug.

GSK didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. A staffer on GSK’s trials hotline confirmed the study was ongoing, however. The drug carries a “black box” warning on its patient information sheet, warning doctors and consumers that the antidepressant is twice as likely to generate lethal thoughts than a placebo.

The trial criteria listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, however, provide an interesting lesson in how managers can carefully design drug trials designed to flatter their products — something good companies don’t do.

The primary aim of the study is not to find out why Paxil makes some children kill themselves. Rather, it’s yet another efficacy study, which the drug doesn’t need because it was approved years ago — we already know the drug works.

Paxil is being tested against a placebo, so the results won’t be very surprising — even terrible drugs work better than sugar pills.

To what degree Paxil triggers suicide is only a secondary aim of the study. If the results suggest a lower suicide risk, expect GSK to play them up. If they’re bad, expect the company to dismiss them in favor of the primary endpoint results.

About 130 children have been enrolled, according to ClinicalTrials.gov, which puts about 65 patients in each arm. That means the results won’t be too statistically robust — there only need to be two or three outlier results to skew the numbers by several percentage points.

The trial will wrap up in September.

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).