CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta THE LINK BETWEEN ANTIDEPRESSANTS & SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

 

SanjayGupta

CNN’s DR. SANJAY GUPTA

THE LINK BETWEEN ANTIDEPRESSANTS & SCHOOL SHOOTINGS

Thanks to Tony DeGirolamo with CultureShockTV.com (who has long trumpted these issues surrounding antidepressant dangers) for bringing this CNN news piece to our attention.

In about 2003 Dr. Sanjay Gupta and I, Ann Blake Tracy, did an interview on the subject of children & antidepressants. After telling me how much he liked the title of my book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? he then began to ask questions about these drugs. Although I do not think he expected to hear the answers I gave and the hard facts I had about the problems with the hypothesis behind the drugs he did listen with an open mind – the most obvious trait of a real scientist.

After watching the news piece below on the recent tragic shooting of small children in Connecticut you will see that Dr. Gupta has now clearly connected the dots between these SSRI antidepressants and violence – especially with the school shootings.

For CNN to come out with such a strong piece linking antidepressants to violence is a huge breakthrough in my opinion! I appreciate Dr. Gupta for his open mind and willingness to learn something that seems to go so contrary to what the world has been led to believe about the safety of antidepressants. And I also very much appreciate his integrity in bringing this issue to the public because this is most certainly a public safety issue! The safety issue becomes more than obvious when you look at our database of cases (with 66 school shootings posted already & another three to be added) found at www.drugawareness.ssristories.com

About the Author: Ann Blake Tracy is the author of PROZAC: PANACEA OR PANDORA? –OUR SEROTONIN NIGHTMARE!, and the director of the International Coalition For Drug Awareness [www.drugawareness.org]. She has testified before the FDA and has testified as an expert in legal cases involving serotonergic medications since 1992.

BOOK: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare! Anything you ever wanted to know about antidepressants is there along with everything drug companies hope you never find out about these drugs. SAFE WITHDRAWAL CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!” on how to safely withdraw from antidepressants & most psychiatric medications is saving lives! Both available at www.drugawareness.org

BOOK TESTIMONIALS:

“Very bold & informative”

“Priceless information that is giving me back to me”

“The absolute best reference for antidepressant drugs”

“Well documented & scientifically researched”

““I was stunned at the amount of research Ann Tracy has done on this subject. Few researchers go to as much trouble aggressively gathering information on the adverse reactions of Prozac, Zoloft and other SSRIs.”

WITHDRAWAL HELP CD TESTIMONIALS:

“Ann, I just wanted to let you know from the bottom of my heart how grateful I am God placed you in my life. I am now down to less than 2 mg on my Cymbalta and I have never felt better. I am finally getting my life back. I can feel again and colors have never been brighter. Thanks for all that you do!!” … Amber Weber

“Used your method of weaning off of SSRI’s and applied it to Ambien. Took 6 months but had been on 15 mg for years so what was another 6 months. I have been sleeping without it for 2 weeks and it is the first time I have been able to sleep drug free for 15 years. What a relief to be able to lay down and sleep when I need or want to. Ambien may be necessary for people at times but doctors giving a months worth of it at a time with unlimited refills is a prescription for disaster. It is so damn easy to become dependent on. Thanks for your council Ann.”… Mark Hill

“I’m so thankful for AnnTracy and all her work. Also for taking the time out to talk to me and educate everyone! She has been a blessing to me during this awful time of antidepressant hell!” … Antoinette Beck

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html?%2Fvideo%2Fus%2F2012%2F12%2F18%2Fgupta-ct-shooting-newtown-hindsight.cnn#/video/us/2012/12/18/gupta-ct-shooting-newtown-hindsight.cnn

752 total views, 2 views today

FOSAMAX: Woman Awarded $8M After Osteoporosis Drug-Induced “Jaw Death”

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

Perhaps Merck should just quit while they are SO FAR BEHIND!!! As if the
Vioxx damage suits and wrongful death suits were not keeping their legal team
busy enough, now they are just beginning a huge backload of jaw death
cases related to Fosamax!

Fosamax is a drug I have warned of for years due to the fact that the main
ingredient in the drug is fluoride – yes the same stuff that is in your
drinking water at toxic levels. Fluoride is also the main active ingredient
in MANY of the SSRI antidepressants. It produces fluorosis which is almost
indistiguishable from neurosis as far as damage to the brain goes.

Why I have always warned against using it for osteoporosis is not only due
to the brain damage, but because fluoride hardens bone and does not know
when to stop. So the bones and teeth become so hard that they shatter on
impact because they become so brittle. Flouride also increases serotonin and
the main function of serotonin is constriction of muscle tissue. As the veins
and arteries close off so does the blood supply to the jawbone or anywhere
else the drug is targeting. Too bad science has never opted for using
wisdom along with knowledge!
________________________

Boles’ suit was the second of almost 900 lawsuits filed by more than 1,280
plaintiff groups against Merck over claims that Fosamax causes a condition
called osteonecrosis of the jaw, or death of jawbone tissue.

http://www.aolhealth.com/condition-center/osteoporosis/fosamax-tied-to-jaw-p
roblems?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl3|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2Fc
ondition-center%2Fosteoporosis%2Ffosamax-tied-to-jaw-problems

Damage Related to ‘Jaw Death’
Woman Awarded $8M After Osteoporosis Drug Damages Jaw
Print
EmailMore
By Marrecca Fiore

A jury last week ordered Merck & Co. to pay $8 million to a Florida woman
who alleged the company’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax damaged her jaw.

The same case ended in mistrial nine months ago, Reuters reports. Merck
issued a statement saying it would challenge the verdict.

Shirley Boles, 71, of Walton Beach, Florida, sued Merck in 2006, claiming
she suffered dental and jaw problems after taking Fosamax from 1997 to 2006.

“Today’s verdict is just the first step, but it’s important because the
jury found that Merck defectively designed the drug,” Boles’s attorney Tim
O’Brien said in a statement.

Boles’ suit was the second of almost 900 lawsuits filed by more than 1,280
plaintiff groups against Merck over claims that Fosamax causes a condition
called osteonecrosis of the jaw, or death of jawbone tissue.

Although Boles’ won her suit, another suit decided in May by New York jury
found in favor of Merck.

“Both the finding and the amount of the compensatory damages are against
the weight of the evidence,” Bruce Kuhlik, executive vice president and
general counsel for Merck, said in a statement. “We believe the evidence showed
that FOSAMAX did not cause the plaintiff’s injury and that it is a safe
and effective medication that was properly designed.”

Two studies, one in 2005 and one in May of this year, found that
osteoporosis drugs such as Fosamax, Actonel, Boniva and Zometa or Reclast were
linked to osteonecrosis of the jaw. However, government regulators have said
the risks are rare and that the benefits of such drugs outweigh the risks.

When osteonecrosis of the jaw develops, the blood supply of the bone in
the jaw is interrupted and the bone dies. Pain, tooth loss, and the
appearance of exposed bone are common symptoms.

More on Osteonecrosis of the Jaw:
Osteonecrosis of the Jaw Caused by Bisphosphonates

621 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANTs: Canadian Coroner’s Jury Recommends Changes in Prescribing SSRIs

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

Just today a Canadian Coroner’s Jury has made several recommendations in
the way patients taking SSRIs are warned of the risks of taking these
medications with alcohol or other drugs!! Two decades is all it took to FINALLY
get this kind of warning even though it had to come from a courtroom rather
than from any of the antidepressant manufacturers! The population suffering
the most serious and deadly side effects of the SSRI antidepressants has
ALWAYS been those with drug or alcohol problems or those with hypoglycemia
(which is alcoholism or what is called a “dry alcoholic” – check out the
work of Dr. James Milam).

As mentioned below in the SSRIstories note what has not been included that
should have been in big bold print years ago is that ANTIDEPRESSANTS
PRODUCE OVERWHELMING CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL [PATIENTS ALSO REPORT SIMILAR PROBLEMS
WITH ILLEGAL DRUGS]. So, although this is a big breakthrough in warning of
the extremely serious potential of mixing antidepressants with alcohol and
illegal drugs, it does not go far enough and explain that the use of an
antidepressant itself may cause you to mix it with alcohol or other drugs.
The use of the antidepressant sets you up for the most serious side effects
in producing these alcohol cravings;
___________________________________________

In a message dated 6/28/2010 12:58:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
gm1000@prodigy.net writes:
Last two paragraphs read: “Among its many suggestions, the jury
recommended the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons train doctors
administering these drugs to “inform the patient of the benefits and risk ­
including rare and serious side effects of SSRIs and of reasonable alternative
treatments, and the risks of taking such medications while consuming alcohol
or narcotics.

“ ‘If those recommendations were in place a few years ago, Sara would be
alive today,’ said Neil Carlin. ‘We consider this a great victory’.”

SSRI Stories note: The Physicians Desk Reference lists “Alcohol Craving”
as an infrequent, but not rare, side-effect for Paxil. Also, SSRIs may
cause a craving for illegal drugs such as cocaine by inducing mania or mood
swings in those taking such antidepressants.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/06/28/14544386.html

Changes recommended to the way patients informed about anti-depressants
By SAM PAZZANO, Courts Bureau

Last Updated: June 28, 2010 12:37pm

An Oakville teen using an anti-depressant drug died after hanging herself
while “affected by depression, cocaine and ethanol,” a coroner’s jury
ruled Monday.

Sara Carlin, an 18-year-old scholar and outstanding athlete committed
suicide on May 6, 2007, at her Oakville home, 14 months after she had began
taking the anti-depressant drug Paxil, which is a type of drug known as
selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs). She had also been using cocaine
and drinking heavily.

Carlin’s parents, Neil and Rhonda were visibly pleased after the jury
released its verdict and also made several recommendations aimed at preventing
similar suicides.

Among its many suggestions, the jury recommended the Ontario College of P
hysicians and Surgeons train doctors administering these drugs to “inform
the patient of the benefits and risk ­ including rare and serious side
effects of SSRIs” and of reasonable alternative treatments, and the risks of
taking such medications while consuming alcohol or narcotics.

“If those recommendations were in place a few years ago, Sara would be
alive today,” said Neil Carlin. “We consider this a great victory.”

669 total views, 3 views today

PAXIL: Acquitted of DUI: Involuntary Intoxication: Virginia

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy
(www.drugawareness.org):

Because the package insert for Paxil
warns that this antidepressant does produce “alcohol cravings” and we know how
common it is for mania to be induced by SSRIs, with one type of mania being
“Dipsomania” – an overwhelming compulsion to drink alcohol” – this
information needs to be spread far and wide ASAP! Patients are NOT warned
of this when they are given this drug! Few are even given the package insert
which is a “failure to warn” on the part of both the drug maker and the
pharmacist. How many DUIs are being caused by the SSRI antidepressants? We know
that DUIs in middle aged women, the main users of SSRIs, have DOUBLED over
a recent 10 year period. Is there a connection? As a society we need to know.
Where is MADD on this issue?
___________________________________________
The Fifth case from the end reads:  “Defendant was on Paxil, an
anti-depressant drug, and had a few drinks after playing golf. He was arrested
and charged with DUI after weaving through traffic.  He was “obviously
impaired” according to his lawyer.  ‘The worst I’d ever seen in 25 years’.”

“An expert testified that Paxil, taken with alcohol, has an “additive
effect” in some people.  The Defendant was never told about this.  The
Court acquitted the Defendant because to self-administer an intoxicant, one must
be aware that they are consuming an intoxicant.

http://virginiadui.poweradvocates.com/dui_defenses.html

4.
Involuntary Intoxication .  Commonwealth v. Moore, February, 2003 (Fairfax
Co. GDC).

Defendant was on Paxil, an anti-depressant drug, and had a few
drinks after playing golf.  He was arrested and charged with DUI after
weaving through traffic.  He was “obviously impaired” according to his
lawyer.  “The worst I’d ever seen in 25 years.”

An expert testified
that Paxil, taken with alcohol, has an “additive effect” in some people.

The Defendant was never told about this.  The Court acquitted the Defendant
because to self-administer an intoxicant, one must be aware that they are
consuming an intoxicant.

657 total views, no views today

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.

492 total views, no views today

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

Mark Taylor’s testimony before the FDA 9/13/2004

I am Mark Allen Taylor and I am a victim of the SSRI antidepressant era. I took six to thirteen bullets in the heart area in the Columbine High School shooting when Eric Harris on Luvox opened fire that now infamous day.

They almost had to amputate my leg and my arm. My heart missed by only one millimeter. I had three surgeries. Five years later I am still recuperating.

I went through all this to realize that SSRI antidepressants are dangerous for those who take them and for all those who associate with those who take them.

I hope that my testimony today shows you that you need to take action immediately before more innocent people like me, and you, do not get hurt or die horrible deaths as a result.

As Americans we should have the right to feel safe and if you were doing your job we would be safe. Why are we worrying about terrorists in other countries when the pharmaceutical companies have proven to be our biggest terrorists by releasing these drugs on an unsuspecting public?

How are we suppose to feel safe at school, at home, on the street, at church or anywhere else if we cannot trust the FDA to do what we are paying you to do? Where were you when I and all of my classmates got shot at Columbine?

You say that antidepressants are effective. So why did they not help Eric Harris before he shot me?

According to Eric they “helped” him to feel homicidal and suicidal after only six weeks on Zoloft. And then he said that dropping off Luvox cold turkey would help him “fuel the rage” he needed to shoot everyone. But he continued on Luvox and shot us all anyway.

So, why did these so called antidepressants not make him better? I will tell you why. It is because they do not work.

We should consider antidepressants to be accomplices to murder.

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/

2,483 total views, 3 views today

ICFDA Warning on Drug Discontinuation

Taper off very, very, very slowly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dropping “cold turkey” off any medication, most especially mind altering medications, can often be MORE DANGEROUS than staying on the drugs. With antidepressants the FDA has now warned that any abrupt change in dose, whether increasing or decreasing the dose, can produce suicide, hostility, or psychosis – generally a manic psychosis when you then get your diagnosis for Bipolar Disorder. Of course drug-induced Bipolar is temporary so you need to learn more about that if it has already happened to you. We have a DVD on explaining this and how to recover from it: “Bipolar? Are You Really Bipolar or Misdiagnosed Due to the Use of or Abrupt Discontinuation of an Antidepressant”: https://store.drugawareness.org/product/bipolar-disorder-streaming/

The most dangerous and yet the most common mistake someone coming off any antidepressant, atypical antipsychotic, or benzodiazaphine makes is coming off these drugs too rapidly. Tapering off VERY, VERY, VERY SLOWLY–OVER MONTHS OR YEARS (The general rule of thumb for those on antidepressants (ANY antidepressant, not just the current antidepressant – add up all time on any of them) for less than a year is to take half the amount of time on them to wean off and for long-term users for each 5 years on psychiatric drugs of any kind  the general rule of thumb is at least a year or more.), NOT JUST WEEKS OR MONTHS!—has proven the safest and most effective method of withdrawal from these types of medications. Thus the body is given the time it needs to readjust its own chemical levels. Patients must be warned to come very slowly off these drugs by shaving minuscule amounts off their pills each day, as opposed to cutting them.

WARNING: The practice of taking a pill every other day throws you into withdrawal every other day and can be very dangerous when you consider the FDA warnings on abrupt changes in dose.

This cannot be stressed strongly enough! This information on EXTREMELY gradual withdrawal is the most critical piece of information that someone facing withdrawal from these drugs needs to have.

A REMINDER: IT IS EASIER TO GET DOWN OFF A MOUNTAINTOP ONE GUARDED STEP AT A TIME THAN TO JUMP FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM.

No matter how few or how many side effects you have had on these antidepressants, withdrawal is a whole new world. The worst part of rapid withdrawal can be delayed for several months AFTER you quit. So even if you think you are doing okay you quickly find that it becomes much worse. If you do not come off correctly and rebuild your body as you do, you risk:

  • Creating bouts of overwhelming depression
  • Producing a MUCH longer withdrawal and recovery period than if you had come off slowly
  • Overwhelming fatigue causing you to be unable to continue daily tasks or costing your job
  • Having a psychotic break brought on by the terrible insomnia from the rapid withdrawal, and then being locked in a psychiatric ward and being told you are either schizophrenic or most likely that you are Bipolar.
  • Ending up going back on the drugs (each period on the drugs tends to be more dangerous and problematic than the previous time you were on the drugs) and having more drugs added to calm the withdrawal effects
  • Seizures and other life threatening physical reactions
  • Violent outbursts or rages
  • REM Sleep Behavior Disorder which has always been known as a drug withdrawal state and is known to include both suicide and homicide – both committed in a sleep state.

Although my book, Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare!, contains massive amounts of information you can find nowhere else on these drugs, it does not have the extensive amount of information contained in the CD focusing mainly on withdrawal issues. The CD contains newer and updated information on safe withdrawal from these drugs. It details over an hour and a half the safest ways found over the past 30 years to withdraw from antidepressants and the drugs so often prescribed with them – the atypical antipsychotics and benzodiazapenes. And it explains why it is safest to withdraw tiny amounts from all of the medications at the same time rather than withdrawing only one at a time.

It also lists many safe alternative treatments that can assist you in getting though the withdrawal and lists other alternatives to avoid which are not safe after using antidepressants. And it contains information on how to rebuild your health after you have had it destroyed by these drugs so that you never end up feeling a need to be on these drugs again.

The CD is very inexpensive and will save you thousands in medical bills which far too many end up spending trying to do it on your own without this information. (One woman who decided she was okay coming down twice as fast as recommended paid a terrible price. After withdrawing she suffered the REM Sleep Disorder early one morning and attacked her husband with a baseball bat (for which she has no memory) and which ended their lifelong courtship and marriage. And cost her $30,000 to be in a psychiatric facility where they put her on five more drugs plus the antidepressant she had just withdrawn from! You can see why many have lamented that they wished they would have had the information on this CD before attempting withdrawal.

To order Ann Blake-Tracy’s book go to: https://store.drugawareness.org/product/prozac-panacea-or-pandora-our-serotonin-nightmare-2014-ebook-download/

To order the CD, “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!” go to: http://store.drugawareness.org/product/help-i-cant-get-off-my-antidepressant-mp3-download/

This is a CD doctors can also benefit from when attempting to withdraw their patients from these drugs which the World Health Organization has now told us are addictive and produce withdrawal. And doctors have begun to recommend the CD to their patients.

The Aftermath of Antidepressants

In 2005 the FDA issued strong warnings about changes in dose for antidepressants. They warned that ANY abrupt change in dose of an antidepressant, whether increasing or decreasing the dose….so that would include switching antidepressants, starting or stopping antidepressants, forgetting to take a pill, skipping doses, taking a pill one day & not the next, etc…. can cause suicide, hostility, and/or psychosis – generally a manic psychosis which is why so many are given a diagnosis for Bipolar Disorder after this withdrawal reaction that can so severely impair sleep leading to a psychotic break.

Clearly coming down too rapidly can be very, very dangerous. We encourage you to arm yourself with knowledge by downloading our CD on safe withdrawal.

http://www.drugawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/helpicant.jpgclick here. order a CD download.

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!”

 

11,055 total views, 11 views today

ANTIDEPRESSANTS: Suicide: Man Out of Prison for 3 Hours: England

Notice from the article below that this fellow had been abruptly discontinued from his antidepressant when incarcerated in November. Then while still in the critical withdrawal stage was re-introduced to the use of an antidepressant – likely a new one since jails and prisons have access to a select few they prescribe. So he likely had three strikes against him leading to his sudden and very determined suicide.

Dr. Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director, International Coalition For Drug Awareness

Paragraph four reads: “The jury inquest at Nottingham Coroner’s Court heard Mr Brown had been at the prison for five weeks and was four days away from being released when he was seen by a psychiatrist and given anti-depressants.”

SSRI Stories note: The most likely time for suicidal behaviors and SSRI antidepressants are: 1. When first starting the drugs: 2. When stopping the drugs. 3. While increasing the dose: 4. While decreasing the dose. 5. When switching from one SSRI to another antidepressant.

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/homenews/Coroner-criticises-healthcare-Nottingham-Prison/article-1196220-detail/article.html

Coroner criticises healthcare at Nottingham Prison
Monday, July 27, 2009, 07:00

1 reader has commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.

A CORONER has criticised health services at Nottingham Prison after an inmate committed suicide hours after his release.

Gary Brown, 39, of Cranwell Road, Strelley, drowned on December 24, 2007.

He was seen jumping off Trent Bridge less than three hours after he was released from the prison.

The jury inquest at Nottingham Coroner’s Court heard Mr Brown had been at the prison for five weeks and was four days away from being released when he was seen by a psychiatrist and given anti-depressants.

Notts coroner Dr Nigel Chapman said there was a “huge gap” between Mr Brown seeing a GP on his arrival at the prison and seeing a psychiatrist.

The inquest heard there was a lack of communication between health workers, and one doctor at the prison called it “an entirely haphazard system”.

Mr Brown arrived at Nottingham Prison on November 15, 2007. He saw a GP, Dr Lloyd, the next day, who said Mr Brown was not showing symptoms of mental health problems.

Mr Brown said he had previously been prescribed anti-depressants but Dr Lloyd did not renew the prescription as he could not obtain any previous medical records.

Other members of the health team said they tried to get hold of Mr Brown’s medical records but were unable to trace them.

Dr Julian Kenneth Henry, who also saw Mr Brown, told the inquest the amount of time between the prisoner arriving and seeing a psychiatrist was “unprecedented”.

He said: “Unfortunately, in a prison setting there are an awful lot of people involved and there are failures of communication on a daily basis.

“It’s an entirely haphazard system. It’s a very disjointed system and there is not an excuse for it.”

Mr Brown saw psychiatrist Dr Trevor Boughton on December 20 and was given a prescription for anti-depressants.

Dr Boughton said Mr Brown seemed anxious but not psychotic or suicidal.

He said: “He seemed very eager to be released from prison. He spoke very fondly of his brother, whom he was hoping to spend Christmas with.”

The inquest heard the medication was not likely to have had any effect on Mr Brown by the time he was released four days later.

Senior prison officer Vince McGonigle said Mr Brown was released between 9am and 9.30am on December 24 and seemed “in an agitated state”.

Less than three hours later, at around 11.45am, a member of the public saw him jump from Trent Bridge into the River Trent.

Kyle Charles told the inquest: “I saw a person in the water and tried shouting at him. I managed to get the orange ring off the wall and threw that into the water but he swam away from it.

“When he saw me taking my jacket off he held his nose and then started to push himself under the water. He went down, came back up, went down and never came back up again.”

Mr Brown’s body was pulled from the water at 2.55pm. There was no evidence of any violence and no alcohol found in his system.

The jury returned a verdict of suicide, with a majority of six to two. They said there had been a “severe breakdown” of communication during Mr Brown’s care.

Coroner Dr Chapman said: “Clearly there have been difficulties here and the prison has taken those on board.”

But he said Mr Brown’s time in prison would have been a good opportunity to put him on medication and monitor him.

He added “a simple phone number” for a crisis team would be beneficial for people leaving prison.

samantha.hughes@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk

420 total views, 1 views today

Sen. Grassley: Drug Companies “Bamboozled the FDA” on SSRI Antidepressants

Mon Nov 10, 2008

The following information should go out to every reporter and every other
human on the planet. Please. Please. Please help us get this information out to
as many as possible as a warning. [BUT in doing so always remember to warn
of the extreme potential danger of abrupt withdrawal with the FDA warning that
such can cause suicide, hostility or psychosis.

Please give them our 800 order line or website to download or order my CD, “Help! I Can’t Get Off My
Antidepressant!” so that they will have the formula for safe and almost
painless withdrawal and methods of recovery from the damage they have suffered.]
Now if you have read my book most of this will sound all too familiar and
old. But now the cold hard facts are coming out to the public with Iowa’s own
Senator Grassley leading the way because these drugs grabbed his attention
after overseeing many of the hearings on children and antidepressants. THANK
YOU

SENATOR GRASSLEY FOR YOUR EFFORTS!!!
Some of the most important points in the article to file in your memory
banks and repeat as often as possible to as many as possible are as follows:

#1 US HIGHEST USER OF ANTIDEPRESSANTS & ANTIDEPRESSANTS ARE AMERICA’S
MOST WIDELY PRESCRIBED DRUGS:

“Antidepressant prescribing is more rampant in this country than any other.
The US accounted for 66% of the global market in 2005, compared to 23% in
Europe and 11% for the rest of world, according to a December 2006 report by
Research and Markets.
“A June 2007 survey by the Centers for Disease Control of doctor and
hospital visits in 2005 showed that the most commonly prescribed drugs were
antidepressants, with 48% of the prescriptions issued by primary care
physicians. They have remained in the number one position ever since. Last year, 232
million prescriptions were filled for antidepressants worth nearly $12 billion,
according to a March 2008 report by IMS Health. . . .


#2 YET THE MANUFACTURERS KNEW AND HID THE FACT THAT THESE DRUGS INCREASE
THE RISK OF SUICIDE:

“For fifteen years, the SSRI makers fought against adding a warning about an
increased risk of suicidality, knowing all the long that the risk existed.
[We had the data in court cases for years but could not get the press to cover
it.] Now, the companies are making the irresponsible argument (in defense of
lawsuits claiming they failed to warn doctors and the public of the risk)
that the FDA did not require them to add a warning, so they are immune from
liability. . . .

#3 SINCE 1989 THE MANUFACTURER OF PAXIL KNEW THAT THIS DRUG INCREASES SUICIDE ATTEMPTS BY EIGHT TIMES MORE THAN PLACEBO!

“The report shows that Glaxo [makers of Paxil] knew in 1989, long before
Paxil was FDA approved, that people taking the drug were 8 times more likely to
engage in suicidal behavior than people given a placebo, or sugar pill. Now,
it stands to reason that even the most depressed person would decline to take
Paxil if given these facts. Also, parents certainly would decline if they
were told about the risks. . . .

“The FDA approved Paxil on December 29, 1992, with no warning to doctors or
patients of the significant increased risk of suicidal behavior,” he writes.
. . .

#4 SENATOR GRASSLEY FINDS THAT PAXIL MAKER “BAMBOOZLED” THE FDA PUTTING
PATIENT SAFETY AT RISK

“Senator Grassley has also asked the FDA to go back and review the clinical
trial data submitted on Paxil. In a statement on the Senate floor on June 11,
2008, he said: “Essentially, it looks like GlaxoSmithKline bamboozled the
FDA.”
“We cannot live in a nation where drug companies are less than candid, hide
information and attempt to mislead the FDA and the public,” he stated. “These
companies are selling drugs that we put in our bodies, not sneakers.”
“When they manipulate or withhold data to hide or minimize findings about
safety and/or efficacy they put patient safety at risk,” Senator Grassley said.
“And with drugs like Paxil, the risks are too great.”
Now I need to note here that the only reason Paxil is taking so much heat
and the only reason we have all of this inside information on Paxil is because
of the information obtained during the Wyoming murder/suicide case of Donald
Schell. Before that these companies were settling cases so that they did not
have to go to court and disclose all of this information to the attorneys
working in our behalf.
After waiting three long years for one attorney to decide if he would take
the case, it went to Andy Vickery’s office. Andy took the case and Glaxo
allowed it to go all the way into court instead of settling the case. The jury
heard and saw enough to rule that the two pills of Paxil that Donald Schell
took before getting up one morning and shooting his wife, his daughter and his
baby grand daughter before shooting himself was the main cause.
Glaxo did all they could to seal that information back up again, but it was
too late. The cat was out of the bag. And it is long past time to let the cat
out of the bag on all these other antidepressants as well!
#5 THE RESULTS OF SENATOR GRASSLEY’S INVESTIGATION OF THE LARGE PAYMENTS
AND KICKBACKS TO DOCTORS BY DRUG MAKERS

“According to Senator Grassley’s June 4, 2008 statement in the Congressional
record, although conflict-of-interest disclosure forms make it appear that
the Harvard psychiatrists only received a couple hundred thousand from drug
companies over the past 7 years, the true figures show Dr Biederman received
over “$1.6 million,” Dr Spencer “over $1 million” and Dr Wilens “over $1.6
million” in payments from the drug companies.

“Based on reports from just a handful of drug companies,” he states, “we
know that even these millions do not account for all of the money.”
“Senator Grassley also notes that Dr Schatzberg owns stock worth more than
$6 million in one drug company. Ed Silverman reports on Pharmalot that there
are “30 or so physicians at two dozen universities which the Senate Finance
Committee is probing concerning disclosure of grants from drugmakers.” The
names of those 30 doctors, along with the research mills they operate out of,
need to be made public. . . . .


#6 RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS AND ACADEMIA ON THE TAKE FROM DRUG MAKERS AS WELL
ACTING AS “APOLOGISTS FOR COMMERCIAL SCIENTIFIC FRAUD” – SENIOR ACADEMICS
PROSTITUING MEDICINE.

“It is no longer a case where Americans need only be concerned about the
amount of money the academics are pulling in. The pharmaceutical industry also
has a stronghold on most major research institutions in this country. Many
could not exist if the drug companies withdrew all their research funding, a
state of affairs that did not occur by accident.

“In fact, according to Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, who publishes the Scientific
Misconduct Blog, when all is said and done:

“The chief villains remain our academic institutions and medical leadership.
They have colluded with and have acted as apologists for commercial
scientific fraud. They have tolerated the telling of lies by senior academics.
They have encouraged the prostitution of medicine. They have allowed abuse of the
most fundamental safeguards of science. Most importantly, they have set
terrible examples for our students.”

#7 WHO TOOK THE MONEY TO PUSH ANTIDEPRESSANTS TO CHILDREN?

“. . . . While Dr Keller took the lead on pushing Paxil for children and
adolescents, Dr Emslie was the main man on the Prozac trials, and Dr Wagner was
the queen bee on Zoloft studies. The co-authors of papers that appear in the
medical literature encouraging the use of SSRI’s for kids include Drs
Biederman, Schatzberg, Wilens and, of course, Charles Nemeroff.
“Dr Nemeroff was recently forced to resign as chairman of Emory’s psychiatry
department after Senator Grassley’s investigation revealed that he failed to
disclose to his university more than a million dollars in drug industry
income. All total, Nemeroff had earnings of $2.8 million from drug companies
between 2000 and 2007, but failed to report at least $1.2 million. . . . .


#8 YET AMAZINGLY ENOUGH . . . .

“Shrinks on the take are so addicted to industry money that it’s impossible
to embarrass them. Last year, the press ran major stories when this report
came out, highly critical of how much money they were making. This year, the
average amount rose by 25%.

Now for some hard questions. . . .

*** When Glaxo knew in 1989 that Paxil was inducing suicide at a rate EIGHT
TIMES HIGHER than with a placebo and did not warn, is that not at least
negligent homicide?

Or is it not in some way contributing to a premeditated loss of life?

How often do we read in criminal cases where someone has died and someone
else did not assist that person in need but instead allowed the death to happen
and that person has then been prosecuted and given a prison term?

What is the difference here? The only difference I see is that these people
at Glaxo made a lot of money by keeping quiet and allowing these deaths to
continue!!

*** I have been asking this question for a very long time. Why is it okay
for our academic institutions to peddle drugs and use our students as guinea
pigs in studies?

Why is it okay for them to make so much money from drug companies? Much of
their operating expenses come from this drug company blood money.

Why would anyone be surprised, when seeing this close financial situation
with the drug companies and the academic institutions, that so many students
are placed on these same drugs by campus health centers often addicting them to
the drugs for many years to come?

*** How can shrinks be so stupid, or just plain “in your face” with it, as
to take even more money from these companies while they are already in the
process of being investigated for doing so???

Oh, that’s right we already know the answer to that one – they take more of
these mind altering drugs than just about anyone else! The psychiatric nurse
attending my lecture last year estimated that at least 75% of her colleagues
are on these drugs.

And why are they on these drugs? Because the drug reps are telling them all
that they are in a stressful profession and that sooner or later they are
going to be hit by the anxiety or depression that comes with the stress . . .
so they need to start on the drugs now so as to ward off “the pending
inevitable” anxiety or depression.

Of course then we need to ask the question, “How could they have fallen for
that old sales pitch?” That alone makes you wonder about their sanity!

But then you must ask if it is okay for a drug user to then be a drug pusher
even when we are discussing “legal” drugs? Because that is exactly what we
are seeing happen with this situation with antidepressants – doctors on the
drugs pushing them to others – no different than what you see in street drug
use where those hooked on the drugs are the ones pushing them to others. When
you see how similar in action these antidepressants are to LSD or PCP that
whole scenario becomes totally transparent.

Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
_www.drugawareness.org_ (http://www.drugawareness.org/) &
_www.ssristories.org_ (http://www.ssristories.org/)
Author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our
Serotonin Nightmare & the audio, Help! I Can’t
Get Off My Antidepressant!!! ()

_atracyphd1@…_ (mailto:atracyphd1@…)

_http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0811/S00080.htm_
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0811/S00080.htm)

Pharmaceutical Industry Hustlers – Part I
Thursday, 6 November 2008, 1:25 pm
Column: Evelyn Pringle
Pharmaceutical Industry Hustlers – Part I
SSRI Antidepressants Pushers

By _Evelyn Pringle_
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0811/S00080.htm#a)
After twenty long years, it appears that the epidemic in mental disorders in
America might be coming to an end. It won’t happen because of any great
medical breakthrough but rather because the perpetrators of the greatest
healthcare fraud in history are finally being exposed. The demolition of the
giant “psycho-pharmaceutical complex” appears to be on the horizon.
For far too long, the focus has been on the drugmakers only. In recent
months, the spotlight has shown where it belongs – on the highly-paid
opportunists responsible for fueling the epidemic in prescribing of psychiatric drugs by
doctors in every field of medicine and the research institutions that enabled
the process.
The antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or
SSRI’s, such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa and Lexapro are at the center of
the storm. These drugs have been prescribed to more Americans than any other
class of medications over the past two decades. Cymbalta, Effexor and
Wellbutrin are often referred to as SSRI’s, but they are slightly different
chemically. However, the drugs all carry similar side effects and warnings.
The top sales pitch for SSRI’s has been the “chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain”
myth.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that depression is caused by a
biochemical imbalance,” says Dr Peter Breggin, one of the world’s leading
experts on psychiatric drugs and author of the new book, “Medication Madness.”
People take for granted pronouncements such as, “You have a biochemical
imbalance,” and “mental disorders are like diabetes,” he explains in the book.

“In reality,” Dr Breggin writes, “these are not scientific observations –
they are promotional slogans, so adamantly repeated in the media and by
individual psychiatrists that people assume them to be true.”
“The psycho-pharmaceutical complex fosters these falsehoods in order to
promote the widespread use of their products,” he says. “Reluctant patients by
the millions are pushed into taking drugs by doctors who tell them with no
uncertainty that they need medication.”

“If you have got a biochemical imbalance in your brain,” Dr Breggin advises
in the book, “the odds are overwhelming that your doctor put it there with a
psychiatric drug.”

All Eyes on Glaxo
At the moment, all eyes are on Paxil maker, GlaxoSmithKline (formerly
SmithKline Beecham), due to reports that the company is under investigation by
the US Department of Justice, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, with
Iowa’s Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Committee,
leading the charge.

The report that led to the investigation by Senator Grassley was generated in
litigation and was only recently made public after it was unsealed by the
court. It was submitted by Dr Joseph Glenmullen, a Clinical Instructor in
Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of “The Antidepressant
Solution”

and Prozac Backlash: Overcoming the Dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and
Other Antidepressants with Safe, Effective Alternatives.” He was retained as
an expert by the Los Angeles-based law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman.
The litigation involves several Paxil-induced suicide cases, including a 13-year-old child.

The report shows that Glaxo knew in 1989, long before Paxil was FDA approved,
that people taking the drug were 8 times more likely to engage in suicidal
behavior than people given a placebo, or sugar pill. Now, it stands to reason
that even the most depressed person would decline to take Paxil if given
these facts.

Also, parents certainly would decline if they were told about the
risks. Dr Glenmullen explains that, by submitting what he refers to as “bad” Paxil
numbers to the FDA, Glaxo was able to avoid adding a warning about suicide to
the label when the drug was approved. “GlaxoSmithKline’s ‘bad’ Paxil numbers
carried the day: The FDA approved Paxil on December 29, 1992, with no warning
to doctors or patients of the significant increased risk of suicidal behavior,” he writes.

Instead, Glaxo listed suicide and suicide attempts that took place during the
“run-in” period of the studies as if they happened in the placebo group. The
run-in period, also called the “wash-out” phase, occurs when all patients
are taken off their existing drugs to let the old drugs wash out of their
systems, and all patients are given placebos. The rationale for washing out old
drugs is to prevent them from confusing the results of the study, so that
patients start out in a similar condition, according to the report.
The official trial only begins after the wash-out phase, once the patients
are assigned to receive either the antidepressant or a placebo. The patients
who continue to receive the placebo are referred to as the placebo group.

“Confusing the pre-study placebo wash-out phase with the placebo group in the
actual study is improper,” Dr Glenmullen writes, “especially when the
concern is a potentially lethal side effect.”

The “correct data shows that suicide attempts in patients on Paxil occurred
at a rate eight times higher than the rate in patients on placebo,” he notes.
Senator Grassley has also asked the FDA to go back and review the clinical
trial data submitted on Paxil. In a statement on the Senate floor on June 11,
2008, he said: “Essentially, it looks like GlaxoSmithKline bamboozled the
FDA.”

“We cannot live in a nation where drug companies are less than candid, hide
information and attempt to mislead the FDA and the public,” he stated. “These
companies are selling drugs that we put in our bodies, not sneakers.”
“When they manipulate or withhold data to hide or minimize findings about
safety and/or efficacy they put patient safety at risk,” Senator Grassley said.
“And with drugs like Paxil, the risks are too great.”

A good start as the Glaxo scandal unravels, the public will learn that other
antidepressant makers such as Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Wyeth and Forest Laboratories
are equally guilty. Likewise, there are many more supposedly independent academic
doctors who have been receiving substantial financial benefits from drug
companies than are currently identified in the media as being under investigation.

Exposing Harvard University’s Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer, Timothy
Wilens, Stanford’s Alan Schatzberg, Brown University’s Martin Keller, Melissa
DelBello at the University of Cincinnati, and Drs Karen Wagner and John Rush,
who operated out of the University of Texas, might be a good place to start, but
the trail of Big Pharma’s funding academic research for marketing
purposes certainly does not end with a handful of psychiatrists.

According to Senator Grassley’s June 4, 2008 statement in the Congressional
record, although conflict-of-interest disclosure forms make it appear that the
Harvard psychiatrists only received a couple hundred thousand from drug
companies over the past 7 years, the true figures show Dr Biederman received
over “$1.6 million,” Dr Spencer “over $1 million” and Dr Wilens “over $1.6
million” in payments from the drug companies.

“Based on reports from just a handful of drug companies,” he states, “we know
that even these millions do not account for all of the money.”
Senator Grassley also notes that Dr Schatzberg owns stock worth more than $6
million in one drug company. Ed Silverman reports on Pharmalot that there are
“30 or so physicians at two dozen universities which the Senate Finance
Committee is probing concerning disclosure of grants from drugmakers.” The names
of those 30 doctors, along with the research mills they operate out of, need
to be made public.

The new book, “Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a
Best-selling Antidepressant on Trial,” by investigative journalist Alison Bass,
provides the inside scoop on the fraudulent SSRI research conducted at Brown
University by Dr Keller.

The book also supplies background information on the financial ties between
the so-called “opinion leaders” in psychiatry and the other antidepressant
makers. For instance, Ms Bass explains that Drs Schatzberg and Keller worked as
a team a decade ago to promote Bristol-Myers Squibb’s antidepressant Serzone.

In 1998, Dr Schatzberg was paid to moderate an industry-sponsored symposium
that touted the benefits of Serzone, and Dr Keller was one of the paid
speakers at the event. The same year, Dr Keller received $77,400 in consulting
fees from Bristol-Myers, Ms Bass points out.

Dr Keller later published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine also
touting the benefits of Serzone. The drug was removed from the market in
2004 after it was found to cause liver damage but not before a number of
patients died.

Ms Bass reports that Keller did not report any income from Glaxo on his 1998
tax return. But during her research for “Side Effects,” she discovered he had
earned personal income from Glaxo in 1998, as well as subsequent years.
Keller admitted as much during a September 2006 deposition for a lawsuit filed
against Glaxo, she says.

It is no longer a case where Americans need only be concerned about the
amount of money the academics are pulling in. The pharmaceutical industry also
has a stronghold on most major research institutions in this country. Many could
not exist if the drug companies withdrew all their research funding, a state
of affairs that did not occur by accident.

In fact, according to Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, who publishes the Scientific
Misconduct Blog, when all is said and done:

“The chief villains remain our academic institutions and medical leadership.
They have colluded with and have acted as apologists for commercial
scientific fraud. They have tolerated the telling of lies by senior academics.
They have encouraged the prostitution of medicine. They have allowed abuse of the
most fundamental safeguards of science. Most importantly, they have set
terrible examples for our students.”


U
niversities keep corrupt academics on board for good reason. “Side Effects”
reports that, between 1990 and 1998, “Martin Keller brought in nearly $8.7
million in research funding from pharmaceutical companies.”
The clinical trial industry itself provides a perfect slush fund. Spending in
the U.S. was an estimated $25 billion in 2006 and is expected to reach about
$32 billion by 2011.

Most of the money for trials comes from private
industry, and federal funding assumes a second place position, with the
National Institute of Health budgeting $3 billion for clinical trials in 2006, according
to the paper, “State Medical Board Responses To An Inquiry On Physician
Researcher Misconduct,” by Dr Stefan Kruszewski, Dr Richard Paczynski and
Marzana Bialy, in the Journal of Medical Licensure and Discipline 2008: Vol 94 No 1.
Paxil Study 329 “Side Effects” also covers the whole sordid affair on Paxil Study 329, the
most infamous fraudulent pediatric trial of all time. The study “offers a
landmark for the point at which science turned into marketing,” according to Dr
David Healy.

Dr Healy is a Professor of psychiatry and Director of the North Wales School
of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales, and an outspoken critic
of the psycho-pharmaceutical complex, with 21 books to his name, including
“The Creation of Psychopharmacology.”

He explains that, in 1998, Glaxo’s original assessment of Study 329 had
concluded that it and another study had shown Paxil did not work for children,
but that it would not be “commercially acceptable” to publicize this finding.
“Instead the positive findings from the study would be published; they were in
an article whose authorship line contains some of the best known names in
psychopharmacology (Keller et al., 2001),” Dr Healy writes in the 2007 paper,
“The Engineers of Human Souls & Academia.”

Dr Keller gets most of the credit for the study, which was completed in
the mid-90’s. Keller et al had some difficulty getting it published at first,
but finally found a journal willing to take the bate in 2001, the Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. In all, 20 academics
allowed their names to be attached to this ghostwritten infomercial, and not
one has stepped forward to acknowledge wrongdoing or to admit that a mistake
was made.

Long before the paper was published, the authors of study 329 were fanned out
all the way to Canada giving lectures and presentations to prescribing
doctors at medical conferences and seminars to promote the off-label use of
Paxil for kids. More than any other paper, Study 329 led to an epidemic in
pediatric prescribing. “After its publication, the use of antidepressants for
children skyrocketed,” Dr Glenmullen notes.

These handsomely paid key opinion leaders all deserve to have their names
in lights, especially Drs Graham Emslie and Karen Wagner from the University
of Texas.

Between 2000 through 2005, Glaxo paid Dr Wagner $160,404, but the only
payment she reported to the university was $600 in 2005, according to Senator
Grassley. Dr Wagner also failed to disclose earnings of more than $11,000 from
Prozac-maker Eli Lilly in 2002.

On August 18, 2008, the Dallas Morning News reported that a state mental
health plan naming the preferred psychiatric drugs for children has been quietly
put on hold over fears drug companies may have given researchers consulting
contracts, speakers fees or other perks to help get their products on the
list.

The Children’s Medication Algorithm Project, or CMAP, was supposed to
determine which psychiatric drugs were most effective for children and in what
order they should be tried at state-funded mental health centers, the Morning
News explains.

The academics who developed the CMAP include Drs Wagner and Emslie. Records
show Dr Emslie may have made up to $125,000 from drug companies since
2004, according to the report in the Morning News. While Dr Keller took the lead on
pushing Paxil for children and adolescents,Dr Emslie was the main man on the Prozac
trials, and Dr Wagner was the queen bee on Zoloft studies.

The co-authors of papers that appear in the medical
literature encouraging the use of SSRI’s for kids include Drs Biederman,
Schatzberg, Wilens and, of course, Charles Nemeroff.
Dr Nemeroff was recently forced to resign as chairman of Emory’s psychiatry
department after Senator Grassley’s investigation revealed that he failed to
disclose to his university more than a million dollars in drug industry
income. All total, Nemeroff had earnings of $2.8 million from drug companies
between 2000 and 2007, but failed to report at least $1.2 million.

A complete list of academics who should to be investigated can be found among
the authors of the SSRI papers and studies highlighted in the 2006 Third
Edition of, “Essentials of Clinical Psychopharmacology,” described as “a
synopsis and update of the most clinically relevant material from ‘The American
Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychopharmacology,'” by none other than Drs
Schatzberg and Nemeroff.

Keep Following the Money
On July 10, 2008, Senator Grassley extended his investigation to include
psychiatry’s top industry-funded front group with a letter to Dr James Scully,
Medical Director and Chief Executive Officer of the American Psychiatric
Association, asking for “an accounting of industry funding that pharmaceutical
companies and/or the foundations established by these companies have provided to
the American Psychiatric Association.”

The Senator wants records from January 2003 to the present. According to the
July 12, 2008, New York Times, in 2006, the “industry accounted for about 30
percent of the association’s $62.5 million in financing.”
A factor rarely discussed in this debate is the amount of money doctors who
prescribe SSRI’s make during brief office calls charged at regular rates. This
practice has taken a tremendous toll on public healthcare programs and has
resulted in higher insurance premiums and overall healthcare costs for all
Americans.

In fact, the bilking of public healthcare programs is what led to the current
investigations by the Finance Committee, which has the responsibility of
overseeing spending in Federal programs. When doctors prescribe drugs for
unnecessary uses, public programs not only have to pay for the drugs, they must
also pay the fees of the prescribing doctors and for the medical care for
injuries caused by the drugs. Government spending tied to the prescribing of
psychiatric drugs has gone through the roof in the past decade.

While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform on February 9, 2007, Lewis Morris, Chief Counsel at the Department of
Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, discussed kickbacks to
doctors and told the panel:

“Kickbacks potentially increase the costs to Federal programs because they
encourage overutilization and may encourage the prescribing of more expensive
drugs when clinically appropriate and cheaper options (such as generic drugs)
may be equally effective.”

Mr Morris explained that, “kickbacks offered to prescribing physicians by
pharmaceutical manufacturers take a variety of forms, ranging from free samples
for which the physician bills the programs to all-expense-paid trips and sham
consulting agreements.”

Vermont is a rare state in requiring the pharmaceutical industry to disclose
the money paid to doctors. On July 8, 2008, Vermont’s Attorney General
William Sorrell released the state’s annual report on “Pharmaceutical Marketing
Disclosures,” which lists the payments made by drug companies in 2007. Of the
top 100 recipients, once again, psychiatrists received the highest payments.
Eleven psychiatrists received a total of $626,379, or about 20% of the total
value of payments made, according to the report.

Shrinks on the take are so addicted to industry money that it’s impossible to
embarrass them. Last year, the press ran major stories when this report came
out, highly critical of how much money they were making. This year, the
average amount rose by 25%.

The report also analyzes the payments based upon the drugs being marketed. Of
the top 10 drugs for which disclosures were reported, five are used to treat
mental illness and include Lilly’s Cymbalta and Forest Lab’s Lexapro.
Ironically, Cymbalta sales are also up 25%, according to Lilly’s latest SEC
filing.

Overall, estimates indicate that the drug industry spends $19 billion
annually on marketing to physicians in the form of gifts, travel, meals and
other consulting fees, according to a May 22, 2008, press release by Senator
Grassley’s office. In the November 1, 2007, New England Journal of Medicine
paper, “Doctors and Drug Companies Scrutinizing Influential Relationships,” Dr
Eric Campell, associate professor at the Institute of Health Policy at
Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, writes:

“Individual physicians can take some steps to maximize the benefits for
patients and minimize the risks associated with their own industry
relationships. They can start by recognizing that such relationships are designed to
influence prescribing behavior and by carefully considering the potential
effects that their own associations may have on their patients.”

“And they can bear in mind,” he says, “that the costs of industry dinners,
trips, and other incentives are passed along to their patients in the form of
higher drug prices.” Antidepressant prescribing is more rampant in this country than any other.
The US accounted for 66% of the global market in 2005, compared to 23% in
Europe and 11% for the rest of world, according to a December 2006 report by
Research and Markets.

A June 2007 survey by the Centers for Disease Control of doctor and hospital
visits in 2005 showed that the most commonly prescribed drugs were
antidepressants, with 48% of the prescriptions issued by primary care
physicians. They have remained in the number one position ever since. Last year, 232 million
prescriptions were filled for antidepressants worth nearly $12 billion,
according to a March 2008 report by IMS Health.

The top dogs in the pharmaceutical industry are literally laughing all the
way to the bank. For example, in 2007, Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler’s pay package
was worth $9.5 million, according to the March 14, 2008, Wall Street Journal. A
previous CEO, David Shedlarz, left last year with an “exit package” worth
over $34 million. In 2007, the total value of Wyeth’s then-CEO Robert Essner’s
pay package was $24.1 million, the Journal reports.

In the meantime, state Medicaid programs are going bankrupt as a result of
the mental illness epidemic occurring only in the US. Attorneys General all
over the country are using consumer fraud statutes to sue the drug giants to
recoup the money lost due to the illegal off-label promotion of psychiatric
drugs and the concealment of their side effects.

For instance, Baum Hedlund has been litigating Private Attorney General
consumer fraud class-action lawsuits against Glaxo since 2004, on behalf of
individuals and entities such as insurance companies in California, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio and
Washington.

The cases are based on documents showing Glaxo promoted Paxil for kids, fully
aware that Paxil failed to out-perform a placebo in the clinical trials and
had higher suicidality rates. A national class settlement of individual
claims was reached in April 2007 in which Glaxo agreed to reimburse parents for
all of the money paid for Paxil prescriptions for their children. A national
class settlement on behalf of third party payors (insurance companies) was just
approved in September 2008.

If not for the few law firms willing to stay the course, the truth would
never have been revealed. Baum Hedlund has been pursuing the SSRI makers for
nearly two decades. Most recently, it has taken up the fight for babies born
with birth defects caused by SSRI’s.

Because the industry was so successful at keeping the original SSRI trial
data hidden, the drugs most serious side effects largely became public only
as a result of the bravery and integrity of such medical experts as Dr Healy, Dr
Glenmullen and Dr Breggin, who could not be bought and could not be bullied.

For fifteen years, the SSRI makers fought against adding a warning about an
increased risk of suicidality, knowing all the long that the risk existed.
Now, the companies are making the irresponsible argument (in defense of
lawsuits claiming they failed to warn doctors and the public of the risk) that the
FDA did not require them to add a warning, so they are immune from liability.
Worse yet, the industry-controlled FDA under the Bush Administration is
supporting this audacious preemption defense and siding with the SSRI makers
against private citizens in courts all over the country, telling judges to rule
in favor of the drug companies and throw out the SSRI cases before they even
make it to a jury.

Although not an SSRI case, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case
involving federal preemption, in Wyeth v Levine, on November 3, 2008.
*************
Evelyn Pringle
epringle05@…
(Written as part of the Paxil Litigation Round-Up, Sponsored by Baum,
Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman’s Pharmaceutical Litigation Department
_www.baumhedlundlaw.com_ (http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/) )


Search Engine Submission – AddMe

702 total views, 2 views today