Finger On The Trigger: Meds & School Shootings
414 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 15th, 2008 // 1:23 pm
The headlines are becoming eerily familiar. A school shooting occurs and details emerge that the person who fired the gun was on medication, often an antidepressant, which are already at the center of controversy over links to suicide and the extent to which the meds can cause violence. This pattern began with the Columbine shooting and continued last year with the Virginia Tech shooter.
The latest shooting mentioned in the same breath as medication occurred yesterday at Northern Illinois University, where 27-year-old Stephen Kazmierczak, gunned down five students in a suicidal rampage. There are now reports that he became erratic after stopping his medication. Which medication isn’t clear. Nor is it known when he stopped whatever med he was taking. The campus police chief declined to name the drug or provide other details, according to the Associated Press.
For the moment, there is only speculation. But with the familiar ring to this latest incident, there is already growing concern that Kazmierczak may have been under the influence of an antidepressant. This remains to be seen as more information, hopefully, becomes available and a fuller picture of the circumstances is understood.
However, any indication that he was, indeed, taking an antidepressant while on his rampage is going to further inflame the debate over these drugs. And drugmakers should be prepared. Despite a study last April in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which argued the pills may not be as closely linked to teenage suicide as some say, any sign that one of these pills may have contributed to the shooter’s mindset could open a whole new chapter on the controversy.
UPDATE: Tuesday, Feb. 19: Since we posted this item, Kazmierczak’s girlfriend, Jessica Baty, told CNN that he took Prozac to battle anxiety and compulsive behavior, but the pill “made him feel like a zombie and lazy.” But she added that, in the days leading up to the shooting, he wasn’t behaving erratically, as university officials had suggested.
The debate over the role of the med is likely to continue, especially since some psychiatrists note that Prozac doesn’t wash out of the system as rapidly as some other antidepressants. “It’s a real chicken-and-egg sort of situation,” Jane Garland, director of the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Clinic at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, tells The New York Times.
She adds that said some people could and did become agitated and unpredictable in response to the drugs, usually just after starting to take them or soon after stopping. “But it’s hard to make a case for a withdrawal reaction here, because Prozac comes out of the system gradually,” she tells the paper.
Bob
Countdown in 3, 2, 1…
Truthman
“Bob
Countdown in 3, 2, 1…”
Uber bad taste Bob..
I was just reading about this and i think that the evidence is now overwhelming. SSRI’s and psychiatric drugs are linked to school shootings. Most of these school shooters were on or coming off psychiatric meds.
Considering that these mdeds can cause intense agitation,abnormal behaviour, personality changes, aggression, violence, hostility, akathisia , withdrawal, depersonalisation, derealization and a littany of other disturbing side effects, are these outcomes really that suprising at this stage?
Chris
Just a minute. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kazmierczak was taking antidepressants so it’s a stretch to claim (Truthman) that the evidence is now ovwewhelming. For one - it isn’t, and two, this is a link suggested by Ed (and I think it’s a very tenuous one btw). A little hasty I think.
Ed Silverman
Hi Everyone,
Just to clarify, I didn’t write there was evidence this fellow was on an antidepressant or intend to suggest a link. Perhaps he was taking a sleeping pill or a cholesterol pill. I did write that, on the surface, the pattern is familiar. And it’s a very widely debated pattern. Given the level of chatter on the ‘net, the absence of info is creating a vacuum, and I’m trying to address that vacuum, and the implications should a link actually occur. That said, if there’s no link to antidepressants or some other psychotropic medication, I’ll happily update.
Regards
ed
Truthman
Chris
Just a minute. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kazmierczak was taking antidepressants so it’s a stretch to claim (Truthman) that the evidence is now ovwewhelming. For one - it isn’t, and two, this is a link suggested by Ed (and I think it’s a very tenuous one btw). A little hasty I think.
The evidence has been overwhelming for sometime Chris..
(with or without the news of this new tragedy the evidence is still overwhelming , SSRI’s/Psych drugs are connected to the violent behaviour of school shooters, Its a fact, its reported all over the web.. Wake up to the reality)
Alan
Here is a thought. Let’s stop the speculation and “filling the vacuum” and wait until we have facts. There are a lot of possiblities out there, but absence facts, it does no one any good to speculate.
John
Ed,
In the second paragraph you write that the shooter discontinued his meds. In the third you suggest he was still under the influence of his meds. Are you trying to play both sides to the middle on this one? How would you have been made to report this by your editors in the print version of the S-L? Your breathless attempts to blame the medication without knowledge of his mental state/diagnosis leave me wondering…I guess guns don’t kill people, anti-depressants do!
Philip Dawdy
i’m hearing a trickle of info that he was diabetic and may have stopped taking a diabetes med.
University Update - Virginia Tech - Finger On The Trigger: Meds & School Shootings
[...] Forest University Finger On The Trigger: Meds & School Shootings » This Summary is from an article posted at Pharmalot » News, Comment and Conversation on Friday, [...]
Truthman
February 15, 2008
Shooter at Northern Illinois U. Had Stopped Taking His Medication, Authorities Say
http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=3965
February 15, 2008
Shooter at Northern Illinois U. Had Stopped Taking His Medication, Authorities Say
DeKalb, Ill. — The man who gunned down five students at Northern Illinois University on Thursday had recently stopped taking medication and had begun acting irrationally, according to people close to him, the authorities here said this morning.
“He was taking medication, had stopped, and had become somewhat erratic,” Donald Grady, the university’s police chief, said at a news conference.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1391427.php/US_campus_shooter_took_medication_had_four_weapons
Washington - An ‘outstanding’ former student who fatally shot five people at an Illinois university before killing himself had recently behaved erratically after he stopped taking medication, police said Friday
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/university.shooting/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
DEKALB, Illinois (CNN) — Steven P. Kazmierczak, identified as the gunman in Thursday’s shooting rampage at Northern Illinois University, was “an outstanding student” who reportedly stopped taking medication recently and became “somewhat erratic,” the university’s police chief said Friday.
There were no red flags,” Grady said. “He was an outstanding student, he was an awarded student, he was someone that was revered by the faculty, staff and students alike. … So we had no indications at all.”
Speculation eh?…
I stopped paxil abruptly and I thought i was losing my mind, became intensely agaitated(withdrawal akathisia) and hostile… ( i know what these meds can do to a person.. I went through hell on paxil) .. The reality is psych drugs and SSRI’s are causing these young people to explode violently like emotional timebombs… The sooner people wake up to that fact the sooner the shootings and teen violence can be stopped…
No red flags, an outstanding student… ?
Another victim of SSRI induced aggression and suicide..
Ed Silverman
Hi John,
I didn’t write that a specific medication was to blame and I didn’t write that he was still under the influence of a medication. Those are the unknowns and I mentioned them as unknowns. I did write that there is, as usual, growing speculation.
As we both know, there’s always concern about a link to a psychotropic when one of these incidents occur. I agree there’s no need to rush to judgement, and I didn’t. I was pointing out, however, that any link would further an ongoing controversy. That’s all. And again, I will update.
Regards
ed
Truthman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S-7aNPf33A
Growing speculation ..
And growing evidence indeed…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sstoa406Oa0&feature=related
Joe
Or maybe (more likely?) he stopped taking his ANTIPSYCHOTIC medication, became paranoid, and then acted?
Truthman
Joe
Or maybe (more likely?) he stopped taking his ANTIPSYCHOTIC medication, became paranoid, and then acted?
Yup , most definately a possibility…
The antipychotics (resperdal, Zyprexa etc are all just as dangerous as the SSRI’s)
Nathan
Ed,
I agree with Alan and Chris — there is no way this kind of reporting would make its way into a reputable printed news publication.
It may be perfectly true that this individual was taking an antidepressant and then stopped taking it. But wait until you learn something more concrete. Until then, you are just “fanning the flames” (of you-know-who) for no apparent purpose. I’m beginning to think that you like to CREATE the speculation rather than just report on the speculation.
Of course, it is your prerogative to create speculation if you so desire. However, myself and others have become regular readers of your site for the NEWS that it offers — not for speculation.
Ed Silverman
Hi Nathan,
Point taken. Although I wasn’t trying to fan the flames, as you put it. I was trying to point out to those who do speculate that we don’t have enough info yet. I did write that, and it was addressed to anyone who may already believe a psychotropic is a culprit.
At the same time, I did make a point of noting that, if it does come to pass such a med is somehow involved, it’s an issue for the industry. And again, I will follow whatever transpires, whether it was an antidepressant, a diabetes med, a sleeping pill or no drug at all. I would be happy to write that none of the above were at the heart of all this.
ed
Bob
This site is turning into a joke.
Am I going to swing by here in two weeks, and see an article of a Paxil taker who gets pulled over for speeding? I can’t wait to see the comments by the crusaders …”Paxil causes people to speed, thus causes death, blah blah blah.”
Bob
Can I point out that millions have taken an SSRI at some point and have done nothing like the episode above, or any of the ridiculous ones I see posted on here.
But let’s continue to call LVS a “hero”, when she gives bail money to a kid who slaughtered his grandparents. Interesting, because I know a few people who have taken Zoloft who have never murdered anyone. Interesting.
Ed Silverman
Hi Bob (No. 1),
Sorry you feel that way. There are actually many interesting and worthwhile topics to explore here, not just antidepressants. Scroll back through this week’s posts and you’ll see what I mean. From China and Provenge to Vytorin and executive changes (I was first with the item about Alex Gorsky leaving Novartis), there are any number of issues here up for grabs. Patents, preemption, off-label promotion and biologics, for instance, have all been covered recently.
In any event, I respect your right to disagree with my reasoning for the post. Clearly, I hit a nerve and, unfortunately, appear to have been misunderstood to some extent.
In this instance, I was trying to point out to those who would speculate that, yes, we only have speculation right now. But given the noise level, I thought it was worth noting that, should the speculation come to pass, it would be in industry’s interest to pay close attention.
I’d like to add, though, that I hope no medication was involved in this tragedy. It’s already disturbing.
Regards
ed
Bob
Ed, while I do enjoy the other topics, it seems as if the anti-pharma/anti-ssri’s group is given a forum to express their misinformation and anger.
I know the press always represents the negative sides of stories, but in fairness, why not a story about how Paxil helped someone? In other words, fairness I guess is the best way to go.
I apologize for calling this place a joke. It wasn’t a shot at you, moreso a shot at some of the people who have posted here, and what they are turning it into.
Anyway, have a great weekend!
Nathan
Backing up Bob’s point, here is a list of the top 40 “killing sprees”. (obviously not including the current one of this discussion) Notice that 17 of the 40 occurred before 1988, which is when the first major SSRI was introduced.
http://spreekillers.org/
There’s an old phrase that most people are familiar with: “Shit happens”. As much as we’d like to think otherwise, there isn’t always someone to blame for the crapy things that happen in this world. The pharmaceutical companies make a nice scapegoat lately, but even if SSRIs were taken off the market, stuff like this would still happen, just like it always has.
People are quick to blame pharmaceutical companies when things like this happen. But here’s a fact: Suicide rates have been dropping steadily for the last 10 years. Does anyone give the pharmaceutical companies any credit for this? No way. Not on this website.
Philip Dawdy
i’m not sure which bob i am replying to here, but being somewhat neutral on the questions around ssris, let me point out to you that big pharma has long had its own forum on which tout its meds for the last ten years. it’s called dtc advertising. and big pharma lies constantly about anti-deps and wildly overstates their efficacy and grossly underplays withdrawal problems from these drugs. the fact that you are hearing from some haters of anti-deps here shouldn’t surprise you a bit. maybe you can learn something from it. and maybe you ought to review erick turner’s recent paper in the nejm.
Skeptical
Ed, it’s not your choice of topics–It’s the insipid and neverending posts by lunatics that are driving most of us away. At the least, they’re tedious; at the worst, they are irresponsible.
Philip Dawdy
hey skeptical, what about the overreporting of anti-dep efficacy by pharma cos? wouldn’t that be irresponsible? wouldn’t that be lunacy? i try to stay neutral on the anti-deps issues, but clowns like you make it real easy to go the other way.
Ed Silverman
Hi Everyone,
And Bob, thanks for your last comment. Here’s what I’m learning as I run this site - since it’s the Internet, anyone is welcome to stop by to read and comment. In the spirit of keeping an open-door policy, I try to step back and let folks debate, argue and sound off (although now and then, I do try to remind everyone that civility is desirable).
I don’t, however, give anyone person or group a forum. People come and go at will. This is the nature of the Internet. A site may be targeted toward a select audience, but anyone can drop in and join the party. I’ve chosen to take a hands-off approach, because I don’t believe my role as moderator should involve censorship or banning people.
But there’s always opportunity here to discuss all sorts of issues without aggravation or enmity. Preemption has been a good example. Gorksy’s departure from Novartis generated some interesting back and forth. A post last month about cholesterol pills and NNT in clinical trials drove a spirited and highly informed discussion for several days. In each instance, no one point of view, however extreme, dominated the debate.
When it comes to antidepressants - and sometimes, antipsychotics - the debate is different. No question. I would suggest responding only to those who you feel are willing to engage in an informed conversation and ignore anyone whose comment puts you off. Think of this as a party in a large house and you float among different groups - some are engaged in interesting chatter and others make you want to turn tail.
Lastly, I’m not emphasizing the negative over the positive, or vice versa, but whatever is of interest to the many people who are interested in all things pharma. Granted, tough stories, or in my case, posts, are on this site. But as I’ve explained before, the industry is undergoing a lot of change and challenge, which creates tension. And part of my job is to track the tension. But I appreciate your point and will keep it in the front of my mind.
Cheers
ed
Jack2
SSRIs?
I thought it was the comic books he read? Or the TV shows he watched? Or playing Dungeons and Dragons? Or those darn, violent video games. Because stuff like this never happened before 1960.
It’s a tragedy. It wasn’t the first. Unfortunately, it won’t be the last.
Robyn
The Bridge et al study in JAMA in April won’t be the final word on the use of anti-depressants in children and adolescents. See a review here: http://healthyskepticism.org/news/2008/January08.php
Joe
“Philip Dawdy
i’m not sure which bob i am replying to here, but being somewhat neutral on the questions around ssris”
Oh pleaze, Phillip, your blog, furious seasons, is one of the most anti-pharma sites out there. YOU ARE HARDLY NEUTRAL. At least be honest, we can goggle your name after all.
Lisa Van S
Im enjoying this debate… folks can check out this site on antidepressants violence and suicide http://www.ssristories.com
truthman
To the pharma damage limitation brigade… (you know who you are)
First of all, it is very convenient for you all to dismiss anyone who has a different opinion then you as a “lunatic” “anti-pharma” etc etc…
But you fail to see that there are many from within the industry who have had the balls to speak of its crimes also. (Peter Rost being one example) ..
You would do better if you tried to at least recognise that the public is not happy about the behaviour of pharma (Vioxx, Paxil, Zyprexa, Avandia etc) ..
The reputation of the industry is so bad because it has behaved so badly..
The public, and the people who express views that you perceive as “anti-pharma” rhetoric are people who are trying to voice what they have discovered, their experiences of pharma, meds and their opinion on the industry…
Pharmas PR is failing..
Most things get leaked on the internet now..
If we had the internet in the age of thalidomide .. maybe that tragedy could have been averted or at least awareness might have prevented the scale of it..
No matter what tactic Big Pharma tries, in the internet age, someone somewhere is going to have an opinion of it.. stop taking things so personally, and accept that we and our are voices are here to stay.. Either deal with that or get a different job…
Dave
What’s wrong with being anti-pharma? I think being a little skeptical of multi-billion dollar corporations is a healthy thing. What we need is a little less name calling , rhetoric, and side arguments and a little more accurate knowledge and exhaustive investigation into the matter. Wait for the facts, of course, but you also have to know how to put two facts together. It doesn’t really matter if this latest mass shooter was on anti-depressants, because there will always be someone there who will go to the next level and say one thing does not lead to another. Unfortunately killing sprees have happened before there were antidepressants and they have happened after, and it WILL happen again. Does this mean that antidepressants are, or are not a factor in some of them? That’s something you will have to decide for yourself.
John
Ed,
What should be reported on is the incidence of adverse events (like suicidal thoughts etc.) in well controlled randomized, placebo controlled Phase III clinical trials of SSRI’s…if there are any. I agree with several posters that SSRI’s have helped innumerable people cope and wish that the one’s who do not agree can see to it to understand that we may never know what drug or cocktail of drugs is able to positively impact the gray matter upstairs. The plain facts are that the rigidity of the studies needed for the drug approval process often times does not reflect how the drugs will be used in real life, real time by real people who were not the exact profile of those used on study. In this case I go back to my original point. What would be the bigger story; the gun was obtained illegally or this guy stopped his SSRI? For those of you who want to restrict SSRI’s and blindly blame Pharma be prepared to spend more tax dollars on building shiny new facilities to house men and women who cannot get along in society without medication.
truthman
“For those of you who want to restrict SSRI’s and blindly blame Pharma be prepared to spend more tax dollars on building shiny new facilities to house men and women who cannot get along in society without medication” - John
There have been numerous studies of SSRI’s and they do indicate an increase in suicidal thoughts , as has been said time and time again, pharma does not publish the negative studies. (nor does it have to for “commercial reasons”)
SSRI’s are a triumph of marketing over science. They are not effective in most cases, are massively over-prescribed to people who don’t need them. They also have an outrageous adverse side effects profile. Also they can cause dependence(addiction), horific withdrawal reactions and have not been studied for their long term effects on humans.
Stop justifying SSRI’s, there is no justification for suppressing negative studies on ANY drugs. There is no justification for creating markets to exploit human conditions in order to sell bogus treatments and dupe the public.
Better Tax dollars would be more effectively spent on proper support services in schools , the workplace and the community (such as pscyhotherapists etc)
skeptic
Phillip Dawdy, find a Scientology blog, please. Take Truthman (sic) with you.
Bless the Truth
You all seem to miss the point. Drug alone does not triger a mindful reaction to issues, treatment, hostility and the likes. The big question that we may never get an answer to is why did he do it? Why did all the other killers do it?
At least the V-Tech guy left some hints. It appears the society was not “fair” to him and that made him do it! Stupid and wicked it may be, the corporate America, and especially the Pharma companies is a fertile ground for over reactive emotions and outburts. The eveils that run through these companies are worse than those experienced by the V-Tech guy. Even NASA was not protected when the unexpected and unsuspected happened. An employee gun down his supervisor for what he believed was an unjust performance evaluation. I like to say too bad and horribl! But is there a lesson for all of us? Why can’t we live in a society embracing the golden rules of justice and fairness? Each time I read about this kind of shooting, I am prompted to think that our society is cancerously sick!
Six brillant potentials were destroyed prematurely by a senseless killer. My compassion to their families, friends and loved ones. However, it may be a wake-up call for dirty corporate pharma empires. I pray I will never get to say I told you so.
truthman
skeptic
Phillip Dawdy, find a Scientology blog, please. Take Truthman (sic) with you.
wow.. How adult of you..
truthman
You all seem to miss the point. Drug alone does not triger a mindful reaction to issues, treatment, hostility and the likes. The big question that we may never get an answer to is why did he do it? Why did all the other killers do it?
.. My understanding of why these psych drugs cause impulsive reactions such as violence, hostility and aggression is this…
(and as a former user of Paxil, I diid have incresaed aggression and hostility on Paxil)
If you put someone who has low self esteem, personal issues and emotional problems which they can’t deal with on a psychiatric drug you are dicing with that individuals state of mind…
These drugs mask the underlying problems which are the cause of their condition.. the problems fester and the frustration builds up.. and in some cases it explodes and the result is schoolkids on meds shooting up their schools.. If you have ever experienced an SSRI rage you would understand..
Hundreds of thousands of people have reported rage , intense irritability and akathisia (inner turmoil and restlessness) .. These side effects are LISTED now in the patient leaflets, these drugs have BLACK BOX warnings because of these dangerous side effects.. They are universally accepted as factual adverse reactions of SSRI;s and psych meds.. So, of course there is a connection between these kids on meds and their “out of character” behaviour.. It’s not speculation, it is FACT..
NJDave
It’s all a matter of perspective.
I thought ‘discontinued meds’ meant ’stopped his bipolar’ medication. My sister had a friend who would start into a manic phase by thinking that he didn’t need his medicine anymore because he felt GREAT! And then go through weeks of erratic behavior.
We really don’t have a clue what happened here.
Tom
Come on people…you know what kind of meds we are eventually going to find that he stopped taking. The reason everyone is speculating is because it’s only a matter of time before reality proves the speculation as fact.
Karol Karolak
From symptoms described in the press it seems to me that Stephen Kazmierczak, was a paranoid schizophrenic on Zyprexa and not some dude with an undefined mental problem controlled for nine years by use of antidepressants.
Majority of previous shooting could quite rightly be attributed to recent (just prior to rampage) prescription of antidepressants to individuals suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorders, but not this one, it just does not make any sense.
It is quite possible that Stephen Kazmierczak switched quite recently from Zyprexa to antidepressants and that turned him on to go on a rampage.
Unfortunatelly none of the so called miraculous psychotropic drugs address real issues underlying mental illnesses like schizophrenia; all that they ever do is address symptoms.
Just think of someone suffering from tuberculosis that is given an inhaler that stops his coughing. Does this inhaler cure tuberculosis?? No. Does it stop spread of disease?? No. What does it do then??? It prevents coughing nothing more.
“Miracle” psychotropic drug like Zyprexa (Olanzapine) or Resperidal (Resperidone) block serotonin receptors and dopamine receptors in brains of people suffering from schizophrenia and are slowing down and terminating neural signals transmissions in affected individuals. The regions of the brain (containing traumatic memories) that generate visual and auditory hallucinations and emotional reaction are basically prevented from communicating with regions of brain responsible for basic functioning of affected individual.
In essence Zyprexa and Resperidal act as chemical lobotomising agent flooding whole brain of affected individual. Once psychiatrists get rid of the most obvious symptoms they go on and pretend that they have cured their patient and that he or she is ready to join society and function normally (providing he or she takes his or her meds).
I just wonder how would it work out if doctors were doing same thing with people suffering from tuberculosis and we were sending them out of the hospital with inhalers?
We know so much about real causes of schizophrenia (traumatic experiences of childhood that were never emotionally processed by affected individual) but current options of quick fix of alleviating symptoms by use the of Zyprexa prevents us from developing effective methods of therapy of psychiatric patients.
Instead of hospitalization and intensive psychotherapy (object relation therapy) that can be greatly enhanced and sped up by use of antidepressants and resulting intensification of symptoms due to increased neural transmission we create holding tanks for psychiatric patients where we use psychotropic drugs to suppress symptoms of their mental illness and send them back into the environment that made them mentally ill in a first place.
There must be a better way and modern antidepressants combined with proper psychotherapy in proper hospital setting hold a great promise in that respect. Recent discoveries of strengthening of proper (adaptive) neural connections thru antidepressants enhanced psychotherapy and neurogenesis phenomena resulting from prolonged use of antidepressants indicate that this promise is very real and that it is within our grasp.
Matt
People in support of drugs or who are just ignorant tend to propose that a person commits murder because he was NOT on an antipsychotic, or was not taking an antideprresant. People who point to the evidence that shooters are often on anidepressants or antipsychotics (or coming off of them) are usually against the use of drugs when it comes to the resolution of emotional troubles. The one thing they have in common is that the use of or lack of use of psychiatric drugs is the one thing both sides are using as a base for an arguement.
How many idiots go out and shoot people while NEVER having any pshiatric drug use history? I am sure that if a study was done on this and compared to a study of people taking the (psychiatic) drugs or coming off of them, there would be A LOT less people not taking drugs and going out killing people randomly than there would be people with drug histories killing people.
People prone to taking drugs are going to defend their drug taking killer counterparts. They’re guilty of the same thing - resorting to drugs to control their behavior.
There is no biological evidence to support the use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, schizophrenia, bipolar, or any other psychiatric bs. None. God forbid we consider that fact….
pg
Re Spree Killers org link: “Charles Whitman 08-01-1966 Austin, Texas Sawed off shotgun, Remington 700, M1 Carbine, .357 Magnum, Galesi-Brescia pistol and Luger”
Don’t have time at the moment to look at the whole thing, but that name jumped out straight away.
1966 “UNITED STATES Charles Whitman, 29, (Valium and Dexedrine) student at University of Texas who killed his wife and mother then went to the 27 storey high tower of the university firing down at passers-by on the campus and in the city, killing 15 people and wounding 31 others before being fatally shot down by police. Early that year he was prescribed valium when he complained of depression. In March he then saw the campus psychiatrist and remarked that he was getting urges to shoot people. By summer, shortly before the killings, he was prescribed Dexedrine.”
Atlex
Ed,
I’m a little disappointed in your speculation around this case. The news reports clearly indicate that the shooters family believes he became erratic after abandoning his medication (whatever medication that is). We are fooling ourselves if we think the family was referring to cholesterol medication or an antihistamine. They were implying that his was on mental health medication.
That being said, you speculate that “there is already growing concern that Kazmierczak may have been under the influence of an antidepressant.” That implies that the medication may be the cause, when I believe that the family was implying that discontinuing the medication was the cause. Based on reports, the shooter had been on medication for some time and had been a highly productive, likable person. It is entirely possible that the medication was responsible for keeping him likable and productive.
If I wanted to fan the flames on this site, I could speculate that the “blame pharma” crowd is responsible. They always blame the meds when a killer on meds commits his/her act. Suppose, in this case, the killer had been influenced by reading blogs and news reports that his meds were bad for him, so he quit taking them. That would mean that Truthman and his crowd might be the cause of this tragedy. Of course, unlike the blame pharma crowd, I’m not ready to place blame without more knowledge. (By the way, LVS, although I disagree with much of what you say, I know that you have previously stated that you believe that there is an appropriate role for mental health drugs; so I definitely don’t include you in this charge.)
Atlex
Nathan
Truthman and many others,
I’ll go back to the point that I made in my post above:
People are quick to blame pharmaceutical companies when things like this happen. But here’s a fact: Suicide rates have been dropping steadily for the last 10 years. Does anyone give the pharmaceutical companies any credit for this? No way. Not on this website.
Ed Silverman
Hi Atlex,
If you go back through the comments posted here, you’ll see that I’ve explained my thoughts on this four times already. Please take a look. I’m not going to repeat myself.
Cheers
ed
truthman
“People are quick to blame pharmaceutical companies when things like this happen. But here’s a fact: Suicide rates have been dropping steadily for the last 10 years. Does anyone give the pharmaceutical companies any credit for this? No way. Not on this website” Nathan
Have you got a NON-PHARMA FUNDED link for this statement NATHAN?
Give pharmaceutical companies credit for a drop in suicide rates?
You are joking Nathan right?..
truthman
“If I wanted to fan the flames on this site, I could speculate that the “blame pharma” crowd is responsible. They always blame the meds when a killer on meds commits his/her act. Suppose, in this case, the killer had been influenced by reading blogs and news reports that his meds were bad for him, so he quit taking them. That would mean that Truthman and his crowd might be the cause of this tragedy” Atlex
Atlex..
You are being ridiculous..
Psychiatric meds have long been connected with school shootings, they also have black box warnings indicating aggression, hostility and suicidal behavior
as KNOWN side effects on their labeling… Do blogs have black box labels?… No, because that would be ridiculous..
What pharmaceutical company do you work for Atlex?
In whose interest does it serve you to play down the side effects of Medications?..
aa
Hi,
According to this article, http://tinyurl.com/2e6got:
Including Paxil, it was medication he was supposed to still be taking and apparently stopped a couple of weeks ago.
I am not a medical professional but it is very dangerous to suddently go off of a psych med. While I fortunately didn’t kill anybody or become homical, I did develop suicidal ideation thanks to my previous psychiatrist (not the current one) who did this.
One this link, http://tinyurl.com/2dq4om, Dr. Joesph Glenmullen says:
“The symptoms of antidepressant withdrawal can include suicidality, impulsivity, aggression, anxiety, depression, crying spells, insomnia, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, vomiting, headaches, tremors, and electric “zap” sensations in the brain. When patients stop antidepressants cold turkey the symptoms can be so severe that they are debilitating:”
Before anyone bashes me for damming SSRIs, reread my post. Whether we agree or disagree that these meds are helpful, the issue is that there is zero education about stopping these meds suddently and how dangerous that can be. In all the years I have been taking psych meds (I am now tapering off of them, I was never told about that danger.
And if doctors did say anything to their patients, it was that they could stop the med suddenly without any problems.
Nate and Bob - This is a plea to you. I have read your posts and we definitely disagree on the issue of meds. But I think we all can agree that stopping psych meds cold turkey or quickly tapeing off of them is dangerous and that that patients aren’t getting the word from their doctors.
Please, please, please before more people lose their lives, work to get this message out.
AA
truthman
REPORT: Northern Illinois Shooter Had Long Mental Health History
http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2008/02/report_northern_illinois_shooter_had_long_mental_health_history.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=5959663
“Kazmierczak, 27, was treated for mental illness nine years ago. He was considered volatile, according to a staff member who worked at the facility at the time, and violent if he stopped taking the antidepressant and anti-anxiety pills prescribed for him. It was medication he was supposed to still be taking and apparently stopped a couple of weeks ago.
Backs up everything we have been saying!…
Psychiatric drug withdrawal can cause homicidal impluses…
Nathan
Truthman,
Here’s the links. Read for yourself: suicide rates are dropping. (and have been since the early ’90s) SSRI scripts have been going up and up over the same time period. Everyone is quick to blame the horrific events on SSRIs. Yet the same people are just as quick to deny any credit for the decrease in suicides. Stop giving me crap about a pharmaceutical bias. I readily admit that SSRIs may have their problems. This world is just black and white to you. The facts are far more complicated than your simple mind is able to grasp.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545555
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/523863/
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-112335652.html
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/9054.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2504425&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
truthman
This world is just black and white to you. The facts are far more complicated than your simple mind is able to grasp.
You are the simpleton Nathan, you have a pharmaceutical agenda..
You have no interest in people, mental illness or health..
Your only purpose here is damage limitation..
That is as obvious as the day is long…
aa
Nate,
Thank you for the links.
Just like I would expect you to find facts to support your argument, you knew I was going to do the same. Anyway, in reading the newswire article, it says:
“First, the good news: Suicide rates among younger and older Americans have been declining since the early 1990s. Now, the puzzling news: No one really knows why.”
“For 40 years adolescent suicide rates rose,” said McKeown, who collaborated on the study with the USC pharmacy professor Dr. Richard Schulz and School of Medicine neuropsychiatry professor Dr. Steven Cuffe.
“Then, the rates began to decline in the late 1980s for adults 65 and older and in the early 1990s for adolescents and young adults,” he said. “But many people weren’t aware; they kept saying suicides were increasing when it was no longer true.”
“In our medical-literature searches, we began finding international studies that suggested a correlation of declining suicide rates with an increase in the use of new-generation antidepressants,” McKeown said. “But you can’t blithely assume that drugs like Prozac have lowered the suicide rate. If that was the reason, why haven’t the suicide rates of those in the 25-to-64 age brackets declined, too?”
Enough said.
AA
aa
Nate,
You might be interested in this link:
http://tinyurl.com/2nmh2p
“jobs and less toxic car exhaust fumes may be behind a drop in suicides among young men in the U.K. to the lowest level in 30 years, researchers said in the British Medical Journal.
Reductions in antidepressant use among under-18s have not led to an increase in suicidal behavior in youngsters, another study found. ”
This is significant in light of the fact that in the UK, prozac is the only SSRI permitted for kids under 18.
AA
Lisa Van S
Atlex,
Thank You! What concerns me here is this,.. Clearly this young man had been on an antidepressant and anti anxiety medication for quite a long time, so I have to ask who was monitoring him? If he had stopped his Meds cold turkey, one can assume his Psychosis was brought on by abrupt withdrawal which is well recognized by Medical Professionals. Im interested in hearing more details on his (Med) use. Still a lot of unanswered questions.
Lisa Van S
Ed,
Im glad you chose to post this,..why?.. Because now we can have a discussion on the danger of abruptly withdrawing from Psychotropic Medications.
Its amazing how therapeutic Florida can be…
Go Jeff Gordon!!!
dada
Antidepressants and suicides
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800EEDD133FF931A1575BC0A9629C8B63&sec=health&pagewanted=all
– Between 1998 and 2003, sales of antidepressants in Japan quintupled, according to IMS Health.–
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FG28Dh01.html
– Japanese suicide rates have been high since 1998…In 1998, suicide broke the 30,000 threshold and has remained high ever since.–
Nathan
aa,
That’s my point exactly. I don’t think that there is evidence to attribute the drop in suicide rates to SSRIs. It could be attributed to lots of things. The same thing applies to these mass shootings that everyone blames on SSRI’s. There COULD be a link — but right now there isn’t the evidence to support it.
dada
The non pharma-influenced media picture:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/chi-steve-kazmierczak-gunman_webfeb16,0,401780.column
–On the Northern Illinois University campus, Steven P. Kazmierczak was considered a gentle, hard-working student, who was honored two years ago with a dean’s award for his sociology work.
Professors who taught him said it was hard to imagine he was the same person authorities identified as the gunman in Thursday’s classroom shootings.
“I knew Steve both as an undergraduate and as a graduate student. I have had him in my home. I knew him as a warm, sensitive, very bright student,” said Professor Kristen Myers in an e-mail. “I never would believe that he could do this. I know that when these horrible things happen, everyone searches for roots to explain it. Here, I’m afraid I don’t have any.”
…Former sociology undergraduate student Stephanie Delhotal, 22, said Kazmierczak was extremely helpful when he served as a teaching assistant in her statistics lab last spring.
“I learned most of what I knew from him,” said Delhotal, who is now a social worker. “He was very nice and very friendly…he was so into statistics. I just took him to be a computer nerd.”–
aa
Nathan,
How can you say there isn’t evidence to support a link when these types of side effects are listed for many psych meds? Now granted, even if you think the number isn’t signficant, doesn’t the fact that people who are not on psych meds who are losing their lives as the result of these shooters, give you pause for alarm?
Jay Cohen, a doctor who is not anti meds, says that these drugs definitely cause homicidal behavior:
http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/april_june_04/underlying_cause.html
Nathan, as I alluded to in my post about cold turkey withdrawal, whether we disagree or agree on what the evidence is, the fact is that people are losing ttheir lives.
I would have alot more respect for the drug companies if they engaged in a public service annoucement to warn doctors and patients on what to look for regarding these drugs possibly causing aggressive behavior.
Instead, we are told to tough out the side effect or our dose gets doubled because of the alleged worsening of our illness. This philosphy almost killed me.
Nathan, please do what is right instead of worrying about defending your industry. You can do that later. But right now, innocent lives are being lost and I fear this will continue.
AA
dada
Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare data on all female suicides recorded in Sweden
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=35693&cat=10
–Psychiatric drugs behind 75 percent of all female suicides–
Bob
Karol-There’s a show on Discovery Health called Most Evil. It deals with Forensic Psychiatrist Michael Stone (he’s from Columbia), and his “Scale of Evil.”
There is a ton of interesting research going on right now with Schizophrenia/Depression and different parts of the brain. Check it out sometime if you get the channel, as I have learned a ton watching it over the past year.
dada
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/60403162.htm
Medawar C, Hardon A: Medicines out of Control? – Antidepressants and the Conspiracy of Goodwill (Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers, 2004). ISBN 90 5260 134 8. Paperback, 260 pages. Price: £ 19.25/ US$ 34.50 / Euro 27.50
–The 1990s saw ‘depression’ formally redefined as a serotonin-deficiency disease and the scourge of millions - a convenient and seductive, but deeply simplistic view. The term, drug ‘dependence’ was redefined, to propose that loss of personal autonomy could never arise in a therapeutic setting, but only within a few blocks of ‘Skid Row’. The ubiquitous term, ‘discontinuation symptoms’ - newspeak for withdrawal symptoms - implied that antidepressants carried no risk of dependence. Wishful thinking proposed ‘discontinuation symptoms’ as evidence of the effectiveness of vital remedies, important for reducing overwhelming risks.–
–The UK drug regulators still eschew reports from patients, in the absence of ‘medical interpretation’. Ironically, but predictably, it was the wealth of evidence from antidepressant users that finally caused the regulators to confront the reality: a substantial risk of dependence, among other damaging drug effects. In particular, the risk of drug-induced violence and self-harm had been a worry for years.–
–Beyond lack of scrutiny, closer inspection of the data revealed systematic burial of evidence of risk, notably by crunching numbers and mincing words.–
–In the last quarter of the 20th century, commerce took over the reins of medicine and began to steer health towards trade. The Pharmas carefully arranged the tests and trials of their drugs; they came to dominate medical education and communication, and they sponsored more and more. From behind the scenes, the Pharmas orchestrated the widespread promotion of their products and views, through the placement and advancement of the experts and leaders they chose. In time, the imperatives of trade and the impact of commercial messages became overwhelming. “Just how tainted has medicine become?” asked a Lancet editorial (2002). The answer was, “heavily and damagingly so”.–
Steve
How on earth do you leave a trackback on this site?
Truthman
“There COULD be a link — but right now there isn’t the evidence to support it.”
Says Nathan..
How many shool shooters withdrawing from psych drugs flipping out and shooting up the place does it take before you will see the connection Nathan?…
Are you sure you are not an ostrich?
http://writingjunkie.net/images/ostrich-head.jpg
Truthman
Intersting post on Seroxat secets blog..
Stephen Kazmierczak - the Illinois gunman stopped taking Paxil (Seroxat)…
February 16, 2008 — admin
… according to news channel ABC7 Chicago - full story here:
“Authorities have not figured out what motivated the man, described as a hardworking, award-winning former honor student by NIU faculty, to go on a shooting rampage that killed five students.
Kazmierczak, 27, was treated for mental illness nine years ago. He was considered volatile, according to a staff member who worked at the facility at the time, and violent if he stopped taking the antidepressant and anti-anxiety pills prescribed for him. Including Paxil, it was medication he was supposed to still be taking and apparently stopped a couple of weeks ago.”
So Paxil/Seroxat may have been involved in this tragedy, however we need to know the details - we need to know the truth.
Truthman
http://seroxatsecrets.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/stephen-kazmierczak-the-illinois-gunman-stopped-taking-paxil-seroxat/
(link to seroxat secrets post above)
Truthman
From ABC news (for full article see link)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4296984
http://www.infowars.com/?p=255
University Police: Illinois Campus Shooter On “Medication”
Kurt Nimmo
Truth News
February 15, 2008
As suspected, the Illinois campus shooter, identified as Stephen Kazmierczak, was on medication, although ABC News reports at this time it is unknown what sort of medication.
In the last few weeks, Kazmierczak’s
behavior had become erratic, according to [NIU campus Police Chief Donald Grady], and it is believed the Kazmierczak had stopped taking his medication. The chief declined to specify the type of medication the gunman was on.
As was revealed soon after the shootings at Virginia Tech, Cho Seung-Hui was taking the anti-depressant Paroxetine, which he took from June 1999 to July 2000. Seung-Hui’s “doctor stopped the medication because Mr. Cho had improved,” the New Yorks Times reported on August 30, 2007.
“Recent regulatory warnings about adverse behavioral effects of antidepressants in susceptible individuals have raised the profile of these issues with clinicians, patients, and the public. We review available clinical trial data on paroxetine and sertraline and pharmacovigilance studies of paroxetine and fluoxetine, and outline a series of medico-legal cases involving antidepressants and violence,” notes PLoS Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical publication. “Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviors.”
Truthman
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message505415/pg1
US campus shooter ’stopped taking medication’ Big Pharma kills again
Interesting discussions all over the place on this one…
Bob
I hope he wasn’t taking an antibiotic at the time. Who knows how many killers have been on Levaquin at the time of their rampages…
someone
Has anyone noticed how many drugs are out there that one must take for “the rest of their lives”? It isn’t just with mental illnesses, it covers the spectrum of diseases. Because it is much easier to make these things all “chronic” - we are after all, not only a nation, but a world of pill takers.
What makes us think we can have people with such debilitating illnesses and send them out into the great big unsupervised world as long as they “promise” to keep taking their drugs? Then we all act “Shocked” horrified” and wonder how on earth this could have ever happened.
The money being spent on supporting the life time of drug taking is money that isn’t being spent on cures rather than trying to make a better band aid for a disease that requires so much more.
These shootings are completely disturbing, what’s more there were 7 school shootings in the US in the past few weeks. If anti depressants and/or anti psychotic drugs are linked to them all, I hope we see the biggest class action lawsuit ever.
We have got to stop deceiving ourselves with this foolishness that these serious diseases can be treated with a handful of very expensive pills.
This is becoming the biggest crime against humanity ever! Our health care system fails these people and their family, we write a script and send them on their way. As long as drug companies, pharmacies, and every link in the chain of our health care system gets their pay and/or kickback, we’ve done our jobs!!!
In spite of all of this I still have some faith in humanity that we can really cure these diseases. We just have to stop paying out so many incentives for band aids and start rewarding research that leads to cures. We need to get beyond palliative treatment.
Start looking around people, when was the last discovery ever made that actually “cured” something and didn’t require indefinite years on one drug or another for maintenance.
Have we really forgotten how to actually practice, research, science and medicine? Let’s hope not.
I hope our government comes up with a program. How about restricted licensing of drugs that do not cure a long with strict pricing guidelines for palliative type drugs. After all it is our money we are all playing with, it is our taxes it is our insurance premiums.
We’ve all been scammed and sold snake oil! How did we convince the doctors, nurses and therapist that it was o.k. to send seriously psychotic people home alone as long as they take their pill?
Geesh!!!
pg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyPuE314SDQ
Dr. Moria Dolan, Executive Director for the Medical Accountability Network discusses the link between antidepressants medications and suicide, violence and school shootings.
Donna
Truthman,
It has also been written that Cho Seung-Hui was also being treated for severe acne….hmmmm I wonder with what??
Lisa Van S
Bob,
Since you brought up Levaquin!.. A N.J. Police Officer became psychotic on Levaquin and took his neighbors hostage at gunpoint during a raging snow storm. Guess what? The Levaquin defense worked.
Lisa Van S
PAXIL was the drug,.. and it had been originally prescribed for anxiety, ie; Panic Attack!
Paxil Withdrawal:Money Bag
http://paxilharmschildren.com
Tobin vs GSK
Murder/Suicide
Brian
So I’m thinking if he stayed on his medication..This shooting would have never happened…I guess there is a role for antipsychotics meds.
pg
It’s an antidepressant.
pg
On withdrawal (discontinuation syndrome:
“Lets face it in the end. All the anxious and agitated patient will be saying is
[cartoon of dollar notes falling from the sky over a screaming person in withdrawal]
“WHERE’S MY PAXIL!!!!!!!”
Documement: “Confidential Persuant to Protective Order
SB SmithKline Beecham 1st May 1997″
pg
Lisa Van S draw attention to the Tobin case (regarding Donald Schell):
Short summary, page 2 of 30: “Donald Schell, (Paxil). 48 hours after starting Paxil, he killed his wife, daughter, granddaughter and himself. (Jury found Paxil at cause and ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay $6.4 million to surviving family members)”
pg
How were (and are) doctors, nurses and therapists convinced that drugs that fly under the banner of science and allegedly are ANTI depression and ANY psychosis but which CAUSE serious mental conditions such as depression, psychosis, paranoia, hallucinations, emotional lability, cognitive disfunction, amnesia,schizophrenic reaction, aggression, suicidality and homicidality, could possibly be beneficial when prescribed en masse to humanity ?
By drug company marketing departments’ manipulation of doctors and persistent minimization of side effects ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOW8LNU2hFE
By drug company marketing departments’ using a “technique” of calling protestors who do not approve of fraudulent science in medicine ‘crazy people’, ‘anti-drug’ and ’scientologists’ ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9-uqIJfRd8
Brian
So I’m thinking if he stayed on his medication..This shooting would have never happened…I guess there is a role for antipsychotics meds.
pg
Its an antidepressant.
Matthew Holford
I feel like I’ve missed a party, here! I’ll tell you what I know about SSRIs, and I would like to acknowledge that my own experience of them is negative (fluoxetine). Most of my comments will be about Paxil/Seroxat, though, seeing as I have seen one report that suggests the shooter was on that drug.
There are significant side effects with these drugs. We may regard this as a fact, not speculation based on a correlation between changes in behaviour, as against the taking of these drugs by those experiencing said behaviour. And we may regard it as fact, because the people who make them, and the people who regulate the manufacturers agree that it is so by producing a PIL. So let’s put that to bed: SSRIs DO cause suicidality, and homicidality (and withdrawal, and akathasia, and…).
Next, there is no evidence that the drugs work any better than placebo. Bald statement though that is, it appears to be a fact. The MHRA (the current UK regulator) was unable to explain to me what the benefit of Seroxat (Paxil) is. Neither was GSK, nor the Department of Health, nor the UK industry lobbying body, the ABPI. The fact that the drug is on the market does not appear to be evidence of its efficacy, then, given that the UK regulator at the time, the MCA, appears not to have chosen to scrutinize the original trials data that Glenmullen recently reported on.
If the drug has no efficacy, then no risk:benefit analysis can ever have been carried out, because there is no benefit against which to offset risks. I’m still waiting for somebody to explain how my logic is incorrect. The MHRA justified the continued presence of Seroxat on the pharmacists’ shelves by declaring that the drug was good, because the manufacturer had said so (what it actually said was that it’s decision to license the drug was based on a positive statistical analysis (provided by the manufacturer), backed up by peer-reviewed articles (the less said about those, the better)).
Now, we can get into a discussion about dodgy marketing, suppression of side effects, routine withholding of negative data, “information laundering” (due deference to Pharmalot, for coining this phrase) via KOLs and clinicians, bribery and corruption, if you like. However, the fact remains: the manufacturers and the regulators cannot explain how the drugs work (nor even how they were assessed), and they DO cause severe side effects - that’s a given. It’s on the PIL.
That some people are more severely impacted than others appears to be the case. That not every patient on these drugs goes out to a mall/high school/university campus and starts blasting away does not prove that the drugs are not to blame.
Matt
Matthew Holford
Erratum: it was Clinical Psych dubbed it “information laundering,” not Pharmalot.
Matt
pg
Shouldn’t worry about who dubbed it what Matthew, Richard Horton used the term a while back - it could have been started by anyone :-)
“Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1].
http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/05/information_lau.html
Nathan
Matthew Holford writes:
“Next, there is no evidence that the drugs work any better than placebo. Bald statement though that is, it appears to be a fact. The MHRA (the current UK regulator) was unable to explain to me what the benefit of Seroxat (Paxil) is.”
SSRIs sold ~$10 billion in 2006. We all know how people love to be medicated with drugs that cause such severe side effects. We all know that the American consumer is willing to buy anything that is heavily advertised on TV. Take Exhubera, for example. Pfizer spent $billions on advertising, and look where it got them. Oh wait… Exubera was withdrawn because of lack of demand. The $ billion+ spent on advertising was able to bring sales up to $50 million or so.
That seems to be a major problem that all you “conspiracy theory” people fail to explain: if SSRI’s are such failures, why do they make SO much money? Don’t tell me its just good marketing. Exubera was marketed more than nearly any other product launch in history — IT FAILED MISERABLY. Marketing alone won’t sell. Efficacy sells. SSRIs make boatloads of money because most people that take them (and most doctors that prescribe them) feel that they ARE effective.
pg
Banned but once money-making drugs, some of which were ‘blockbusters, once promoted as efficacious:
Avandia, Baycol, Bextra, Dexatrim, Ephedra, Fen Phen, Lotronex, Pondimin, Propulsid, Redux, Rezulin, and Vioxx.
Nathan
pg, are you argueing that those drugs weren’t efficacious? To my knowledge, ALL those drugs were perfectly efficacious. They just weren’t deamed safe. My point was against Matthew Holford and Truthman who consistently claim that SSRIs don’t work. My point is that if they didn’t work, people wouldn’t buy them.
If you want to argue that they aren’t SAFE, that’s a different story.
Nathan
To phrase it another way:
If you argue that the drugs don’t work, you are essentially saying that tens of millions of people taking SSRIs and the tens of thousands of doctors that prescribe SSRIs are fools.
People generally don’t like to take drugs that don’t work and doctors generally don’t like to prescribe drugs that don’t work.
pg
You may be right Nathan - perhaps its a difference in the interpretation of ‘words’ here.
I can’t help but see ’safety’ and ‘efficacy’ as being somewhat related. I DO understand that safety can be a case of discovery due to unforseen events after approval, but in many cases perceived ’safety’ has been due to that information laundering Matthew mentioned, and where it is the case that the dangers were known before approval (as is quite clear from drug companies’ own documents in trials of antidepressants for instance) then the perception of efficacy is false as it isn’t based on accurate or honest science.
Considering the thousands of people who die from buying their prescriptions each year, the theory that if drugs didn’t work they wouldn’t buy them doesn’t (to me) hold up to scrutiny. They bought them because they believed they were efficacious, then they died because they weren’t. Of course, it could also be worded that they bought them because they believed they were safe, then they died because they weren’t.
The two words do seem to be interconnected as I see it.
ol cranky
Truthman:
““Kazmierczak, 27, was treated for mental illness nine years ago. He was considered volatile, according to a staff member who worked at the facility at the time, and violent if he stopped taking the antidepressant and anti-anxiety pills prescribed for him. It was medication he was supposed to still be taking and apparently stopped a couple of weeks ago.
Backs up everything we have been saying!…
Psychiatric drug withdrawal can cause homicidal impluses…”
While I do think that most psychotropics do need to be weaned under the supervision of an HCP, I don’t agree that you can necessarily take the correlation here to make a statement that the drug withdrawal causes homicidal impulses. In fact, one could very legitimately make the claim that these drugs helped him with impulse control to prevent him from feeling and/or acting on his homicidal impulses and that discontinuation of the drugs removed the barrier to acting on his homicidal impulses.
Robyn
Nathan, you are the scientist. The way to settle questions of efficacy and safety is to look properly at the trials, not at the fashions.
Here’s part of the summary from Healthy Skepticism regarding risk and benefit of SSRIs in adolescents and children (results slightly better in adults).
Responding to the Bridge et al paper, they say “…no more than one of the 20 trials on antidepressants in children and adolescents shows benefit on protocol defined outcome measures.
… in weighing benefits and harms the authors consider responder status and suicidal ideation/suicide attempts as opposite but equal. Since there were more of the former than the latter they conclude there is more benefit than harm. However patients only had to improve a few points more than in the placebo group to cross the line to be classified as a responder (i.e., a small difference). It is likely that the deterioration to get to suicidal ideation/suicide attempts is a larger difference which may offset or overwhelm the benefit. To summarize: for every 10 adolescents treated, one will slightly improve; for every 11 that slightly improve, one will become suicidal…”
http://healthyskepticism.org/news/2008/January08.php
Dave
There is no conspiracy, it’s all done right out in the open. The problem is most people are not scientists,or molecular biologists, and they don’t know what effect that little pill will have on them unless they take it themselves, so their imaginations can wander when the information is not presented to them in a way they can understand. The drug companies spend tens of billions on commercials every year, directed not towards doctors, but consumers. How are we supposed to know the right prescriptions to take? I think people should be more cautious when putting any substance into their bodies, especially one’s that modifies behaviour, because your brain can’t tell whether they are legal, or illegal. The drug companies are using us as guinea pigs, and making a profit.
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…SSRIs make boatloads of money because most people that take them (and most doctors that prescribe them) feel that they ARE effective.”
Tee hee! Ad hominems so early in the debate? And I thought I had done what I could to avoid conjecture! If you could point out where I veer into the realms of speculation and conspiracy, I would be obliged.
Oh, well, I suppose that nature abhors a vacuum, which possibly explains why doctors prescribe drugs for depression: the alternatives just aren’t available. Did you know that 83% of all UK depressives (presumably self-diagnosed, as well as professionally diagnosed), are routinely prescribed with drugs, despite the fact that the National Institute of health and Clinical Excellence (”NICE”), recommends that counselling be prescribed for mild and moderate depression? Did you also know that the vast majority of antidepressants are prescribed for mild depression?
Patients get their information from doctors. Doctors get their information from KOLs and drug reps. KOLs and drug reps get their information from drug companies, as do regulators. Now, why do you think that doctors prescribe such a lot of antidepressants? And why do you think that patients are so pleased to get them?
Matt
Matthew Holford
Nathan said:
“…To my knowledge, ALL those drugs were perfectly efficacious…”
Nathan, what is your knowledge based upon? The fact that the drug is on the market, and the regulator couldn’t possibly have been hoodwinked?
You probably ought to know that the MHRA, in the UK, VERY rarely asks for sight of original data (even though it is perfectly entitled to do so), and instead relies upon the opinion of the manufacturer. Do you trust manufacturers not to exploit this loophole, which stays open because manufacturers argue that the data is proprietary confidential, and contains trade secrets?
Anyway, I didn’t say that the drugs were inefficacious, although now you come to mention it… What I did say is that there is no evidence to demonstrate that they ARE efficacious. It’s not possible to prove a negative, but by refusing to demonstrate the positive (ie, to what extent the drugs are efficacious), the MHRA is doing its best, as far as I can see.
Matt
Atlex
Dave,
Your statistic about DTC spending is far from the truth–drug companies do not spend tens of billions of dollars on DTC. The number is somewhere around $4B.
Atlex
Lisa Van S
Ol Cranky,
“Staff Member at the Facility”…Has Clearly,.. Violated Hippa. Did he/she have an agenda? Appears so, And should be held accountable for it.
Pretty amazing that this Individual had no prior “VIOLENT Behaviour HISTORY”. Violent Behavior only occured when he stopped his medication.
It is unwise to label a panick attack as a mental illnes. Antidepressants can and will cause a severe psychosis upon abruptly withdrawing, dismissing this phenomenin is dangerous and irresponsible, not just for the patient, but for those around them.
Dave
Atlex
Not too far… for the year 2004 per http://medicine.plosjournals.org/
DTC (direct to consumer) spending 4 billion
Total industry marketing 57.5 billion
Lobbying 123 million
R&D 31.5 billion
Sorry, I meant total marketing, but they spent alot more for that than R&D. My question is why market directly to the consumer, when they can’t write their own prescription?
Lisa Van S
For those Interested in Withdrawal of SSRI’s I encourage you to check out this FDA Adverse Reporting system(Medwatch) 2004-2006
http://www.psychdrugdangers.com/DrugWithdrawalSyndromeSSRI.html
and
http://www.psychdrugdangers.com/?drugtable=ssri
Nathan
Matthew says:
“Patients get their information from doctors. Doctors get their information from KOLs and drug reps. KOLs and drug reps get their information from drug companies, as do regulators. Now, why do you think that doctors prescribe such a lot of antidepressants? And why do you think that patients are so pleased to get them?”
That last question is exactly the question I posed in the first place. I don’t understand how or why patients would be pleased to get a medication that doesn’t work. Take my original example, Exhubera. Pfizer pumped TONS of money into marketing that drug. Clinical trials showed that it worked. Nobody bought it. Heavy marketing and lying about efficacy doesn’t see drugs. SSRIs have been BLOCKBUSTERS every year for nearly 20 years now. (beginning with Prozac) How can you tell me that they do NOTHING? I agree with you that many, many people are just stupid and do whatever advertisers and doctors tell them to do without thinking through the consequences. But hundreds of millions of people taking these drugs over a period of 20 years? It defies any sort of common sense to argue that the drugs do nothing but harm.
Nathan
Here’s a quote from an NBCNews story this morning:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23214369/
“She (the girlfriend) confirmed that he had stopped taking an antidepressant about three weeks ago because “it made him feel like a zombie,” but she denied that his recent behavior was unusual.”
Maybe if this young man had continued taking his antidepressant this tragedy never would have happened.
Brian
I am surprised that the shooter was only being treated with antidepressants. His profile would indicate schizophrenic / psychosis perhaps at a high functioning level. Despite most of the posts above to the contrary he joins a large list of the treatment resistant to medication as well as to the world of psychiatric intervention.
We clearly have a long way to go. What are the future options for treatment of mental illness? For a guy like this and others for which counseling, electroshock and or lobotomy are not an option the only hope lies in improved medications. While current antidepressant therapy works for millions it falls short for many others. Is this surprising? And how do we know ahead of time what will work for anyone?
It’s not too surprising that people who do not receive effective help for their mental illness see little future for themselves and feel jealousy for those that do not feel their pain. The only hope is for continue research into the development of new broad reaching treatments for all types of mental illness. Unless you are helping in this effort please get out of the way……
Jay
It’s sad that the NIU shooters was probably hypoglycemic which can cause anxiety. His father is a severe diabetic and is the first clue. That the shooters was off his meds means that he was going through withdrawal and add cough medicine to the mix that was found in his hotel room and you have serotonin syndrome. Serotonin syndrome can drive a person into akathisia and even RBD Rem Sleep Behavioral disorder. This can add up to violent behavior, hostility and homicidal ideation. If he was experience insomnia he could be driven into a psychotic break.
A list of antidepressant/school cases can be found at http://www.ssristories.com Including my own son #22.
Lisa Van S
Nathan
“Maybe if this young man had continued taking his antidepressant this tragedy may never had happened”
Maybe yes,.. Maybe no,.. Physicians must make it perfectly clear that abruptly stopping an antidepressant medication can be very dangerous. Physicians are well aware that abrupt withdrawal can, and will cause psychosis.
He was being treated for an anxiety disorder, and not a severe mental illnes. Individuals with untreated anxiety disorders dont go around shooting up schools.
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…It defies any sort of common sense to argue that the drugs do nothing but harm.”
I didn’t write that they did nothing but harm. I wrote that there was no evidence that they were any more efficacious than placebo, but had serious side effects. However, as far as I’m aware, the presumably side effect-free placebo is not available on prescription, as far as I’m aware.
I don’t think patients are stupid, Nathan. If I knew three years ago what I know now, then I would not have taken fluoxetine. People with depression/anxiety/etc get desperate. They go to their quack, who prescribes them some drug, or other, and the patient may take some benefit from it, given that the placebo effect forms part of the positive effect of any drug. What the patient is never told is that they could have taken a sugar pill, and had the same benefit, without the side effects.
Now, of course, the MHRA has never confirmed to me that the drug is no more efficacious than placebo - I’ve just read that in several articles and papers. But it won’t refute that allegation, either, which one would think would be the easiest thing in the world to do, had the drug been assessed in accordance with UK statutory criteria.
Matt
Truthman
That seems to be a major problem that all you “conspiracy theory” people fail to explain: if SSRI’s are such failures, why do they make SO much money? Don’t tell me its just good marketing
Says nathan..
Nathan refers to anyone who disagrees with his pharma damage limitation propaganda as “a conspiracy theorist”..
How pathetic Nathan..
You are here to protect your employers interests, play down the dangers of the medications which your employers make and spin bad news into whatever suits your corporate agenda… No one here should take anything you say seriously because you are here to spin and suppress the truth…
Nathan
Matthew says:
“I didn’t write that they did nothing but harm. I wrote that there was no evidence that they were any more efficacious than placebo,”
That’s interesting. I wonder what studies you were looking at? Check out these links:
http://www.preskorn.com/books/ssri_s5.html
Look at chart 5.5. The response rate for Fluoxitine is 60%. The response rate for placebo is 33%. The p value is 1×10^-13. Similar results are shown for 3 other SSRIs. The primary references are given.
http://www.acnp.org/g4/GN401000102/Default.htm
This is another reference pointing to numerous studies that have shown SSRIs to be more effective than placebo. There are some studies that show equivalence. For instance, Citalopram was equavalent to placebo at the 20 mg dose, but at 40 mg the responce was greater than placebo.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/159/12/2048
This is a primary literature reference. It’s a small trial, but does show a significant responce of Fluvoxamine as compared to placebo.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/178/3/234
Another one. Here’s a quote: “Remission rates were: venlafaxine, 45% (382/851); SSRIs, 35% (260/748); placebo, 25% (110/446) (P < 0.001; odds ratio for remission is 1.50 (1.3-1.9), favouring venlafaxine v. SSRIs). The difference between venlafaxine and the SSRIs was significant at week 2, whereas the difference between SSRIs and placebo reached significance at week 4.”
The list goes on and on and on. I found these results online within a few minutes.
Nathan
Answer the question Truthman. I’m tired of your insults.
I called you a “conspiracy theorist” because that’s exactly what you claim to be. You’ve claimed many times that the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies are lying and illegaling covering up data (a “conspriacy”) that ultimately leads to approval of drugs that are unsafe and ineffective. If that’s not a conspiracy, what would you call it?
Truthman
And to answer Nathans question on why SSRI’s make so much money?…
They originally became blockbusters because of manipulative marketing campaigns…
At one point after 9/11 GSK exploited the terrorist tragedy and started to create “post traumatic stress/anxiety” hysteria and media creted epidemic. They literally saturated TV screens with Ads for Paxil, preying on the fears and anxieties of American people at the time..
http://www.citypages.com/databank/23/1141/article10788.asp
SSRI’s were marketed as more safe and effective than the Tricylics , this is untrue , they are worse, and their side effect profile is amonst the worst of ANY class of drug on the market..
SSRI’s were “successful” for four main reason…
1. They were and still are heabvily marketed , from DTC advertising campaigns to the funding and infiltration of Pharma interests in patient groups/mental health charities etc (via “donations and grants”)
http://seroxatsecrets.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/national-depression-week-2005-and-the-launch-of-cymbalta-in-the-uk/
2. Pharma pays corrupt key opinion leaders such as high ranking psychiatrists and well known physicians to speak and promote their products.
http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/2007/01/keller-bad-science-and-seroxatpaxil.html
3. Big pharma “bribes” doctors and medical professionals with gifts , perks and bonuses (the more the doctor prescribes the more stuff they get)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/27/italy.heatherstewart
4. People who develop anxiety or depression are vulnerable and desperate for a cure, they are easily duped into taking SSRI’s.
http://www.dorothyrowe.com.au/
Drug company spokespeople and PR machines like Nathan know all these factors are true, but they don’t want the public to stop taking the drugs , because drug companies are the greediest of all corporations. Maximization of profit is the bottom line…
Truthman
Nathan
Answer the question Truthman. I’m tired of your insults.
I called you a “conspiracy theorist” because that’s exactly what you claim to be. You’ve claimed many times that the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies are lying and illegaling covering up data (a “conspriacy”) that ultimately leads to approval of drugs that are unsafe and ineffective. If that’s not a conspiracy, what would you call it? Says Nathan…
Tired of my insults?..
All i said was that you were a pharma propagandist..
Doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out..
(if it quacks like a duck then it must be a duck)
I did claim that the pharmaceutical companies are lying and covering up data yes because that is true, and it is not just be who is aware of this fact, many journalists in the mainstream media have reported this also, so have many physicians , psychiatrists and congressmen/MPs(UK)
And yes, drugs are not adequeately tested or trialed before they come to market.. The FDA is a lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry (thats a well known fact)..
These are not conspircay theories Nathan, they have been widely reported in a variety of mediums from the BBC, the Times UK, the guardian, ABC news and CBS…
Brian
Truthman,
Why do you assume you understand all the facts? Why do you insult those of us with the facts? It may be true that you and Matt have had a bad reaction to these meds and so what? Once counseling doesn’t work the only other answer is better and better defined meds. We’re working on that!! I know it’s not just about safety matters because thousands of people are harmed by NSAIDs that most would consider safe. If you want safer drugs then more people will have to enter clinical trials for a longer time. Who pays for that and who volunteers?
I think it’s the science behind the psychological truth that you do not like. For instance, which comes first an ethereal emotional response or a defined neuronal firing due to neurotransmitter or hormonal release? Since you like to deny the complex but acknowledged fact that our brains are not jello but work in defined ways, you will always have trouble figuring out what goes wrong with everyone else besides you.
Nathan
Truthman says:
“These are not conspircay theories Nathan, they have been widely reported in a variety of mediums from the BBC, the Times UK, the guardian, ABC news and CBS…”
That’s interesting because I’ve quoted reports from these same sources talking about the EFFICACY and SAFETY of SSRIs. Yet you don’t believe them. I guess you only believe the reporters that write things that fit your preconcieved notions of truth.
Check these out:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=4134152
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/04/health/webmd/main1177007.shtml?source=search_story
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/02/health/webmd/main3447480.shtml?source=search_story
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=4199997&page=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3910029.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2990549n?source=search_video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4569254.stm
pg
Girlfriend of Illinois killer Steve Kazmierczak has stated that he had come off PROZAC (cold turkey) because it “made him feel like a zombie”.
She has also stated that the media are presenting him as a “monster” which he was not. She describes him as
“He was anything but a monster. He was probably the nicest, most caring person ever”.
His professors have also described him as gentle, intelligent and kind in another article.
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“That’s interesting. I wonder what studies you were looking at? Check out these links…”
[shrug] The one I’ve seen most recently was posted by Bob Fiddaman:
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2008/02/benefits-outweigh-risks-not-according.html
There was one by Kirsch, et al, in the BMJ, too. Would you like me to find others? Don’t forget, according to the recent NEJM paper, only half the trials are “positive”, and only the positive trials get reported, when it comes to SSRIs.
However, I prefer not to rely on these peer-reviewed papers as evidence, one way or the other. The reason being that there appears to be signficant question marks over the impartiality of the authors. One doesn’t know what and who one can trust, does one?
I’ve a question for you: what is depression?
Matt
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
Were you aware that 9 out of 10 of the ACNP Members were Clinical Trial Investigators for antidepressants in children. These individuals withheld vital information regarding safety and efficacy, from patients and their families. Many Children were maimed and killed because these Physicians “Chose” to stay silent, they “Chose” to place America’s Children in harms way.. These ACNP Members lack Integrity, and shouldnt be trusted.
Nathan
Matthew says:
“However, I prefer not to rely on these peer-reviewed papers as evidence, one way or the other.”
and
“Doctors get their information from KOLs and drug reps…as do regulators. Now, why do you think that doctors prescribe such a lot of antidepressants?”
Truthman says:
“pharmaceutical companies are lying and covering up data ”
and
“The FDA is a lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry (thats a well known fact)..”
Truthman and Matthew say that we can’t trust the FDA, drug manufacturers, doctors, academic scientists, peer-reviewed journals, or psychiatrists. Who SHOULD we trust?
Do you guys also believe that the US never put a man on the moon and that the US government orchestrated 9/11?
pg
From CNN Interview with Steve Kazmierczak’s girlfriend, Jessica Baty:
“It was Prozac” that she said he used to battle anxiety and obsessive-compulsive tendencies. “He was on medication and he stopped taking it. And he stopped taking it because he said that he felt.. it made him feel like a zombie, and that he, you know, was just lazy, that’s why he stopped taking it”.
Brian
pg
Looks can be deceiving. Obviously he was a monster that no treatment could help..no arguments there..The g.f. is lucky to be alive. He was jealous of those who were sane
Matt
Does it bother you that we haven’t as yet completely understood what surprises the brain has to offer. Does that make us criminals for trying or just reveal your immature view of where medicine should be by now.. many forms of depression… serotonin treatment helps a great deal but more need to be done..if you let us..
pg
Wrong, Brian. He has been described by all who really knew him over the last few years as gentle, kind, intelligent, even, etc. Did you know him? If not, then what weight does your opinion hold?
Brian
I do know that he killed 5 people..I’ll inform his friends he was a monster
pg
I’m sure a person like you would take great pleasure in doing so Brian - as do the industry psychiatrists in this world and the less than ethical media when indulging in a frenzy. Not sure which of those you belong to, but you’d fit well in either.
Nathan
pg,
You can try reading a different side of the story here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23200851/
Here’s some quotes:
“He had spent time in a mental health center, had disturbing tattoos covering his arms and had developed a recent interest in guns.”
“A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said Kazmierczak had been placed there after high school by his parents. He used to cut himself and had resisted taking his medications, she said.”
“One person who knew the couple, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, said the couple’s relationship was “really rocky.” Kazmierczak was controlling, she said. “He was abusive, had a temper,” she said. “He didn’t actually hit her; he would push her around.”
“Jason Dunavan, a tattoo artist in Champaign, said he spent hours as recently as last month creating tattoos for Kazmierczak. His work included an image of the macabre doll from the horror movie “Saw” riding a tricycle through a pool of blood with images of several bleeding cuts in the background.”
That doesn’t sound like such a nice, normal guy to me. It sounds like a guy who needed some psychiatric help.
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
Lets address the so called former employee at the treatment center. That Individual has clearly violated state/federal privacy laws, and should be prosecuted for it. Clearly he/she had an agenda, an individual who shouldnt be trusted.
Lets put forth this scenario, this individual, a teenager suffers a panic attack, is then placed on paxil. The Paxil side effect is self mutilation. Teen is hospitalized due to suicidal ideation due to paxil. Idiot Dr. stops prescribing paxil cold turkey and the patient becomes violent.
I saw the interview conducted by CNN of this young Man’s girlfriend, a little more believable than a so called friend with no name who chose to stay anonymous, Or maybe the individual doesnt exist.
Maybe this young man’s girlfriend chose to be interviewed after MSNBC aired their piece.. Maybe she wanted to the truth to be told.
Brian
pg
It’s funny how positively you view our hero the killer but you remain suspicious with those trying to help. The fact that he had been institutionalized by his parents, released from the military and not helped by currently available treatments was ignored. He was a sorry case. Your sympathy for him and your dislike for me seem misplaced.
“You have the luxury of not knowing what we know: these medications, while imperfect, probably save lives. And our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want us on that wall. You need us on that wall. We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a public who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very health care we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it! We’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way.”
Lisa Van S
Brian,
Still trying to give it your best shot.
truthman
Nathan..
From the first link you provided about SSRI’s and hot flushes.. (how ridiculous are you?)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=4134152
“Wyeth, the company that is developing desvenlafaxine, funded the study”
This is a biased study.. Not to be trusted .
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=Dr.+Leon+Speroff+Wyeth&btnG=Search
Leon Speroff, MD (the guy behind this study has pharmaceutical conflicts of interest all over the place)
Financial Disclosure:
OB/GYN Clinical Alert’s Editor, Leon Speroff, MD, is a consultant for Warner Chilcott and does research for Wyeth.
http://www.cmeweb.com/gcourse_view.php?course_id=6486
From the second link you provided Nathan..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/04/health/webmd/main1177007.shtml?source=search_story
Gregory E. Simon, MD,
Gregory E. Simon, M.D., M.P.H. Grant/Research Support: Eli Lilly and Company, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ● Consultant: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals ●
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/stanley/6thbipconf/Introduction.htm
The lead advocate of this bogus study is practically a walking conflict of interest..
From your third bogus link Nathan..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/02/health/webmd/main3447480.shtml?source=search_story
The study was funded, designed, and supervised by Janssen Pharmaceutica, which makes Risperdal. The researchers, who included Ramy Mahmoud, MD, MPH, work for Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs. Ortho-McNeil and Janssen are both subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson.
Yet more pharma bias, propaganda and untrustworthy conflicts of interest..
From your fourth pathetic link Nathan..
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=4199997&page=1
ECT… and the promotion of it..
Michael Corry and many other genuine psychs who are not pharma whores believe that ECT is highly damaging and highly dangerous , and most patients who have had it done would tend to agree..
http://www.depressiondialogues.ie/custom43/
From your fifth pathetic Link (man this is getting tedious)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3910029.stm
This link is from 2004, a lot of truth about SSRI’s has come out since then Nathan.. (so i can dismiss this link completely as out of date and irrelevant)
But anyhow, irrelevant though it is, the lead investigator of this study is also in pharmas pocket it seems..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=Dr+Hershel+Jick+disclosures&btnG=Search
From your 6th crappy link Nathan.. zzzzzzzzz….
Anti-depressants and pregnancy ..
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2990549n?source=search_video
again this link is irrelevant and also out of date, the dangers of SSRI’s inducing defects has been well established and even the drug companies (your employers) state these facts on their patient info leaflets.. So you might not admit it, but your employers do now
From your seventh completely useless link Nathan ( Yawn…)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4569254.stm
Again its out of date (2006) ..
Drug companies admit there is a risk of suicide now..
The MHRA in the UK wil be implementing these known risks this year…
And again , Dr Greg Simon the lead author , and the publication itself is biased due to its close financial ties with pharma..
http://www.cmeinstitute.com/briefreports/briefreports5/index.asp
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry:
Presentations From the Seventh International Conference on Bipolar Disorder
These activities were supported by educational grants from Eli Lilly and Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc, and Pfizer Inc
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/162/10/1957
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/174/27/
Trial Analyst Finds Embarassing Inconsistencies in NIMH Flawed Safety Study
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/174/27/
… In future don’t throw out bogus , biased links Nathan, I can see through your propaganda , it is as paper thin as your integrity..
truthman
Truthman and Matthew say that we can’t trust the FDA, drug manufacturers, doctors, academic scientists, peer-reviewed journals, or psychiatrists. Who SHOULD we trust?
We should trust non-pharma funded patient groups, independent research and studies (free of pharma influence) , unfortunately because of pharmas strangelhold on healthcare this is difficult to achieve ..
Power corrupts and money corrupts and the pharmaceutical industry is amongst the most corrupted of all industries .. Thats unfortunate , but it is also the sad truth…
Brian
Truthman
Bigger trials and more volunteers make for better data. Currently only U.S. pharma is willing to pay..how about your government chipping in? How about volunteering since you know so much
truthman
I think it’s the science behind the psychological truth that you do not like. For instance, which comes first an ethereal emotional response or a defined neuronal firing due to neurotransmitter or hormonal release? Since you like to deny the complex but acknowledged fact that our brains are not jello but work in defined ways, you will always have trouble figuring out what goes wrong with everyone else besides you.
Brian..
Get off your conceited high horse of BS , I’ve given you my opinion, i have backed everything i say up with legitimate sources , facts and information..
There is no argument ..
I explained to you many times that the emotion comes BEFORE the chemical release or reaction and that it is the emotion which needs to be addressed not the chemical symptom.. If you don’t get that , then god help you, for all your talk , you seem to lack a basic understanding of humanity, people and how we work..
truthman
Brian
Truthman
Bigger trials and more volunteers make for better data. Currently only U.S. pharma is willing to pay..how about your government chipping in? How about volunteering since you know so much
How about you get a life..
Skeptical
Truthman, you remind me of the unibomber. Get help.
Do you have aluminum foil over your windows?
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…Do you guys also believe that the US never put a man on the moon and that the US government orchestrated 9/11?”
I have no idea, and I care much less! You’re on the verge of another round of ad homs, btw. Kindly don’t do that: it’s not something I tolerate.
Anyway, while you’re deriding mine (and Truthman’s) lack of faith in the transparency, honesty and integrity of the “scientific” venture, it’s perhaps worth mentioning that our skepticism is founded upon repeated real-life examples of the sort of flouting of scientific principles that have been mentioned.
I don’t really like to wheel out Paxil Protocol 329, but it’s probably the best-known example of collusion between industry and academia. I particularly enjoyed the bit where the Trials’ manager, McCafferty, tells the ghostwriter, Laden, that she can’t claim the drug’s safe, when she’s mentioned all manner of serious side effects, whereupon she promptly employed some euphemistic language, or other, before the KOLs, including the Great Marty Keller, put their names to it. As far as I know, it still appears on their CVs as a published paper that they claim as their own work. Laden never got to put her name to it, although McCafferty and Oakes (the statistician), did.
This sort of thing is one of many tools employed by the pharmaceutical industry. We’ve already mentioned the withholding of negative data (ie, non-publishing of negative trials’ results), and we’ve had a whole raft of cases recently, concerning the suppression of side effect data (Vioxx, Zyprexa, Avandia, Paxil).
I can’t really be bothered with that discussion, frankly: it’s unproductive, because neither of us has the power to take any action. There are a whole range of loopholes in the system, which the regulators make no attempt to plug. I don’t trust the industry not to exploit them. And with good reason.
Matt
Brian
Truthman,
Sorry I’m here to stay..Nothing you say makes sense to me
1.) Emotions are neurotransmitter/hormone capture on the synapse..What do you think they are? Is there any physical reality???
2.) you get what you pay for and volunteer for..science is not a spectator sport..
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH
truthman
Skeptical
Truthman, you remind me of the unibomber. Get help.
Do you have aluminum foil over your windows?
No, but i do have a large collection of toe nail clippings in my bathtub..
Would you like to come round and see them?..
Seriously “Skeptical”(sic)
I couldn’t care less what you think..
I’m just trying to stir intelligent debate and bring awareness..
So your opinion is really of no consequence to me..
Matthew Holford
Skeptical wrote:
“…Do you have aluminum foil over your windows?”
No, but he’s borrowed my tinfoil hat. You know, the one I stole from you.
Matt
Bob
Skeptical-Haha, truth is actually more of a whackjob than LVS…and that says A LOT.
If these drugs cause all this horror and violence, then why aren’t more people suffering the effects?
I know people who have goine cold turkey from Paxil and Zoloft, and have a). never cut themselves, b). never hurt anybody, and c). never had suicidal ideation.
Interesting. Care to explain the people that don’t have these issues, whackjob clan?
truthman
Brian says…
1.) Emotions are neurotransmitter/hormone capture on the synapse..What do you think they are? Is there any physical reality???
Emotions are human feelings manifested by events which happen to an individual… An emotion is produced naturally and is a natural response to a human experience.. Love for another (endorphins) , Anger when betrayed, hurt or insulted (producing cortisol , adrenaline etc) , Fear when scared or nervous (producing a fight or flight response , panic etc) ..
To medicate these emotions and to perpetuate that somehow emotions are created by chemical reactions and should be seen as that is an insult to human intelligence and also a huge lie… ( they are interconnected but it is the emotions which come first)
I get the feeling that you do understand what I am saying Brian, but because of your loyalty to the pharmaceutical industry you just do not want to acknowledge any criticism of its practices.. That is very sad and is not a loss to anyone else but yourself…
Lisa Van S
Bob,
Speaking of whackjobs: check this out
http://www.paxilharmschildren.com/doc/gsk.gif.pdf
If you cant defend your drug; blame the Mom
If you cant defend your drug; attack the child
truthman
Bob
Skeptical-Haha, truth is actually more of a whackjob than LVS…and that says A LOT.
If these drugs cause all this horror and violence, then why aren’t more people suffering the effects?
I know people who have goine cold turkey from Paxil and Zoloft, and have a). never cut themselves, b). never hurt anybody, and c). never had suicidal ideation.
Interesting. Care to explain the people that don’t have these issues, whackjob clan?
Hey Bob!!!
I’m suprised you didn’t respond with your usual racist comments…
(you know, the way you call everyone who disagrees with you Canadian)
I don’t usually engage in dialogue with racists such as yourself , but hey since I am a whackjob (as you so eloquently put it) I’ll respond just this once ..
Get me some proof to back up your SSRI success stories , how bout a challenge then? (thats if you’re not too bust ironing your Ku Klux Klan Uniform) .. I will provide you with almost 10 000 users testimonies of the horrors of the SSRI Paxil and you can provide me with just 100 positive testimonies of the wonderous bliss of being on an SSRI med…
You up to the challenge, or are you late for your Klan meeting already..?
Lisa Van S
Bob.
Haven’t studied your hooked on phonics today!.. You, clearly have some issues with name calling, Parents didnt raise you properly?
Brian
Truthman
Thanks
Endorphins are peptides that bind to the opioid receptor like morphine and its pro drug heroin .so emotions are a physical reality. I’m glad we agree on that. The question is what is the difference in their efficacious exposure and residence time at the receptor..
What we try to do is mimic that activity in a positive way. Morphine is a useful drug but it is not perfect and can be abused. Endorphins are quickly cleaved by natural peptidases and may not heal the pain long enough. What’s a body to do?
Matthew Holford
“…Care to explain the people that don’t have these issues, whackjob clan?”
“Whackjob clan”? I regret that your use of pejorative terminology doesn’t really impact upon the number of people who experience extreme withdrawal symptoms.
According to the manufacturer, 30% of all Paxil patients experience some level of withdrawal (or “discontinuation syndrome,” as I believe it’s known, these days), although it was 1% three or four years ago. There, I’ve just explained it for you: not everybody experiences withdrawal - it’s official. Now you’ve proved something that we weren’t contesting, you’ll be able to enjoy your hot milk and cookies.
Matt
Lisa Van S
Truthman,
I have to step in here, please, refrain from using such obnoxious rhetoric. It defeats your purpose!…
truthman
Eh.. Lisa..
I’m defending myself from a bunch of pharma whore morons..
The only rhetoric they understand is obnoxious..
Lisa Van S
Matt,
In a GSK study,.the withdrawal rate was as high as 62%.
pg
Nathan, I think Lisa answered pretty well in my place. I’d just add to her comment that this was late 1990s. Its now 2008. Nearly everyone would have something that they’re not proud of in their past - and as he was in the US, as are most of the drugs and most of the shootings - it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he were one of the millions of children on Ritalin or similar before he ever entered into a psychiatric home. The point is that he was like well for the years that count by everyone.
Lisa has commented already on the credibility of someone who anonymously talks to the media when there’s some big gossip chance available. It seems no different than that of the kind of ‘neighbourhood gossip’ that stands outside watching others and making wild assumptions about any small things he or she sees but always likes to say ‘don’t tell anyone’ ie, ‘I didn’t tell you this’ because he or she doesn’t want the source of the gossip known.
A tattoo artist? Had he never seen equally gruesome tattoos before, or it it just THIS tattoo that causes consternation because of the amount of media exposure a school shooter can bring to the studio? Interesting that a gentle person ‘in the last month’ before the shootings and either still on Prozac of in withdrawal from it would start exhibiting the kind of thought that sought out that kind of tattoo though.
The facts are, in his teens he, like many other people, went a bit wild (I’m not sure where the paxil comes into it) but he had some time in a psychiatric home where they wouldn’t have failed to have given him drugs. He joined the armed forces and was then discharged for psychological reasons, perhaps they too gave him drugs like they are doing to the troops - and the suicide rate is increasing alongside.
That was the PAST. Years later, in 2008, he was a well like student. His girlfriend who knows far more than Mr or Mrs Doe at the end of the street, says he was a gentle person.
AS do the professors that KNEW him.
He was on Prozac
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/17/shooter.girlfriend/index.html
(for how long is not clear)
“It was prozac” that she said he used to battle anxiety and obsessive-compulsive tendencies. “He was on medication and he stopped taking it. And he stopped taking it because he said that he felt.. it made him feel like a zombie”
which does not make him mentally ill, unless you class everyone prescribed Prozac as being mentally ill. He was taking it for ANXIETY and, it seems from his girlfriend, a touch of OCD. Not for psychosis.
(for how long is not clear) and it made him “feel like a zombie”.
Why do people STOP taking these drugs - because they don’t like them? In the same way as apparently some people TAKE the drugs because they do like them?
PROZAC. Side effects:
“…Nervous System
Frequent: agitation, amnesia, confusion, emotional lability (mood swings), sleep disorder;
Infrequent:
abnormal gait, acute brain syndrome, akathisia, apathy, ataxia, buccoglossal syndrome, CNS depression, CNS stimulation, depersonalization, euphoria, hallucinations, hostility, hyperkinesia, hypertonia, hypesthesia, incoordination, libido increased, myoclonus, neuralgia, neuropathy, neurosis, paranoid reaction, personality disorder2, psychosis, vertigo;
Rare:
abnormal electroencephalogram, antisocial reaction, circumoral paresthesia, coma, delusions, dysarthria, dystonia, extrapyramidal syndrome, foot drop, hyperesthesia, neuritis, paralysis, reflexes decreased, reflexes increased, stupor…”
It is noticeable that when documented side effects of a drug show themselves, whether it be the frequent, the infrequent or the rare (or a mix of all), they are rarely acknowledged as the cause of the patient that has problem with them. The side effects always appear to be in ’someone else’, never in the person who actually suffers them.
PROZAC WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS?
“…Several novel symptoms or symptom clusters, which fall outside the Dilsaver et al. (1987) group are discussed in the literature, which suggests that the symptoms of SSRI discontinuation may be more varied than those seen with tricyclic antidepressants. These include:
Problems with balance (dizziness, ataxia, vertigo).
Sensory abnormalities including shock-like sensations (paresthesia, numbness).
AGGRESSIVE and impulsive behavior.…”
“…In particular, psychiatric discontinuation symptoms (depressed mood, agitation, or irritability) may be mistaken for a relapse of depressive symptoms (Haddad, 1997)…”
Lisa Van S
Hey Guys,
In this Doc GSK compares Paxil witdrawal to prozac withdrawal. LIlly has got to be cringing at the fact this doc is out there!!!
http://www.paxilharmschildren.com/doc/paxil_wheresmy.pdf
Matthew Holford
Lisa Van S wrote:
“In a GSK study,.the withdrawal rate was as high as 62%.”
Was it really? I hadn’t seen that figure. I’ve read that Healy (or possibly Breggin, can’t remember offhand), had suggested that the figure might be as high as 80%, and that GSK acknowledged 30%, just recently (up from 25%). But 62%… [whistles]
Matt
Lisa Van S
Truthman
Your obnoxious rhetoric is proving that you are just as bad as they are..
truthman
Lisa Van S
Truthman
Your obnoxious rhetoric is proving that you are just as bad as they are..
Well, I didn’t come here to make friends..
I can defend myself whichever way i see fit to..
Thanks very much..
pg
Brian
I don’t know why put this part into quotes:
“You have the luxury of not knowing what we know: these medications, while imperfect, probably save lives. And our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want us on that wall. You need us on that wall. We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a public who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very health care we provide, then questions the manner in which we provide it! We’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way.”
But I would hope you’re quoting from someone else - because the utter arrogance and ignorance expressed in that part of your comment is beyond belief and in my personal opinion does not reflect on you or the industry well at all.
I don’t ‘dislike you’ - I don’t know ‘you’, just like the rest of us, you are an ‘unknown’ ID on the internet. But I will say that I personally very much dislike what you do here and the way you do it, if that clears it up a little.
truthman
And Lisa..
If you want to take issue with my responses to Nathan/Bob etc..
maybe you should be talking to Bob
Bob
Skeptical-Haha, truth is actually more of a whackjob than LVS…and that says A LOT.
Lisa Van S
Matt,
Yes it was 62%,.. ABC Primetime did an expose on it in Dec 2004.
Lisa Van S
Bob’s my buddy,..he just doesnt know it!!
Bob
Truth-Wow. I didn’t know Canadians were a “race” of people. Nice educational system you’ve got working for you.
LVS-Paxilharmschildren…sounds like a “fair” website. Sorry that you don’t believe in personal responsibility. Maybe that helps YOU cope and wake up in the morning, but it is grossly irresponsible.
No one has answered my question: If Paxil/SSRI’s are so “evil”, then why aren’t there much more of these situations?
Doug Bremner
Pretty lively discussion here. I prescribe SSRIs and yes you can get a range of behavioral problems including suicidal thoughts when going ‘cold turkey’ or with rapid dose changes. And the research studies pretty consistently show a doubling of suicidality (but not completed suicide)– and have shown that for years. And yes it took the UK drug regulatory authorities to point that out before the US FDA did anything about it. The weak efficacy of SSRIs has been pointed out for a while, i.e. ‘Emperors new drugs’
http://www.namiscc.org/Research/2002/DrugEfficacy.htm
but the hilarious response to this article was that the efficacy of Prozac was 10 times greater than for Lipitor
Thase M: Antidepressant effects: the suit may be small, but the fabric is real.
And btw SSRI is mostly placebo effect but we can’t give placebo. And if we gave a placebo without side effects, then what would people have to complain about?
Matthew Holford
Lisa Van S wrote:
“Yes it was 62%,.. ABC Primetime did an expose on it in Dec 2004.”
Hmmm. I think I’ll commit that to memory - I prefer stats that have come from the Worshipful Company [of Apothecaries] (my nickname for Big Pharma) - because they’re impossible for pharma supporters to discredit as “interested” interpretations of the available data.
Matt
Matthew Holford
Bob wrote:
“…No one has answered my question: If Paxil/SSRI’s are so “evil”, then why aren’t there much more of these situations?”
Actually, I think that was dealt with a while back. The side effects are acknowledged, and are on the PIL. SSRIs cause suicidality and homicidality, and the rest. Not everybody experiences these extreme reactions, but, I repeat, the manufacturers acknowledge that some do.
Mind you, as pg, I think it was, pointed out, it’s funny how these side effects are real, and acknowledged, until somebody experiences them, whereupon any erratic/violent behaviour becomes part of the patient’s “condition,” presumably for legal reasons.
Anyway, I don’t know why you’re challenging us to explain something that the manufacturers are clueless about.
Matt
truthman
“Bob
Truth-Wow. I didn’t know Canadians were a “race” of people. Nice educational system you’ve got working for you.”
Well, Bob, there’s a fine line between prejudice and racism and you seem to thread between both quite well..
And yes , canadians may not be a “race” as you put it, but they have an national identity, and that national identity is what you continually attack in a “racist” manner, and in my book that is the behaviour of a racist individual.
“LVS-Paxilharmschildren…sounds like a “fair” website. Sorry that you don’t believe in personal responsibility. Maybe that helps YOU cope and wake up in the morning, but it is grossly irresponsible” says Bob
Personal responsibility Bob?..
When pharmaceutical companies suppress negative data then informed choice becomes misinformed choice which kinda throws the notion of the patient even attempting to have any personal responsibility when they decide to take take a medication …
It is the grossly irresponsible of pharma to behave in such a manner, it puts lives at risk , is that responsible ?
“No one has answered my question: If Paxil/SSRI’s are so “evil”, then why aren’t there much more of these situations?” Says Bob
There are many many reports of aggression and hostility, just because they don’t all lead to mass murder doesn’t mean the reports are not real Bob..
Cases such as school shootings are the worst case scenario of SSRI induced aggression and akathisia ..But they can be and are a very real outcome unfortunately ..
Lisa Van S
Bob,
LVS-paxilharms children… sounds like a “fair” website. GSK stayed silent,..children were maimed and killed, you call that fair?
http://www.paxilharmschildren.com/doc/gsk.gif.pdf
Bob
Matt-Please tell me you really aren’t this dense.
If it were only the medication causing these issues, then a whole hell of a lot more people would be experiencing issues.
People are on these drugs for a reason. IT’S BECAUSE THEY HAVE ISSUES. If someone is depressed/anxious/psychotic, there is a much greater chance that they will hurt themselves/others, etc.
How do you not understand/comprehend this?
Bob
Truth-Why are we even arguing about Canada? It’s not even a real country anyway.
truthman
Doug Bremner
Pretty lively discussion here. I prescribe SSRIs and yes you can get a range of behavioral problems including suicidal thoughts when going ‘cold turkey’ or with rapid dose changes. And the research studies pretty consistently show a doubling of suicidality (but not completed suicide)– and have shown that for years. And yes it took the UK drug regulatory authorities to point that out before the US FDA did anything about it. The weak efficacy of SSRIs has been pointed out for a while, i.e. ‘Emperors new drugs’
THANK YOU DOUG!
It is nice to have a Doctor who prescribes these SSRI’s speak about the dangers which Bob and Nathan keep denying!
Maybe they will listen to you?
Or maybe their arrogance knows no bounds?
Matthew Holford
Bob wrote:
“Matt-Please tell me you really aren’t this dense…”
Beautiful. It’s on the PIL. I didn’t put it there.
Matt
truthman
Bob
Truth-Why are we even arguing about Canada? It’s not even a real country anyway.
Stop trying to deflect the issues of SSRI’s causing suicide and aggression with your “prejudice” comments.. (they are really not that funny Bob, keep em for the Klan meeting)
pg
Interesting book you’ve written there Doug (I just read the exerpt).
Bob
Truth-you’re a waste. I’m convinced you’re a 12 year old kid.
At least Lisa argues with (I can’t believe I’m going to say this) spirit, and can hold a lively discussion.
Too bad it’s not a requirement that we post our real names, education, and employment.
I have a strange feeling these “discussions” would dry up real quick.
Lisa Van S
Dr. Bremner,
Nice of you to join us. Although very violent and suicidal reactions occur in a small subsection of the populace ie adults, it still happens. Inform patients and their families, prevent tragedy, its that simple…
Children are not adults,.. these drugs are dangerous and ineffective for this population.
Lisa Van S
Bob,
I love you too…
Matthew Holford
Doug Bremner wrote:
“…And btw SSRI is mostly placebo effect but we can’t give placebo…”
Yes, the MHRA declined to comment on that, when I asked, other than to say that it wasn’t necessary to demonstrate how much more effective than placebo it was, just that it was more effective (think about that, for a moment)!
Anyway, a question for you: what is the placebo effect? Yes, I know it’s a recognized psychosomatic effect, etc, etc, but what induces it, and why can it be reproduced by talking therapies?
Matt
Bob
Lisa-Incidentally, I passed a real estate office with your name on it? Any relation?
truthman
Bob
“Truth-you’re a waste. I’m convinced you’re a 12 year old kid.
At least Lisa argues with (I can’t believe I’m going to say this) spirit, and can hold a lively discussion.
Too bad it’s not a requirement that we post our real names, education, and employment.
I have a strange feeling these “discussions” would dry up real quick”
Oh Bob, I really couldn’t care less what you think, you’re more juvenile than my 13 year old brother…You should go back over to cafe pharma where your inane and delusional ramblings would be much better appreciated…
Can we get back to the original discussion now then?…
Illinois Shooter was Treated with Psych Meds Prior to Shooting Rampage
http://www.naturalnews.com/022656.html
It comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been following school shootings all the way back to the Colombine High massacre in Colorado: Every young, male shooter that has gone on a killing spree in the United States also has a history of treatment with psychotropic drugs — typically SSRI antidepressants. These shootings have three things in common: 1) The shooters are young males. 2) The shooters exhibit a mind-numbed disconnect with reality. 3) The shooters have a history of taking psychiatric medications.
This latest shooting by 27-year-old Stephen Kazmierczak shares the same three factors. Stephen was considered a “normal, undistressed person,” according to press reports. He was considered “an outstanding student” and even received a Dean’s Award for outstanding work in sociology. So what happened to Stephen’s brain that caused him to snap and open fire on students in a college classroom?
Psych meds make good people do bad things
(for the rest of this insightful article see the link)
pg
There’s a wealth of information on this page:
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/citations.html#Chapter%2015
Bob
Truth-I feel honored that you compare me to your older brother.
Naturalnews, huh? Wow, can you find a more biased source? ::rolls eyes::
Lisa Van S
Hey Bob,
My name is Lisa Van Syckel, and I am a Domestic Engineer, who takes great pride in my Mother’s Intuition. Im happy!.. isnt that what matters.
Bob
Lisa-There is a real estate office with the name Van Syckel (and someone else…can’t remember).
It’s off of rt. 22 (I was going towards Outback in Green Brook).
Lisa Van S
Bob,
Van Syckel Realty,.. yes sir. We even have a street named after us in Hunterdon County,.. pretty cool huh.
Bob
Haha, maybe I don’t know who I’m messing with…:-)
pg
On that link re Doug Bremner’s book
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/citations.html#Chapter%2015
the relevant information on this issue I think is reached by scrolling down to the link called ‘Antidepressants’. Excellent.
Lisa Van S
Bob,
Its Van Syckel Realty and Insurance,.. and no, my Husband doesnt work there. He’s a Corporate Executive with a fortune 500 Company.
Lets do lunch.
truthman
Bob
Truth-I feel honored that you compare me to your older brother.
Naturalnews, huh? Wow, can you find a more biased source? ::rolls eyes::
Bob, the only thing i would honor you with is a smack on the head..
Natural news is a web site which promotes natural and dietary supplements, I wouldn’t call it bias, compared to the pharma funded links yourself and Nathan produce i would say naturalnews is as unbiased as you could get..Since when did fruit and vegtables produce homicidal tendencies ?..
Matthew Holford
truthman wrote:
“…Since when did fruit and vegtables produce homicidal tendencies ?..”
[shrug] When one injects them with paroxetine in liquid form?
Matt
pg
Very good idea Truthman
(”Can we get back to the original discussion now then?…
Illinois Shooter was Treated with Psych Meds Prior to Shooting Rampage”)
pg
Would the Illinois School Shooting have happened if schools and universities did something like the following?
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2257747,00.html
“Can we teach people to be happy?
Tuesday February 19, 2008
“…Why should we teach children how to live and how to be happy? Three reasons. First, if schools do not, children may never learn elsewhere. Second, depression, self-harming and anxiety among students are reaching epidemic proportions. So are drinking and drug-taking. Teaching schoolchildren how to live autonomous lives increases the chances of avoiding depression, mental illness and dependency when they are older…
“…They learn to recognise and manage their negative and positive emotions. They learn the value of accepting themselves as they are and appreciating others. They are taught to calm themselves by deep breathing and other techniques, and discover that three 20-minute bouts of exercise a week have the same effect on raising the spirit and avoiding depression as a standard dose of Prozac…”
pg
Same link:
“…In recent years, officials and educational experts have sought to solve the problems afflicting learning environments through behaviour management. Increasingly, the focus is on students’ “wellbeing”, “emotional literacy” and “self-esteem”. Since this reorientation, the ambitions of therapeutic education have gone from strength to strength. Yet there is no evidence that it works.
It is depressing news that the self-help manual has made it on to the university curriculum. In therapy-obsessed America, positive psychology is one of the most popular new classes at Harvard. And Britain is going the same way, with a whole institute devoted to wellbeing at Cambridge.
In schools, decades of silly programmes designed to raise children’s self-esteem have not improved wellbeing, and the new initiatives designed to make pupils happy will also fail. Worse still, emotional education encourages an inward-looking orientation that distracts children from engaging with the world.
Perversely, the ascendancy of psychobabble in the classroom has been paralleled by an apparent increase in mental health problems among children. The relationship between the two is not accidental. Children are highly suggestible, and the more they are required to participate in wellbeing classes, the more they will feel the need for professional support…”
pg
Would the life of Steve Kazmierczak and the students he killed have been saved had his problems been addressed by those involved early in life, rather than by being sent to a psychiatric home and so learning the now ’social’ trait of looking for the answer in a drug/s?
Matthew Holford
What constitutes “wellbeing”? I guess we all know it, when we experience it, but if you wanted to teach somebody to be happy, wouldn’t you have to understand the mechanics of it, first? By way of analogy, I’d have been fucked, if my professor had stood in front of the packed theatre, during my first lecture and said “contract: you’ll know what it is, when you see it - see you in eight months time, in the exam hall.”
Matt
pg
I agree Matthew.
I tend to agree with the ‘No’(to Can we teach children to be happy) reply by Frank Furedi in the article. Particularly when he states:
“…Students can learn about their emotions, develop a sense of self and, occasionally, experience happiness through engaging with literature, art and other intellectual challenges, but not by being instructed on how to feel, or how to manage emotions…”
and
“…That is also why we should be suspicious of experts who seek to colonise our internal life…”
But I also feel that some of the ‘yes’ argument could be implemented, not to ‘teach’ happiness, but to help it naturally occur - like more exercise in schools to ‘lift’ the blues for instance.
Jane
“Perversely, the ascendancy of psychobabble in the classroom has been paralleled by an apparent increase in mental health problems among children. The relationship between the two is not accidental. Children are highly suggestible, and the more they are required to participate in wellbeing classes, the more they will feel the need for professional support…”
I believe Pg this is the reasoning behind Pharma having people keep mood journals. So they are constantly reminded about how bad they feel.
pg
I agree with you too, Jane. And, judging by the number of people who feel they need chemical assistance to deal with problems, it works. Not for them because it seems they don’t actually get the relief they need as most continue from one drug to another in a vain search rather than ‘finding happiness’ in themselves, but it certainly works for Pharma.
Donna
WOW!!! did i miss hell freeze over?? LVS and Bob actually talking nice LOL
pg
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?menuID=1&subID=1330
February 19, 2008
“There are lessons to be learned from the Virginia Tech massacre, says alexander cockburn
How to stop the next campus killing
…What should be banned from campuses are not weapons but prescriptions for anti-depressants. Eric Harris, co-slayer (with Dylan Klebold) of 12 students and a teacher in the Columbine school shootings in 1999, was on Luvox, a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) of the same class as Prozac and Zoloft. Initially Harris had been prescribed Zoloft, but told his doctor he was having suicidal and homicidal fantasies. So the doc shifted him to Luvox.
Sixteen-year-old Jeff Weise, who killed 10 schoolmates at Red Lake High School on an Indian Reservation in 2005, was on Prozac. The manufacturer said four per cent of children in one of its tests of Luvox developed short-term mania. Other studies of the SSRI anti-depressants have claimed they have a 15 per cent chance of prompting suicidal or homicidal reactions.
Cho Seung-hui was on a prescription drug. The likelihood of it being an anti-depressant is high, since campus doctors dispense prescriptions for them like confetti…”
Well, yes it was. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/18/MNG7EPAN6G1.DTL
“…There were just the snippets of a lonely young life: prescription medicines, ominous words and two newly bought handguns, the first of which was purchased in February…”
“…Prescription medications said to be related to the treatment of psychological problems were found among his effects, officials said…”
The saddest thing of all this is that we, the adults in society, have inflicted this on children. As a society we have become dependant on a convenient quick fix and then brought children up believing that this is ‘natural’, the only way to deal with life. How could they know any different?
Nathan
Matt says:
“You’re on the verge of another round of ad homs, btw. Kindly don’t do that: it’s not something I tolerate.”
Fair enough. I appologize.
However, you didn’t answer my question. You (and Truthman) say that we can’t trust the FDA, drug manufacturers, doctors, academic scientists, peer-reviewed journals, or psychiatrists. Who SHOULD we trust? If we can’t trust any of the above entities then we’ve lost the entire basis of modern medicine. It’s not just SSRIs that should be thrown out the window, we also need to throw out pain killers, chemotherapuetics, vaccines, antibiotics, and virtually every other medical inovation of the 20th century. Unless you do the science yourself, you have to trust SOMEONE.
pg
I’m saying good night here. Nathan, I hope they answer your question. There is an answer and its something to do with questioning authority, demanding - as a society - honest, transparent science and accountability where this is lacking.
Goodnight :-)
Nathan
Matthew: One other thing. You say:
“There was one by Kirsch, et al, in the BMJ, too. Would you like me to find others? Don’t forget, according to the recent NEJM paper, only half the trials are “positive”, and only the positive trials get reported, when it comes to SSRIs.”
I saw that report. I believe it. However, you are saying that NONE of the reports are positive and that SSRI’s have NO effect beyond a placebo effect. Your opinions go way beyond what is stated in that report. I agree with you, Lisa, and Truthman that drug manufacturers sometimes exaggerate the benefits of SSRIs (and other drugs) while minimizing the risks. However, I disagree with your assertion that the drugs provide NO benefits. They do.
skeptic
Truthman should limit his conspiracy theories to either The Royal family’s plot to kill Princess Di or HIV/AIDs is a government plot to commit genocide. He might find a shred of credibility.
Lisa Van S
Nathan
“Manufacturer’s sometimes exagerate the benefits of SSRI’s”
As a parent, that excuse is never acceptable. Industry can berate me all they want. But, No one,.. And, I mean No one,.. has the right to Jeopardize the life and safety of a child. I dont care who you are.. Too Hell with Industry!!.. Protect that child….
Lisa Van S
Skeptik,
Stick to the subject…
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
“I disagree with your assertion that drugs provide “no” benefit”
Nathan, prove me wrong!! Provide me with documentation,.. “Placebo controlled”… that antidepressants are safe and effective for the child and adolescent population.
Nathan
Lisa, I was referring to ADULTS. All the studies I previously referenced (post #100 or so) were adult studies showing a significant response over placebo. I’ll post those links again if you’d like.
You’ve probably seen these, but here are two pediatric placebo controlled studies that show efficacy. You may be correct that the risk of treatment outweighs the benefits in many or most cases. (especially in adolescents) But that isn’t my point. My point is to rebut Matthew’s assertion that the drugs are completely ineffective as compared to placebo. Until he acknowledges that the drugs are moderately effective (irregardless of their side effects for the moment) then there is no point in discussion. From what I understand, even you believe that there are occasional appropriate uses of SSRIs in adults. Matthew seems to have no faith in doctors or scientists of any sort.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/491998?src=mp
http://www.concernedcounseling.com/Communities/depression/children_8.asp
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…Unless you do the science yourself, you have to trust SOMEONE…”
Well, I think pg stole my thunder, on this one. I’m happy to trust people, until something goes wrong, and then I reserve the right to question what happened, to complain, and to receive detailed responses. The feedback that I’ve had to my enquiries is, as far as I’m concerned, best described as “obfuscatory evasion”. In short, it seems that I am not permitted to complain, even when I perceive that I have been taken to the brink of death by a snake oil remedy.
As to the other, I don’t believe that I said that NO trials demonstrated efficacy. However, only 50% of the trials are deemed positive by the sponsors, and published. If one feels inclined to balance those against the 50% that are negative, one has a big, fat zero.
OK, I know that that’s not a particularly scientific analysis, but I think you understand where I’m coming from. That is, while all the negative stuff is being hidden away from us, and we’re only being presented with the stuff that makes the product look good, we are making our decisions from an ill-informed perspective. AND, even though we aren’t made privy to the negative stuff as soon as it becomes available, that doesn’t alter the fact that it exists, and it doesn’t alter the fact that there are perceived (by the manufacturer), problems with the drug, which become apparent, in due course.
Matt
Matthew Holford
Brian wrote:
“Matt
Does it bother you that we haven’t as yet completely understood what surprises the brain has to offer. Does that make us criminals for trying or just reveal your immature view of where medicine should be by now.. many forms of depression… serotonin treatment helps a great deal but more need to be done..if you let us..”
Sorry, I missed this one, earlier.
I don’t think the pharmaceutical industry (or “science,” generally), is capable of understanding the brain while it believes that the answer lies in profiteering on the back of mental illness. I think the problem is that countermanding evidence is largely ignored. The placebo effect is real. Why not study that, rather than sell one’s drugs on the back of it?
Matt
Nathan
Matthew says:
“I don’t think the pharmaceutical industry (or “science,” generally), is capable of understanding the brain while it believes that the answer lies in profiteering on the back of mental illness.”
Again, back to my point: this is true of ALL medicine — not just antidepressants. For good or for bad, modern medicine is a “for-profit” industry, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We (as an industry) profit from bacterial infections, viral outbreaks, the AIDS epidemic, smoking complications, cancer, and, yes, also mental illness. If this fact upsets you, then you need to live in a socialist country and not use western medicines.
Matthew says:
“I think the problem is that countermanding evidence is largely ignored. The placebo effect is real. Why not study that, rather than sell one’s drugs on the back of it?”
The placebo effect IS real. It’s also real in a variety of other disease states that involve the central nervous system. (chronic pain and nausea come to mind) People ARE studying it. This just goes to demonstrate how little we know (in the grand scheme of things) about the central nervous system function.
The placebo effect exists largely because people BELIEVE that they are taking an effective drug. We (as a society) can’t market a placebo — it would be unethical to market a sugar pill and make claims that it is effective in treating depression and chronic pain. It would undermine any remaining credibility that doctors and pharmaceutical companies have. Do you disagree?
Matthew Holford
“…It would undermine any remaining credibility that doctors and pharmaceutical companies have. Do you disagree?”
Well, from what I’ve read, the industry IS marketing placebos for mental illness. And, no, I don’t disagree that that’s unethical.
Anyway, I don’t object to people profiting as they pursue an objective, but I do object to people reaching a point whereby they’ve engineered a position that pretty much gives them a licence to print money, before doing everything they can to not advance beyond that position, towards a real solution. It seems to me that that is exactly what has happened, here. Everybody knows that the Worshipful Company doesn’t have a real solution.
But it has a profitable solution, and it has a captive audience. For all I know, it’s worked out what depression is, but won’t address itself to that, because that would undermine its profiteering.
Matt
Nathan
Matthew says:
“For all I know, it’s worked out what depression is, but won’t address itself to that, because that would undermine its profiteering.”
Don’t even go there. It’s reprehensible that people suggest that the pharmaceutical industry has “cures” for diseases and refuses to market them because chronic treatments are more profitable. Do you have any idea how large of an organization that a pharma company is? Do you have any idea how many people would have to be in on a secret that big? My friends and family have mental illnesses, die of cancer, Alzheimer’s, and a variety of other ailments. That’s true of every other employee at these companies. Don’t you think they (the employees) have a strong emotional motive to release a cure for such diseases if they exist? Moreover, if there was a cure for mental illness (or other diseases) there would be a strong PROFIT motive to release the cure. If my company had a cure for depression, then suddenly the entire SSRI market would shift from 4 or 5 companies to my 1 company. That’s a STRONG motivation.
Bottom line: There is a strong profit motive to find genuine treatments for disease.
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“Don’t even go there. It’s reprehensible that people suggest that the pharmaceutical industry has “cures” for diseases and refuses to market them because chronic treatments are more profitable…”
I didn’t write that the Worshipful Company had cures that it was withholding - I wrote that it was apparently not advancing its understanding of the (in this case, mental) illness, in order that it could develop a real solution. If I were being cynical (and I am), I would say that this is because it has absolutely no motivation to find a real solution, because I don’t believe that a real solution may be achieved with chemicals.
Nathan, mental illness basically boils down to “behaviour we don’t like the look of”. If you can accept that proposition, we can have a discussion about it, because behaviours can be modified. One cannot engineer neuroplasticity with pharmaceuticals. But talk therapies can, as long as the patient wishes to participate. But the Worshipful Company makes no money out of that, and, as such, there is no motivation for it to pursue that line of enquiry.
Matt
pg
The sad slide downhill for children when adults they depend on to guide them through the normal problems and confusion of teens, choose to hand over that guidance to drug makers. Rebellion in teens is NOT a mental illness. Its a common trait in young of the human species.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23232305-5012748,00.html
“…Kazmierczak was, by all accounts, a normal child who grew up in the Chicago suburbs with his parents - his mother died of cancer almost two years ago - and older sister. When he became rebellious in high school, his parents had him medicated.
His best friend, Peter Rachowsky, began noticing a difference in Kazmierczak, whose weight was fluctuating as much as his mood.
“He started to identify more with hatred-type stuff,” Rachowsky told reporters.
“It seemed like the medicine made the whole situation worse.”
Kazmierczak also started cutting himself, which led to prolonged stays at a psychiatric clinic after he completed high school. But he seemed to recover, becoming a well-regarded university student who won the Dean’s award…”
Matthew Holford
pg wrote:
“The sad slide downhill for children when adults they depend on to guide them through the normal problems and confusion of teens, choose to hand over that guidance to drug makers. Rebellion in teens is NOT a mental illness…”
I think I tend to agree. I don’t like to engage in conjecture, though. As Milton Ericksson once said, when asked what his theory on hypnotherapy was: “I develop a new theory for each patient,” or words to that effect.
In (very) generic terms, something was troubling Kazmierczak. A “problem”. It was something that he couldn’t work out for himself, and presumably nobody he had access to was able to answer. Either that, or nobody would take the time to explain. Or they took pleasure from withholding the information. Or he was afraid to ask. It’s difficult to guage.
Anyway, it’s a terrible thing to be confined within a system that both refuses to permit its modification, and refuses to allow one to either leave, or repair oneself.
Matt
Nathan
Matthew says:
“I don’t believe that a real solution may be achieved with chemicals.”
After 200+ posts, we are finally at the root of our disagreement. You believe that chemicals cannot solve the root problem of mental illness. That’s fine to believe that. But that is a statement of faith — not of science. You have no evidence to back up the claim that chemicals will never be able to address the root causes of mental illness. 100 years ago few people believed that infections could be cured chemicals. 20 years ago people believed that the AIDS virus was unstoppable. We are just at the brink of (finally) addressing Alzheimer’s and cancer. Even we in the industry have no idea what the future holds for chemical modification of disease states. Your assertion that chemicals will never address the root cause of depression may be true. But we in the pharmaceutical will keep on trying as long as there is a glimmer of hope.
“But the Worshipful Company makes no money out of that, [talk therapies] and, as such, there is no motivation for it to pursue that line of enquiry.”
That’s absolutely true. But so what? Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of identifying CHEMICAL treatments for diseases. Not all diseases are (or will be) treatable by chemicals. But we do our best within our field of expertise. If you want non-chemical treatments for diseases, you are free to visit psychotherapists, psychologists, hypnotists, counselors, accuputurists, faith healers, witch doctors, or mediums. Those professions sometimes have legitimate treatment for diseases. However, those treatments are entirely outside the realm of what we study in the pharmaceutical industry. Afterall, this website is called “Pharmalot”.
pg
I’m not sure it is conjecture Matthew. He was a normal boy who became rebellious at school (something that happens to many teens across the world) and was put on ‘medication’. Just as Teenscreen, many schools, and the pharmaceutical companies like it.
When he then started to cut himself, it would seem only his best friend noticed that, whereas he was once rebellious, he had changed for the worse and started self harming - and only his friend who ‘half recognised’ why that was.
Drug makers have been targetting children for a long time now in the US. Ritalin, the ’sit down and shut up’ drug for instance - theres a whole new generation of profit in schools, all lined up to become ‘patients’ and most for life as they take one drug, then up the dose or change to another as further mental health ’symptoms’ (side effects) are diagnosed and there’s a further need for an additional drug.
The millions of children from a decade ago on drugs are now millions of young adults on drugs, and the next generation is unknowingly lining up on the conveyor belt.
I certainly don’t believe that several million children on drugs, or those from the last decade, have or had ‘unusual’ problems that nobody has ever experience throughout history which can be classed as ‘mental illness’.
Where there is no mental illness, then millions of children are drugged for no reason and there is no reason to believe that Steve Kazmierczak was any exception to that rule.
Not sure thats very clearly explained? I’ll try again if you can’t understand what I’m trying to get at :-)
truthman
skeptic
Truthman should limit his conspiracy theories to either The Royal family’s plot to kill Princess Di or HIV/AIDs is a government plot to commit genocide. He might find a shred of credibility.
Skeptic.. EAT ME..
You just chime in with insults but you don’t ever make a point, is it because you have no opinion. Get a life…
pg
As for drug companies ‘always searching’ for a cure, I wonder why Ritalin is still be prescribed. It seems to me that drug companies spend a great deal of their time and effort attempting to validate the efficacy or safety of a drug where evidence has shown otherwise, instead of calling it a day and moving on?
Ritalin seems an good example of wasted of scientific time and energy trying to prove a drug is efficacious when they have known that it isn’t for the last 30 plus years.
http://www.audiblox2000.com/learning_disabilities/ritalin-effects.htm
“In a study entitled “Hyperactive Children as Teenagers: A Follow-up Study” (1971), eighty-three children were followed from two to five years after being diagnosed as hyperactive or as having attention deficit disorder. Ninety-two percent of the children were treated with Ritalin. Results were as follows:
60% of the children were still overactive and had poor schoolwork (the original reasons for being put on Ritalin), but in addition were now viewed as rebellious;
59% had had some contact with the police;
23% had been taken to the police station one or more times;
58% had failed one or more grades;
57% had reading difficulties;
44% had arithmetic difficulties;
78% found it hard to sit still and study;
59% were viewed as a discipline problem at school;
83% had trouble with frequent lying;
52% were destructive;
34% had threatened to kill their parents;
15% had talked of or attempted suicide.
Another research study, the Satterfield study (1987), states,
We found juvenile delinquency rates to be 20-25 times greater in our hyperactive drug-treated only group than in the normal control group. In the “Delinquency outcome for the drug-treated group,” the results were: of 61 boys, 46% were arrested for one or more felony offenses before age 18; 30% were arrested for two or more felony offenses; 25% were institutionalized.… Studies of the long-term effectiveness of drugs have been consistently discouraging.
There is also scant evidence of improved academic performance with stimulant treatment. According to Rooney, research has still not shown the use of medication to be significantly effective in the treatment of processing deficits or academic achievement. In The Learning Mystique, Gerald Coles confirms the findings of a 1978 review of both short- and long-term studies on the use of stimulants with children who were hyperactive and learning disabled. Of a total of seventeen studies included in this review, short- or long-term, whether they met basic scientific criteria or not, all the conclusions agreed: “stimulant drugs have little, if any, impact on…long-term academic improvement.” Their major effect seemed to be an “improvement in classroom manageability.”
In the Journal of Behavioral Optometry (1991), a study evaluated twenty-two previous studies/articles since 1976 concerning Ritalin use for hyperactive children. It states:
The fact that the above studies do not show the efficacy of Ritalin for helping hyperactive children should be apparent to the skeptic and make a skeptic out of the believer. But the argument should not stop at this point. The weak evidence for the value of Ritalin must now be viewed in the light of its reported side effects.”
truthman
You have no evidence to back up the claim that chemicals will never be able to address the root causes of mental illness.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?effexor
(Effexor petition)
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?oky71
(Paxil petition)
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?lilpro
(prozac petition)
10 000 Signatures NATHAN And Tens of thousands more voices are saying exactly what we are saying!!! Chemicals Do not Help Mental Or Emotional Problems. In the majority of cases people either get worse, don’t get any better or they stagnate and develop worse psychiatric conditions!!!
Don’t you get it? You cannot medicate the HUMAN CONDITION!!! End Of Story.
I know many people who have taken SSRI’s for a while, found that they were getting ill after some time and took themselves off them, just because millions of prescriptions have been sold does not mean they are effective drugs! Millions of tons of nicotine and tobacco is sold too, does that make it healthy!!!! NO…
pg
Good point Truthman, re comparison with tobacco.
pg
Re the prozac petition, great efforts have been made to ruin it, consistently spamming it. Best place to read it is from about the 16,000 page, after that spammers moved in.
pg
When you add the approximate number of signatures up for the 3 drugs, thats 16,000 x 2 for effexor and prozac and 10,000 for paxil then thats over 42,000 people having difficulties on just three drugs.
They’re only signed by people who are aware the problems are due to the drugs, those who have internet access and those who are aware the petitions exist. In the case of Prozac, those who do know and see the latest 4 and a half thousand spam entries are unlikely to sign - thinking it to be a defunct petition, no doubt just as Eli Lilly like it.
truthman
Thanks pg…
“They’re only signed by people who are aware the problems are due to the drugs, those who have internet access and those who are aware the petitions exist. In the case of Prozac, those who do know and see the latest 4 and a half thousand spam entries are unlikely to sign - thinking it to be a defunct petition, no doubt just as Eli Lilly like it.”
Exactly, and if this is even 5 % of the people who have had horrific experiences on these drugs then we can safely say that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands more who have had the same issues they are just not posted on the internet
truthman
pg “Ritalin seems an good example of wasted of scientific time and energy trying to prove a drug is efficacious when they have known that it isn’t for the last 30 plus years. ”
You hit the nail on the head pg, Ritalin is one of the biggest frauds of recent times. The majority of kids who grow up on Ritalin end up coke addicts or speed addicts because they have been drugged with a stimulant for most of their childhood . Any pharma executive, drug rep or scientist who has been in any way involved with the fraudulent marketing of this con job should be deeply ashamed of themselves, Ritalin is chemical child abuse..
truthman
From THE NEW YORK TIMES
Reports of Gunman’s Use of Antidepressant Renew Debate Over Side Effects
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/19depress.html?ref=us
Steven P. Kazmierczak stopped taking Prozac before he shot to death five Northern Illinois University students and himself, his girlfriend said Sunday in a remark likely to fuel the debate over the risks and benefits of drug treatment for emotional problems.
Over the years, the antidepressant Prozac and its cousins, including Paxil and Zoloft, have been linked to suicide and violence in hundreds of patients. Tens of millions of people have taken them, and doctors say it is almost impossible to tell whether the spasms of violence stem in part from drug reactions or the underlying illnesses.
“It’s a real chicken-and-egg sort of situation,” said Dr. Jane E. Garland, director of the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Clinic at BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dr. Garland said some people could and did become agitated and unpredictable in response to the drugs, usually just after starting to take them or soon after stopping.
“But it’s hard to make a case for a withdrawal reaction here, because Prozac comes out of the system gradually,” she said.
The girlfriend, Jessica Baty, said in an interview on CNN that Mr. Kazmierczak took Prozac to battle anxiety and compulsive behavior but that it “made him feel like a zombie and lazy.”
She said that in the days leading up to the shooting he was not behaving erratically, as university officials had suggested.
Much of the debate over the side effects of antidepressants focuses on erratic behavior like the cautious college student who stabs herself or the good husband and father who buys a gun and shoots himself.
The drug labels warn about agitation and severe restlessness, and display a prominent caution that the medications increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in some children and young adults.
Psychiatrists said Monday that stopping an antidepressant could cause effects like lightheadedness, nausea and agitation as the brain adjusted. Among the most commonly prescribed drugs, Prozac is the least likely to cause withdrawal effects because it stays in the system longest, the doctors said.
“A small dose of Prozac is what you might use to block withdrawal symptoms when you take a patient off one of the other drugs,” said Dr. Donald Klein, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Columbia who has consulted with drug companies.
Sara Bostock, of Atherton, Calif., whose daughter committed suicide shortly after taking Paxil, acknowledged that the interaction between drug effects and underlying emotional distress was hard to untangle.
Ms. Bostock wrote in an e-mail message, “As an observer and suicide survivor, my main wish is that medical professionals, regulatory authorities and other scientists will examine closely the entire medical and treatment history of the perpetrators of these violent incidents in which innocent people are victims.”
She is a founder of ssristories.com, a Web site that has tallied 2,000 news reports of violent acts in which people were thought to be taking antidepressants or had recently stopped them.
“If it weren’t for us, many of these stories would be lost to oblivion forever,” Ms. Bostock said.
Psychiatrists say the debate on such side effects, particularly suicide in the last four years, has driven many patients from drugs that could help save their lives. The psychiatrists emphasize that patients should be closely monitored for changes in behavior when starting or tapering off a medication.
Advocates on both sides agree that catalogs of violent acts are not enough and that news reports are incomplete. Only more thorough investigation and careful tracking of drug side effects, they say, will clarify the links between drug treatment and violent behavior.
truthman
The psychiatrists emphasize that patients should be closely monitored for changes in behavior when starting or tapering off a medication.
Bloody psychiatrists , worse than the SS if you ask me…
Nathan
Truthman,
Thanks a very intersting article. Too bad it doesn’t support what you believe. Here’s some quotes from the article you just posted:
“But it’s hard to make a case for a withdrawal reaction here, because Prozac comes out of the system gradually,” Dr. Garland said.
“Tens of millions of people have taken them, and doctors say it is almost impossible to tell whether the spasms of violence stem in part from drug reactions or the underlying illnesses. ”
“Psychiatrists said Monday that stopping an antidepressant could cause effects like lightheadedness, nausea and agitation as the brain adjusted. Among the most commonly prescribed drugs, Prozac is the least likely to cause withdrawal effects”
“Sara Bostock, of Atherton, Calif., whose daughter committed suicide shortly after taking Paxil, acknowledged that the interaction between drug effects and underlying emotional distress was hard to untangle.”
“Psychiatrists say the debate on such side effects, particularly suicide in the last four years, has driven many patients from drugs that could help save their lives.”
“Advocates on both sides agree that catalogs of violent acts are not enough and that news reports are incomplete. Only more thorough investigation and careful tracking of drug side effects, they say, will clarify the links between drug treatment and violent behavior.”
Dr. Michael Stone, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia, maintains a database of 1,000 violent crimes, including mass murders, going back decades….“I only have a handful of cases,” he added, “where the person was on an antidepressant.”
——————
Truthman, what point are you trying to make? It seems the article makes exactly the point I’ve been making all along: This is a difficult issue without an easy answer.
Between you an pg, I’ve never seen such a “love-fest” for a mass-murderer before in my life… Did you guys forget that he calmly walked into a classroom and shot 20 people, killing 5 of them?
pg
Thanks Truthman - and for not picking up on some of my GLARING typos (doh) in that one! In this ARTICLE it says
“…Jessica says her boyfriend had stopped taking the anti-depressant Prozac three weeks before the rampage…”
Given the half life of Prozac and its metabolite:
1-3 days (acute); 4-6 days (chronic); Active metabolite Norfluoxetine 4-16 days (acute and chronic)
Three weeks sounds probably right - 2 weeks of it all leaving the body, the approximate week that many people report of vague symptoms, such as gastric ones, and then full cold turkey withdrawal hitting with a vengeance - what do you think?
pg
Nathan, I certainly haven’t forgotten - and I believe the people responsible should be held accountable, for instance: the individuals that engaged in scientific misconduct by miscoding adverse effects.
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
“…Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial”.
“Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability.”
” Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened.”
“…records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance.”
“Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;”
“But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout…”
pg
Nathan, what’s your opinion?
Do think fraudulent science by miscoding life threatening drug effects found in clinical trials should be addressed appropriately?
Or do you believe that its just tough luck when people fall victim to that fraud and that its their own fault that they didn’t know what they were never told?
Who would be to blame if someone laced your cup with something they knew might kill you, but didn’t tell you?
pg
What would you think if you survived and went to Court and the Judge said to the person who had laced your cup
“That’s OK, we’ll just seal the evidence under trade secrets, you’re free to go” and then turned to you and said
“It was your fault. Although you didn’t know it was laced, you were thirsty and drank it” ?
truthman
Nathan
Truthman,
Thanks a very intersting article. Too bad it doesn’t support what you believe. H
Oh shut up Nathan , I posted it because it is relevant to this discussion, unfortunately you make every discussion into a tit for tat schoolyard farce…
“Truthman, what point are you trying to make? It seems the article makes exactly the point I’ve been making all along: This is a difficult issue without an easy answer.
Between you an pg, I’ve never seen such a “love-fest” for a mass-murderer before in my life… Did you guys forget that he calmly walked into a classroom and shot 20 people, killing 5 of them?”
I never said the issue was cut and dry, but I have made the point that there is a strong connection between SSRI’s and violence which you continue to deny,
Maybe you would be better off lunching with some doctor or psychiatrist? , it is impossible to have an adult discussion with you Bob or Brian.. You bring every debate down to a level of absolute childish banality and stupidity..
And to be honest Nathan, I am beginning to seriously think that the role of all three of you is to do just that… I;m beginning to doubt any of your credentials, and i am starting to wonder if maybe you are all just paid Pharma PR people whose job it is to deflect bad news..
Nathan
Truthman says:
“And to be honest Nathan, I am beginning to seriously think that the role of all three of you is to do just that… I;m beginning to doubt any of your credentials, and i am starting to wonder if maybe you are all just paid Pharma PR people whose job it is to deflect bad news..”
That’s interesting because I was beginning to wonder if Ed at Pharmalot is paying you to say such outlandish things just to increase readership and thereby increase advertising revenue….
If you will look back at my posts, I have engaged in perfectly rational discussions with Matthew and pg. I disagree strongly with both of them, but they make rational arguments and supply supporting evidence. You generally do neither. This is the first post of yours that I’ve noticed you say that this is a difficult issue. Previously you said it was cut-and-dry. In fact, I’ll quote one of your early posts from this thread:
“I was just reading about this and i think that the evidence is now overwhelming. SSRI’s and psychiatric drugs are linked to school shootings.” and “with or without the news of this new tragedy the evidence is still overwhelming , SSRI’s/Psych drugs are connected to the violent behaviour of school shooters, Its a fact, its reported all over the web.. Wake up to the reality”
Those statements are in no way backed up by the NY Times article you posted. Moreover, where in that article is the mention of all these coverups that you guys are talking about? I didn’t see any alleged misconduct mentioned in that article… mmm… Maybe the reporter way paid off by big pharma.
truthman
As i said before.. Go back to the playground .. You’re unworthy of debate..
Nathan
pg says:
“Nathan, what’s your opinion?
Do think fraudulent science by miscoding life threatening drug effects found in clinical trials should be addressed appropriately? ”
Yes I do. It is being addressed in multiple lawsuits, many of which we have lost — as you well know. I hope that the individuals that purposely covered up data are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
pg says: “Or do you believe that its just tough luck when people fall victim to that fraud and that its their own fault that they didn’t know what they were never told?”
Again, that’s absurd. If an individual or corporation breaks the law, I hope that they are prosecuted and convicted. Where I disagree with you is the EXTENT to which that kind of behavior goes on in the industry.
However, one thing to remember is that people make mistakes that aren’t always intentional. When a doctor makes a mistake, he or she is generally covered by liability insurance. We need something similar in industry. When there is an honest mistake, we shouldn’t be liable. When there is purposeful coverup which could logically lead injury and death, then the individuals involved should be prosecuted and imprisoned.
pg
IS THIS misconduct Nathan? I think you might have missed it:
miscoding adverse effects.
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
“…Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial”.
“Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability.”
” Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened.”
“…records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance.”
“Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;”
“But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout…”
What do you suggest should really happen to inviduals who engage in scientific misconduct by knowingly miscoding life endangering drug effects in clinical trials and by doing lives of anyone who suffers the “nausea” representing homicidality and suicidality?
Apologies for the repeat if you have answered while I’ve been writing this comment.
pg
Sorry Nathan, you did answer. In what way is it being addressed that actually makes anyone that unethical stop the fraud.
Individuals concerned, individuals who have altered scientific data etc (companies are made up of individuals - they are not bricks in the company wall) have any ever gone to prison? Personally I can’t think of any.
In comparison, how many people have gone to prison who have suffered homicidality due to that very same altered scientific trial data - altered, approved, hidden by individuals within a company? I can think of quite a lot.
The ‘justice’ meted out to companies have no comparison to justice for everyone else.
A company fine? How does that affect the guilty individuals within the company?
pg
By the way, hidden internal documents such as THIS ONE:
could not by any stretch of the imagination by taken as ‘mistakes’.
Nathan
pg,
Again, I didn’t say everything was just an honest mistake. There have been coverups and outright fraud that has been uncovered. Lying and deception have absolutely no place in science. Honesty and the complete reporting of results are the foundation of all science. Those individuals who do otherwise should (at minimum) be fired from thier position.
truthman
The problem is Nathan..
Corruption, conflict of interest and dubious science is rampant in the pharmaceutical industry. The sooner you accept that the sooner you will be able to have a balanced debate…
pg
How can anyone TRUST an industry that has PEOPLE’S LIVES in their hands when there is ample and continuous evidence of what, in any other field, would be recognised immediately as CRIMINAL IMPRISONABLE behaviour? PARTICULARLY when so many deaths result.
People suffering from side effects of “nausea” (homicidality) have killed rather a lot of people.
Shouldn’t individuals who have hidded the danger of drug-induced homicidality (and suicidality) by coding it as “nausea” themselves be charged with homicide, thats generally the way it works for ordinary people?
pg
I don’t mean to sound angry with you Nathan. But I am angry that because of unethical individuals even children are imprisoned after suffering from that drug-company-coded “nausea”.
I’m also angry that the drug companies themselves are clearly riddled with individuals who are happy to cause death (or in common language KILL) in the pursuit of profit, because otherwise those in the company position to do so would themselves address the unethical individuals within their ‘walls’.
pg
With all the evidence of corruption in Pharma, the line between certain drug companies and criminal drug barons is getting harder to distinguish.
pg
As it also is between the regulatory bodies and the drug companies.
Brian
PG, Tuthman
You guys forget that no human attempt to do anything is with out fraud, mistakes and greed. I am sure whatever it is you do for a living includes fraud, mistakes and greed. I know that you hold us to a higher standard and pay us a premium for our services. I will try to help you despite your misguided immoral views. I’m sure you would run me over if you had the chance.
I feel much the same way Vietnam Vets felt back in the 70’s when protestors screamed baby killer etc. You are the equivalent of Hanoi Jane. I view you as the forces of evil, and irrational luddites who we still have to protect because they don’t understand that the treatment of disease has to be attempted by flawed human beings who lie and cover things up just like, Priest, doctors, stock brokers, walmart clerks, race car drivers, short order cooks, presidents, vice presidents, teachers and especially lawyers.
pg
I’m glad to say, Brian, that nothing I do or in fact anyone I know personally has anything to do with killing for profit. No I would not run you over given a chance. I’m not into murder.
Doug Bremner
pg– thanks for reading my book exerpt. The pages you pointed out at
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/citations.html#Chapter%2015
on antidepressants are there to include the citations that went with the statements
I made in the book (there were over 500 and they wouldnt let me put them all in the book
so I put them on the web.
I am going to put a post on my review/views of antidepressants on my blog at
http://www.beforeyoutakepill.com/blog.html.
if I can ever finish reading this thread.
Lisa Van S.– I inform my patients about the risk of suicidal thinking with dose changes. I think the
urge to develop a single dose pill that is ‘convenient’ is part of the problem, i.e. 20 mg of prozac
is too much for many people to start out on (or go off of).
Matt–
[I wrote]
“…And btw SSRI is mostly placebo effect but we can’t give placebo…”
[Matt]
“Yes, the MHRA declined to comment on that, when I asked, other than to say that it wasn’t necessary to demonstrate how much more effective than placebo it was, just that it was more effective (think about that, for a moment)!”
Yes all drugs are required only to be better than placebo, not better than anything else. I myself only realized that prozac was never shown to be better than
imipramine only last year. The wonders of marketing. Started giving out imipramine scrips again just out of nostalgia for my med school days.
“Anyway, a question for you: what is the placebo effect? Yes, I know it’s a recognized psychosomatic effect, etc, etc, but what induces it, and why can it be reproduced by talking therapies?”
The brain is a mysterious thing. The placebo effect is real, brain imaging studies have shown that. I think alot goes into that. The committment to meeting
with someone every week to get better. Belief on your part and the doctor you can get better. Showering, changing your clothes, getting out of the house.
[Nathan said]
“You [Matt] (and Truthman) say that we can’t trust the FDA, drug manufacturers, doctors, academic scientists, peer-reviewed journals, or psychiatrists.”
I’d have to agree with that, at least not in a blanket fashion. Having read all of the major clinical trials for all drugs in writing my book I came to the conclusion that things are seriously
out of wack, mainly due to marketing gone wild.
“Who SHOULD we trust? If we can’t trust any of the above entities then we’ve lost the entire basis of modern medicine.”
I think health care consumers need to educate themselves. And work with their doctors.
pg
“Lies and cover ups” leading to thousands of deaths a year? This is nothing to do with Vietnam Brian.
So now fraud that kills is just down to harmless little white lies? Did you take that view from the infamous Sociopathic School of Thought ?
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
“…Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial”.
“Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability.”
” Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened.”
“…records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance.”
“Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;”
“But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout…”
truthman
pg “I’m also angry that the drug companies themselves are clearly riddled with individuals who are happy to cause death (or in common language KILL) in the pursuit of profit, because otherwise those in the company position to do so would themselves address the unethical individuals within their ‘walls”
We are singing from the same hymn here pg..
Could not agree more with what you say..
Nathan
pg said:
“I’m glad to say, Brian, that nothing I do or in fact anyone I know personally has anything to do with killing for profit.”
That’s because you aren’t in the health care industry. ANY person involved in the health care industry has the potential of causing serious harm by the greed & deciept that accompanies all human endevors.
pg
Hi Doug
Missed your comment while posting mine. It’ll be interesting to read your post on ‘review/views’ of antidepressants when you do it.
It’s probably going to take you several days to get through this very warm part of Ed’s lounge so we might need you to come back and tell us when you’ve done your post :-)
pg
Nathan, I know people who don’t allow that ‘greed and deceipt that accompanies all human endeavors’ to destroy their ethics - who DO work in the health industry.
And its about there that we start discovering the lack of academic freedom, academic bullying, etc. By those who DO let ‘greed and deceipt accompany all human endeavors’.
There are a lot of good people in the world. Its rather depressing to think that greed and deceipt is seen as a ‘given’ in an industry where deceipt can cost a lot of lives.
truthman
Brian
PG, Tuthman
You guys forget that no human attempt to do anything is with out fraud, mistakes and greed. I am sure whatever it is you do for a living includes fraud, mistakes and greed. I know that you hold us to a higher standard and pay us a premium for our services. I will try to help you despite your misguided immoral views. I’m sure you would run me over if you had the chance.
.. Not all industries have rampant greed Brian .. And if any industry should have the highest moral care , standards and ethics it should be the pharmaceutical industry , unfortunately that is far from the case .. In fact although the industry should be held like a beacon of ethics , morality and public trust , the publics perception of it is one of absolute cynicism at best and total distrust at worst..
It isn’t our fault(the public)
It is up to you whom work in the industry to clean up the image.
And maybe if you condemned the criminal acts instead of denying them people would be willing to open that door of trust once again..
But when you carry on denying everything when it is as clear as day to the public (who are not fooled anymore) then that further compounds the bad reputation of the industry..
Jane
Doug Bremner,.
“I think health care consumers need to educate themselves. And work with their doctors.”
This line of thought is long standing and sounds like wonderful advice, however as long as the medical community and particularly psychiatry relies on pharma for their education, the healthcare consumers’ education does not go far.
You stated in your comment “I myself only realized that prozac was never shown to be better than
imipramine only last year.” This is information the educated healthcare consumer has been stating for years. The pharma companies have been educating doctors with different information for years.
I’m sure once you review this entire thread you will see how the pharma rep’s have discounted the consumers views based on the fact the consumer does not have the degrees as the scientists and medical providers.
The fact is, until the medical community relies on independant research and the medical doctors go back to reading more than abstacts, what the healthcare consumer does, will not carry a lot of wieght when trying to work with their doctor.
It is time for the medical community to stand up and take responsiblity for their prosfession and stop relying on pharma for all the answers. Blaming the patients has gone on far to long.
Brian
pg, truthman,
I notice that we don’t know what it is you two do for a living so I don’t get the chance to judge you. I bet you drive while texting…
Back to the subject of this post..My take on Mr Kazmierczak is that he is alot like you two. Angry/ jealous that he was not sane and no treatment could help and so he lashed out. I will continue to try and help people like you and Mr Kazmierczak despite your vitriol. BTW ..My Senator came to see us and he told us we were doing God’s work..I believed him until he voted for drug importation from communist Canada. lots of hypocrites out there and I consider you two among the worst..
pg
Brian, thats not really worth an answer however I’ll answer you one last time.
Vitriol? I can’t help but wonder what makes you so bitter and so insensitive and why you hurl any hurtful remark you can think of at anyone you don’t care to agree with. I’ve said I wouldn’t run you down. I’ve said I don’t dislike YOU as I don’t know you. But you just keep on coming in your inimitable way.
Being as I won’t be answering you directly again, I’ll answer this one a little further.
FYI: I don’t drive, I was brought up to walk and cycle, or to catch public transport for longer journeys. I don’t text - I find it relatively slow and boring - and trying to do so on a bicycle would I imagine be particulary difficult.
I don’t know why you would you want to know what anyone here does for a living - and if they said they were this or that, how would you know whether it were true? This is the internet, we are all human beings and that is really all that matters. Trust me, I’m a rocket scientist lol. Have a good day :-)
Doug Bremner
here is my review/views of antidepressants, posted today at:
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/blog.html
truthman
Brian
pg, truthman,
I notice that we don’t know what it is you two do for a living so I don’t get the chance to judge you. I bet you drive while texting…
I am a musician Brian..
Judge all you want..
Brian
Truthman,
I think it’s interesting that Grammy winner Amy Winehouse is a drug addict. In fact most if not all famous musicians are drug users or former drug users. Why would that not preclude her from winning a grammy as her work is compromised by performance enhancing drug use? Why do music copyrights last for one’s entire lifetime but drug patents only last 20 yrs?
See you had graft you never thought about
Get real T-Man
truthman
Brian
Truthman,
I think it’s interesting that Grammy winner Amy Winehouse is a drug addict. In fact most if not all famous musicians are drug users or former drug users. Why would that not preclude her from winning a grammy as her work is compromised by performance enhancing drug use? Why do music copyrights last for one’s entire lifetime but drug patents only last 20 yrs?
See you had graft you never thought about
Get real T-Man
hahahahahahahahahaha…
Man you are one absolute tool …
I think you should read over the crap you post before you press that “submit” button, because really… you do yourself and your industry no favours with your terrible stinking bad attitude.. Grow Up Brian..
Brian
I’ll hold you to same high standard..You generally avoid tough questions..
truthman
Brian
I’ll hold you to same high standard..You generally avoid tough questions..
Brian, are you drinking? do you get high and then come on here and post stuff ? because seriously some of the stuff you come out with is crazy…
pg
Doug - thanks for the link. Have read it and bookmarked it. Would have left a comment, but your blog doesn’t have the facility. What do you think of Mad in America (Robert Whitaker) - have you read it?
pg
BUT, do you text while you’re playing the guitar or keyboard Truthman? :-)
I’m in full agreement with your comment:
“It is up to you whom work in the industry to clean up the image.
And maybe if you condemned the criminal acts instead of denying them people would be willing to open that door of trust once again..
But when you carry on denying everything when it is as clear as day to the public (who are not fooled anymore) then that further compounds the bad reputation of the industry..”
Jane has some very good points too.
Doug Bremner
pg–
No I haven’t read that, I’ll check it out. I put a list of health-related books I have read at http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/booklist.html
I don’t know how to make it so you can comment on my posts– if anyone can point me to a site that tells you how to do that by putting html code my site I would appreciate it. Then the whole party could come over to my place (ha ha).
Jane–
“until the medical community relies on independant research and the medical doctors go back to reading more than abstacts, what the healthcare consumer does, will not carry a lot of wieght when trying to work with their doctor.
“It is time for the medical community to stand up and take responsiblity for their prosfession and stop relying on pharma for all the answers. Blaming the patients has gone on far to long.”
I agree doctors should read more than abstracts. But here is another quote from Dr Curt Furberg of Wake Forest in congressional testimony: ‘“The [company] reps tell the doctors, ‘You should follow these guidelines,’ implying that you’re not a good doctor if you don’t follow these guidelines.”
truthman
pg
BUT, do you text while you’re playing the guitar or keyboard Truthman? :-)
I’m in full agreement with your comment:
Thank you pg :)
Hehe, I use a mac for recording, and the net is always on..
I’m relatively new to pharmalot..
But I have been researching and discussing SSRI’s for years now..
Have you checked out my blog on Seroxat?..
pg
Doug, I like the laugh and I can see why :-)
I wouldn’t know how to ‘make’ a comment board and your site isn’t a blog BUT maybe if it isn’t possible to do that, you could start a blog (www.blogger.com) and put a short summary of what post its comments for with links either way - or something? Or maybe not - don’t know if that would work well.
pg
Truthman, yes I’ve been there and on a site you were on before that - but not for long? I’m fairly new to pharmalot also and ditto on research. OK, you record on a Mac and I’m betting this is a “tough question” so - do you record while texting LOL?
I think I’ll be off soon, too many late nights here, oh the number of times I’ve said that lately and am still here for hours more.
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…Those professions sometimes have legitimate treatment for diseases. However, those treatments are entirely outside the realm of what we study in the pharmaceutical industry…”
Yes, perhaps it is a matter of faith, as Dr Bremner pointed out, when he responded to my query about the placebo effect. However, as he also pointed out: it’s real.
[shrug] As to proof, the pharmaceutical industry has had pretty much a free run at mental illness, these past fifty-odd years, and have achieved nothing better than placebo performance, as far as I can tell. Apparently there’s been no progress, during that time, not in terms of efficacy, nor safety. The only thing one may say is that ECT isn’t used as widely. I don’t know if the Worshipful Company can claim any responsibility for that. I may not be able to prove that mental illnesses, including depression, cannot be treated with drugs. But you can’t prove they can - extrapolating from what you wrote, above, your wish is that the Worshipful Company be allowed to continue in its current vein, largely in hope that it will hit upon something.
I regret that that doesn’t work, for me, particularly when there’s no science there (ie, there’s no transparency, and claims may not be challenged and examined). At the end of the day, psychotherapy has been demonstrated to be as effective as drugs, in treating mild depression, phobias, anxiety, etc, etc.
But that’s a finite arrangement - 12 weeks later, and quids200 lighter, the patient walks away. But get them on Seroxat for ten years… Now you’re talking. I’m sorry, Nathan: I’ve seen some of the strokes these people have pulled, and it’s not the conduct of decent human beings.
Matt
Matthew Holford
pg wrote:
“I’m not sure it is conjecture Matthew. He was a normal boy who became rebellious at school (something that happens to many teens across the world) and was put on ‘medication’…”
Sorry, just to clarify: I wasn’t suggesting that what you’d written was conjecture, I was preambling my own guesswork at why he did what he did.
Matt
pg
Matt, no problem. When everything is text, its hard to express or understand exactly what each other means, but I did/do know you’re in the right place, was a bit worried that you though I wasn’t or something :)
Nathan
Matthew says:
“As to proof, the pharmaceutical industry has had pretty much a free run at mental illness, these past fifty-odd years, and have achieved nothing better than placebo performance, as far as I can tell.”
There you go again, Matt. I listed a half dozen references showing that SSRIs *do* work better than placebo. You even said as much. And I quote you here:
“As to the other, I don’t believe that I said that NO trials demonstrated efficacy. However, only 50% of the trials are deemed positive by the sponsors, and published.”
I’ve said all along that my employer (the pharma industry) is most likely guilty of exaggerating the benefits of SSRIs. However, they DO have benefits that are greater than placebo. That’s been shown time and time again. Yes, there have been failures. Yes, some of those failures have been covered up. But it is absurd for you to make a blanket statement that SSRIs have no positive effect beyond placebo. They do.
Matthew says:
“I may not be able to prove that mental illnesses, including depression, cannot be treated with drugs. But you can’t prove they can.”
Yes, I can! And I have! Did you read any of the references I posted? Yes, the drugs fail many times. But as you have pointed out, a negative result does not prove anything one way or the other. Positive results do. SSRIs have been shown active (> than placebo) in a variety of disease states (beyond depression). The fact that half of the drug trials failed does NOT mean the drugs are ineffective. It means that they are not effective enough. We need better treatments. As we speak, we are working hard to design and test new treatments.
Nathan
By the way, I’ll point out again that when you talk about SAFETY, it’s a whole different ballgame. It pains me to say that pg and Lisa make excellent points sometimes about the SAFETY concerns of SSRIs. Your assertion about the EFFICACY of SSRIs is what bothers me. Drugs have to strike a very careful balance of safety and efficacy. SSRIs definitely have efficacy. (not for everyone, but in significant portions of the population) It’s the SAFETY side of the picture that may not be in balance considering that most of the time the indication being treated with SSRIs is not life-threatening.
Lisa Van S
Hi Nathan,
I Thank You for your earlier post,.. But the facts remain.
Children and adolescents are not adults. As a Scientist, I know,.. that you know,… that, that’s the truth. Pharma spin can and will endanger the life of a child. All I am asking, is that adults take responsibility, protect our children from ineffective and unsafe drugs.
Nathan
Matthew writes:
“At the end of the day, psychotherapy has been demonstrated to be as effective as drugs, in treating mild depression, phobias, anxiety, etc, etc.”
I wouldn’t argue with that statement at all. It’s probably perfectly true. However, Americans like to pop a pill to treat a disease. And that’s what we (the pharma industry) are paid to do. We are experts in designing CHEMICAL treatments of disease. As I pointed out, chemical treatment is only one way (of many) that diseases may be treated. This is especially true of mental conditions. At the end of the day, we are just doing our job. We’re not marketing miracles.
truthman
Nathan
By the way, I’ll point out again that when you talk about SAFETY, it’s a whole different ballgame. It pains me to say that pg and Lisa make excellent points sometimes about the SAFETY concerns of SSRIs. Your assertion about the EFFICACY of SSRIs is what bothers me. Drugs have to strike a very careful balance of safety and efficacy. SSRIs definitely have efficacy. (not for everyone, but in significant portions of the population) It’s the SAFETY side of the picture that may not be in balance considering that most of the time the indication being treated with SSRIs is not life-threatening.
I would like to see NATHAN take an SSRI for a couple of years and then see how he feels about their SAFETY and EFFICACY …
Bet you wouldn’t use YOURSELF as a GUINEA PIG for one of your poison pills now Nathan WOULD YOU? ..
No, instead you use the public as a Global Clinical trial..
Jane
Nathan,
What you posted were studies conducted by your industry and researchers so caught up in COI that carry little weight with the well educated health consumer.
I believe what you have been asked to provide is non-industry studies that show anti-depressants do work. It is you who has failed to back up what you want all of us to so desperately to believe.
truthman
“I believe what you have been asked to provide is non-industry studies that show anti-depressants work. It is you who has failed to back up what you want all of us to so desperately to believe” .. Jane
Indeed Jane..
And also what Nathan has failed to address is the seven articles he presented as favorable , the ones which i basically tore to shreds…
Doug Bremner
Ok, to summarize the discussion, SSRIs do work better than placebo (i.e. better than nothing). Even if you say that half the trials showed efficacy, and half didn’t, if you put the data all together you would probably show efficacy. The question is how much efficacy. A good way to tell is to tally up how many people need to go into a trial for a drug company to show that it works. The weaker the effect, the more people you need, something known as ‘power’. In the case of SSRIs it is in the hundreds. In the case of statins it is in the thousands. In other words SSRIs don’t work that great but they are a hell of a lot better than other so-called ‘life saving drugs’. The bottom line is do the benefits outweigh the risks. For SSRIs in adults I would say yes (barely), for kids no. However I don’t think the general public is aware of the fact that the benefit they get is a 2 point bump on a 62 point scale (over placebo). Or that the ’serotonin deficiency hypothesis’ is not even glimpsed at anymore by the psychiatric research community.
Jane
maybe someone would care to answer this question. Recently the FDA placed a black box warning on lipitor type medications saying the drugs may cause depression.
Why haven’t the SSRI’s gotten this same warning? Isn’t this our “treatment resitant” population. The ones who only get worse on these medications?
Nathan
Jane says:
“What you posted were studies conducted by your industry and researchers so caught up in COI that carry little weight with the well educated health consumer. I believe what you have been asked to provide is non-industry studies that show anti-depressants do work.”
Jane, those studies don’t exist and likely never will. Who will pay for them? Your federal government? Generally the private industry pays for clinical trials — that’s just the way it is. If you want an “independent review board” to conduct its own clinical trials, you’ll have to fund it with some serious tax dollars. (hundreds of millions of dollars per trial — that’s what late stage clinical trials cost)
Nathan
Truthman says:
“Bet you wouldn’t use YOURSELF as a GUINEA PIG for one of your poison pills now Nathan WOULD YOU? ..
No, instead you use the public as a Global Clinical trial”
I’m not depressed, and therefore I’m not a candidate for participating in such a clinical trial. If I were depressed, I would have no problem taking one of our SSRIs. If any of my family were depressed, I would have no problem suggesting an SSRI. (with consultation with a doctor, of course)
There will always be idiosynchratic reactions to drugs. Clinical trials will never completely solve safety issues. Some subset of population will ALWAYS have an unexpected adverse reaction to drugs. This is true of SSRIs, antibiotics, COX inhibitors, and chemotherapeutics. Once you understand the limitations of clinical trials, then you will understand that risk will never be eliminated completely from pharmaceuticals. If you don’t want the risk, then don’t take the drug — it’s that simple.
truthman
I’m not depressed, and therefore I’m not a candidate for participating in such a clinical trial. If I were depressed, I would have no problem taking one of our SSRIs. Says Nathan…
Well tell me this then Nathan ..
There are many people who are not “depressed” who are prescribed SSRI’s..
Is PTSD a form of depression?..
No..
Is Anxiety disorder a form of depression?..
No..
Is General Anxiety disorder a form of depression..
No..
Is feeling sad because you lost your job a form of depression?..
No..
But.. SSRI’s are prescribed for all these things..
Because your beloved drug companies pushed these pills on EVERYONE for EVERYTHING..
Just how do your “miracle” SSRI’s treat such a range of different human experiences? …
How do they make an anxious person less nervy and a depressed person less melancholic..
How do they make a rape victim get over the trauma of a rape?
How do they make a teenager cope with teen angst?
How do they make an anorexic love themselves? ..
How do they make someone who is grieving accept that death is a part of life?…
SSRI’s are and have been prescribed for every human neurosis and life crisis because your drug companies have marketed them as Lifestyle drugs which are safe and effective, and at the same time they have played down and suppressed the real side effects .. Thats FRAUD..
do SSRI’s have any benefit for the trauma of being human?
No…
THEY NUMB NATHAN..
Thats what they do..
They NUMB people, They do not address the core reasons of the human condition…
And to get back to Clinical trials and depressed individuals, we all know that the trials are very selective on participants, they screen and washout people and data which would bring the results to an unfavourable light…
We all know SSRI’s cause dependence and addiction because the withdrawals can be ten times worse than the pain of what they had been originally prescribed for…
We all know the “chemical imbalance”theory was a sales pitch and Bad science ..
We all know the pills are poison NATHAN .. The game is up ..
Doug Bremner
Truthman,
Sorry, have to disagree with you here. SSRIs (paroxetine) promote nerve growth in the brain in patients with PTSD, and promote memory, so I disagree that they have no place here. In fact the effects on the brain/memory are better than on symptoms of depression/PTSD.
truthman
Doug Bremner
Truthman,
Sorry, have to disagree with you here. SSRIs (paroxetine) promote nerve growth in the brain in patients with PTSD, and promote memory, so I disagree that they have no place here. In fact the effects on the brain/memory are better than on symptoms of depression/PTSD.
You got a link to back that up Doug?..
Personally i have met and know many people who feel they have experienced irreversible cognitive damage from SSRI’s ..
Do you recommend them as a long term treatment?.
And if so, how long is long term use and how short is short term use?.
Lisa Van S
Doug Bremner,
PAXIL PROMOTES NERVE GROWTH IN PTSD,..
YOU ARE A NUTCASE,….
STUDIES DISPUTE THIS THEORY!!! May I suggest that you back to School…
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“There you go again, Matt. I listed a half dozen references showing that SSRIs *do* work better than placebo. You even said as much…”
That’s right, I did. However, where one is able to cherry pick the trials that one offers up as evidence, one may have anything look like anything. If I am allowed to take the 50% of positive trials available to me, and pretend that they are the only trials, then a very clear picture of superior efficacy is going to be presented to the paying public. But 50% of the trials failed, we’re told, and they’ve been mothballed. That is not proof of efficacy.
I have no issue with the Worshipful Company having no miracle cures. But the Worshipful Company most certainly has pretended that they were a vast improvement over what was available (tricyclics), when they first came on the market. And risk-free, too. It seems fairly evident that neither of those claims is true.
I’m fond of quoting the 1998 Paxil US PIL, which claims that Paxil is “significantly more affective than placebo…” Well, that meta analysis that Kirsch did appears to demonstrate that that is an outright lie, because 2 Hamilton points is generally regarded as “clinically insignificant,” and there appears to be doubt over whether that performance is sustainable. Given the suppressed negative trials results, it would appear that it’s not sustainable.
I don’t know, to be honest, Nathan. It seems accepted that the model, whereby doctors write a prescription, and patients routinely get it re-filled, once a month, while the doctor takes a back-seat, is therapeutically efficient. It’s not. The lack of availability of alternative therapies is the reason that patients “like” to pop pills - as far as I know, DTC advertising of drugs dwarfs that of psychotherapy, so it’s not a fair comparison. How many members of the general public are even aware that psychotherapy is accepted as being as efficient as pharmaceuticals in the treatment of mild depression? Not many, I’ll warrant, and the Worshipful Company sure as hell has no motivation in setting the record straight.
Matt
Matthew Holford
Nathan, as an afterthought, I’ll present you with an analogy:
I’ve got 100 sheep: 50 black ones and 50 white. I hide the white ones, and put the black ones in a field. I show you the black ones, and ask you what colour my sheep are.
However, where the analogy falls down is this: aside from the dubious satisfaction that I might gain from presenting you with false information over the colour of my sheep, I gain nothing, and you lose nothing, in this scenario. If it cost you something (your life, say), to believe that I had only white sheep, then the analogy would make more sense.
Matt
Matthew Holford
Doug Bremnere wrote:
“…However I don’t think the general public is aware of the fact that the benefit they get is a 2 point bump on a 62 point scale (over placebo). Or that the ’serotonin deficiency hypothesis’ is not even glimpsed at anymore by the psychiatric research community.”
So, Paxil gives us a 10 point shift on Hamilton. Placebo gives us 8. This 2 point “bump,” may or may not sustainable, and is regarded as clinically negligible, I understand. Placebo is presumably incapable of giving rise to side effects, but SSRIs most certainly are, and very serious ones.
It seems, then, that solely on the ground that placebos may not be prescribed, because that would be “unethical,” we must accept something that is, in terms of efficacy, essentially a placebo (but only if we don’t factor in the negative trials - ie, just how negative were the negative trials?), but has a whole bunch of side effects attached? Or have I misunderstood you?
Paxil is “significantly more affective than placebo…” (GSK - c.1998). LMFAO.
Matt
pg
Doug
Does the physical structure of the nerves in the brain dramatically alter during emotional traumatic events that bring a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Shock Disorder and if so, then why doesn’t it do so as a result of any other emotional events that causes distress, but a different diagnosis?
This STUDY of the effect of an SSRI (paroxetine)on the development of neural circuitry showed:
“1) segregation of thalamocortical fibers was partially disrupted and thalamocortical fibers corresponding to anterior snouts and row A mystacial vibrissae were fused; (2) sizes of the unfused thalamocortical fiber patches related to the long caudal vibrissae in rows B, C, D and E were significantly decreased without changes in the brain weights and cortical areas representing these vibrissae;”
That doesn’t sound much like nerve growth.
If this happens during the brain’s development, then how could it ‘promote’ nerve growth in developed brains, and only in people where the emotional trauma has been classed as PTSD?
The ‘promotion of nerve growth’ theory doesn’t make any sense to me and really doesn’t sound at all scientific.
pg
This is why I was hoping you had a comments section on your site, I had some questions - the above is one of them.
pg
Doug: This is related. The question is, if toxic SSRI doses over 4 days cause nerve terminal death, then can lower doses over a longer time do the same?
Science Blog
“…The scientists, led by Madhu Kalia, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., professor of biochemistry, molecular pharmacology, anesthesiology, and neurosurgery at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, compared the effects of giving high doses for four days of four drugs — Prozac, Zoloft, sibutramine (Meridia) and dexfenfluramine (Redux) — on rat brain cells. Each rat received only one drug.
In the study, after the toxic doses of drugs were halted, and the animals’ brains subsequently examined, the researchers saw marked changes in some nerve terminals, which actively release the brain chemical serotonin…
…Dr. Kalia and her colleagues at Jefferson and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, WVa., report their results March 6 in the journal Brain Research.
The question remains, what do these findings mean. “We don’t know if results with four days of drug treatment are clinically significant,” Dr. Kalia says. “We don’t know if the cells are dying. That’s the key question. We need to do more studies to prove cell death. These effects may be transient and reversible. Or they may be permanent.”
I wonder if studies like these are what caused seemingly unscientific studies trying to show the opposite is true, ie that SSRI promotes nerve development in people with PTSD?
Can they test nerve growth/death in the brains of living human beings - or does that have to await autopsy?
pg
Would damage to nerve terminals account for the side effects of cognitive damage, memory loss, mania, aggression, hallucinations, psychosis, etc? I would take a guess that it could as it would put everything out of balance.
pg
Finally, physical damage to the nerves in the brain would seem far more likely to cause the above effects than any emotional state from trauma of various kinds would.
Not a nice thought. Human beings with developed brains who already end up with long term problems after exposure to drugs, and even worse - babies exposed to the drugs growing up with damaged nerves without the capacity of recognising why they have ‘chemically induced’ emotional problems as they have never experienced ‘normality’ as nature designed us.
pg
Nathan “It pains me to say that pg and Lisa make excellent points sometimes about the SAFETY concerns of SSRIs”
It pains just as much saying thank you for that :-)
Matthew Holford
Test.
Nathan
Matthew says:
“I’ve got 100 sheep: 50 black ones and 50 white. I hide the white ones, and put the black ones in a field. I show you the black ones, and ask you what colour my sheep are.”
I don’t know what exactly that is supposed to prove. Try this question out for mental exercise:
GSK (hypothetically) runs 6 clinical studies on Paxil to treat depression. Knowing that Paxil has some serious side effects, they want to administer as low of a dose as possible. Therefore, they run these 6 tests to see how low of a dose they can go to still see efficacy:
200 patients in each group.
Group 1: 5 mg
Group 2: 10 mg
Group 3: 20 mg
Group 4: 40 mg
Group 5: 60 mg
Group 6: 80 mg
Results: the 5 mg and 10 mg doses don’t do anything. The 20 and 40 mg doses show a trend towards efficacy, but don’t reach statistical significance. Groups 5 and 6 show statistically significant improvement in symptoms. GSK reports the results of the group 5 and 6 in the NEJM. Groups 1-4 go unpublished.
Now here’s the question: Did GSK do a “coverup”? Did they violate an ethical obligation? Do you count those 4 “negative” results as failed clinical trials?
My point should be obvious: Just because a negative trial goes unreported, it doesn’t mean that there is some sort of coverup going on. Trials fail for many, many reasons. If you look at the surface of the above results, you would say that only 2 out 6 clinical trials worked! Technically you would be right. But if you take this to mean that the drug only has a 2 in 6 chance of working, then you would be very, very wrong.
Doug Bremner
pg-
“SSRIs cause changes in neurons”
It looks like this is at doses 30 times the normal therapeutic dose. Here is a link for one of the studies on the effects of antidepressants on nerve growth.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2003/nimh-07.htm
truthman
Doug Bremner
pg-
“SSRIs cause changes in neurons”
It looks like this is at doses 30 times the normal therapeutic dose. Here is a link for one of the studies on the effects of antidepressants on nerve growth.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2003/nimh-07.htm”
We can all quote studies till the cows come home Doug.
But surely patients experience and the concerns they are voicing should be listened to above all?
There are are tens of thousands of members of Paxil Progress (an online support group) and they report a myriad of problems both on and coming off SSRI drugs. These problems include a worsening of depression and anxiety, horrific withdrawal experiences and a load of side effects which would make your hair stand on end…
http://www.paxilprogress.org/forums/
In fact i am aware that there were studies done some years ago on SSRI’s which indicated that they causes “corkscrew” shaped brain cells…
Are corkscrew shaped brain cells a healthy outcome of SSRI’s ?
I don’t think so Doug..
Scientists have recently discovered that Prozac induces muscle contractions in the worm suggesting that Prozac has other molecular targets in the brain. Researchers from Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia have found changes in brain cells in rats treated with SSRI’s. The brain cells shrivelled or took on abnormal corkscrew shapes. What happens to the serotonergic system in the brain?
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/introduction.htm
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“I don’t know what exactly that is supposed to prove…”
It’s an analogy: it’s not supposed to prove anything, it’s merely intended to clarify the position, as I see it. That position may be summed up, thusly: if one withholds the pieces of information that contradict one’s desired outcome, then one can achieve one’s desired outcome.
In answer to your question: I have no idea how those unpublished trials should be treated, because I haven’t seen them, so I don’t know why they went unpublished. Your explanation sounds plausible, but given the rest of the activity surrounding the Worshipful Company’s activity (I’ll add illegal off-label marketing, at this point), it’s all too easy to surmise that trials go unpublished (eg Paxil Protocol 377, as I recall), because they fail to demonstrate what was hoped for. I suppose one could always change the endpoint, in order to show a positive result, though!
None of this alters the fact that, EVEN if we accept your explanation for non-publication, and treat the positive trials as the only real trials, Paxil, to name one, is still only negligibly more efficacious than placebo. And has massively serious side effects. Should we really have to put up with the possibility of suicidality, for the sake of two Hamilton points?
Matt
Nathan
Matthew says:
“None of this alters the fact that, EVEN if we accept your explanation for non-publication, and treat the positive trials as the only real trials, Paxil, to name one, is still only negligibly more efficacious than placebo. And has massively serious side effects. Should we really have to put up with the possibility of suicidality, for the sake of two Hamilton points?”
Now you have a valid arguement. I don’t have a good answer to that question. Maybe yes, maybe no. That’s for doctors, epidemiologists, and statisticians to decide. Then (ultimately) it’s up to the PATIENT to decide whether or not it is worth the risk of swallowing the pill. Considering that SSRIs have been on the market for 20 years, it’s going to be a hard sell to completely yank them from the market.
Matt says:
“it’s all too easy to surmise that trials go unpublished (eg Paxil Protocol 377, as I recall), because they fail to demonstrate what was hoped for.”
It’s a minor point, but I’ll remind you that GSK was HOPING for efficacy in ALL of the 6 hypothetical trials. Four failed due to insufficient dose. Yet, I don’t think anything unethical was done.
pg
Doug, Try and consider whether the study you’re referring is of dubious scientific validity considering the studies that went before (one of which I posted and you’re ‘replying’ to).
A clue to why perhaps might be the following line from the study you’ve posted.
“Chronic stress, anxiety and depression have been linked to atrophy or loss of hippocampal neurons”.
When a study talks of ‘chronic’ states of mental illness, they’re talking about people KNOWN as having those states.
People KNOWN as being chronically mentally ill are already in the psychiatric system. People in the psychiatric system are inevitably prescribed drugs.
The same drugs given to the rats in the study I posted who were NOT in a psychiatric system and did NOT have mental illness.
Brain-nerve damage was the result in those rats.
When studies take place over 4 days on 30 times the dose, what dose are they talking about?
One month’s human dose in 4 days?
What human dose? Is it 30 x the 20 mg dose? Is that the ‘normal therapeutic dose? If so then thats 15 x the 40 mg dose plenty of people are prescribed and so on. How many people end up on 60 mgs or more? The difference is getting less. There’s also the matter of how many people are on more than one antidepressant?
In any case, while the study I posted and other similar studies showed cell death, and while the pharmaceutical industry use influence to create studies to try to limit the very clear threat to sales represented in studies such as the one I posted, its necessary to keep a close eye on whats going on, because nobody yet knows whether long term drugs in humans have the same effect as a short term overdose in rats does, brain cell death.
Got a feeling (as you mentioned yesterday that you only knew a year ago about the prozac and imipramine issue) that you are fairly new to the voyage of discovery of a non-mainstream sort and now believe that you’ve come to the end of what there is to find.
That walk can be deceiving :-) Its a bit like a long stroll down a country lane and as you get tired you’re grateful to see that you’re almost at the end of it. Perhaps thats where you’re standing at the moment? BUT as you get that little bit closer, you see its actually a sharp bend which, once turned reveals a continuation that is many miles longer than what you already walked and disappears over the horizon with no end in sight.
Thats where lots of people turn back. Its a hard road though. You’ll come across people sitting on the side who will try to tell you that you should follow a different, shorter, easier route. They’ll pay you money to go back. They’ll tell you ‘you’re not a good’ traveller ‘if you don’t follow their guidelines’ and if you persist in walking towards the horizon, some of them will even steal your shoes to make your journey particularly painful.
I hope you decide to keep going.
I did like some of your stuff. Bird Flu one was good for a start :-)
truthman
Considering that SSRIs have been on the market for 20 years, it’s going to be a hard sell to completely yank them from the market.
Unfortunately for the patient-consumer they were lied to about the efficacy , tolerability and toxicity of SSRI’s by the drug companies for at least 15 of those 20 years Nathan…
pg
There’s another issue re drugs and safety (and efficacy as I see it) which is a bit perplexing.
The drug companies know that atypical antidepressants and antipsychotics are metabolized by CYP2D6 enzymes. It’s well known across science.
a percentage of the population have genetic polymorphism.
Inability to metabolize the drugs in the case of ‘Poor Metabolizers’ means side effects and can result in SEVERE TOXICITY (safety). Severe toxicity can be physiological and/or neurological ‘drug effects’ and, as it is SEVERE toxicity, presumably that includes those adverse effects classed as “RARE”.
So, why do drug companies who knows about genetic polymorphism FAIL TO WARN that a simple test for polymorphism should be undertaken before these drugs are prescribed?
Paroxetine /Paxil
“Laboratory Tests
There are no specific Laboratory Tests recommended”
Fluoxetine / Prozac
“Laboratory Tests
There are no specific Laboratory Tests recommended”
Sertraline / Zoloft
“Laboratory Tests
None.”
and so on.
“Most antidepressants are metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, and it is well known that there may be significant interindividual variation in the capacity to metabolize xenobiotics. About 7 to 10% of whites are poor metabolisers (PM) …about 5% are ultrarapid metabolizers (UM.)…” The abstract only mentions white people, I don’t know whether the figures are better or worse for non-white races.
As far as efficacy is concerned, ultra rapid metabolizers (UM) figure is
5%, and so for every 1 million people given these drugs, in 50,000 it will not be be therapeutic? For every 10 million, it won’t be therapeutic for 500,000 people and in every 50 million people on drugs, it won’t do anything much for 2.5 million of them?
People who are POOR metabolizers:
Usine the conservative end of the (PM) polymorphism figure (7%), then in every 1 million people prescibed antidepressants or antipsychotics, 70,000 are likely to suffer adverse effects, a proportion of which will be either severe, or fatal. Ergo, in every 10 million white people taking these drugs 700,000 are at risk and, in 50 million white people, 3.5 million people are at risk.
Taking the other end of the (PM) figure (10%), then it works out at 100,000 people at risk of adverse effects per 1 million persons on drugs, 1 million at risk in 10 million, and 5 million at risk out of 50 million.
The drug companies KNOW this.
The risks, the side effects, the severe side effects and deaths are due to FAILURE TO WARN.
In my view, that is criminal.
So much for ETHICS IN PHARMA SCIENCE.
pg
Knowing that, why do they deny responsibility and blame it on the patient’s alleged mental illness?
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…It’s a minor point, but I’ll remind you that GSK was HOPING for efficacy in ALL of the 6 hypothetical trials. Four failed due to insufficient dose. Yet, I don’t think anything unethical was done.”
“Because they failed to demonstrate what was hoped for,” was coded language for “we want a licence, but we couldn’t possibly, with this pile of kak,” (I’m paraphrasing from the infamous 1998 memo). Something unethical WAS then done. Protocol 377 was ignored, and a fairly liberal interpretation of “generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents,” was applied to Protocol 329. That’s fraud: they lied, but nobody’s being pulled up over it, which still strikes me as really jolly odd.
As to the other: I think Truthman’s already made the point that patients have been complaining, precisely because nobody was giving them the full facts. If my quack had said to me “yeah, there’s fluoxetine, and there’s a bunch of other antidepressants, but frankly efficacy is little better than placebo, and the results you’ll get with psychotherapy are just as good, anyway,” then I doubt I’d have taken any drugs, at all.
When I took fluoxetine (three years, or so, ago), that information most certainly was available. My quack was either ignorant, which is unforgiveable, or complicit, which is deserving of retribution.
Matt
truthman
So much for ETHICS IN PHARMA SCIENCE.
Did someone just say Ethics in pharma science? ? ..
Is there such a thing?..
pg
Still searching, Truthman, but I’m fast losing home of finding any.
truthman
BIG NEWS ( What do you think of this Nathan? Seems to back up what i am saying , and contradicts your claims that the black box warnings increased suicide rates doesn’t it?)
http://psychminded.co.uk/news/news2008/feb08/Seroxat003.htm
No increased suicidal behaviour of children after anti-depressant drop
February 20, 2008
by Chris George
A dramatic reduction in prescribing of anti-depressants for children has not led to more suicidal behaviour and self harm as some feared, new research indicates.
In June 2003 the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency advised doctors to stop prescribing Seroxat and other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants to under 18s. The drugs were linked to a higher risk of suicidal behaviour.
But some mental health professionals expressed concern that a reduction in SSRI prescribing would lead to increased untreated depression and suicide risk. Studies in American and Holland appeared to support these concerns.
A study in Friday’s British Medical Journal reported that from June 2003 to 2006 anti-depressant prescriptions for children dropped by up to 50%, back to the 1999 level. There was a 65% reduction in SSRI prescriptions.
There was no evidence of change in hospital admission for self harm or suicide levels among children in England aged 12-19, said the researchers.
“These findings are important because they do not suggest that reduced access to SSRIs in young people has had an adverse impact on suicidal behaviour among adolescents in the UK, as has been suggested,” stated the researchers’ paper.
pg
fast losing HOPE …
So far I’ve traced info re SSRIs and CYP2D6 polymorphism (although at the date of the latest find it seems more of a theory that it MAY be connected) all the way back to
1992,
and still searching.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1389951?dopt=Abstract
1992: The effect of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors on cytochrome P4502D6 (CYP2D6) activity in human liver microsomes.
Inhibition of human cytochrome P4502D6 (CYP2D6)-catalysed metabolism can lead to clinically significant alterations in pharmacokinetics. Since there is evidence that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class of antidepressant drugs might inhibit CYP2D6, the effects of five SSRIs on human liver microsomal CYP2D6 activity were compared with each other and with three tricyclic antidepressant drugs. On a molar basis, paroxetine was the most potent of the SSRIs at inhibiting the CYP2D6-catalysed oxidation of sparteine (Ki = 0.15 microM), although fluoxetine (0.60 microM) and sertaline (0.70 microM) had Ki values in the same range. Fluvoxamine (8.2 microM) and citalopram (5.1 microM) also inhibited CYP2D6 activity. The major circulating metabolites of paroxetine in man produced negligible inhibition. In contrast, norfluoxetine the active metabolite of fluoxetine, was a potent CYP2D6 inhibitor (0.43 microM). CYP2D6 activity was also diminished by the tricyclic antidepressant drugs clomipramine (2.2 microM), desipramine (2.3 microM) and amitriptyline (4.0 microM). These findings suggest that compounds with SSRI activity are likely to interact with human CYP2D6 in vivo with the potential of causing drug interactions.
truthman
So far I’ve traced info re SSRIs and CYP2D6 polymorphism
VERY interesting pg, I did attempt to investigate the CYP2D6 polymorphism but i gave up because it was proving difficult for me to understand the biology, but i do think it is an important factor , also maybe you should check out the use of SSRI’s in African-americans and the african populations
It seems race and ethnicity also plays a role (due to CYPD6 and genetics I presume)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8136v03r267t2565/
http://books.google.com/books?id=86eggqpebz0C&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&dq=ssris+in+africans&source=web&ots=PvGjWX2BNQ&sig=7iBm_GO8THTyLzUFyGuGsQLfmq0
pg
Truthman, I’ll look at those links in a second, once I’ve posted this one.
Drug companies would have known at least some of the risks by 1992, as can be seen at the bottom of:
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/p-450-enzyme-studies.htm
First Addendum: February 19, 2002 Sallee F, DeVane C, Ferrell R: Fluoxetine-related death in a child with cytochrome P450 2D6 genetic deficiency.
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2000;10 (Spring):27-34. From the University of Cincinnati, Ohio; and other institutions. See Related Story in Psychiatry Drug Alerts 1996;10 (June):48.
CYP2D6 Deficiency-Related Death
In 1995, the FDA reported on the death of a 9-year old boy who at various times had received clonidine, fluoxetine, and methylphenidate, and who was found to have extremely high fluoxetine blood levels. The medical examiner concluded that an intentional fluoxetine overdose had been administered by his adoptive parents.
Some follow-up information on this case concerning a psychopharmacologic evaluation and genetic testing has been made available.
It appears that the boy had an autosomal recessive defect in cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6), which can result in poor metabolism and elevated levels of fluoxetine. The accusation of intentional overdose was subsequently abandoned.
The 9-year old (55-lb) boy died following the onset of nausea, flu-like symptoms, and a seizure that led to cardiopulmonary arrest. The patient’s medical history shows that at age 5 he was diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome, ADHD, and Tourette’s disorder, and that he was treated with 0.6 mg/day clonidine for his tics. He was noted to be extremely hyperactive, with violent outbursts.
At age 6, fluoxetine, 5 mg/day was added to 0.9 mg/day clonidine, and fluoxetine was gradually increased to 30 mg/day. The patient experienced vomiting and diarrhea at this dosage and was hospitalized for dehydration. The combination was discontinued during hospitalization and then resumed with a fluoxetine increase to 40 mg/day. The patient experienced 2 more episodes of vomiting and diarrhea.
At age 8, the patient was receiving fluoxetine and clonidine for Tourette’s disorder and OCD, and 60 mg/day methylphenidate was added to treat ADHD. The patient was also receiving 25 mg/day promethazine for nausea.
Fluoxetine was increased to 80 mg/day, and he experienced a seizure.
One month later, fluoxetine was increased to 100 mg/day. Subsequently, 3 episodes of dizziness, nausea, and low-grade fever occurred. He experienced 2 seizures, followed by status epilepticus and cardiopulmonary arrest wherein he could not be resuscitated.
This appears to be the first report of toxicity and death in a child with confirmed polymorphism of CYP2D6.
About 7-10% of Caucasians are estimated to be genetically deficient in CYP2D6. This deficiency, combined with the 100 mg/day dose of fluoxetine, probably contributed to fluoxetine toxicity and death in this patient. The possible effect of the other medications is unknown, and many questions remain about this unfortunate case”
truthman
pg
Knowing that, why do they deny responsibility and blame it on the patient’s alleged mental illness?
They do this because until recently “mental health” sufferers have been easy targets , and SSRI’s have been the perfect crime..
Prescribe a drug to a desperate and vulnerable subgroup of a population and blame all side effects and adverse reactions on their original condition..
Sure, who would listen to them anyway, they were crazy to begin with?..
Clever scam, but the game is up now…
pg
I’ve looked at your links Truthman, searched with different keywords and found a table of PM (poor metabolizers) of CYP2D6 percentages in various countries and races.
Its on Page 11 and 12 of a 23 page pdf (marked as pages 157 and 158 ).
Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2001; 33: 147-169
GENETIC POLYMORPHISM OF CYP2D6
Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2001; 33: 147-169
GENETIC POLYMORPHISM OF CYP2D6
truthman
Interesting stuff pg .. I’m not up on the biology and language of it all, but i did notice that CYP2D6 seemed to be an important factor ..
Maybe more scientists should be looking into these mechanisms ?..
pg
Truthman, it is the CYP2D6 ’subgroup’ of CYP450 that matters in side effects and severe toxicity on antidepressants and antipsychotics.
But perhaps not EXCLUSIVELY. After all, you don’t need genetic polymorphism to die of cyanide poisoning, it kills everyone.
THey know how the CYP2D6 stuff works. They’ve had a simple test for some time (and a vastly expensive one from a company on the make more recently).
Think pharma - ‘10% Drop in Profits due to Doctors Testing for Genetic Polymorphism? No Chance! Keep it Zipped Folks.’
aa
PG,
You and Truthman are doing a great job with your post. The links to the metabolism issues are fantastic.
But I have a problem with the article you posted on the kid who tragically lost his life. Don’t worry, it is nothing you did .
In reading that article, you don’t have to be an MD to realize that these meds were great making this kid sick. But yet they keep increasing the Prozac in spite of the fact he kept getting seizures and vomiting and diarhea.
Of course, it is never the fault of the meds especially when you have a mental health diagnosis. Everything is attributed to your so called mental illness.
Sorry for getting off topic but I had to point that out. Your idea for routinely testing for these metabolism difficulties is a great idea.
AA
pg
Or
‘Never mind the bodies - feel the greenbacks’.
pg
aa - Thanks, and yes I found it just astounding (and horrific) that despite the obvious signs of something very seriously wrong, they kept increasing the drugs.
Nathan
Truthman says:
“Maybe more scientists should be looking into these mechanisms ?..”
We look at cyp2D6 metabolism in every compound going forward to late stage discovery. We generally try to avoid compounds heavily metabolized by 2D6 because of the polymorphisms you mention. I don’t know when scientists became aware that those polymorphisms could play a role in drug metabolism, but it’s certainly been common knowledge among industry scientists for at least the last 10 years.
Now, here’s a misconception that you and pg have: A drug’s metabolism is based ENTIRELY on its unique chemical structure, not on its mechanism of action. Therefore, one SSRI may be heavily metabolized by cyp2D6 while another SSRI may be completely untouched by it. You generally can’t make the assumption that because one SSRI blocks 2D6 then another SSRI will do the same. It may, or it may not.
As to the report that the drop in SSRI scripts has resulted in no change in the suicide rate, I have two comments:
1) I’m not surprised. If you remember, I told you a week or two ago that I was unable to dig up any clinical trials that showed that antidepressants lowered the suicide rate. It really surprised me and it goes to show that we still have a lot of work to do.
2) If SSRIs actually PROMOTE suicides and suicidal thinking (as you claim), then why didn’t the researchers find a DECREASE in suicide related hospitalizations after SSRI scripts fell so dramatically?
pg
aa - in the child’s case, it was nearly the case of getting away with blaming the innocent (adoptive) parents. I wonder how they must have felt and what happened to them in the period between the medical examiner’s conclusion of ‘intentional overdose’ and the eventual clarification of it being due to genetic polymorphism.
I say ‘getting away with’ blaming the parents because the drug company - even if at the time that the death took place they were unaware of genetic polymorphism - were certainly aware of serious side effects occuring.
truthman
Nathan says :
2) If SSRIs actually PROMOTE suicides and suicidal thinking (as you claim), then why didn’t the researchers find a DECREASE in suicide related hospitalizations after SSRI scripts fell so dramatically?
You still don’t get it Nathan do you?…
Maybe you should read some of David Healy’s thoughts on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_(psychiatrist)
aa
Hi PG,
Yeah, I forgot to mention those poor parents. Didn’t the medical examiner look at the medical records for this child? Sheesh!
AA
aa
Girlfriend: Shooter was taking cocktail of 3 drugs
Jessica Baty said Tuesday that her boyfriend of two years had been taking Xanax, used to treat anxiety, and Ambien, a sleep agent, as well as the antidepressant Prozac.
Baty said the psychiatrist prescribed the medications, a fact that made her so “nervous” that she tried to persuade Kazmierczak to stop taking one of the drugs.
She said he had stopped taking the antidepressant three weeks before the Valentine’s Day rampage on the NIU campus in DeKalb, Illinois, which left five students dead and 16 wounded. He then killed himself.
To read the rest, go to:
http://tinyurl.com/26e62t
AA
pg
Nathan, “Now, here’s a misconception that you and pg have: A drug’s metabolism is based ENTIRELY on its unique chemical structure, not on its mechanism of action. Therefore, one SSRI may be heavily metabolized by cyp2D6 while another SSRI may be completely untouched by it. You generally can’t make the assumption that because one SSRI blocks 2D6 then another SSRI will do the same. It may, or it may not.”
OK Nathan, I was being a bit lazy in bunching them together so I’ll clarify that now:
MEDIC ALERT ORG
“Psychotherapeutic Drugs”
“Gene to test” 2D6 only
Aripiprazole (Abilify)
Atomoxetine (Strattera)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Fluvoxamine (Luvox)
Haloperidol (Haldol)
Nortryptiline (Pamelor, Aventyl)
Paroxetine (Paxil)
Risperidone (Risperdal)
Venlafaxine (Effexor)
Genes to Test: 2D6 and 2C19
Amitriptyline (Elavil)
Clomipramine (Anafranil)
Imipramine (Tofranil)
Trimipramine (Surmontil®)
Gene to Test: 2C19 only:
Citalopram (Celexa)
Diazepam
Escitalopram (Lexapro)
Sertraline (Zoloft)
Gene to Test: 2C9 only:
Phenytoin (Dilantin)
(Also listed there are
Cardiovascular Drugs
Anti-Diabetics
Oncology Drug
Analgesics
Ulcer Reflux Drugs)
I think thats 13 out of 18 major psych drugs that are using the 2D6 pathway.
Then there’s there’s the list from NYUpsychopharmacology site:
CYP 2D6
“This was the first cytochrome to be studied by psychiatrists as a result of the significant inhibition by some of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Significant genetic polymorphism. 5-10% of Caucasians are slow metabolizers, inheriting this trait as an autosomal recessive. Even if they are heterozygotes for this trait, they will metabolize at a slower pace.
CY2D6
SUBSTRATES (Psychotropic):
Prozac
Paxil
Effexor
Trazadone
Tricyclic Antidepressants (secondary and tertiary)
Antipsychotics
Risperidone (Risperdal)
Perphenazine (Trilafon)
Thioridazine (Mellaril)
Haldoperidol (Haldol)
Olanzapine (Zyprexa)
Clozapine (Clozaril)
OPIATES:
Methadone
Dilaudid (hydropmorpone)
Percodan (oxycodone)
Codeine (pro-drug requires 2D6 metabolism to activate morphine metabolite)
Ultram (tramadol)
Cogentin (benzotropine)
MDMA (ecstasy)
INHIBITORS (Psychotropic)
SSRI’s
Paxil (most powerful) 3 fold increase in substrate
Prozac & metabolite nor-fluoxetine
Zoloft (at higher doses 200mg)
TRICYCLICS
Anafranil (Clomipramine) Anti-malarials
Desipramine (Norpramin) Primaquine
Amitriptyline (Elavil) Chloroquine
Antipsychotics Cardizem (Diltiazem)
Haldoperidol (Haldol)
INHIBITORS (Psychotropic)
Fluphenazine (Prolixin)
Thioridazine (Mellaril)
Perphenazine (Trilafon)
Clorpromazine (Thorazine)
Valporate (Depakote) slower pace.”
The point is, why have the drug industry falied to alert physicians of the risks - given the number of adverse drug effects (not only on psychotropic drug but on many medical drugs also)there are quite obvious risks related to metabolism…
Where is industries alert ot physicians?
WHY DO PROZAC PAXIL ZOLOFT ETC have ‘NO LABORATORY TESTS RECOMMENDED’?
pg
Sorry, didn’t close the second link. I’ll do the second half of the comment again:
CYP 2D6
“This was the first cytochrome to be studied by psychiatrists as a result of the significant inhibition by some of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Significant genetic polymorphism. 5-10% of Caucasians are slow metabolizers, inheriting this trait as an autosomal recessive. Even if they are heterozygotes for this trait, they will metabolize at a slower pace.
CY2D6
SUBSTRATES (Psychotropic):
Prozac
Paxil
Effexor
Trazadone
Tricyclic Antidepressants (secondary and tertiary)
Antipsychotics
Risperidone (Risperdal)
Perphenazine (Trilafon)
Thioridazine (Mellaril)
Haldoperidol (Haldol)
Olanzapine (Zyprexa)
Clozapine (Clozaril)
OPIATES:
Methadone
Dilaudid (hydropmorpone)
Percodan (oxycodone)
Codeine (pro-drug requires 2D6 metabolism to activate morphine metabolite)
Ultram (tramadol)
Cogentin (benzotropine)
MDMA (ecstasy)
INHIBITORS (Psychotropic)
SSRI’s
Paxil (most powerful) 3 fold increase in substrate
Prozac & metabolite nor-fluoxetine
Zoloft (at higher doses 200mg)
TRICYCLICS
Anafranil (Clomipramine) Anti-malarials
Desipramine (Norpramin) Primaquine
Amitriptyline (Elavil) Chloroquine
Antipsychotics Cardizem (Diltiazem)
Haldoperidol (Haldol)
INHIBITORS (Psychotropic)
Fluphenazine (Prolixin)
Thioridazine (Mellaril)
Perphenazine (Trilafon)
Clorpromazine (Thorazine)
Valporate (Depakote) slower pace.”
The point is, why have the drug industry falied to alert physicians of the risks - given the number of adverse drug effects (not only on psychotropic drug but on many medical drugs also)there are quite obvious risks related to metabolism…
Where is industries alert ot physicians?
WHY DO PROZAC PAXIL ZOLOFT ETC have ‘NO LABORATORY TESTS RECOMMENDED’?
Nathan
Truthman:
Please fill me in on what I am missing. Seriously. It seems simple to me: If SSRIs decrease suicidal thinking, then the researchers should have observed an increase in suicide related hospitalizations. They didn’t. If SSRIs actually promote suicidal thinking then the researchers should find a DECREASE in suicide related hospitalizations. They didn’t. It seems apparent to me that SSRIs have no effect (positive or negative) on suicide rates. What am I missing?
pg
aa: Thanks for the link, took me too long to get that comment sorted out and posted before I got to see your comment. I still messed it up, but most of the time today for some reason typing in the comments box is slow and jerky but typing elsewhere is fine - maybe because there are so many comments here? - but it doesn’t help.
I hadn’t seen that link, and though there were vague references to it elsewhere (as in ‘rumours’), I wasn’t ’sure’ that he was also on diazepam (usually needed for agitation caused by antidepressants) and the ambien (often needed due for insomnia caused by antidepressants) so I’m glad you posted that.
Maybe those ‘added’ drugs are what is referred to by scientists - those with ethics - as ‘masking the side effects’.
I believe they used that trick to mask various antidepressant clinical studies too. But they didn’t
disclose it.
pg
I believe they used that trick to mask AGITATION in various antidepressant clinical studies too. But they didn’t
disclose it…is what that last paragraph should have said :-|
aa
Nathan,
Everything is attributed to someone’s mental illness come heck or high water.
I know someone who has always been med compliant but complained to her doctor about a med making her/him sick. The doctor refused to listen and attributed it to the person’s mental illness. She/he became beligerant as anyone would in that situation and got an involuntary commitment as a result. Fortunately, the hospital did listen but it should have never gotten to that point.
I experience a side effect from a psych med that my doctor swore wasn’t due to the med. When I told him the side effect was listed on the drug company’s website, you should have seen the
aa
Sorry, slipper fingers.
The last sentence should have been you should have seen the look on his face.
Nathan, in case you still think I am being dramatic, there was a story out of England about a woman who had symptoms of stroke including the slurring of words, who was misdiagnosed with depression. She tragically died.
Dang, what a great gig. Attribute everything to our illness and then claim there aren’t any studies to prove our complaints our valid.
Sorry Nathan, if I sound angry, I am. I greatly appreciate your attempts at a serious dialogue but it goes back to what I read on one of the boards I visit. You could go to a psychiatrist with your head split open and bleeding and it would be attributed to your mental illness. Sadly, when I posted that on another board, no one disageed with me and thought it was a great example.
AA
aa
pg,
It sounds like you have my slippery finger syndrome:))
AA
pg
aa, an odd thing is that what you describe happens to mentally healthy patients who have never had any mental health issues but who have been prescribed an antidepressant for headaches, for hormonal issues, for weight issues and more.
The sting is, that once psychological side effects emerge then the patient is “assumed” to have developed mental health problems, physicians appear to lose both the ability to remember how normal the patient was before he prescribed the drug and the ability to put two and two together.
This may be due to loss of ability, conflicts of interest, an aptitude for believing every drug rep that arrives at his/her surgery or it could well be due to the drug industry together with its Key Opinion Leader ‘industry’ psychiatrists and industry-funded/gifted/educational granted ‘non profit groups’ continually assuring the world that their drugs, while they do have side effects, do not actually affect any patient of any physician. More or less.
In studies where ‘mentally healthy volunteers’ drop out, have adverse effects, become suicidal, commit suicide, the industry and its above followers go through quite a similar process.
aa
PG,
You nailed it once again. If those same people developed psychological symptoms when takeing a drug like accutane, they would be taken off the drug in a heartbeat. But if it is a psych med, then it is attributed to mental illness.
AA
pg
aa - is it hard typing on here hard for you as well? It sticks, does a couple of words, sticks again… or is that just my pc? I don’t think it can be because it isn’t happening outside of this site.
pg
I’ll stick to short sentences, yes you’re right.
truthman
Nathan
Truthman:
Please fill me in on what I am missing. Seriously. It seems simple to me: If SSRIs decrease suicidal thinking, then the researchers should have observed an increase in suicide related hospitalizations. They didn’t. If SSRIs actually promote suicidal thinking then the researchers should find a DECREASE in suicide related hospitalizations. They didn’t. It seems apparent to me that SSRIs have no effect (positive or negative) on suicide rates. What am I missing?
Well apart from obviously missing the very basic of human abilities such as compassion and empathy, you are also severely lacking any understanding of the human condition …
The researchers were not looking for a decrease so they didn’t find one…
Simple as that really.
But they were looking for an increase which proved not to exist..
(which just so happens to invalidate the pro-pharma brigades claims)
Maybe if they went over the data again, they would find a decrease..
I’m not sure, you’re the scientist, why don’t you look for the decrease?..
You know yourself Nathan, as you have said time and time again..
Science is very specific..
But what would i know , anyhow…
Eh?..
pg
Truthman, different link to UK suicide rates and reduced suicides:
“…Two studies related to suicide performed by researchers from the University of Bristol report that 1) suicide rates in young men are at their lowest levels in 30 years…”
15 year olds are described as ‘men’.
“…For 15-24 year-old men, the overall suicide rate dropped from 16.6 per 100,000 people in 1990 to 8.5 per 100,000 in 2005…”
pg
Forgot the link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/97531.php
truthman
And Nathan..
Just to clarify what i think your perception of efficacy is in regards to SSRI’s ..
Ever hear of “Emotional Blunting” ..
http://www.biopsychiatry.com/emotionalblunting.htm
http://mb.rxlist.com/rxboard/paxil.pl?noframes;read=13280
It’s what SSRI’s do…
Do you call that an effective treatment? …
Maybe you bang your fist on the top of your TV set to change the channel..
It migt work for some of the time, but eventually you’re gonna break your television right? ..
Well, Peoples brains have been abused in the very same way with these SSRI drugs… Unfortunately our brains cannot be replaced like a new TV Nathan…
Do you get it now?…
truthman
“…Two studies related to suicide performed by researchers from the University of Bristol report that 1) suicide rates in young men are at their lowest levels in 30 years…”
15 year olds are described as ‘men’.
Thank you Pg!!!
pg
Reading what Nathan said, “If SSRIs actually promote suicidal thinking then the researchers should find a DECREASE in suicide related hospitalizations” then SSRIS do actually promote suicidal thinking.
Given researchers found a DECREASE in SUICIDES (that is ‘completed’ action on suicidal thinking) - why Nathan specifies ‘hospitalizations’ I don’t know as it is the SUICIDE RATES that seem to be under discussion? Not suicidal attempts where many of them are not serious suicide attempts but cries for help with problems.
pg
you’re welcome T.
truthman
Well, I suppose we will have to wait for Nathan to muster up his next pharma PR angle…
pg
Nathan, thank you for clarifying how to easily determine that SSRIs promote suicidal thinking.
pg
I hope he doesn’t get fired…
Matthew Holford
pg wrote:
“…Not suicidal attempts where many of them are not serious suicide attempts but cries for help with problems.”
Ah, I think I have an answer for you. According to the Great Wisdom of the Pinbenbow (Dr Alistair Benbow, in case you didn’t know), SSRIs are not linked with an increase in suicide. However, courtesy of the acknowledgement on the PIL, we know that they cause suicidality. Presumably, Pinbenbow’s definition of suicidality doesn’t include completions, although it may include attempts. Gosh, this “science,” eh? Isn’t it complex?
I would argue that if one induces more people to think suicidally, then eventually one will have more suicides, but then that’s the sort of fucked-up logic that I’m inclined to run with.
Matt
pg
Matt: Sure is Complex (!). Does Benbow still have his job as European spokespsychiatrist for GSK and paxil? last time I spotted him, and that was ages ago, it was HERE. I haven’t been looking for him, but he hasn’t hit any article I’ve looked at in the last…few years.
pg
Lilly explains how the ‘new’ prozac didn’t cause the suicidality that the ‘old’ prozac caused:
“How a dumbed-down form of psychiatry has been a boon for the drug companies
February 20, 2008
“…Such applications have to state what the improved benefits of the new drug will be. Among them was this claim: “It will not produce several existing side-effects, including suicidal thoughts and self-mutilation . . . one of its [Prozac’s] more significant side-effects”. ..
“…What makes it worth retelling is that Eli Lilly, the manufacturers of Prozac, had consistently denied that there was any evidence that the drug raised suicide risks, claiming that it was “safe and well tolerated”….
pg
Source Link: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article3404516.ece
truthman
http://pharmapseudocals.homestead.com/meds.html
Quite possibly one of the coolest links I have ever seen..
:)
aa
Truthman,
Thank you so much for that site. I can’t stop laughing.
AA
pg
:-)
Matthew Holford
pg wrote:
“…Does Benbow still have his job as European spokespsychiatrist for GSK and paxil?..”
I don’t think so. I think he’s gone freelance. At least, I’m sure I saw him quoted as saying “I’ve got no strings, to hold me down, to make me fret, or make me frown. I had strings, but now I’m free. There are no strings on me.”
I imagine that he’s available for weddings, parties, and stuff.
Matt
pg
ROTFL Matt :-)
Thats the problem with spokespersoning for pharma. It has its perks (big ones) - but in the end every spokesperson has to bear in mind that once the spokes part of the job has been shown up as false and gets embarrassing, the person part of the job (the fall guy)becomes glaringly dispensable.
Nathan
I’ll quote the very article you posted:
“There was no evidence of change in hospital admission for self harm or suicide levels among children in England aged 12-19, said the researchers.”
No change. That means nothing up, nothing down. Status quo. SSRIs prescripts had no effect, positive or negative. It’s very simple guys. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist…
pg
LOL NATHAN - just as Matt described.
HOWEVER, the SUICIDE RATES ARE DOWN!
pg
IN reality from 16 down to 8% which is GREAT news. Shows what WARNINGS can do to save lives.
truthman
So what your saying is Nathan..
Although SSRI scripts were down for teenagers in the UK , it had no effect on suicide levels ?…
The problem with your theory is that the article is actually comparing this to the years before, so when you take it into context - SUICIDE RATES DID NOT RISE which means that compared to the years before where they were steadily rising among youth…. because of less SSRI prescriptions , they did not rise…..
..which indicates that SSRI’s are linked to an increased rate of suicide attempts when taken into context over time..
and also the research states ” “…Two studies related to suicide performed by researchers from the University of Bristol report that 1) suicide rates in young men are at their lowest levels in 30 years…”
15 year olds are described as ‘men’.
Why are suicide rates among teenage boys at their lowest levels in years?…
Anything to do with a drop on SSRI scripts? … hmmmm…
Nathan
pg, I didn’t see the link you posted till just now. Here are some interesting quotes from that article:
“The main finding is that the recent restrictions prescribing antidepressants to children and adolescents in the UK has had no effect on suicide rates.”
Interesting. NO EFFECT. No postive effect, no negative effect.
“Although the regulatory restrictions led to a halving of antidepressant prescriptions, the study authors found no evidence of a temporal association between trends in antidepressant prescribing and deaths from suicide or hospital admissions for self harm.”
Interesting again. NO EVIDENCE OF A TEMPORAL ASSOCIATION. That means (again) that reduced SSRI scripts had no effect (postitive OR negative) on suicide or attempted suicides.
“Co-author David Gunnell reports, “Favorable changes in several different factors - levels of employment, substance misuse and antidepressant prescribing as well as policy focus on suicide and vehicle exhaust gas legislation - may have contributed to the recent reductions.”
He is suggesting that antidepressants played a role in the declining level of famale suicides. He doesn’t provide any evidence to back this up, however.
“In an editorial accompanying both articles, Gregory Simon argues that that sustained use of antidepressants is probably too infrequent to have much of an overall effect on the risk of suicide in people living with depression. “Clinical trials cannot determine whether antidepressants increase or decrease the risk of genuine suicide attempts or death from suicide because these outcomes are, fortunately, too rare. No deaths from suicide and few attempts at suicide have occurred to date in trials of antidepressants in adolescents.”
That’s good news. In fact, I don’t know what you guys are so upset about. The news here is GOOD! For whatever reasons, suicide deaths have been falling! It doesn’t appear that SSRIs are playing a major role (positive or negative) in that trend. This is great news! Stop griping!
truthman
Clinical trials cannot determine whether antidepressants increase or decrease the risk of genuine suicide attempts or death from suicide because these outcomes are, fortunately, too rare. No deaths from suicide and few attempts at suicide have occurred to date in trials of antidepressants in adolescents.”
Is this the same Greg Simon who is on Nearly every big pharma company PAYROLL?….
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/04/health/webmd/main1177007.shtml?source=search_story
Gregory E. Simon, MD,
Gregory E. Simon, M.D., M.P.H. Grant/Research Support: Eli Lilly and Company, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ● Consultant: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals ●
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/stanley/6thbipconf/Introduction.htm
pg
Upset? No Nathan, we delighted. SUICIDE RATES ARE DOWN FROM 16% to 8%. Come on Nathan, the pharmababble of ’say drugs are safe enough times and the evidence will fly past their heads’ is losing its effect. We’re not STUPID.
You can argue as much as you like, the fact is (by their fuits ye shall know them): Warnings were given, antidepressants were reduced, doctors were alerted generally, and suicides went down.
pg
Nathan its YOU that is griping for fear of industry losing its grip. We’re not griping :-)
truthman
“Interesting. NO EFFECT. No postive effect, no negative effect.”
Says Nathan..
The fact that they are at their lowest levels in years and they did not rise indicates they have been steadily rising but since the drop in SSRI prescriptions they have not risen.. Which means that SSRI’s are related to increases in suicide Nathan… (doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out)
truthman
It doesn’t appear that SSRIs are playing a major role (positive or negative) in that trend says Nathan…
Hmmm…
Have you not read my last few comments?..
Are you a complete imbecile ?..
pg
IN a strange way I’ll miss him when he’s gone…
Lisa Van S
Donald Farber: Role of antidepressants in Shootings Ignored
http://www.marinij/marinvoice/ci_8311594
Bob
This is still going strong?
From the 360+ posts, I have learned something.
Truthman is perhaps the biggest idiot on the internet. And that says a lot.
truthman
Bob
This is still going strong?
From the 360+ posts, I have learned something.
Truthman is perhaps the biggest idiot on the internet. And that says a lot.
Get a real job bob…
pg
So, we have Sweden’s national data on suicide that someone posted further up:
LOL Bob, wondered when you’d arrive.
Back to REALITY again, so far we have
“Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare data on all female suicides recorded in Sweden
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=35693&cat=10
–Psychiatric drugs behind 75 percent of all female suicides–”
and UK suicide rates drop with warnings regarding antidepressants.
All good things eventually come to an end, especially when they’re had at the expense of the lives of others.
pg
Lisa, the link you posted isn’t coming up.
Nathan
I don’t know guys… It sounds like a bunch of handwaving to me. You have yet to show me a credible academic researcher or government researcher that believes that drops in SSRI scripts has led to drops in suicides. So far, I’ve only heard it from you guys. None of the news stories you’ve linked me to have made that correllation.
You guys aren’t experts in this field — I’m not an expert in this field. Link me to a credible academic or government researcher who believes as you do. So far even your friend Doug Bremner doesn’t seem to buy it. (as far as I could tell from his posts, he still cautiously prescribes SSRIs for adults)
SSRI scripts have been going up and up and up for the last 20 years and suicides have been going down and down and down. Then suddenly SSRI scripts go down, and guess what? Suicide rates still go down. Are you suggesting that in the last few years suicides have been declining at an accelerating rate? I haven’t seen any evidence for that in the links you’ve posted. I’m no mathemetician, but it sure appears to me like the two variables just aren’t correlated at all… Maybe you two “experts” can convince someone at a regulatory agency to listen to you. Good luck.
pg
Nathan, can’t you start thinking for yourself instead of thinking pharmababble? It isn’t working, don’t you see that?
Lisa Van S
http://www.marinic.com/marinvoice/ci_8311594
truthman
Nathan..
I think you have pharma-denial disorder..
Write yourself a script and write Bob one too..
Brian
In the paper by Wheeler et al: If you look at Fig 1 you will see a decrease in suicides during the entire time SSRI’s have been available for boys and especially women. BTW There aren’t a lot of suicides per 100 K and the data is pretty noisy. It looks like over prescribing SSRI’s doesn’t dramatically lower the suicide rates but it appears they have lead to a downward trend that has peaked at between 10 and 20 per 100K. The next question is how to reduce the levels of suicide even further.
The paper by Biddle et al seems to attribute a reduced level of car exhaust and rising employment as contributing to a reduced suicide rates but finds little statistic evidence around SSRI’s. BTW do either of you two morons need an old car??
pg
Nathan - Take a look at all the websites that are around, exposing pharma babble, pharma corruption, taking the michael out of pharma, spoofing pharma. They’re all based on FACT, they all show EVIDENCE in their links. Days of pharma profit made from corrupt practices are coming to an end as surely as historical events do.
Pharma profiteers have had their day, time to bow out slowly and gracefully.
Lisa, I still can’t get the link up, might be me, but try for yourself and see? Is there another source?
Nathan
pg,
That TransWorldNews story is hilarious! Here’s a quote:
“Antidepressants behind 52 percent of all suicides among women….Among a total number of 377 women who committed suicide, 197 (52%) had filled a prescription for antidepressants within 180 days before their death.”
I’ll bet that nearly 100% of people that died of cancer last year were treated with chemotherapy within 30 days of death. What a correlation! We better stop treating cancer in order to reduce the cancer death rate!
Sick people take medication. These women were sick and they took medication to make them better. It failed. The “journalist” attributes their death to the medication 100% of the time. This article could have been written by one of you two! Fortunately, it doesn’t stand up to any sort of journalistic or scientific scrutiny.
pg
PS Nathan: Perhaps with an apology for all the lives that have been lost or destroyed due to scientific misconduct?
pg
NATHAN: YOU KNOW very well that the pharma industry is RIDDLED with corruption, and that it has cost lives. What you’re doing is giving the world clear evidence that you are protecting that will argue any which way to protect that corruption.
truthman
Fortunately, it doesn’t stand up to any sort of journalistic or scientific scrutiny.
Neither do you Nathan..
You have yet to rise to any challenge I have put to you ..
truthman
BTW do either of you two morons need an old car??
Nathan and Bob aren’t Morons..
They’re just in denial..
Brian
Truthman [sic] and politically gauche
You are in your manic phase but you are pushing the data beyond it’s significance. I’m looking forward to your depressed phase. BTW there’s a lunar eclipse tonight. Have you seen it?
truthman
Brian
Truthman [sic] and politically gauche
You are in your manic phase but you are pushing the data beyond it’s significance. I’m looking forward to your depressed phase. BTW there’s a lunar eclipse tonight. Have you seen it?
hehe Brian..
You are funny mate…
I’ll make sure to do a rain dance for you…
Or has the pharma parade already become a washout?…
Brian
How’s your reign of terror going?
Brian
Truthman and pg
In the papers you cite
In the paper by Wheeler et al: If you look at Fig 1 you will see a decrease in suicides during the entire time SSRI’s have been available for boys and especially women. BTW There aren’t a lot of suicides per 100 K and the data is pretty noisy. It looks like over prescribing SSRI’s doesn’t dramatically lower the suicide rates but it appears they have lead to a downward trend that has peaked at between 10 and 20 per 100K. The next question is how to reduce the levels of suicide even further.
The paper by Biddle et al seems to attribute a reduced level of car exhaust and rising employment as contributing to a reduced suicide rates but finds little statistic evidence around SSRI’s.
Brian
I wouldn’t count pharma out quite yet based on that evidence
truthman
“pushing the data beyond it’s significance” says Brian
That is ironic considering Pharma does 100 clinical trials for a drug , 99% of them show up negative, but they tweak one to a positive and hey presto! We have the next blockbuster! It’s a mircale of Bad Science..
We deny side effects and blame everyhing on the patient..(Vioxx, Avandia, Zypexa, Paxil) ..
We keep denying even when people are dropping like flies..
Sure, by the time the inevitable laws suits are filed , we have made our millions, pay out pittance to the dead patients families , drug goes off patent and we move on to the next wonder drug…
Some job you have their Brian..
Great industry..
Do you take Ambien to sleep at night?..
Or does it make you drive your car whilst sleeping?..
Robyn
Regarding the claim that no paediatric suicides occurred in clinical trials:
“…Sixth, the authors report that there were no suicides in the trials analysed. Because many patients dropped out or were lost to follow up, it would be more accurate to say ‘none recorded’. Overall in the FDA antidepressant trials database there are at least 5, possibly 6, pediatric suicides. In addition, a recent large case-control study found a significant excess of suicide attempts and deaths in children and adolescents treated with antidepressant drugs (4). Similarly, re-analysis of trials considered by the FDA confirmed the conclusion that these drugs cause a doubling of suicidality in pediatric populations…”
Menkes, Mansfield and Jureidini
http://healthyskepticism.org/news/2008/January08.php
truthman
Similarly, re-analysis of trials considered by the FDA confirmed the conclusion that these drugs cause a doubling of suicidality in pediatric populations…”
Thanks Robyn..
Brian
you write 100 songs and maybe one is good..does that make you a musician. Heroin is proven to provide a hit records
truthman
Brian
you write 100 songs and maybe one is good..does that make you a musician. Heroin is proven to provide a hit records
I’m done debating with you..
Your analogies are crap..
You make as much sense as a dodo…
Brian
Truthman and pg
In the papers you cite
In the paper by Wheeler et al: If you look at Fig 1 you will see a decrease in suicides during the entire time SSRI’s have been available for boys and especially women. BTW There aren’t a lot of suicides per 100 K and the data is pretty noisy. It looks like over prescribing SSRI’s doesn’t dramatically lower the suicide rates but it appears they have lead to a downward trend that has peaked at between 10 and 20 per 100K. The next question is how to reduce the levels of suicide even further.
Brian
Brian (1) Truthman (0)
truthman
Brian
Brian (1) Truthman (0)
No..
Brian dodo..
pg
LOL.
Truthman - While I do really DO appreciate their efforts (because without them, none of us would have had cause to put up the wealth of evidence of drug company corruption above) but at the moment its just a regurgitation of the same old pharma-defence tactics and I personally I think its best to let them get on with it between themselves for now. Lets face it, by the time anyone reads down this thread, they’ll have so much info to hand from everyone that’s posted it that by the time they reach down here they should have got the picture. Goodnight :-)
truthman
I hear ya…
G’nite pg :)
Nathan
This was certainly one of the most entertaining discussions I’ve had on this site. I did have to smile at Brian’s comment: “I wouldn’t count pharma out quite yet based on that evidence”. While you guys occassionally raise some interesting points, I don’t think I have to start looking for a new job quite yet…. But, please, keep trying. It keeps us on our toes.
TOdd
Bob, Brian, Nathan, voices of reason. I left this site many months ago and actually feel healthier because of this smart decision. Leave this blog to the antipharma/medicine/evidence types.
But I had to stop by and see how many comments this article got, not surprised….
But really, do yourself a favor and visit different sites, your mind will thank you.
truthman
Nathan
This was certainly one of the most entertaining discussions I’ve had on this site. I did have to smile at Brian’s comment: “I wouldn’t count pharma out quite yet based on that evidence”. While you guys occassionally raise some interesting points, I don’t think I have to start looking for a new job quite yet…. But, please, keep trying. It keeps us on our toes.
This is not about putting an end to pharmaceutical companies or an end to pharma jobs, I can’t speak for everyone but certainly that is not my wish or intention..
Just some of us are sick and tired of the lies and deceit from the industry..
it is in everyones interest to have access to truthful information about drugs..
Good debate though..
and on that note..
Catch ya all later..
:)
truthman
Bob, Brian, Nathan, voices of reason. ..
pfffff…
Good one Todd.. very funny..
Nite.. :)
truthman
One Last Thing..
From CNN ..
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/20/shooter.girlfriend/?iref=mpstoryview
(CNN) — Steven Kazmierczak had been taking three drugs prescribed for him by his psychiatrist, the Northern Illinois University gunman’s girlfriend told CNN.
essica Baty said Tuesday that her boyfriend of two years had been taking Xanax, used to treat anxiety, and Ambien, a sleep agent, as well as the antidepressant Prozac.
Baty said the psychiatrist prescribed the medications, a fact that made her so “nervous” that she tried to persuade Kazmierczak to stop taking one of the drugs.
She said he had stopped taking the antidepressant three weeks before the Valentine’s Day rampage on the NIU campus in DeKalb, Illinois, which left five students dead and 16 wounded. He then killed himself.
In an exclusive interview with CNN Sunday, Baty said Kazmierczak had been taking the anti-depressant for obsessive-compulsive tendencies and anxiety caused by school pressures.
She told CNN that, during their two-year courtship, she had never seen him display violent tendencies and she expressed bewilderment over the cause of the rampage.
Good Nite folks…
pg
Nite T.
Lisa: Alternative link re your comment (searched the title):
http://www.marinij.com/ci_8311594?source=most_emailed
Hope this one works- if it does its because it needed the ‘most emailed‘ to complete the link.
Night.
pg
What a coincidence T lol. Nite :-)
Nathan
TOdd,
What sites would you suggest? I generally just read this one and “In the Pipeline”….
Thanks.
pg
‘He took Prozac’ cauldron-broiled by Eli Lilly.
Ethics of Eli Lilly exposed in this Zyprexa Class action.
Long, but worth the read:
http://www.namipharma.org/class.pdf
pg
This one is likewise long…but worth the read:
http://www.namipharma.org/sergeants.pdf
pg
And this one too is very telling:
http://www.namipharma.org/sheet.pdf
So many “unlawful and fraudulent acts regarding safety and efficacy” throughout all these documents!
pg
“Unlawful and Fraudulent Acts regarding Safety And Efficacy”.
Not quite what you’d expect in the field of “medicine” is it.
Good article here, “The Eli Lilly Tooth Fairy”:
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/05/eli-lilly-tooth-fairy.html
Don’t miss the “tooth fairy database” link part way down the page, you’d be surprised at where the money goes.
pg
Probably lots of people are at least vaguely aware by now that there’s things going in the background that shouldn’t be in the development and marketing of psychiatric drugs, and those who never heard of Vioxx (if there’s anyone left that hasn’t) might be thinking “SHEESH what a mess, thank goodness that it doesn’t happen with medical drugs”
Of course, they’d be wrong. Here’s one of many examples of some “shanninigans” going on…that shouldn’t be.
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/03/advice-to-p-pharmaceuticals-how-not-to.html
Gone for that page because its also got a funny video in it on the basis that someone might read here that’s feeling a bit down and laughter works better than placebo/antidepressants.
However, its worth going through the Procter & Gamble pages from the beginning as it very clearly sets out some things that almost get lost (or is that buried?): like how academic/scientists are bullied if they don’t tow the company line.
pg
And here’s a another great site that touches on why some people go to outstanding lengths to tow the company line:
http://pharmagiles.blogspot.com/2008/02/yet-another-cox-up.html
Lisa Van S
Todd,
Happy to hear that your’e feeling healthier!
Donna
I had’nt even noticed he was’nt posting…hmmm
pg
Kazmierczak XANAX (Alprazolam) “homicidal ideation” ‘INFREQUENT’(NOT ‘RARE’) in premarketing evaluation:
Also known as:
“Alprax, Alprox, Alzam, Anxirid, Apo-Alpraz, Azor, Calmax, Frontin, Gerax, Helex, Kalma, Kinax, Neurol, Novo-Alprazol, Nu-Alpraz, Restyl, Xanax, Xanor, Zopax, Trika”.
“Other Adverse Events Observed During the Premarketing Evaluation of XANAX XR Tablets
“…Psychiatric system disorders: Frequent: irritability, insomnia, nervousness, derealization, libido increased, restlessness, agitation, depersonalization, nightmare; Infrequent: abnormal dreams, apathy, aggression, anger, bradyphrenia, euphoric mood, logorrhea, mood swings, dysphonia, hallucination,
homicidal ideation,
mania, hypomania, impulse control, psychomotor retardation,
suicidal ideation
pg
“Homicidal Ideation” listed while ON Xanax, & reports of same in withdrawal.
Even in GRADUAL withdrawal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2335496
“Severe withdrawal symptoms after discontinuation of alprazolam in eight patients with combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder.
..Most of the patients underwent gradual medication withdrawal. All patients had a prior history of alcohol abuse or benzodiazepine dependence. During withdrawal, all patients had severe reactions including anxiety, sleep disturbance, rage reactions, hyperalertness, increased nightmares, and intrusive thoughts; and 6 of the 8 patients had homicidal ideation.”
Upjohn’s drug, now part of Pfizer.
pg
Evidence re Prozac homicidality ignored by regulators:
Coded as “hostility”:
“Evidence that antidepressant drugs like Seroxat and Prozac could make people homicidal is being ignored by the body responsible for regulating medicines in the UK, a leading expert said yesterday.”
“…Dr Healy, director of the north Wales department of psychological medicine, says he has seen data from the clinical trials that show even some healthy volunteers - people with no illness at all volunteering to take part in the earliest safety trials of the drugs - became unaccountably aggressive. Their reaction is coded as “hostile” which can include homicidal behaviour and serious aggression.
“I think there is very clear evidence for all of the SSRI group of drugs that in addition to making people suicidal, they can make people homicidal or seriously aggressive and the data have been sitting in the MHRA’s files on this issue,” he said.”
(The terms SSRI and SNRI are apparently a clever marketing attempt to make current ANTIDEPRESSANTS sound as if they’re actually selective of a particular neurotransmitter such as serotonin, noradrenalin, etc, whereas in fact they have no idea what else any SSRI or SNRI are affecting alongside - hence the similar side effects).
Effexor - Venlafaxine - has ‘homicidal ideation’ listed as a side effect on page 43 of Wyeth’s document:
http://www.wyeth.com/content/ShowLabeling.asp?id=100
dada
pg said
–The terms SSRI and SNRI are apparently a clever marketing attempt to make current ANTIDEPRESSANTS sound as if they’re actually selective of a particular neurotransmitter such as serotonin, noradrenalin, etc, whereas in fact they have no idea what else any SSRI or SNRI are affecting alongside - hence the similar side effects–
–I can’t refrain from pointing out that the terms SSRI and SNRI, which I have just used as though they were scientific terms, are in fact marketing concepts–
http://www.network54.com/Forum/281849/message/1195725008
Voted in by doctors. Not classed by scientists in research.
–Suggested Class Names for Effexor (Venlafaxine HCL)
A) NESRI
B) NSRI
C) SCRI
D) SMRI
Given our objective of creating a new class name, which of the above class names do you feel is most appropriate–
http://www.network54.com/Forum/281849/message/1195725066
We should –stop calling them by their marketing names, control the language and your control the discourse–
aa
PG,
Thanks for your excellent posts. Where did you get the information about Xanax causing homicidal ideation?
I want to repost that on an email list I belong to but would feel more comfortable having the link from the original site.
AA
dada
aa
‘Homicidal ideation’ in Xanax, original site.
Links are in underlined text where using html in comments which I see pg uses often. In the comment you are querying, click on the underlined text “Other adverse events” and you will be taken to the original source where you will find the quote given by pg.
AA
LOL as that is what insomnia will do to me, which is to miss something right in front of me.
Thanks
pg
Thanks dada and aa - it happens, to me too. Don’t worry. :-)