Categories
General News

Psychiatry’s Deadliest Scam

New CCHR Video Exposes History and Harm Of Psychiatry’s Billing Bible.

Calling it psychiatry’s deadliest scam, CCHR International has just released a blistering exposé of psychiatry’s billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

Tracking the history of the DSM and following the enormous money trail between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry, the video documents how psychiatry’s psychobabble is being used to turn every aspect of human behavior – even the fussing of newborns – into a mental disorder that can be “treated” with drugs, and how that has impacted schools, government, the courts, and the military and is tearing families apart.

The documentary details the harmful effects of these drugs and the costs of this psycho-pharmaceutical sham in terms of human suffering and deaths.  As a former director of the Office of Drug and Chemical Control with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) puts it, “We’re rolling dice with life, we’re rolling dice with our children…”

The video also tallies the massive rip-off to taxpayers and the increase in private health insurance costs – all by an industry that has never produced a single cure and all supported by the bogus DSM.  Another expert sums it up this way: “It’s a runaway train, and the DSM is the locomotive.”

Professionals in the fields of medicine, law, education, biochemical research and pharmaceutical sales reveal what psychiatrists and the drug companies don’t want you to know.  You will want to pay particular attention to the number of startling revelations by psychiatrists themselves about the DSM and the field of psychiatry.

The video can be viewed online by clicking here and then clicking on “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.”   Watch it and then contact us to find out how you can help put an end to psychiatry’s gambling with human lives.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by a psychiatric diagnosis or drugs, we want to talk to you.  You can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We welcome your comments on this article below.

Categories
General News

CHADD Gets Big Financial Support From ADHD Drug Makers

It Doesn’t Take A Brain Surgeon To Figure Out Why.

An article in yesterday’s Denver Post fails to disclose the substantial financial ties between a group that pushes for the acceptance of so-called “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” (ADHD) and the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drugs prescribed for it.

The organization, Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), has been severely criticized by both the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for its financial ties to the manufacturers of ADHD drugs.  (For more information on these ties, see CCHR International’s report, “Marketing ‘Disorders’ to Sell Drugs.”)

Direct pharmaceutical financial support of CHADD in the year ending June 30, 2009, the latest year for which CHADD has provided data online, totaled $1,174,626, or 27% of the organization’s budget.  The drug companies providing this money included Eli Lilly, McNeil, Novartis, and Shire US – all makers of ADHD drugs.

 ADHD Drug Manufacturers Supply 36% of CHADD Revenues

Additionally, the drug companies paid another $412,500 to CHADD in sales and advertising.  Thus, the total financial support of CHADD by the drug manufacturers was $1.6 million, or 36% of total revenues.  Why all this financial support?

Pharmaceutical companies have slick marketing plans for selling psychiatric drugs.  They create new “disorders,” as well as elevate the seriousness of existing “disorders,” with the goal of worrying normal people that they are worse off than they thought they were and need treatment – with drugs.  Support groups such as CHADD forward the drug companies’ aim of gaining acceptance of these “disorders.”  (For more information on the psycho-pharmaceutical industry’s plans, you can view CCHR International’s DVD, “The Marketing of Madness,” online here.)

CHADD continues to falsely claim that ADHD is a “neurobiological disorder” when there is no valid, conclusive scientific proof of this.  In fact, no such claim is made in the 1999 Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health, in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), by the National Institutes of Health, or in the American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline for ADHD.  Even Clarke Ross, CEO of CHADD for the 10 years through 2010, is quoted by The Washington Times Insight Magazine as saying about ADHD:  “It really is a matter of belief.”

ADHD remains merely a subjective list of behaviors, which became a “mental disorder” in 1987 when members of the American Psychiatric Association voted it into existence so psychiatrists could bill insurance for treating it.  That same year, CHADD was formed.  With large-scale financial support from the pharmaceutical companies, the number of CHADD chapters exploded.

 ADHD Drugs May Cause Dangerous Side Effects

Common ADHD drugs are amphetamines – highly addictive and 10 times more likely than other prescription drugs to be linked to violence.  The FDA warns that ADHD drugs can cause heart attacks, strokes and sudden death.  There are no long-term studies on the safety and effectiveness of ADHD drugs.  (Research studies, warnings from international regulatory authorities, and reports to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the harmful side effects of ADHD and other psych drugs can be accessed through CCHR International’s psychiatric drug side effects search engine.)

WARNING: Anyone wishing to discontinue ADHD drugs or other psychiatric drugs is cautioned to do so only under the supervision of a competent medical doctor because of potentially dangerous withdrawal symptoms.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by taking an ADHD drug or other psychiatric drug, we want to talk to you.  You can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We welcome your comments on this article below.

 

Categories
General News

Message to Moms: Teenagers Who Eat Fish and Omega-3 Fats Have A Lower Risk of Feeling Depressed

Image by Petr Kratochvil
Image by Petr Kratochvil

Serve it with ketchup, salsa, or smothered with cheese if necessary, but get your kids to eat more fish.

Yet another study links higher levels of omega-3 fats to a lower chance of feeling depressed.

Japanese researchers studied 6,500 boys and girls, ages 12 to 15 years old, to find any relationship between their consumption of fish and omega-3 fats and their feelings of depression.

Their conclusion: teenagers who eat fish and omega-3 fats have a relatively low risk of feeling depressed.  (Reference:  Murakami K, Miyake Y, Sasaki S, et al.  Fish and n-3 polyunsaturate fatty acid intake and depressive symptoms: Ryukyus child health study. Pediatrics, 2010: doi 10.1542/peds.2009-3277.)

Some common sources of omega-3 fats are salmon, herring, mackerel, halibut, tuna and other fish, as well as eggs, flaxseeds and flaxseed oil, canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil, walnuts, pumpkin seeds, and fish oil supplements.  For more information on getting omega-3 fats into your child’s diet, consult a nutritionist, dietician, or other health professional.

Categories
General News Military in Colorado/Wyoming

Urgent Message for Colorado and Wyoming Veterans: Antipsychotics Are Reportedly Ineffective Against PTSD

Known Side Effects Of The Drugs Include Diabetes, Stroke and Sudden Death

First, antidepressants were found to be no more reliably effective than sugar pills.  (See: “Review of Studies Finds Antidepressants Not Reliably Better Than Sugar Pills”)

Now comes the news that the same thing can be said about antipsychotics in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

According to a report in the New York Times, a new study found that antipsychotic drugs widely prescribed for PTSD are no more effective than placebos (sugar pills).

The finding comes from the largest study of its kind in veterans, and directly and immediately challenges the drug treatment of returning military personnel.

The use of antipsychotics to treat stress in veterans has increased sharply over the past decade.  But the new study showed that after six months of treatment, veterans taking antipsychotics were doing no better than veterans given a placebo.

Worse still, antipsychotics have serious side effects, including obesity, diabetes, cognitive decline, heart problems, stroke, and sudden death.  (Adverse reactions to psychiatric drugs, as detailed in research studies, warnings from international regulatory authorities and reports to the FDA, can be accessed through CCHR International’s psychiatric drug side effects search engine.)

The new study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, focused on Risperdal, but experts said the same results most likely apply to other antipsychotics, including Seroquel, Geodon and Abilify.

Dr. Charles Hoge, a senior scientist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, said about the study: “It’s very rigorously done, and it definitely calls into question the use of antipsychotics in general for PTSD.”

WARNING: Veterans currently taking antipsychotics are cautioned against suddenly discontinuing them.  No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and supervision of a competent medical doctor.

If you or someone you know has been wrongly put on antipsychotics, we want to talk to you.  You can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We welcome your comments on this article below.

Categories
General News

Review of Studies Finds Antidepressants Not Reliably Better Than Sugar Pills

Are Antidepressants Just Placebos With Side Effects?

Reviews of large numbers of studies on antidepressants – including studies the drug companies never published because they did not have positive outcomes – continue to show that improvement in patients given antidepressants is due largely, if not entirely, to the placebo effect and not the drugs.

In 2010, Irving Kirsch, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Hull in England and author of “The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth,” published an article on the conclusions he and his colleagues reached after reviewing data the drug companies had sent to the FDA.  The data, obtained by using the Freedom of Information Act, included results that had never been published because the results were not favorable to the drugs the companies were testing.

Kirsch termed the results of the review “shocking.” His group’s meta-analysis (the analysis of many clinical trials on the same subject – in this case, antidepressants) found that placebos – sugar pills – are 82% as effective as antidepressants.  However, they further found that even this “relatively small difference between drugs and placebos might not be a real drug effect at all.  Instead, it might be [nothing more than] an enhanced placebo effect.”

The placebo effect refers to perceived or actual improvement in health that does not come from the treatment the patient is receiving, which may be a dummy pill, but from the patient’s belief that the treatment will help.

The FDA only requires two clinical trials that show any statistical difference between drug and placebo in order to approve a drug – even if a much larger number of studies failed to show positive results.  And the positive result can be so small that it makes no real difference in people’s lives.  The FDA does not require results to be clinically significant, just statistically significant.

Kirsch’s results are supported by another group of researchers who reviewed four meta-analyses of clinical trials on antidepressants that were submitted to the FDA.

Their conclusion, published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics last year, stated that “antidepressants are only marginally efficacious [effective] compared to placebos,” and even this modest benefit might be inflated by “profound publication bias.”  Publication bias means the tendency of researchers and publications to publish results that are favorable for the drugs being tested and to hide or reject results that are unfavorable, thereby shaping both professional and public opinion by unscientific means.

These same researchers also analyzed the data from STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression), the largest antidepressant effectiveness trial ever conducted.  They found that “the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by [that study’s] authors, with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase.”  The progressively increasing dropout rate, as more and more participants dropped out of the study because of adverse effects they experienced, means the study became more and more biased towards a favorable outcome.

The researchers found results on the antidepressant studies to be so inflated that they call for a complete reconsideration of the use of antidepressants: “The reviewed findings argue for a reappraisal of the current recommended standard of care of depression.”

Their concern is shared by Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine and now a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School.  In the first part of her recent, two-part essay in The New York Review of Books,  she writes about the disturbing extent to which the pharmaceutical companies that sell psychoactive drugs – through both legal and illegal marketing and “what many people would describe as bribery” – have come to determine the “diagnosis” and treatment of mental illness.

In the second part of her essay, she calls for more research into alternatives to antidepressants:  “More research is needed to study alternatives to psychoactive drugs, and the results should be included in medical education.”

Indeed.  If antidepressants are no more effective than placebos, but come at a great cost and expose individuals to a lengthy and growing list of devastating and even life-threatening side effects, including deepening and chronic depression and suicide, it only makes sense that diet, nutritional supplements, exercise, and meaningful activities be explored as alternatives.

Just as important, depression is very often a mental symptom of an undiagnosed, untreated physical condition.  A complete physical examination by a non-psychiatric physician should always be done to look for underlying physical conditions before antidepressants or other psychotropic drugs are prescribed.

Individuals currently taking antidepressants are cautioned against suddenly discontinuing them.  No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and supervision of a competent medical doctor.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by antidepressants or other psychiatric drugs, you can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We also welcome your comments below.

Categories
General News

Chance of Autism Doubles with Antidepressant Use During Pregnancy

A study just published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that the odds of having an autistic child doubled for mothers who took newer antidepressants known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) during the year before delivery.

SSRIs include Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa and Lexapro, among others.

The study found that the rate was greater than two autistic children per 100 mothers on SSRIs, with the rate higher still if mothers took SSRIs in the first trimester of their pregnancy.

The research was undertaken because the rising incidence of autism in recent years parallels a rise in the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

A second study just released also suggests that environmental factors, including prenatal conditions, play a significantly larger role in autism.

Dr. Joseph Coyle, editor-in-chief of the psychiatry journal, called the two studies “game changers.”

Clara Lajonchere, an author of one of the studies and vice president of clinical programs for the research and advocacy organization Autism Speaks, said that “much more emphasis is going to be put on looking at prenatal and perinatal [around the time of childbirth] factors with respect to autism susceptibility.”

Pregnant women currently taking SSRIs are cautioned against suddenly discontinuing them.  No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and supervision of a competent medical doctor.

If you or someone you know gave birth to a child with birth defects or other problems after taking psychiatric drugs during pregnancy, we want to talk to you.  You can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We welcome your comments on this article below.

Categories
General News

Antipsychotic Drugs Dangerously Used In Nursing Homes

Risk Of Potentially Deadly Side Effects For Dementia Patients

An investigation by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that nursing homes are giving many elderly residents powerful antipsychotic drugs that put their lives at risk, according to a new report.

The report was critical of the widespread use of atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics with patients with dementia.  In 2005 the Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory, warning that atypical antipsychotic drugs increase the risk of death in elderly patients with dementia.

Yet the recent investigation found that 88% of the Medicare claims in 2007 for atypical antipsychotics were for individuals with dementia.

In a statement accompanying the report, HHS Inspector General Daniel Levinson faulted drug companies for aggressively and illegally marketing these drugs to doctors for treatment of dementia and other off-label uses.  It also held the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services responsible for failing to properly monitor the use of the drugs.

The Inspector General notes that the many financial payments the drug companies have made in settling lawsuits  against them for illegal marketing practices do not make up for the risks to which nursing home residents have been exposed.  “Money can’t make up for years of corporate campaigns that market drugs with questionable benefits and potentially deadly side effect for vulnerable, elderly patients,” he said.

With 210 nursing homes and convalescent facilities listed for Colorado in the www.medicare.gov database, and 38 listed for Wyoming, the number of the elderly exposed to the dangers of antipsychotics in our region is of great concern.

If someone you know has been wrongly drugged with antipsychotics or other psychiatric drugs in a nursing home, you can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We also welcome your comments below.

For more information about the dangers to the elderly of antipsychotics and other classes of psychiatric drugs, and about how psychiatric drugs are used as chemical restraints on the elderly in nursing homes, click here.

Categories
General News

The Easy Job of Pitching Drugs to Psychiatrists

A Former Drug Sales Representative Slams Psychiatrists

Sales of psychiatric drugs are big business.  How big?  Worldwide sales of antidepressants, stimulants, antianxiety and antipsychotic drugs top $82 billion a year and fuel the $330 billion psychiatric industry – all  while failing to produce a single cure.

Though there are no lab tests, brain scans, or any other type of medical tests or other physical evidence to prove the existence of any mental disorder, psychiatrists continue to label millions of Americans with “mental illnesses” and to prescribe dangerous, mind-altering drugs to “medicate” diseases that are not there.  These psychiatric drugs cause 700,000 adverse drug reactions and an estimated 42,000 deaths each year, and the numbers continue to climb.

CCHR International documented the unholy alliance between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical companies in its award-winning documentary, “Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging,” which can be viewed online.

Essential to this highly entrenched, well-greased money-making machine are the pharmaceutical sales representatives who pitch the drugs to doctors.  Gwen Olsen is a former top-level pharmaceutical rep for some of the biggest drug companies in the industry. Through personal experiences, including the suicide of her niece while in withdrawal from prescribed psychiatric drugs, Olsen turned whistleblower and is now exposing the deception and corruption prevalent in this industry.

Concerning selling drugs to psychiatrists, Olsen says this in part in a recent interview:

“The pharmaceutical industry makes so much fun of the psychiatric profession that it’s not even funny. They actually refer to psychiatrists as ‘drug whores’…. because they have no loyalty to any one company or product, it’s whoever is paying them at the time.

“…[T]hey were not held in very high regard. My colleagues and I looked down on them as though they were a ‘lower class’ quasi-physician.  Because we knew that they didn’t do anything scientifically, it was all subjective diagnosis in nature, dependent on third-party observation of symptoms.

“So they were easy to sell drugs to.”

If you or someone you know has been harmed by a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, please contact us privately by clicking here or call 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.

Categories
General News Schools

“ADHD” Just Keeps Getting Busted: Study Finds Changes In Diet Alone Calmed Two Out Of Three Antsy Kids

vegetables
Image by Junior Libby

A new study by Dutch researchers confirms what many parents have already discovered:  changes in diet can have a profoundly calming effect on a child’s behavior.  The study, reported last month in The Lancet, found that for two-thirds of the children studied, changes in diet alone led to the elimination of the fidgety behavior so profitably labeled by psychiatrists as “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,“ or ADHD.

In no uncertain terms, the study’s lead author underscores diet as the main cause of ADHD.  “After the diet [was changed], they were just normal children with normal behavior. They were no longer more easily distracted, they were no more forgetful, there were no more temper-tantrums,” Dr. Lidy Pelsser said in an interview with NPR.  About the teachers and doctors who worked with children in the study and witnessed the marked changes in behavior, she said, “In fact, they were flabbergasted.”

CCHR has long advocated giving children with behavioral problems a complete physical exam by a non-psychiatric physician, as well as a nutritional evaluation by a qualified nutritionist, to discover any underlying physical or nutritional conditions causing behavioral difficulties.  Parents should also make sure that proper instructional solutions are being applied for any behavioral problems in the classroom, since children’s disruptive behavior can result from not fully understanding, and consequently falling behind in, or not being properly challenged by, their schoolwork.

By 2007, some 5.4 million children in the U.S., or 9.5% of all children ages 4-17, had at some time been labeled with the made-up “mental disorder” known as ADHD, according to figures from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).  In Colorado, 7.6% of kids got the label; in Wyoming, 9.1%.  CDC figures show that boys are more than twice as likely to be labeled with it than girls.  (See Psychiatry: Labeling Kids with Bogus Mental Disorders).

Far more disturbing than the number of kids given this harmful and bogus label is the fact that nearly 3 million of them  – some 27,000 in Colorado and 5,000 in Wyoming – have been put on powerful  stimulant drugs that endanger their lives.   Categorized as Schedule ll drugs by the U.S.  Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and in the same class as cocaine, opium and morphine, ADHD drugs are highly addictive.  These drugs are also known to increase heart risks more than twofold and cause heart attacks, strokes, serious arrhythmias and sudden death in children.  Because of this, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires its most stringent, “black box” warning on ADHD (methylphenidate) drugs.   The drugs are also known to cause hallucinations, convulsions, suicidal thoughts and violent behavior in children.  (For more studies and international warnings on ADD/ADHD drugs, go to CCHR International’s psychiatric drug side effects search engine, and for more information on documented side effects of psychiatric drugs in children, watch “Drugging Our Children – Side Effects”.)

For the failed practice of psychiatry, the revolving-door prescribing of these drugs for rambunctious and inattentive kids — despite the increased risks to these children – is a profitable business plan.  There are no lab tests, brain scans, or any other medical tests that can prove the existence of anything called “ADHD.”  The label is merely the subjective opinion of a psychiatric practitioner with a conflict of interest (profit motive), since he can bill Medicaid or private insurance companies for “managing” the “disorder” by writing prescriptions for years to come.

Indeed, a recent New York Times article detailed how psychiatrists now resort almost exclusively to psychiatric drugging because it is fast and profitable.   According to the article, a psychiatrist can earn $150 for three 15-minute patient visits for drug prescriptions compared with $90 for a 45-minute talk therapy session.  As one psychiatrist admitted, “I had to train myself not to get too interested in their problems.” No wonder a study reported several years ago in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found that 90% of children visiting a psychiatrist for the first time left the office with one or more prescriptions for psychiatric drugs.

If a psychiatrist or other mental health practitioner has told you that any brain scan proves that your child has ADD or ADHD, or if your child has suffered side effects from taking any ADD/ADHD drug, or if any teacher has recommended or required that you put your child on ADHD drugs (which is illegal in Colorado: see “Protecting Your Children: Colorado Law Prohibits School Personnel From Recommending Psychiatric Drugs”), we want to talk to you.  Please contact us at 303-789-5225 or report the details of your experience here.

Categories
General News

Seroquel’s Toll

Controversial Pill Now Marketed for Depression

By MARTHA ROSENBERG

Even though AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic Seroquel is the fifth best-selling medication in the US according to drugs.com, exceeded only by Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix and Advair diskus, its safety, effectiveness, clinical trial and promotion records are highly checkered.

An original backer, psychiatrist Richard Borison, was sentenced to a 15-year prison sentence in 1998 for a pay-to-play Seroquel research scheme.

Its US medical director Wayne MacFadden had sexual affairs with two different women involved with Seroquel research, say published reports.

Chicago psychiatrist Michael Reinstein received $500,000 from AstraZenenca and wrote 41,000 prescriptions for Seroquel reports the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica.

Psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff who left Emory University in disgrace after a Congressional investigation for unreported pharma income, promoted Seroquel in continuing medical education courses according to the web site of psychiatrist Daniel Carlat.

Florida child psychiatrist Jorge Armenteros was chairman of the FDA committee responsible for recommending Seroquel approvals while a paid AstraZeneca speaker himself, said the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2009.

Psychiatrist Charles Schulz’ high profile pro-Seroquel presentations are suspected of being colored by his AstraZeneca income says the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

And unexplained Iraq and Afghanistan troop deaths are linked to Seroquel reported the Associated Press in August.

Originally approved for schizophrenia in 1997, Seroquel has subsequently been approved for bipolar disorder, for some groups of kids and as an add-drug for depression. This “indications creep” has mostly flown below the public’s radar. Seroquel expansion to treat children in late 2009, for example, was noted as a mere “label change” on the FDA web site. Hello?

Even without its depression indication, Seroquel is big business for AstraZeneca, earning $4.9 billion in sales in 2009. It is the drug that North Carolina’s Medicaid spends the most on: $29.4 million per year, reports the Charlotte News and Observer.

But now, as AstraZeneca rolls out its “Still Trying to Get Ahead of Your Depression” campaign, there are new questions about Seroquel’s safety and effectiveness.

According to an FDA warning letter, an AstraZeneca sales representative during an unsolicited sales call on January 3, 2008 sold Seroquel as a treatment for major depressive disorder to a physician before it was approved for MDD, an infraction which is illegal.

Once Seroquel was approved for depression (as an add-on treatment to an antidepressant for patients with major depressive disorder who not have an adequate response to antidepressant therapy), its leave-behind sheets drew another FDA warning letter.

AstraZeneca implied patients would achieve “remission” from depression with Seroquel XR (extended release) as opposed to with an antidepressant alone, says FDA — a claim not backed up by clinical experience.

Seroquel’s effect on depression has only been demonstrated in two, six-week trials FDA further said and six weeks is “not a long enough time period to adequately assess remission.” (It was approved…why?)

Also the case study of “Catherine F.” depicted in leave-behind sheets is inaccurate says FDA because it suggests Seroquel alleviates “symptoms of sadness and loss of interest when this has not been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience.” (It was approved…why?)

Even AstraZeneca’s own briefing to the FDA committee in 2009 admits a “failed study” in which both Seroquel and Lexapro “failed to differentiate from placebo” which is Clinical Trial for “didn’t work.”

Nor did AstraZeneca adequately disclose Seroquel risks says FDA which include increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis, suicidality, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, weight gain and other serious side effects.

In fact, in addition to risks like cataracts, seizures and increases in blood pressure in children and adolescents, already on the Seroquel label, FDA asked AstraZeneca to add the “risk of EPS and withdrawal syndrome in neonates” a few months ago: movement disorders which can affect mothers’ babies if the mothers are taking Seroquel and stop.

But the FDA might also look at what the government’s other hand is doing. In May the Office of the Army Surgeon General’s final report on the findings of its Pain Management Task Force unabashedly hawks Seroquel for an unapproved use.

“Physicians should consider these medications for sleep disorders,” says the 163-page report,” listing Ambien and Seroquel (quetiapine) “for nightmares” even though Seroquel has never been approved for insomnia, sleep disorders or “nightmares.”

Maybe the government will send itself a warning letter.

Martha Rosenberg can be reached at: martharosenberg@sbcglobal.net

This article was re-printed with permission from Martha Rosenberg.

error

Don't miss out on new articles:

RSS