In 1973, Rosenhan had conducted a study having individuals function as pseudo-patients. He concluded:
“Powerlessness was evident everywhere…He is shorn of credibility by virtue of his psychiatric label. His freedom of movement is restricted. He cannot initiate contact with staff, but may only respond to overtures as they make. Personal privacy is minimal…”
Bioethicist Carl Elliott of the University of Minnesota (2001) stated that 'the best way to sell drugs is to sell psychiatric illness."
The late neurologist Sydney Walker III stated, "... a child who sees a DSM-oriented doctor is almost assured of a psychiatric label and a prescription, even if the child is perfectly fine. ... This willy-nilly labeling of virtually everyone as mentally ill is a serious danger to healthy children, because virtually all children have enough symptoms to get a DSM label and a drug."
Psychiatrist David Kaiser states, "...years of medication ... have done nothing except reify in them an identity as a chronic patient with a bad brain. This identification as a biologically-impaired patient is one of the most destructive effects of biologic psychiatry. At the level of the individual patients this means a growing number of over-diagnosed, overmedicated and disarticulated people less able to define and control their own identities and lives."
The introduction to DSM III stated- ""For most of the DSM-III disorders ... the etiology [cause] is unknown. A variety of theories have been advanced, buttressed by evidence not always convincing to explain how these disorders come about."
Former Chief of the National Institutes of Mental Health Center for Schizophrenia Research Dr. Loren Mosher, M.D. stated, "Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV [the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Edition 4] is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. ... It is the way to get paid."
In 1994, Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D. stated, "The young and the old are defenseless against relatives who want to get rid of them by casting them into the role of mental patient, and against psychiatrists whose livelihood depends on defining them as mentally ill." In 1997, Szasz concluded, "The child psychiatrist's authority is altogether beyond the reach of his denominated patients. This elementary fact makes the child psychiatrist one of the most dangerous enemies not only of children, but also of adults who care for the two precious and most vulnerable things in life - children and liberty. Child psychology and child psychiatry cannot be reformed. They must be abolished."
Things have not changed immensely, it is possible to say they have become worse.
I have had the honor to meet many psychiatric survivors presently. Among them are victims of improper restraint, individuals with tardive dyksinesia brought on by psychiatric drugs, individuals who sought help but were harmed by those claiming to in the helping profession. I treat these individuals with dignity as persons, respect their experience, and call many of them friends. This has earned me insulting labels and epithets by so-called colleagues whose interest is not ultimately the well being and freedom of individuals but how much money they can milk from the individual. I now wear these labels with a sense of pride, for in it is draws me more into the experience and understanding of individuals undergoing distress who themselves are labeled and who are so often shunned and misunderstood.
It strengthens my resolve to fight as a person of principle and ethics for a mental health system that no longer looks upon people's experiences as the result of faulty wiring and damaged brains but as people with a story to tell, people who need to be and must be heard. Some colleagues may seek to deprive me of opportunity because of my stand, but many of the psychiatric survivors have endured far worse- being robbed of their dignity completely. I can certainly withstand certain losses and even the occassional insult.
I was trained as a pastoral counselor, here may be one problem- Bio-Psychiatry sees man as solely a a conglommerate of chemical processes. "Mental illness" is when things go haywire chemically. It does not see life beyond this, as something more precious, more meaningful. Emotional distress is a struggle of the human spirit. We are all interconnected, we need love, relationships, community. To see it this way runs completely opposed to the bio-psychiatric position. There is and can be no 'soul' if we ascribe to bio-psychiatry. How ironic that the term 'psychotherapy' literally means "healing of the soul", but nowhere is that to be found in the current mental health system.
The problem is enormous, but though being one person, if I take a stand for ethics and justice, I know I have made a difference.
Christ stated, "Be not afraid for I have overcome the world." So, I continue forward in a struggle, unafraid.
- Rev. Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
KINGSTON, PA AUTISM CONSULTATION Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.,B.C.S.A.,DAPA- is a highly sought after psychotherapist, Existential Psychoanalyst, autism specialist, social activist, speaker,and author. Dr. Edmunds's work is devoted to drug free, relational approaches for children, adults, and families undergoing extreme states of mind, autism and trauma. Dr. Edmunds can be reached for consultation at batushkad@yahoo.com. Dr. Edmunds' private practice is in Kingston and Tunkhannock, PA.
Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D,B.C.S.A.,DAPA.
e-mail: batushkad@yahoo.com
Monday, May 07, 2007
LILLY'S WORST NIGHTMARE COMES TRUE
Lilly's Worst Zyprexa Nightmare Comes True
May 7, 2007.
By Evelyn Pringle
Washington, DC: Eli Lilly is not all that worried about personal injury lawsuits related to Zyprexa because the company has enough money to pay the relatively small pay-outs that arise from such actions, according to Attorney Barry Turner, a professor of law and ethics in the UK and a leading authority on consumer fraud litigation involving the pharmaceutical industry.
But he says the Medicaid fraud lawsuits filed by 9 states thus far, under the Federal and State False Claims Act are another matter. "The biggest penalties so far in Federal and State False Claims Act
Evelyn Pringle violations," Mr Turner reports, "were awarded against drug companies
and there are very many more cases under seal."
But an even larger nightmare for top Lilly officials, he says, arises when a product like Zyprexa causes deaths and injuries to consumers and shareholders face huge losses including the millions of people who have their pensions invested in the company.
When a blockbuster drug is announced, Mr Turner says, it attracts huge investment and if that investment has been attracted to a product that Lilly knew was faulty, the company has risked shareholder funds beyond the pale.
This kind of behavior, he notes, is a Sarbox violation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to restore investor confidence in publicly traded companies in the wake of Enron and similar debacles by improving corporate accountability. Its official title is the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002," named after its sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G Oxley (R-OH), and is commonly referred to as SOX.
One of the features of SOX is the ability to bring an action against those who recklessly and fraudulently deal with stockholder's money and, "promoting the off label use of a drug with undeclared dangerous side effects, or being negligent as to such promotion, is the kind of behavior justifying an action under Sarbanes Oxley," according to Mr Turner.
"Those at the top of Eli Lilly," he states, "gambled with the lives of patients and the money of stockholders in equal bad faith when they engaged in fraudulent and dishonest behavior that allowed a dangerous drug to be marketed."
"The lifeblood of a business," he says, "is the investment that goes into it and in the case of Eli Lilly it means the investment of millions of shareholders."
"Anyone who defrauds them," he explains, "is defrauding people not business."
Mr Turner says it is easy to think of shareholders as "rich lazy fat cats" living off the efforts of others but it is fundamentally wrong by ethical standards to think that if they are defrauded that perhaps they deserve it. "What needs to be understood," he says, "is that many millions of people who own no stock at all get defrauded in scams all the time."
"Those who pay into pension funds," he explains, "are vulnerable to the financial shenanigans not only of fund managers but of boards of companies and CEO's that fail to police the companies activities or in some cases actively encourage fraud and reckless business practices."
The worst of all legal nightmares resulting from the Zyprexa "shenanigans," occurred over a period of 9 days between April 2, 2007 and April 11, 2007, when not one, but 4 shareholder class action lawsuits were announced against Lilly and "certain of its officers and directors" filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act alleging that the defendants hid the side effects of Zyprexa and engaged in illegal off-label marketing campaigns.
On April 2, 2007, the Law Firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, issued a press release to announce that a class action was filed on behalf of all securities purchasers of Lilly from March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006, charging the defendants with disseminating false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa.
More specifically, it alleges that they were aware of a "clear link" between Zyprexa and diabetes; and yet failed to warn the public and engaged in an illicit scheme to offset a drop in sales that was certain to occur, and did occur, when reports of Zyprexa's side effects emerged, by creating a marketing plan which included the evaluation and pursuit of sales for the drug based on "off-label" uses and that the off-label marketing program was a direct violation of Lilly's own code of conduct.
The complaint further alleges that concealing the side effects and engaging in a massive illegal marketing campaign potentially subjected Lilly to substantial regulatory fines, penalties and other legal action, compromising the company's overall financial condition and prospects.
The complaint reports that between 2002 and 2004, sales of Zyprexa grew from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion, and that between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004, Lilly's stock value increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95.
Throughout the class period, the lawsuit says, Lilly had information about the link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and in the face of mounting research linking the drug to diabetes and weight gain, and the lawsuits filed by persons who developed these conditions, "Lilly emphatically denied any such link."
The complaint alleges that when public warnings were issued about the safety of Zyprexa, sales slowed and between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, stock prices dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, representing a loss of market capitalization of over $30 billion.
The press release cites reports in the New York Times between December 17 and 21, 2006, as disclosing for the "first time" that Lilly had engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the risks of Zyprexa; and actively marketed the drug for illegal off-label uses such as treating elderly patients with symptoms of dementia.
Therefore, the lawsuits alleges, the over $30 billion decline in stock value between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004 was the direct result of defendants' fraudulent conduct.
In addition it says, the publication of the Times articles caused another $3.49, or 6.4%, decline in stock value and represented a further market loss of approximately $3.5 billion.
Two days after the first class action was announced, on April 5th, the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Law Firm announced that another had been filed.
The second complaint also charges Lilly and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that at the beginning of the class period, defendants contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects and that once the clinical data rendered that position untenable, defendants argued instead that Zyprexa did not cause any more side effects than its competitors.
Eventually, the press release notes, more and more clinical data showed that, in fact, Zyprexa does cause such side effects and to a greater extent than its competitors and the "revelations sharply curtailed the sales growth of Zyprexa and resulted in thousands of product liability lawsuits against Lilly and hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements."
It also alleges that defendants intentionally suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes, citing the series of articles in the Times, with excerpted "documents detailing defendants' deception."
The release says the documents revealed that defendants intentionally misled patients, doctors, and investors and as a result, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6% in the five trading days during which the series of articles was published."
The members of the class, it notes, invested in Lilly securities unaware that defendants' fraud had artificially inflated the prices of those securities and when "the truth was finally revealed those investors lost many millions of dollars as a result of defendants' fraud."
Four days after the second lawsuit was announced, on April 9th, the Schatz Nobel Izard Law Firm announced the third case seeking class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Lilly between March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006.
This lawsuit also alleges that the same defendants violated securities laws by making misleading statements and specifically that they "contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects," and later that, "Zyprexa did not cause more side effects than its competitors."
This press release also quotes the Times articles as showing "that defendants intentionally misrepresented the side effects of Zyprexa," and "suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes "
"In the five trading days during which the series of articles was published," the press release advises, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6%."
Two days later, on April 11th, the Harwood Feffer Law Firm announced a fourth class action accusing the same defendants of making misleading statements and specifically that they failed to disclose: (i) dangerous side-effects resulting from the use of Zyprexa; (ii) the decade-long illegal campaign to increase sales by marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, in violation of FDA regulations that proscribe such marketing.
As a result of these fraudulent business practices, the press release states, sales of Zyprexa rose from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion between 2002 and 2004, and the value of stock increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95, between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004.
The release says defendants had knowledge of a link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and when sued by private individuals who developed these adverse effects, "the Company adamantly refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing."
The Law Firm goes on to note that as public agencies raised warnings about Zyprexa, sales plummeted and stock price dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, amounting to a loss of market value of over $30 billion.
Subsequently, the press release alleges, after the Times published a series of articles the price of Lilly stock "collapsed" an additional $3.49 per share, or 6.4%, and amounted to a further loss of market value of approximately $3.5 billion.
Zyprexa was FDA approved for the limited use of treating adults with the most severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder, but it quickly became Lilly's best selling product.
In order to find that Lilly did not make the drug its top seller by illegally promoting it for off-label uses, a jury would have to believe the highly unlikely scenario that doctors in every field of medicine came up with the idea of prescribing a schizophrenia drug to patients as young as 2 and as old as 100, for every kind of condition imaginable from anxiety and attention deficit disorder to autism and dementia.
On April 25, 2007, the New York Times reported that the FDA was examining whether Lilly provided the agency with accurate data about the side effects of Zyprexa. However, that may be a dead issue in light of the fact that on May 4, 2007, Lilly issued a press release of its own to announce that Alex Azar II will be joining the company as a senior vice president, who until February 3, 2007, just happened to be the Deputy Secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department.
According to Lilly, "Azar supervised all operations of the HHS, including the regulation of food and drugs," and among others, agencies under his direction included the FDA.
May 7, 2007.
By Evelyn Pringle
Washington, DC: Eli Lilly is not all that worried about personal injury lawsuits related to Zyprexa because the company has enough money to pay the relatively small pay-outs that arise from such actions, according to Attorney Barry Turner, a professor of law and ethics in the UK and a leading authority on consumer fraud litigation involving the pharmaceutical industry.
But he says the Medicaid fraud lawsuits filed by 9 states thus far, under the Federal and State False Claims Act are another matter. "The biggest penalties so far in Federal and State False Claims Act
Evelyn Pringle violations," Mr Turner reports, "were awarded against drug companies
and there are very many more cases under seal."
But an even larger nightmare for top Lilly officials, he says, arises when a product like Zyprexa causes deaths and injuries to consumers and shareholders face huge losses including the millions of people who have their pensions invested in the company.
When a blockbuster drug is announced, Mr Turner says, it attracts huge investment and if that investment has been attracted to a product that Lilly knew was faulty, the company has risked shareholder funds beyond the pale.
This kind of behavior, he notes, is a Sarbox violation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to restore investor confidence in publicly traded companies in the wake of Enron and similar debacles by improving corporate accountability. Its official title is the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002," named after its sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G Oxley (R-OH), and is commonly referred to as SOX.
One of the features of SOX is the ability to bring an action against those who recklessly and fraudulently deal with stockholder's money and, "promoting the off label use of a drug with undeclared dangerous side effects, or being negligent as to such promotion, is the kind of behavior justifying an action under Sarbanes Oxley," according to Mr Turner.
"Those at the top of Eli Lilly," he states, "gambled with the lives of patients and the money of stockholders in equal bad faith when they engaged in fraudulent and dishonest behavior that allowed a dangerous drug to be marketed."
"The lifeblood of a business," he says, "is the investment that goes into it and in the case of Eli Lilly it means the investment of millions of shareholders."
"Anyone who defrauds them," he explains, "is defrauding people not business."
Mr Turner says it is easy to think of shareholders as "rich lazy fat cats" living off the efforts of others but it is fundamentally wrong by ethical standards to think that if they are defrauded that perhaps they deserve it. "What needs to be understood," he says, "is that many millions of people who own no stock at all get defrauded in scams all the time."
"Those who pay into pension funds," he explains, "are vulnerable to the financial shenanigans not only of fund managers but of boards of companies and CEO's that fail to police the companies activities or in some cases actively encourage fraud and reckless business practices."
The worst of all legal nightmares resulting from the Zyprexa "shenanigans," occurred over a period of 9 days between April 2, 2007 and April 11, 2007, when not one, but 4 shareholder class action lawsuits were announced against Lilly and "certain of its officers and directors" filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act alleging that the defendants hid the side effects of Zyprexa and engaged in illegal off-label marketing campaigns.
On April 2, 2007, the Law Firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, issued a press release to announce that a class action was filed on behalf of all securities purchasers of Lilly from March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006, charging the defendants with disseminating false and misleading statements regarding Zyprexa.
More specifically, it alleges that they were aware of a "clear link" between Zyprexa and diabetes; and yet failed to warn the public and engaged in an illicit scheme to offset a drop in sales that was certain to occur, and did occur, when reports of Zyprexa's side effects emerged, by creating a marketing plan which included the evaluation and pursuit of sales for the drug based on "off-label" uses and that the off-label marketing program was a direct violation of Lilly's own code of conduct.
The complaint further alleges that concealing the side effects and engaging in a massive illegal marketing campaign potentially subjected Lilly to substantial regulatory fines, penalties and other legal action, compromising the company's overall financial condition and prospects.
The complaint reports that between 2002 and 2004, sales of Zyprexa grew from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion, and that between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004, Lilly's stock value increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95.
Throughout the class period, the lawsuit says, Lilly had information about the link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and in the face of mounting research linking the drug to diabetes and weight gain, and the lawsuits filed by persons who developed these conditions, "Lilly emphatically denied any such link."
The complaint alleges that when public warnings were issued about the safety of Zyprexa, sales slowed and between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, stock prices dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, representing a loss of market capitalization of over $30 billion.
The press release cites reports in the New York Times between December 17 and 21, 2006, as disclosing for the "first time" that Lilly had engaged in a decade-long effort to play down the risks of Zyprexa; and actively marketed the drug for illegal off-label uses such as treating elderly patients with symptoms of dementia.
Therefore, the lawsuits alleges, the over $30 billion decline in stock value between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004 was the direct result of defendants' fraudulent conduct.
In addition it says, the publication of the Times articles caused another $3.49, or 6.4%, decline in stock value and represented a further market loss of approximately $3.5 billion.
Two days after the first class action was announced, on April 5th, the Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins Law Firm announced that another had been filed.
The second complaint also charges Lilly and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that at the beginning of the class period, defendants contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects and that once the clinical data rendered that position untenable, defendants argued instead that Zyprexa did not cause any more side effects than its competitors.
Eventually, the press release notes, more and more clinical data showed that, in fact, Zyprexa does cause such side effects and to a greater extent than its competitors and the "revelations sharply curtailed the sales growth of Zyprexa and resulted in thousands of product liability lawsuits against Lilly and hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements."
It also alleges that defendants intentionally suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes, citing the series of articles in the Times, with excerpted "documents detailing defendants' deception."
The release says the documents revealed that defendants intentionally misled patients, doctors, and investors and as a result, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6% in the five trading days during which the series of articles was published."
The members of the class, it notes, invested in Lilly securities unaware that defendants' fraud had artificially inflated the prices of those securities and when "the truth was finally revealed those investors lost many millions of dollars as a result of defendants' fraud."
Four days after the second lawsuit was announced, on April 9th, the Schatz Nobel Izard Law Firm announced the third case seeking class action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Lilly between March 28, 2002 and December 22, 2006.
This lawsuit also alleges that the same defendants violated securities laws by making misleading statements and specifically that they "contended that Zyprexa did not cause diabetes-related side effects," and later that, "Zyprexa did not cause more side effects than its competitors."
This press release also quotes the Times articles as showing "that defendants intentionally misrepresented the side effects of Zyprexa," and "suppressed and misrepresented data showing that Zyprexa causes weight gain, high blood sugar, and diabetes "
"In the five trading days during which the series of articles was published," the press release advises, "the price of Lilly's stock declined almost 6%."
Two days later, on April 11th, the Harwood Feffer Law Firm announced a fourth class action accusing the same defendants of making misleading statements and specifically that they failed to disclose: (i) dangerous side-effects resulting from the use of Zyprexa; (ii) the decade-long illegal campaign to increase sales by marketing Zyprexa for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, in violation of FDA regulations that proscribe such marketing.
As a result of these fraudulent business practices, the press release states, sales of Zyprexa rose from $3.69 billion to $4.42 billion between 2002 and 2004, and the value of stock increased from $43.75 per share to $76.95, between July 18, 2002 and May 7, 2004.
The release says defendants had knowledge of a link between Zyprexa and extreme weight gain and diabetes and when sued by private individuals who developed these adverse effects, "the Company adamantly refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing."
The Law Firm goes on to note that as public agencies raised warnings about Zyprexa, sales plummeted and stock price dropped from $76.95 per share to $50.34, between May 7, 2004 and October 25, 2004, amounting to a loss of market value of over $30 billion.
Subsequently, the press release alleges, after the Times published a series of articles the price of Lilly stock "collapsed" an additional $3.49 per share, or 6.4%, and amounted to a further loss of market value of approximately $3.5 billion.
Zyprexa was FDA approved for the limited use of treating adults with the most severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder, but it quickly became Lilly's best selling product.
In order to find that Lilly did not make the drug its top seller by illegally promoting it for off-label uses, a jury would have to believe the highly unlikely scenario that doctors in every field of medicine came up with the idea of prescribing a schizophrenia drug to patients as young as 2 and as old as 100, for every kind of condition imaginable from anxiety and attention deficit disorder to autism and dementia.
On April 25, 2007, the New York Times reported that the FDA was examining whether Lilly provided the agency with accurate data about the side effects of Zyprexa. However, that may be a dead issue in light of the fact that on May 4, 2007, Lilly issued a press release of its own to announce that Alex Azar II will be joining the company as a senior vice president, who until February 3, 2007, just happened to be the Deputy Secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department.
According to Lilly, "Azar supervised all operations of the HHS, including the regulation of food and drugs," and among others, agencies under his direction included the FDA.
Friday, May 04, 2007
AUSTRALIA- NEW SOUTH WALES LAUNCHES 'RITALIN KIDS' PROBE
NSW launches 'Ritalin kids' probe
a..
b.. May 02, 2007
THE NSW Government will launch a statewide investigation into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) amid warnings doctors were creating a "Ritalin generation".
Health Minister Reba Meagher has also called for a national inquiry into the issue, citing concern among experts about the use of the drug to treat ADHD, News Limited newspapers reported.
It follows claims by a leading judge that doctors prescribing Ritalin had created a generation who were now committing violent crimes and coming before the courts.
Since 1992 the number of Ritalin prescriptions has risen from 11,114 to 264,000 last year.
Australia's ADHD diagnosis rate is among the highest in the world and 32,000 NSW school students are medicated for it.
"Community concern is escalating around prescriptions and use of these types of drugs to treat conduct disorders of children," Ms Meagher said.
She said there was "significant debate" in the clinical community about ADHD treatment.
"I have therefore established a review committee to carefully consider current practice in NSW public health services."
The committee will be comprised of some of the state's top clinicians, including Clinical Excellence Commission chief Professor Clifford Hughes.
It has been instructed to report back to the minister within three months.
Ms Meagher backed federal Labor health spokeswoman Nicola Roxon's call for a national investigation.
"The availability and prescription of these drugs is largely a matter for the commonwealth, so we believe this is best looked at at a national level," she said.
a..
b.. May 02, 2007
THE NSW Government will launch a statewide investigation into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) amid warnings doctors were creating a "Ritalin generation".
Health Minister Reba Meagher has also called for a national inquiry into the issue, citing concern among experts about the use of the drug to treat ADHD, News Limited newspapers reported.
It follows claims by a leading judge that doctors prescribing Ritalin had created a generation who were now committing violent crimes and coming before the courts.
Since 1992 the number of Ritalin prescriptions has risen from 11,114 to 264,000 last year.
Australia's ADHD diagnosis rate is among the highest in the world and 32,000 NSW school students are medicated for it.
"Community concern is escalating around prescriptions and use of these types of drugs to treat conduct disorders of children," Ms Meagher said.
She said there was "significant debate" in the clinical community about ADHD treatment.
"I have therefore established a review committee to carefully consider current practice in NSW public health services."
The committee will be comprised of some of the state's top clinicians, including Clinical Excellence Commission chief Professor Clifford Hughes.
It has been instructed to report back to the minister within three months.
Ms Meagher backed federal Labor health spokeswoman Nicola Roxon's call for a national investigation.
"The availability and prescription of these drugs is largely a matter for the commonwealth, so we believe this is best looked at at a national level," she said.
AUSTRALIA- ADHD GURU QUITS OVER RITALIN LINK
ADHD guru quits over Ritalin link
By Janet Fife-Yeomans
May 05, 2007 12:00
THE head of the Federal Government's ADHD review has stood down after The Saturday Daily Telegraph queried his links to two major ADHD drug companies.
Health Minister Tony Abbott yesterday said paediatrician Dr Daryl Efron had "done the honourable thing".
Mr Abbott said it was "not a good look" that Dr Efron was on the advisory boards of Novartis, which makes the controversial drug Ritalin, and Eli Lilly, maker of Strattera, which goes on to the PBS in July.
The move came as Mr Abbott joined Prime Minister John Howard in voicing concerns about the use of drugs to treat ADHD.
Mr Abbott said he "instinctively questioned" the long-term use of drugs for non-life threatening conditions.
He said while he had faith in Dr Efron's impartiality, it was important the public had confidence in the outcome of the first review in 10 years of the escalating diagnosis of ADHD and other treatment options.
The Royal College of Physicians committee will recommend new clinical guidelines for GPs and specialists, who have more than doubled prescription rates for Ritalin and the related drug, dexamphetamine - from 116,320 to 264,296 - in the past decade.
Mr Howard last week said he was worried about reports of over-prescription of Ritalin.
Dr Efron publicly supports the use of Ritalin in some circumstances to treat ADHD in children younger than the current cut-off age of six.
"I want to see new clinical guidelines but I stress it is up to the experts to carefully weigh all the issues," Mr Abbott said.
Dr Efron's decision to step down was welcomed by the Australian Childhood Foundation.
"It makes us more hopeful that there will be an examination of the whole range of issues around ADHD treatment rather than being focused on medication," foundation CEO Joe Tucci said.
"We are hoping the guidelines will provide practitioners with research about all the potential problems that can be called ADHD, like diet, trauma and family relationships at home."
The new chairman, Associate Professor David Forbes from the University of Western Australia school of paediatrics, could not be contacted yesterday. Dr Efron could also not be contacted.
By Janet Fife-Yeomans
May 05, 2007 12:00
THE head of the Federal Government's ADHD review has stood down after The Saturday Daily Telegraph queried his links to two major ADHD drug companies.
Health Minister Tony Abbott yesterday said paediatrician Dr Daryl Efron had "done the honourable thing".
Mr Abbott said it was "not a good look" that Dr Efron was on the advisory boards of Novartis, which makes the controversial drug Ritalin, and Eli Lilly, maker of Strattera, which goes on to the PBS in July.
The move came as Mr Abbott joined Prime Minister John Howard in voicing concerns about the use of drugs to treat ADHD.
Mr Abbott said he "instinctively questioned" the long-term use of drugs for non-life threatening conditions.
He said while he had faith in Dr Efron's impartiality, it was important the public had confidence in the outcome of the first review in 10 years of the escalating diagnosis of ADHD and other treatment options.
The Royal College of Physicians committee will recommend new clinical guidelines for GPs and specialists, who have more than doubled prescription rates for Ritalin and the related drug, dexamphetamine - from 116,320 to 264,296 - in the past decade.
Mr Howard last week said he was worried about reports of over-prescription of Ritalin.
Dr Efron publicly supports the use of Ritalin in some circumstances to treat ADHD in children younger than the current cut-off age of six.
"I want to see new clinical guidelines but I stress it is up to the experts to carefully weigh all the issues," Mr Abbott said.
Dr Efron's decision to step down was welcomed by the Australian Childhood Foundation.
"It makes us more hopeful that there will be an examination of the whole range of issues around ADHD treatment rather than being focused on medication," foundation CEO Joe Tucci said.
"We are hoping the guidelines will provide practitioners with research about all the potential problems that can be called ADHD, like diet, trauma and family relationships at home."
The new chairman, Associate Professor David Forbes from the University of Western Australia school of paediatrics, could not be contacted yesterday. Dr Efron could also not be contacted.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
BRAVE NEW WORLD
In these days, greed is rampant and it infects many institutions. We see situations where chemicals are dumped in people's backyards, illness arises, but the dumping does not cease in spite of the knowledge of the harm because money has bene placed above human interest.
So it has become in the mental health system- psychiatrists and other mental health professionals know there is a problem. But one dare not mention it or confront it or they will be smashed by the huge egos of those in power. It is the Emperor's New Clothes. Greed infects this system as well, and many of those in powerful positions reap enormous profit at the expense of individual lives all the while claiming to be 'helping'.
Emotional distress is largely an issue of power and politics. Individuals who are distressed are often those who have been oppressed.
We are entering an era with such things as Teen Screen and rampant psychiatric drugging of entering into a society envisioned by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World'.
People need to wake up and take a stand.
So it has become in the mental health system- psychiatrists and other mental health professionals know there is a problem. But one dare not mention it or confront it or they will be smashed by the huge egos of those in power. It is the Emperor's New Clothes. Greed infects this system as well, and many of those in powerful positions reap enormous profit at the expense of individual lives all the while claiming to be 'helping'.
Emotional distress is largely an issue of power and politics. Individuals who are distressed are often those who have been oppressed.
We are entering an era with such things as Teen Screen and rampant psychiatric drugging of entering into a society envisioned by Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World'.
People need to wake up and take a stand.
THE DRUGS DON'T WORK, WARN TOP PSYCHIATRISTS
The Sunday Independent (Ireland)
The drugs don't work, warn top psychiatrists
TOM PRENDEVILLE
A DAMNING indictment by the country's most eminent psychiatrists paints a picture of patients' lives being needlessly put at risk by a cocktail of dangerous drugs, and a profession which is in the back pocket of vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry.
"The psychiatric world has to be cleaned up - it's appalling. There are over 200,000 people on over-the-counter tranquilliser drugs," says Dr Michael Corry, a consultant psychiatrist. "In Ireland, there are 25,000 people on Zyprexa and 20,000 people on Seroxat. With Seroxat, there is a one-in-500 suicide risk. They get totally overwhelmed by a sense of disinhibition, and they literally feel they can't go on, and they kill themselves." Coincidentally, a damning Oireachtas report on the adverse side effects of pharmaceuticals, which was released last week, has come to more or less the same conclusions.
The report stated that "the influence of the pharmaceutical industry is unhealthy". It also called into question the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and psychiatric doctors, who are financially rewarded in the form of payments for ghostwriting medical-research reports, get free travel, research grants and numerous other perks.
The all-party committee report also took a swipe at the widespread prescribing of psychiatric drugs. "Their [drugs] use in therapy represents unwarranted medical intervention in what are often normal emotional difficulties," said. "The side effects include behavioural disorders, physical illness, dependence and even suicide."
The report went on to say that some of the drugs "were of doubtful benefit" and that "where side effects are well known, they seem not to be appreciated or are ignored by prescribers".
The Oireachtas Committee is now calling for the setting up of a Patient Safety Agency.
Other senior doctors raise the issue of the use of drugs such as Clozaril, a widely used schizophrenia drug which can produce a litany of life-threatening reactions.
"It's a very dangerous drug - and it's not the only one," said Dr Corry, who runs the Dun Laoghaire-based Institute of Psychosocial Medicine. "It's an absolute scandal that the Medicines Board has licensed these drugs - surely they can unlicense them, seeing as we have clear irrefutable evidence they are dangerous?"
Professor Pat Bracken, consultant psychiatrist and clinical director of the West Cork Mental Health Service, says that many of the woes befalling psychiatry can be directly traced to the vast influence which the pharmaceutical industry now wields over the academic faculties that teach psychiatry - an influence gained through the doling out of vast research grants.
"There are growing concerns about the way in which the pharmaceutical industry has come to dominate psychiatry," he warns. "The profession should be independent and be seen to be independent. And if it is not, it is a concern for everyone."
The drugs don't work, warn top psychiatrists
TOM PRENDEVILLE
A DAMNING indictment by the country's most eminent psychiatrists paints a picture of patients' lives being needlessly put at risk by a cocktail of dangerous drugs, and a profession which is in the back pocket of vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry.
"The psychiatric world has to be cleaned up - it's appalling. There are over 200,000 people on over-the-counter tranquilliser drugs," says Dr Michael Corry, a consultant psychiatrist. "In Ireland, there are 25,000 people on Zyprexa and 20,000 people on Seroxat. With Seroxat, there is a one-in-500 suicide risk. They get totally overwhelmed by a sense of disinhibition, and they literally feel they can't go on, and they kill themselves." Coincidentally, a damning Oireachtas report on the adverse side effects of pharmaceuticals, which was released last week, has come to more or less the same conclusions.
The report stated that "the influence of the pharmaceutical industry is unhealthy". It also called into question the relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and psychiatric doctors, who are financially rewarded in the form of payments for ghostwriting medical-research reports, get free travel, research grants and numerous other perks.
The all-party committee report also took a swipe at the widespread prescribing of psychiatric drugs. "Their [drugs] use in therapy represents unwarranted medical intervention in what are often normal emotional difficulties," said. "The side effects include behavioural disorders, physical illness, dependence and even suicide."
The report went on to say that some of the drugs "were of doubtful benefit" and that "where side effects are well known, they seem not to be appreciated or are ignored by prescribers".
The Oireachtas Committee is now calling for the setting up of a Patient Safety Agency.
Other senior doctors raise the issue of the use of drugs such as Clozaril, a widely used schizophrenia drug which can produce a litany of life-threatening reactions.
"It's a very dangerous drug - and it's not the only one," said Dr Corry, who runs the Dun Laoghaire-based Institute of Psychosocial Medicine. "It's an absolute scandal that the Medicines Board has licensed these drugs - surely they can unlicense them, seeing as we have clear irrefutable evidence they are dangerous?"
Professor Pat Bracken, consultant psychiatrist and clinical director of the West Cork Mental Health Service, says that many of the woes befalling psychiatry can be directly traced to the vast influence which the pharmaceutical industry now wields over the academic faculties that teach psychiatry - an influence gained through the doling out of vast research grants.
"There are growing concerns about the way in which the pharmaceutical industry has come to dominate psychiatry," he warns. "The profession should be independent and be seen to be independent. And if it is not, it is a concern for everyone."
CREATING A HUMANE AND DIGNIFIED MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM
1. The practice of psychiatry (from the Greek: soul healing) has been usurped by the medical establishment. Political control of its public aspects has been seized by medicine and the language of soul healing has been infiltrated with irrelevant medical concepts and terms.
Psychiatry must return to its non-medical origins since most psychiatric conditions are in no way the province of medicine. All persons competent in soul healing should be known as psychiatrists. Psychiatrists should repudiate the use of medically derived words such as "patient," "illness," "treatment." Medical psychiatrists' unique contribution to psychiatry is as experts on neurology, and, with much needed additional work, on drugs.
2. Extended individual psychotherapy is an elitist, outmoded, as well as nonproductive form of psychiatric help. It concentrates the talents of a few on a few. It silently colludes with the notion that people's difficulties have their sources within them while implying that everything is well with the world. It promotes oppression by shrouding its consequences with shame and secrecy. It further mystifies by attempting to pass as an ideal human relationship when it is, in fact, artificial in the extreme.
People’s troubles have their cause not within them but in their alienated relationships, in their exploitation, in polluted environments, in war, and in the profit motive. Psychiatry must be practiced in groups. One-to-one contacts, of great value in crises, should become the exception rather than the rule. The high ideal of I-Thou loving relations should be pursued in the context of groups rather than in the stilted consulting room situation. Psychiatrists not proficient in group work are deficient in their training and should upgrade it. Psychiatrists should encourage bilateral, open discussion and discourage secrecy and shame in relation to deviant behavior and thoughts.
3. By remaining "neutral" in an oppressive situation, psychiatry, especially in the public sector, has become an enforcer of establishment values and laws.
Adjustment to prevailing conditions is the avowed goal of most psychiatric treatment. Persons who deviate from the world's madness are given fraudulent diagnostic tests, which generate diagnostic labels that lead to "treatment" that is, in fact, a series of graded repressive procedures such as "drug management," hospitalization, shock therapy, perhaps lobotomy. All these forms of "treatment" are perversions of legitimate medical methods, which have been put at the service of the establishment by the medical profession. Treatment is forced on persons who would, if let alone, not seek it.
Psychological tests and the diagnostic labels they generate, especially schizophrenia, must be disavowed as meaningless mystification& the real function of which is to distance psychiatrists from people and to insult people into conformity. Medicine must cease making available drugs, hospitals, and other legitimate medical procedures for the purpose of overt or subtle law enforcement and must examine how drug companies are dictating treatment procedures through their advertising. Psychiatry must cease playing a part in the oppression of women by refusing to promote adjustment to their oppression.
All psychiatric help should be by contract; that is, people should choose when, what, and with whom they want to change. Psychiatrists should become advocates of the people, should refuse to participate in the pacification of the oppressed, and should encourage people’s struggles for liberation.
Paranoia is a state of heightened awareness. Most people are persecuted beyond their wildest delusions. Those who are at ease are insensitive.
Psychiatric mystification is a powerful influence in the maintenance of people's oppression.
Personal liberation is only possible along with radical social reforms.
Psychiatry must stop its mystification of the people and get down to work!
This piece is taken from a chapter from the book Innovative Psychotherapies by R. Corsini.
Psychiatry must return to its non-medical origins since most psychiatric conditions are in no way the province of medicine. All persons competent in soul healing should be known as psychiatrists. Psychiatrists should repudiate the use of medically derived words such as "patient," "illness," "treatment." Medical psychiatrists' unique contribution to psychiatry is as experts on neurology, and, with much needed additional work, on drugs.
2. Extended individual psychotherapy is an elitist, outmoded, as well as nonproductive form of psychiatric help. It concentrates the talents of a few on a few. It silently colludes with the notion that people's difficulties have their sources within them while implying that everything is well with the world. It promotes oppression by shrouding its consequences with shame and secrecy. It further mystifies by attempting to pass as an ideal human relationship when it is, in fact, artificial in the extreme.
People’s troubles have their cause not within them but in their alienated relationships, in their exploitation, in polluted environments, in war, and in the profit motive. Psychiatry must be practiced in groups. One-to-one contacts, of great value in crises, should become the exception rather than the rule. The high ideal of I-Thou loving relations should be pursued in the context of groups rather than in the stilted consulting room situation. Psychiatrists not proficient in group work are deficient in their training and should upgrade it. Psychiatrists should encourage bilateral, open discussion and discourage secrecy and shame in relation to deviant behavior and thoughts.
3. By remaining "neutral" in an oppressive situation, psychiatry, especially in the public sector, has become an enforcer of establishment values and laws.
Adjustment to prevailing conditions is the avowed goal of most psychiatric treatment. Persons who deviate from the world's madness are given fraudulent diagnostic tests, which generate diagnostic labels that lead to "treatment" that is, in fact, a series of graded repressive procedures such as "drug management," hospitalization, shock therapy, perhaps lobotomy. All these forms of "treatment" are perversions of legitimate medical methods, which have been put at the service of the establishment by the medical profession. Treatment is forced on persons who would, if let alone, not seek it.
Psychological tests and the diagnostic labels they generate, especially schizophrenia, must be disavowed as meaningless mystification& the real function of which is to distance psychiatrists from people and to insult people into conformity. Medicine must cease making available drugs, hospitals, and other legitimate medical procedures for the purpose of overt or subtle law enforcement and must examine how drug companies are dictating treatment procedures through their advertising. Psychiatry must cease playing a part in the oppression of women by refusing to promote adjustment to their oppression.
All psychiatric help should be by contract; that is, people should choose when, what, and with whom they want to change. Psychiatrists should become advocates of the people, should refuse to participate in the pacification of the oppressed, and should encourage people’s struggles for liberation.
Paranoia is a state of heightened awareness. Most people are persecuted beyond their wildest delusions. Those who are at ease are insensitive.
Psychiatric mystification is a powerful influence in the maintenance of people's oppression.
Personal liberation is only possible along with radical social reforms.
Psychiatry must stop its mystification of the people and get down to work!
This piece is taken from a chapter from the book Innovative Psychotherapies by R. Corsini.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)