Disturbing New Research on Psych Drugs

Disturbing New Research on Psych Drugs

An increasing number of researchers are finding fault with psychiatric drugs in one form or another. Keep up the pressure by contacting your local, state and federal officials about the dangers of psychiatric fraud and abuse. Here are some examples.

Bias in Antidepressant Studies

Investigators at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, found that trials which the FDA deemed positive were five times more likely to be published compared with trials deemed not positive. In other words, there is less evidence to support the effectiveness of antidepressants than what appears from the published studies. [March 25, 2015 JAMA Psychiatry]

This means that the published studies reporting on the effectiveness of antidepressants are overestimating the benefits and underestimating the harm of antidepressants.

Other researchers commenting on these results note that antidepressants are not very useful at all.

High-Dose Antidepressants Increase Risk of Self-Harm

In this study [April 28, 2015 JAMA Internal Medicine] children and young adults who are started on higher doses of antidepressants than are typically prescribed are at least twice as likely to engage in acts of deliberate self-harm. Of course, they don’t have a clue why this occurs.

Antidepressants Linked to First-Time Seizures

Antidepressants have now been linked to an increased risk for first-time seizures. Of course, they already knew that an overdose of antidepressants is associated with an increased risk of seizures. Now they are admitting that, among patients who have never had seizures previously, the use of therapeutic doses (i.e. not overdoses) of antidepressants can trigger the onset of seizures. [23rd Congress, European Psychiatric Association]

Patient Expectations Dictate Antidepressant Response

People’s expectations about how effective their antidepressant is going to be almost entirely predicts their response to it. This means that there is almost no difference between the effect of an antidepressant and a placebo. [September 11, 2014, British Journal of Psychiatry]

There is also a much higher relapse rate in those using psychiatric drugs than those who do not.

Good, compassionate, non-psychiatric care is more significant for well-being than any psychiatric drug. So there is really no reason at all for using them; and because of the potential for greatly harmful side effects, there is no reason to continue their use.

Fully informed consent is your defense against the scourge of psychiatric drugs.

Migrant Children, a New Psychiatric Patient Pool?

Migrant Children, a New Psychiatric Patient Pool?

While we hesitate to comment on the controversy surrounding the federal government’s amnesty program for illegal immigrants, we do see a potential effect of interest to the concerns of CCHR and those who recognize the potential for psychiatric fraud and abuse.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “Such students [illegal aliens, or “migrant children”] often require a variety of services, including subsidized meals, English-language instruction, tutoring and psychological counseling…”

It’s that last phrase, “psychological counseling”, that caught our attention.

Could migrant children be considered a new pool of patients to be abused by the psychiatric and psychological industries?

There are already research articles being published on the “mental health of migrant children.” Look out for a proliferation of media, studies, and requests for funding for this expanding population as a new pool of “mental health care” patients.

Contact your local, state and federal officials and your school boards to be on the lookout for psychiatric fraud and abuse within the migrant population.

Commercial Airline Pilots & Mind-Altering Drugs

Commercial Airline Pilots & Mind-Altering Drugs

Medical records indicate that Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot who crashed the Germanwings plane in the French Alps, was on medications for depression, anxiety and panic attacks, including lorazepam [an anti-anxiety drug] that can have dangerous side effects, German newspaper Bild reported.

Mania, psychosis, hallucinations, depersonalization and suicidal and homicidal ideation. These all are documented side effects from 134 international drug regulatory agency warnings on the very drugs that commercial airline pilots are allowed to take. While not everyone taking these drugs will experience these side effects, what is certain, based on hundreds of drug warnings and studies, is that a percentage of the population will.

Andreas Lubitz, co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 blamed for purposefully flying the aircraft into the French Alps and killing all on board, had a long history of mental “treatment” and psychiatric drug use. According to German police investigators, numerous prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were found at Lubitz’s home, including antidepressants. His former girlfriend, who ended the relationship in 2014, also said he was in psychiatric treatment, according to Germany’s Bild newspaper.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a federal agency charged with protecting consumer safety, placed its most serious “black box” warning on all antidepressants citing suicidality in addition to other side effects on the drug labels including hallucinations, mania and a host of other abnormal behaviors. Incredibly, despite being fully aware of this, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reversed its 70-year ban restricting pilots taking antidepressants and other mind-altering psychiatric drugs from flying.

Does the FAA have a choice about whether to revisit its pilot psychiatric drug policy? Can the FAA be in direct contradiction with the FDA about the possible deadly consequences associated with psychiatric drugs? Not if the public has any say in the flying experience. Click here to read this article in full.

Take Action – Missouri Legislature

Take Action – Missouri Legislature

Periodically we let you know the progress of various proposed legislation making its way through the Missouri General Assembly and suggest ways for you to contribute your viewpoint to your state Representative and state Senator.

You can find your Representative and Senator, and their contact information, by entering your 9-digit zip code here.

This time, we’d like to discuss House Bill HB118 and Senate Bill SB239. Often, the same (or similar) bills are introduced simultaneously in the House and in the Senate. These two bills address the same issue. The apparent problem these bills are attempting to resolve relates to the fact that English common law, rather than Missouri Statute, rules claims for damages arising out of the rendering of or failure to render health care services by a health care provider, which can lead to claims for very large sums of money. The proposed legislation places limits on such claims.

Basically, someone can claim that a “health care provider failed to use that degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by members of the defendant’s profession and that such failure directly caused or contributed to cause the plaintiff’s injury or death.”

This is often called a “standard of care”. All too often, however, when it comes to psychiatric treatment, the standard of care is “she’s depressed and she has Medicare.” This so-called standard of care is often being dictated by the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry, rather than competent and knowledgeable (non-psychiatric) physicians and health care providers.

We do understand the problem this legislation is trying to fix. Claims for damages can be out of line with reality, leading to a greedy and litigious justice system. Placing a Statute on the matter, with limits on damages, is an attempt to resolve this.

Here’s the HOWEVER. Psychiatric “treatments” are inherently damaging. Psychiatric drugs are inherently damaging. The psychiatric “standard of care” is psychiatric drugs. Therefore, suing a doctor for damages who failed to follow the psychiatric profession’s standard of care by not prescribing psychiatric drugs, thus claiming that damage to the patient was caused by not prescribing psychiatric drugs — well, we trust you get the point. This legislation places an undeserved degree of legal legitimacy on the prescription of psychiatric drugs and other psychiatric treatments, just because all the psychiatrists do it.

The psychiatric “standard of care” in this case is itself damaging. We’ll be suing doctors for doing the right thing!

It’s not that the proposed legislation is bad — it’s that it doesn’t really address the correct issue. A better focus point would be, did the patient provide fully informed consent to the treatment? Did the doctor provide full disclosure of both benefit and harm of the treatment to the patient?

Contact your Missouri state Representative and Senator, and let them know what you think about this. An amendment to the proposed legislation might help — such as, this law does not apply to electroshock, psycho-surgery, and psychiatric drugs, since they are all inherently damaging to patients and should not be held as standards of care.