Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Shane was just 22 when he killed a young man before turning the knife on himself. The subsequent inquest found an open verdict, large traces of the SSRi antidepressant citalopram [Cipramil UK, Celexa US] were found in his system.
"Top 20 Celexa side effects reported to MedWatch between Jan. 2004 and Dec. 2006:
Completed Suicide - 232 cases
Drug Interaction -116 cases
Depression - 94 cases
Hyponatraemia - 80 cases
Nausea - 77 cases
Overdose - 76 cases
Drug Toxicity - 74 cases
Confusional State - 72 cases
Anxiety - 70 cases
Suicidal Ideation - 69 cases
Condition Aggravated - 63 cases
Multiple Drug Overdose - 63 cases
Tremor - 63 cases
Dizziness - 61 cases
Fall - 61 cases
Vomiting - 58 cases
Serotonin Syndrome - 57 cases
Headache - 55 cases
Agitation - 53 cases
Convulsion - 51 cases
Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey was present at the inquest representing and observing for Psychiatry Ireland and to ask questions if the need arose. Casey has come under fire from Fennell on a number of occasions, in particular her relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and fees, grants etc that she has received from them.
Casey was at Shane’s inquest and took issue with some aspects of it, according to Leonie, Casey has publicly stated that there is no evidence to suggest that antidepressants can cause suicide or homicide and she is also a member of psychiatry Ireland and has worked in association with Lundbeck, the manufacturers of citalopram.
The threatening letter from Brophy Solicitors carries an odd disclaimer at the footer, this, more than the threatening content, rather intrigued me.
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this messages is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to message and deleting it from your computer.
I just love the use of the word 'may' here. It either is...or it isn't. It appears Brophy Solicitors are trying to stop Leonie Fennell from posting the letter or passing it on to third parties. Quite what disclosure they refer to is baffling as no court proceedings are in place to my knowledge.
What lands in my inbox becomes my property and I can do with it what I wish to do. I certainly wouldn't pay any attention by a law firm who represent a psychiatrist!
The content of the letter appears to be telling...not asking...Leonie to remove certain segments of a post she wrote about Patricia Casey.
Our client has instructed us in relation to comments appearing on your internet blog in which you repeat a statement that another lady made to you that “Patricia Casey ruined my son’s life”.
You also publish a letter on your blog to the Irish Medicines Board on 16th March 2011. As part of this letter you say “... as Patricia Casey has a long and I am sure lucrative association with Lundbeck ... you can take from that anything you want to”.
So, let's just get this straight. A blogger uses a quote from another person and then writes anopinion about Casey's association with Lundbeck. For that she is sent a threatening letter because Casey didn't like it?
I imagine writers across the blogsphere are shitting themselves!
I find it comical that a psychiatrist such as Casey wishes to suppress opinion, particularly when the whole field of psychiatry is based on opinion. The mere fact that Casey hands out antidepressants to children is based on opinion...unless of course Casey can provide evidence that shows her patients have a mental disorder? Blood tests, urine samples will suffice. Incidentally, SSRi antidepressants are not recommended for children in Ireland but they can be prescribed 'off-label' - in other words, if the doctor or psychiatrist are of the opinion that a child will benefit from them then they will prescribe them.
Leonie Fennell is right to question a psychiatrist who has links to the manufacturer of the drug that, she believes, killed her son. If she didn't question then what sort of mother would she be?
Brophy solicitors are making assumptions as far as I can ascertain.
"The implication in this second comment is that our client either knows or ought to know of what you describe in your blog as the potentially fatal side effects of certain antidepressants, and yet continues to prescribe these anti-depressants."
First off, it is Brophy Solicitors that have drawn that conclusion. If they feel that antidepressants do not pose a fatal reaction to young people then they are going against what medicine regulators around the world claim. The fact that their client, Patricia Casey, prescribes them should be in question, particularly when they are not recommended for Casey's younger patients. Visit the MHRA website HERE - I'll leave it to Brophy Solicitors to work their way around that particular labyrinth to find what they are looking for.
"The very clear implication here is that our client receives payments from drug companies and is quite happy to prescribe anti-depressants to individuals who should not take these drugs and who would be placed in danger if they did take these drugs."
Brophy Solicitors really need to do their homework. Children and adolescents ARE placed in danger when prescribed these drugs. It is on Casey's own behest [her opinion] that despite not being recommended she continues to prescribe after weighing up the risks versus benefits.
"The first comment – that our client ‘ruined’ someone’s life is even more serious and while it is entirely untrue and without foundation, it is clearly extremely damaging to our client."
This is a particular sticky issue and, as I understand, Leonie Fennell, has now removed that comment. It kind of runs against those programs you see such as Crimewatch where the victim is silhouetted and their voices are changed. They do so for protection. Fennell claims the woman who made that statement feared repercussions from Casey, hence the reason for leaving her name out.
Are Brophy Solicitors going to send out letters to all bloggers who have opinions about their client or who question their client's ties to the industry?
Leonie Fennell lost her son because he was prescribed an antidepressant on the opinion of a doctor. No blood samples were taken, no urine samples were taken, no MRI scan, PET scan or X-rays. It was the opinion of Shane's doctor that citalopram would help lift the blues he was feeling. Sadly it didn't and Shane took his own life. If these drugs worked then there would be no suicides. If they were so safe then regulators around the world would not have imposed restrictions on them...restrictions that Casey appears to ignore because she has her ownopinions on these types of drugs.
Leonie has published the threatening letter in full and added her own opinion HERE
If either Casey or indeed Brophy Solicitors wish to debate the ethics of giving children and adolescents drugs that are not recommended for children and adolescents then I'm all ears. Feel free to leave a comment beneath this post. If the benefits outweigh the potential risks then please feel free to send me a detailed list of those benefits.
For the record I take umbrage to Casey making the following statement on the Irish Health Website:
“Around 50% of people do not have a trigger or risk factors for depressive illness”, she said. “The outcome for those who get treatment is very good. It is also important to be aware too that antidepressants are not addictive”.
Coincidental that Casey sings from the same hymn sheet as the manufacturers of antidepressants?
Perhaps Casey would like to tell the 10,000 or so paroxetine users that what they are experiencing is not addiction?
Maybe she should confront the 20,000+ Prozac sufferers who have posted online regarding Prozac's addictive qualities?
Or she could oppose the near 24,000 who have expressed their views regarding the SNRi Effexor online?
I could go on but then again I'm of the opinion that psychiatrists who don't speak out against psychiatric drugs have irrational and delusional traits - Just an opinion of mine I happen to hold.
Here's a classic reason why:
“Fidgeting and foot movements (known in our research setting as ‘Wender’s sign’) are very common signs of hyperactivity in adult ADHD patients – so much so that such patients can usually be diagnosed in the waiting room by a knowledgeable receptionist.” - Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Paul Wender [Paul H. Wender, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, p. 20]
Professionalism at its very best.
In the meantime, stick in your headphones and listen to the mother of Shane Clancy pour her heart out in a recent podcast she did with me HERE.
Am I sticking up for Leonie Fennell because she did an interview with me? Nup, I'd stick up for any parent who was having their voices stifled by lawyers who have not done their homework with regard to the way their client's prescribe drugs to a generation, despite those drugs not being recommend by world-wide medicines regulators.
All of the above is my opinion, I'm sure many other bloggers will offer theirs over the course of the next week or so. I'm of the opinion that Casey has brought some rather unwanted attention on herself by using Solicitors to try and suppress the voice of a grieving mother.
Some bedtime reading for Brophy Solicitors - http://www.ssristories.com/ - Your opinion and Casey's too, on the stories featured, would be greatly appreciated, there's over 4,500 of them! If you disagree with the 4,500+ stories, I won't be sending you a threatening letter, it is, after all, just your opinion, however wrong you may be.
Podcast - Robert Whitaker on Today With Patricia Casey
Friday, June 24, 2011
Where Can One Find an Honest, Forthright Psychiatrist?
"In his report as a witness for the plaintiffs, Rothman takes note of what were called Tri-University Guidelines, which were published in supplements in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 1996 and 1999, and were used to create TMAP. Although not publicly connected to the program, the guidelines were funded by a J&J grant. As noted by The Boring Old Man, who first disclosed this report, the guidlines were “one step in the process.” And this is what Rothman wrote:
And now, Dr. Frances delivers a package of blackberry waffles to AHRP, who promptly fry and re-serve them to him.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Following our March 15 Infomail/ post, "Inside Psychiatry's Battle to Define Mental Illness," we received an e-mail from Dr. Allen Frances, objecting--in essence retracting his statements in an article in WIRED magazine by Gary Greenverg. Our response to Dr. Frances follows his communication.
Subject: I was disturbed by your posting. You went way overboard and am forced to respond to it. I return next week. Will not post til you have chance to comment.
Defending Psychiatry From Reckless Attacks
The Alliance for Human Research Protection is attempting to draft me as an unwilling soldier in its dangerous campaign to discredit psychiatry and to discourage psychiatric patients from staying in treatment and taking medication. In a posting titled "Toxic Victims or Mentally Ill ? Re: Inside Psychiatry's Battle to Define Mental Illness" there is the ludicrous claim that Dr Frances' "publicly expressed criticism of psychiatry's grandiose ambition--demonstrated by its ever expanding list of unvalidated disease designations and reliance on demonstrably harm-producing chemical interventions--essentially validates the criticism expressed by the Alliance for Human Research Protection for more than a dozen years."
No. No. No. And a thousand times no. My views and the Associations do have a small degree of overlap- but at a fundamental level could not be more opposite. My critique of diagnostic inflation and overtreatment in psychiatry in no way "validates" the Association and its reckless rhetoric.
Here is the difference. I believe psychiatry is a noble and extremely helpful profession. My concern is that it has strayed beyond its suitable boundaries- leading to too much diagnosis and treatment of people who are not really ill or too mildly ill to require an intervention. My goal is to keep psychiatry doing what it does best and what only it can do really well- treating the clearly ill who definitely need help.
The Association makes no distinction between this absolutely necessary role of psychiatry and its recent overshoot toward excessive treatment. It is vigorously engaged in a determined effort at throwing out the precious baby with the bath water. Psychiatry is a toxic evil and the Association is a crusader, protecting its victims. This is a wildly inaccurate and simply terrible message for the millions of people who desperately need psychiatric help. So no- I do not validate the Association in any way and would encourage patients to ignore its ill founded, strident and potentially dangerous criticisms of psychiatry and its medications.
Psychiatry is imperfect, but essential. And it is not alone in its problems. All of American medicine is currently engaged in a frenzy of overdiagnoses, overtesting, and overtreatment. We spend twice as much on health care as other countries and have only mediocre outcomes to show for it. This does not, and should not, lead to cries that all of medicine is toxic and is best avoided. Medicine and psychiatry both stand greatly in need targeted reformation, not blind undiscriminating attack.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Subject: Response to your objection to the AHRP Infomail about the Greenberg article in WIRED
Alliance for Human Research Protection
A Catalyst for Debate
In response to your objection to the AHRP Infomail, Inside Psychiatry's Battle to Define Mental Illness, http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/783/9/
The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) disseminates credible information as public service: our aim is to be a catalyst for open debate about ethics in medicine. Sometimes our Infomails are couched in non-academic terminology--the better to make our points come across clearly and unambiguously to everyone.
You state that "the [AHRP] is attempting to draft me as an unwilling soldier in its dangerous campaign to discredit psychiatry and to discourage psychiatric patients from staying in treatment and taking medication."
First, AHRP is committed to the principle of voluntary informed consent. We do not "draft unwilling soldiers."
Second, AHRP does not have to discredit psychiatry. Psychiatry's financially compromised leadership and the dubious practices of many of its practitioners have accomplished that all by themselves.
We reached out to you because, in your recent writings and utterances, you expressed concerns similar to ours. AHRP has long expressed worries about psychiatry's aggressive moves to pathologize ever more behavior patterns as diseases. Most recently, as you did, we criticized the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 panel for lowering--or even eliminating--the previous DSMs’ threshold for diagnosing mental disorder.
In particular, AHRP is concerned about the DSM-5 proposal to adopt "Psychosis Risk Syndrome" and "Temper Dysfunctional Disorder," which will pathologize millions of healthy children. We are also concerned about the proposal for a "Minor Neurocognitive Disorder," which will pathologize everyone over age 50 with minor forgetfulness as “at risk” for Alzheimer's. You know as well as we do that the most likely result of these changes will be the exponential increase in prescriptions for antipsychotics and other psychotropic drugs.
You refer to "a posting titled "Toxic Victims or Mentally Ill?” I have no idea whose posting you are referring to. No such titled post was ever disseminated by the AHRP, nor does such a titled posting exist or ever existed on the AHRP website.
The actual AHRP posting, "Inside Psychiatry's Battle to Define Mental Illness," borrows its title from Gary Greenfield's extensive portrait of you in the January 2011 issue of WIRED Magazine.
In the WIRED article, Greenfield writes that you, Dr. Frances, came out of retirement "to launch a bitter and protracted battle with the people, some of them friends, who are creating the next edition of the DSM. And to criticize them not just once, and not in professional mumbo jumbo that would keep the fight inside the professional family, but repeatedly and in plain English, in newspapers and magazines and blogs. And to accuse his colleagues not just of bad science but of bad faith, hubris, and blindness, of making diseases out of everyday suffering and, as a result, padding the bottom lines of drug companies. These aren’t new accusations to level at psychiatry, but Frances used to be their target, not their source. He’s hurling grenades into the bunker where he spent his entire career."
In the article, you are quoted as stating that: “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”
Furthermore, you acknowledged "keenest regrets" that the DSM-IV under your leadership “made mistakes that had terrible consequences.” Specifically, the DSM-IV redefinitions of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and bipolar disorder set off an epidemics of these "disorders" accompanied by skyrocketing prescriptions for psychotropic drugs (most notably, antipsychotics) for children.
Indeed, as the WIRED article summarizes, "Shortly after [DSM-IV] came out, doctors began to declare children bipolar even if they had never had a manic episode and were too young to have shown the pattern of mood change associated with the disease. Within a dozen years, bipolar diagnoses among children had increased 40-fold. Many of these kids were put on antipsychotic drugs, whose effects on the developing brain are poorly understood but which are known to cause obesity and diabetes."
You accuse AHRP of engaging in "a dangerous campaign to discredit psychiatry and to discourage psychiatric patients from staying in treatment and taking medication."
But, Dr. Frances, if there is no definition or valid criteria for psychiatry's DSM diagnoses--the official basis for psychotropic drug prescription -- then surely there is no medical justification for anyone "staying in treatment and taking medication."
Moreover, Gary Greenberg quotes you as being horrified at the idea of more “kids getting unneeded antipsychotics that would make them gain 12 pounds in 12 weeks hit me in the gut. It was uniquely my job and my duty to protect them. If not me to correct it, who? I was stuck without an excuse to convince myself.”
So, what is "ludicrous" about the AHRP Infomail stating that Dr Frances' "publicly expressed criticism of psychiatry's grandiose ambition--demonstrated by its ever expanding list of unvalidated disease designations and reliance on demonstrably harm-producing chemical interventions-- essentially validates the criticism expressed by the Alliance for Human Research Protection for more than a dozen years"?
Dr. Frances, which statements that you made, and that appeared to agree completely with the AHRP’s own critiques, do you now disavow?
Vera Hassner Sharav
Thank You AHRP
"Here is the difference. I believe psychiatry is a noble and extremely helpful profession. My concern is that it has strayed beyond its suitable boundaries- leading to too much diagnosis and treatment of people who are not really ill or too mildly ill to require an intervention. My goal is to keep psychiatry doing what it does best and what only it can do really well- treating the clearly ill who definitely need help."
IF, as DR. Frances claims, Psychiatry is a noble and extremely helpful profession, ...... Why is every 'No Positive Outcome Has Been Observed To Date' peddler Immune from having to wear their Own Ennobling and Helpful Stink?
"In the article, you are quoted as stating that: “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit.”
It's 14th Amendment Violating "Bullshit".
Thursday, June 23, 2011
"Children on Medicaid under the age of three would not be prescribed powerful anti-psychotic drugs without a special authorization, under new rules the state Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) implemented last week.
In response to widespread concerns about the number of impoverished Texas kids being prescribed drugs like Seroquel and Risperdal — medications that can have serious side effects in children — prescribing doctors would have to get a prior authorization from the state, a steep hurdle designed to limit use of the drugs.
The changes to state policy, which took effect June 14, are “based on evidence-based clinical criteria and nationally recognized peer-reviewed information,” said Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the HHSC.
"We consider this to be a long overdue starting point in protecting young children from dangerous drugs," said Lee Spiller, director of investigations for the Citizens Commisson on Human Rights. "At least one other state has seen significant benefit from adopting such protections. However, given our state's history of defending if not promoting the use of these drugs, we'll definitely have to keep a close eye on this to see how it plays out."
In an interview last year, state Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston and an opponent of the use of such drugs among kids on Medicaid, said they’d been prescribed to children “under the age of two, and in some cases under the age of one.”
“The goal is not to micromanage, or to delay needed treatment,” Turner said at the time. “But there should be at least some minimum level of authorization to check the safety and appropriateness of these drugs in children under 16.”
"North Texas psychiatrist Fernando Siles, the second-highest prescriber, wrote nearly 22,000 antipsychotic prescriptions to Texas Medicaid patients between 2005 and 2009, and was paid $1.9 million from the state for treating them. Siles, who attended medical school in South America, is a recording artist who plays the Peruvian pan flute. His website emphasizes his “Flute Doctor” music therapy practice, and attributes “major psychiatric breakthroughs” to “listening to his original music.” Messages left with Siles’ office were returned by his music manager. Siles, a child and adolescent psychiatrist who has treated foster children, could not be reached for comment."
$1.9 Million Public Dollars to play this guy's Peruvian Pan Flute, ...... to 'Treat' Mystic Illnesses.
Monday, June 20, 2011
"Johnson & Johnson continues to be plagued by product recalls, with the latest involving two lots of its schizophrenia drug Risperdal (risperidone) distributed in the US and Puerto Rico.
Once again the recall has been called because of consumer reports of an "uncharacteristic odour" that is thought to be caused by trace amounts of TBA (2,4,6 tribromoanisole), a by-product of a chemical preservative sometimes applied to wood used in the construction of pallets on which materials are transported and stored.
J&J is initiating a voluntary recall of one lot of brand name Risperdal 3mg Tablets, involving a total of around 16,000 bottles, as well as 24,000 bottles of a generic risperidone product manufactured by the company's generic drugs unit Patriot Pharmaceuticals."
Risperdal's been on the market for over 16 years. It doesn't even Pretend to cure Anything. It grossed just short of $30 Billion Dollars for J&J. 97% of that was Profit. The people Peddling it will NOT tell the consumer what Risperdal actually is because they Can't. If they Did, Nobody would Dream of poisoning themselves or their family with it.
In just 36 Months, according to the FDA, Risperdal Killed 308 American consumers. The Global death toll on this obscenely expensive Brain Eater is Anybody's guess.
We'd Like to ask just What the FDA thought it was Doing when it released this drug on an unsuspecting American people, but we already know what they were thinking.
Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) > PDUFA User Fee Rates Archive
So now we have J&J recalling 16,000 bottles & 24,000 bottles of a generic risperidone product that they produce, because it stinks. And it's Been stinking for 16 years. Here's what it stank of for just 36 months, in America.
Risperdal's top 20 side effects reported to MedWatch between Jan. 2004 and Dec. 2006:
Death - 308 Cases
Diabetes Mellitus - 176 Cases
Drug Interaction - 176 Cases
Increased Weight - 138 Cases
Leukopenia - 124 Cases
Fall - 123 Cases
Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome - 116 Cases
Extrapyramidal Disorder - 109 Cases
Tardive Dyskinesia - 104 Cases
Cerebrovascular Accident - 102 Cases
Convulsion - 99 Cases
Somnolence - 98 Cases
Aggression - 99 Cases
Tremor - 93 Cases
Neutropenia - 91 Cases
Rhabdomyolysis - 88 Cases
Condition Aggravated - 86 Cases
Creatine Phosphokinase Increased - 85 Cases
Psychotic Disorder - 82 Cases
Pneumonia - 82 Cases
J&J''s Janssen Unit - responsible for this drug - has been carping, in Texas, about their Ethical Business Practices in the face of a Billion Dollar lawsuit filed against them by the Texas State Attorney General's Office.
And Pharmalot tells us;
J&J Risperdal Project 'Subverted Scientific Integrity'
Friday, June 10, 2011
"it is acknowledged by all concerned that Risperdal is an excellent drug for the treatment of mental illnesses."
"this Court finds the actions of the Defendants, upon this audience, to be detestable."
"Annual Sales of Risperdal worldwide per annual reports of Johnson & Johnson, Inc.1994: $0.172 Billion1995: $0.343 Billion1996: $0.502 Billion1998: $0.588 Billion1999: $0.892 Billion2000: $1.083 Billion2001: $1.845 Billion2002: $2.146 Billion2003: $2.512 Billion2004: $3.05 Billion2005: $3.552 Billion2006: $4.180 Billion2007: $4.697 Billion2008: $1.309 Billion2009: $1.425 Billion2010: $1.50 BillionTotal for the period: $29.796 BillionTestimony at trial indicated that the profit margin for sales of Risperdal was 97% or $28.90 Billion for the period of 1994-2010"
Judy Garland's Ruby Slippers, and an idiot who drove 500 miles to see his brother, ...... On A LAWNMOWER, ...... because he was too stupid to scrape up a bus ticket.
Has a nice ring to it.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
- Thirty-five percent went to direct full service partnerships.
- Ten percent to housing for these programs.
- Five percent to Trauma and Violence, and recovery programs.
- Establish permanency and stability, and reduce the number of children in foster care.
- Once emancipated, provide stability.
Six full-time staff, four social workers, one psychologist, one Masters in Family Therapy (MFT), and one court liaison.
The team was established to assess a childs needs, and will identify the most difficult issues facing this child and will get a referral for medication if needed.
Comprised of case managers, clinicians and psychologists. They do evaluations and reports for courts. They also review cases that are screened out and not going to a caseworker. These cases will often be referred to Mental Health.