Tweet Of The Day, from Drudge

weaselzippers;

Tweet Of The Day

Heh.

Via Matt Drudge:

ZIP | December 30, 2013 12:10 pm

Thanks Drudge and Zip.

The Op-Ed: Antidepressants, Pregnancy & Autism: A Potent Mix

pharmalot has;
The Op-Ed: Antidepressants, Pregnancy & Autism: A Potent Mix
. . . . . . .

[Ed; We're going to cut to the chase here:

November 2013 (Sorensen, et al)

In November 2013, Sorensen and colleagues from Denmark published a study looking at 668,468 births in Denmark from 1996 to 2006.  The rate of exposure to antidepressants during pregnancy is very low in Denmark (about 1.3 percent in Denmark in this study versus 5 percent to 15 percent in the US) but what these researchers found regarding SSRI exposure was concerning. From Table 2 in their paper, one can see that the Adjusted Hazard Ratio for autism spectrum disorder in the children exposed to SSRIs was 1.6.

What this means is that they found a 60% increase in autism in the children of the moms who were using SSRIs during pregnancy.  One way to tell if one thing causes another is to look for a dose –response relationship. For example, if smoking causes lung cancer, then we would expect to see heavier smokers have more lung cancer (and this is, in fact, what we see with smoking.) In this Sorensen study, the researchers looked at whether there was a dose-response relationship with the SSRIs during pregnancy and autism and they found that there was. Women on a low-dose of SSRI had a 40 percent increase in autism (aHR=1.4), while those on a high-dose had an 80% increase (aHR=1.8). 

These results are very concerning and correspond to the prior human studies (as well as the theory and the animal studies presented above.)  But, what the authors also did in this study was to take their initial population of 668,468 and then basically “throw out” more than 662,000 of the study subjects in order to do a substudy that focused only on 6,080 children of moms who had been given a diagnosis of an affective disorder through an in-patient or outpatient psychiatric hospital unit.  When the authors did this much smaller study (about 100 times smaller) they still found SSRIs to be associated with autism spectrum disorder in the offspring but the result was no longer statistically significant. But this loss of statistical significance should come as no surprise given that they removed about 662,000 subjects from their original study.

read the entire op-ed, . . . .


Thank You Mr. Urato and Mr. Silverman

Psychiatry Has Its Head In The Sand: Royal College Of Psychiatrists Rejects Discussion Of Crucial Research On Antipsychotics

via Mad In America;

Psychiatry Has Its Head In The Sand: Royal College Of Psychiatrists Rejects Discussion Of Crucial Research On Antipsychotics

Joanna Moncrieff, MD

December 20, 2013

Two pieces of research have been published over the last two years that should prompt a major reorientation of the treatment of schizophrenia and psychosis, and a fundamental reappraisal of the use of antipsychotic drugs in general.  Put together, these studies suggest that the standard approach to treating serious mental health problems may cause more harm than good. Long-term treatment with antipsychotic drugs has adverse effects on the brain, and may impair rather than improve chances of recovery for some. Many people ask me how the psychiatric profession has responded to this data. Surely, they think, it must have stimulated a major debate within the profession, and some critical reflection about why it took so long to recognise these worrying effects? Sadly, this does not appear to be happening.

I have described both of these studies in detail in previous blogs. Briefly, in 2012 the research group led by Nancy Andreasen, the former editor of the American Journal of Psychiatry, publishedresults of a brain scanning study of people diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. The study found that people’s brains shrank over time in proportion to the amount of antipsychotic drugs they had been exposed to. The report concluded that  ‘antipsychotics have a subtle but measurable influence on brain tissue loss over time‘^{(1, p 128)}.  The study confirmed that the brain shrinkage observed in animals⁽²⁾ also occurs in humans.

We don’t know whether these observed effects of antipsychotic treatment are temporary or permanent, and we don’t know whether they have any functional implications. In other words we don’t know whether the brain shrinkage is associated with intellectual decline or other brain-based abnormalities. The evidence is conflicting, with some studies suggesting there is no impact on mental ability⁽³⁾, but worryingly, other studies, including Andreasen’s study, indicate that there may be an association between reduced brain volume and some cognitive or mental deterioration^(4;5). It is obviously a worrying possibility.

The second game changing publication was the paper reporting the seven year follow up results of the Dutch antipsychotic discontinuation study⁽⁶⁾. This study, conducted with people who had recovered from a first episode of psychosis, found that people randomised to a flexible and gradual antipsychotic discontinuation strategy were twice as likely to show a full social recovery than those who were allocated to continuous (maintenance) antipsychotic treatment. Moreover, relapses, which had been higher in the discontinuation group at 18 month follow up, had equalised.

As I have said elsewhere, I am not against the use of these drugs altogether, but these studies suggest that antipsychotics are bad for the brain and can reduce people’s social functioning when used continuously over long periods. When I present these findings to audiences of non-psychiatrists, they are shocked that the drugs can continue to be so freely used in the face of this evidence. ‘How can this be ethically justified?’ someone commented at a recent meeting I attended.

When people ask me how psychiatrists have responded, I have, up to now, tried to give my profession the benefit of the doubt.  Some leading psychiatrists have been publicly critical of the overhyping of antipsychotics⁽⁷⁾ and there are undoubtedly many others who are concerned about these research findings and trying to avoid antipsychotic drug treatment if possible, and use low doses for short periods where not. I have expressed the hope that as this research becomes more widely known, others will follow suit.

My illusions were recently shattered, however, by the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ conference planning committee.  Recently I proposed a symposium for the 2014 annual conference entitled ‘Re-Evaluating Antipsychotics – Time to Change Practice?’ I invited Lex Wunderink, the first author of the Dutch study, to discuss his study, along with a leading British psychiatrist involved in brain scanning studies of people with schizophrenia. I was confident the symposium would be accepted, because obviously, I thought, the conference committee would recognise the importance of this research, and want to ensure it was widely publicised to, and debated by, members of the profession.

To my astonishment it was rejected. I wrote to the conference organiser to ask why, pointing out that patients, carers and the general public are wondering what the profession is doing about these research findings. They would be most surprised to know that the profession did not consider the results sufficiently interesting to merit discussion at the principal meeting of UK psychiatrists. She replied that there were too many competing suggestions. So I asked if any of the symposia selected covered these same areas of research.  I did not get a reply.

Surely, these findings are so momentous they deserve a whole conference in themselves? Every department of psychiatry around the country should be considering the implications of these studies, and be thinking about how psychiatric practice should change as a result. Yet the representative body of UK psychiatrists feels the evidence is not worthy of an hour and a half’s discussion at its annual conference.

Although I would like to believe it is was an aberration, I fear that the conference committee’s view is a barometer of the profession’s general attitude. It seems not to be interested in discussing the serious harm its drugs can do to both physical and mental health, and in taking the steps necessary to minimise this harm. The profession appears to believe that if it keeps quiet about these inconvenient findings, and discusses them as little as possible, the fuss will blow over and nothing need change.

It is disgraceful that the profession is not taking these findings more seriously, but sadly not unprecedented.  In the 1970s, the profession was accused of being ‘completely unconcerned’ about emerging evidence on the association between antipsychotic use and the syndrome of brain damage called ‘tardive dyskinesia’⁽⁸⁾.

At best psychiatry appears indifferent and complacent. At worst it is subconsciously attempting to hush up inconvenient data, so that, along with its partner, the pharmaceutical industry, it can continue ‘business as usual.’ Either way, it appears that the critics are right: the profession has its head firmly in the sand.

References:

(1)    Ho BC, Andreasen NC, Ziebell S, Pierson R, Magnotta V. Long-term Antipsychotic Treatment and Brain Volumes: A Longitudinal Study of First-Episode Schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011 Feb;68(2):128-37.

(2) Dorph-Petersen KA, Pierri JN, Perel JM, Sun Z, Sampson AR, Lewis DA. The influence of chronic exposure to antipsychotic medications on brain size before and after tissue fixation: a comparison of haloperidol and olanzapine in macaque monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology 2005 Sep;30(9):1649-61.

(3) DeLisi LE, Hoff AL, Schwartz JE, Shields GW, Halthore SN, Gupta SM, et al. Brain morphology in first-episode schizophrenic-like psychotic patients: a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study. Biol Psychiatry 1991 Jan 15;29(2):159-75.

(4) Gur RE, Turetsky BI, Bilker WB, Gur RC. Reduced gray matter volume in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 Oct;56(10):905-11.

(5) Gur RE, Turetsky BI, Bilker WB, Gur RC. Reduced gray matter volume in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999 Oct;56(10):905-11.

(6) Wunderink L, Nieboer RM, Wiersma D, Sytema S, Nienhuis FJ. Recovery in Remitted First-Episode Psychosis at 7 Years of Follow-up of an Early Dose Reduction/Discontinuation or Maintenance Treatment Strategy: Long-term Follow-up of a 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry 2013 Jul 3.

(7) Tyrer P. From the Editor’s desk. British Journal of Psychiatry 2012;201:168.

(8) Crane GE. Clinical psychopharmacology in its 20th year. Late, unanticipated effects of neuroleptics may limit their use in psychiatry. Science 1973 Jul 13;181(4095):124-8.

Joanna Moncrieff, MD

Dr. Moncrieff is a Senior Lecturer at University College London. She is one of the founders and co-chair person of the Critical Psychiatry Network. She has written three books: The Bitterest Pills,  The Myth of the Chemical Cure, and A Straight Talking Introduction to Psychiatric Drugs.

Thank You Dr. Moncrieff and MIA.

Well, what can we add to that?

You'd keep Your head 'In The Sand' too if you were selling Suicide and Homicide, . . . and suckering the Tax Payers into Paying you to sell Suicide and Homicide. 

NY Doctors Suing United Healthcare For Booting Them From Network Because Of ObamaCare

weaselzippers;

NY Doctors Suing United Healthcare For Booting Them From Network Because Of Obamacare

The continuing ugly ripples of Obamacare.

Because Medicare Advantage will now no longer pay to keep good doctors, not only will patients be losing the doctors that many have had for years (thousands already hit), but because compensation to doctors is cut, the number of competent doctors will be in short supply.

Stealing from Medicare Advantage to pay for Obamacare…the doctors AND insurers should be suing Obama.

Via NY Post:

WASHINGTON — A group of New York doctors is suing insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, charging that it booted doctors from its network to avoid cost hikes imposed by ObamaCare.

The company’s decision to kick more than 2,000 docs from its Medicare Advantage network threatens to harm elderly and disabled patients, according to the filing in Brooklyn federal court.

“By terminating numerous physicians from the . . . network, United seeks to stem financial losses occasioned by reduced federal payments under the Affordable Care Act,” the suit launched by the Medical Society of the State of New York claims.

“This, of course, comes at the expense of physicians,” the suit continues, arguing that the company violated doctors’ contracts by failing to give sufficient notice, among other things.

Keep reading…

Thank You NY Post, Weaselzippers, and Nickarama. 

Obama's Top Ten Constitutional Violations Of 2013

weaselzippers;

Obama's Top Ten Constitutional Violations Of 2013

Well put together list by Forbes’ Ilya Shapiro:

1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.

7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.

8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”

9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses.Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.

10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.

Keep reading…

Thank You Forbes, Ilya Shapiro, and Zip. 


Also see;

Obama Hits The Links For The 154th Time of His Presidency…

WH Flies 7 Bills To Hawaii For Obama To Sign So They Can Release This Propaganda Photo Of Obama “Working”…

And guess who gets stuck with the bill?

Thank You Weaselzippers.

Professor Admits To Faking AIDS Vaccine To Get $19 Million In Grants

weaselzippers;

Professor Admits To Faking AIDS Vaccine To Get $19 Million In Grants

He is not in jail for fraud for what reason?

Via NY Post:

An Iowa State University professor resigned after admitting he falsely claimed rabbit blood could be turned into a vaccine for the AIDS virus.

Dr. Dong-Pyou Han spiked a clinical test sample with healthy human blood to make it appear that the rabbit serum produced disease-fighting antibodies, officials said.

The bogus findings helped Han’s team obtain $19 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health, said James Bradac, who oversees the institutes’ AIDS research.

The remarkable findings were reported in scientific journals but raised suspicions when other researchers could not duplicate Han’s results.

The NIH uncovered the scam when it checked the rabbit serum at a lab and found the human antibodies.

Han resigned from his university post as an assistant professor of biomedical studies in October. His case came to light this week when it was reported in the Federal Register.

Han agreed last month not to seek government contracts for three years, the register said.

Thank You WZ, Nickarama, and New York Post. 



"He is not in jail for fraud for what reason?"

"The bogus findings helped Han’s team obtain $19 million in research grants from the National Institutes of Health, . . . "

The same reason that Research into 'Mental Illness' must continue, because it sure's hell hasn't got a snowball's chance of ever discovering any bogus Cure for a Difference of Opinion.

UCSF Tops Public Institutions in NIH Funding,