Good Signs

I haven't blogged for a while, and much has changed in my absense.

-The FDA has finally recognized the suicide dangers that SSRI's pose and now requires that all SSRI's recieve it highest "black-box" warning. As a result all direct to consumer advertising is now banned.

-The impotence of the FDA has been exposed by the recall of the pain medication Vioxx, which is now linked to thousands of deaths. A lead whistle-blower has testified before congress that the failure to remove Vioxx from the market was the direct result of the pro-insustry structure and funding of the agency. There is an appetite on capitol hill for reforming, or possibly abolishing the FDA alltogether.

- Documents have surfaced making clear that Pfiser knew about Prozac's suicide danger from day one, and hid that knowledge.

- Corruption in the process of submiting articles to medical journals has forced leading medical journals to change their practicies. Also, pressure has been successfully been applied on drug companies to reveal the results of all their clinical trials, even those that fail. (Usually only successful trials are published) Several firms have commited themselves to polling all their information in a government-run database.

All of these developments are positive, and the tide seems to be turning against psychopharmacology. People are finally becoming more skeptical of these "miricle drugs". Sadly, little attention has been paid to the so-called "anti-psychotics", even though they are far more dangerous than the SSRIS. Anti-psychotics are typically perscribed to lower economic classes than the SSRI's, and thus problems with them attract little attention.

The Political Economy of Drugs

Of all the affairs of the nation, one would think that public health should be divorced from the distorting interference of politics. Alas, this is not the case as former Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine makes clear in her recent article "The Truth About the Drug Companies". The article focuses more on the nasty bussiness practices which pharmaceutical companies engage, but its relevence to psychiatry is all to clear. If these companies will do anything to make a buck , then it is no wonder why they are capable of passing bad drugs onto consumers without blinking an eye.

What They Don't Publish

Many advocates for psychopharmocological solutions to mental health problems point to numerous studies that purport the safety of the drugs. It is true that many studies exist that claim that main psychopharmaceutical drugs used today are safe. But there are three glaring problems with accepting the outcome of these studies as fact. The first, is that most of these studies are paid for by the manufacturers of the drugs, one way or another. Most publicly available studies are done either by the manufacturer's staff scientists, by scientists at academic institutions that receive financial support from pharmaceutical industry, or by the National Institute for Mental Health, which is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. This situation is obviously a conflict of interest. The second problem with accepting these studies is the fact that not all of the studies done by the manufacturer are released to the public. Only the clinical trials that show positive results are published, while those that show negative results are kept hidden in the drug companies' files. The third is the very nature of science. What has been "proven" today, may be disproven tomorrow. Remember the 1950's? LSD was proven to be safe and therapeutic. Amphetamines (speed) were proven safe and effective in controlling one's weight, and lifting mood. The early tranquilizer were proven to be non-addictive and useful for anxiety, depression and sleeplessness. All of these "proven" facts were overturned by later science, and the same thing may happen for the popular drugs of today. Science is a tool only as good as those who wield it, and no matter who wields it, science is not infallible.

Science Has Missed Half The Brain

A cover article in the April 2004 edition of Scientific American explains how "science has missed half the brain." Researchers have long known that the brain contains two types of cells, neurons and glia. In the brain gilal cells outnumber nerve cells 9 to 1, however scientists have always held them to be relatively insignificant. They theorized that they were realitivly inactive support cells for the nerves. Recently, however, researchers have discovered that gilal cells indeed do play a large role in how the brain works and new technologies have allowed scientists to see just how important these cells are to brain function. The study of glial cells is an exciting new frontier of neuroscience, and may hold the key to understanding brain function and dysfunction. Scientists predict that perhaps the causes of M.S. could be derieved from this study, and it is interesting to ponder that fact that the scientists who studied Albert Einstien's brain found an average number of nerve cells, but a great deal more glial cells than normal. Fasinating! But wait! Weren't we told that scientists understood the brain. And that because they understood the brain, they could create treatments for brain disorders like depresssion, anxiety and schizophrenia ? All of the psychoactive drugs now used to treat mental disorders are designed to target the neurons. SSRI's target the neurotransmitter serotonin. Anti-Psychotics target production of the neurotransmitter dopamine. What if the true cause of schizophrenia is found in the glial cells? What if depression has nothing to do with neurotransmission? Just a case in point that science is a work in progress. If researchers can't fully understand how the brain works, they should not reccomend how to fix it. I could not find a free link to this article but you can check out the abstract here.

A Much Better Blog

I haven't really been able to keep this blog updated all that often, and I'm pretty sure that few people have ever seen it. If you do happen to come accross this page in your web journeys, I would ask you to go to a much better blog on this subject Pseudoscience in Psych Blog.

The Impotent FDA

The pharmaceutical industry, quite naturally, puts profit over people. It therefore falls to the United States' Food and Drug Administration (and ultimately ourselves) to watch out for dangerous medicines. Is the FDA up to the task? Unfortunately not, according to a PBS Frontline documentary that can be watched here. The FDA is apparently overworked, and in the pocket of the big pharmaceuticals. The current administration seems to prefer it that way. Oh yes, and who pays for the FDA? The drug companies actually put up the money to pay the salaries of the FDA employees who review the safety thier products. No joke!

Manufacturing Discontent

Ever wonder how emotions or charecterisics about ouselves suddenly became diseases? (Such as attentiveness, or lack thereof)? Most likely such a medicalization our charecteristics benefited some drug company that happened to have stumbled upon the cure. An extreme case in point is Forest Laboratories, whose lagging sales of its Anti-Depressant drug Lexapro caused it to attempt to broaden the range of diseases the drug cures to include "compulsive shopping." It didn't fly. Buy one medicalization that did was "social phobia", a curious new disorder whose orgins are chronicled here.

The Pharmaceutical Industry's Hold on Doctors

Why is it, one may ask, that the dangers of such drugs seem to be lost upon the doctors who prescribe them? Excluding the truly evil psychiatrists, of which there must be some, one is still left with a large number of honest doctors practicing truly dangerous, harmful medicine. How is this so? Well, the answer lies in the hidden power the pharmaceutical industry has over doctors. Even if a psychiatrist is an honest decent human being, he/she has usually been so propagadized by the industry that such admirable qualities no longer make much a difference. Prescribing has just become a habit, a conditioned reflex. And behind this conditioning lie the makers of the drugs the psychiatrist dispenses. The drug makers not only market their products to consumers in a scandalous, shameful way, they do the same to doctors. The main professional association for psychiatrists is largely underwritten by the industry, and its meetings seem more like indoctrination sessions. And out in the field, armies of drug company representives scour the nation in search of that last doctor who hasn't heard of the unique benefits his company's product. (In fact drug reps are a bit of a growth industry, if your're unemployed and totally unethical click here)These drug reps make all kinds of underhanded,sleazy, and tempting offers to doctors to coax them into prescribing thier product. A study by the Britsh Medical Journal has found that these tatics do indeed make it more likey that a doctor will presribe the drug. Psychiatric drugs are no exception. With a scene like this, it's no wonder doctors find it hard to seperate fact from fiction, good medicine from profit-taking quackery.

Arguments Against the Use of SSRI Anti-Depressants

The SSRI class of anti-depressants hit the market in 1988 with the Eli Lilly's notorious Prozac(fluoxetine). The drug was actually created in the 1970's but could not reach the market for more than a decade because of side effect problems, some of which were hidden from the FDA. As it hit the market it was regarded as a miracle drug for the treatment of depression, and in the following decade sales of Prozac and its SSRI cousins skyrocketed. These sales feats were accomplished primarily not by exploiting an untapped market, as the drug makers would have you believe, but by an aggressive(illegal?) marketing campaign. Millions of people were made to believe that the SSRI's were the miracle drugs, a process helped by the government's end on the ban of pharmaceutical marketing to consumers, a practice which has become so widespread that the industry holds its own awards show for the best ads. Naturally the drugs were not as benign as they were marketed to be, and the side effects of these newest wonderdrugs began to surface. One side effect had to due with the adverse effects of SSRI's in children. The SSRI's had never been approved for use in the under-18's, however it was a widespread practice to prescribe them to children as young as one year. The drug makers knew of this practice, and of its dangers, but allowed the prescriptions to continue. Concerns over SSRI's effect on the young eventually led to the United Kingdom's ban on their use in under-18's, and the FDA's stern warning against it. Also of concern was the possibility that the SSRI's, particularly Paxil/Seroxat(paroxetine)may be addictive. The most troubling side effect of all is the SSRI's documented tendency to increase the risk of suicide, to which,sadly, there are many first-hand accounts: 12 3 4 5. Worse, evidence has emerged that the psycho-pharmaceutical corporations and the FDA worked together to suppress early evidence of this deadly risk. Often SSRI prescriptions are described as nessaccary because they can prevent suicide. With the new evidence emerging this benifit must be questioned. Again, if you or a loved one are facing the psycho-pharmacutical decision, please be informed and decide wisely.-- The SSRI Anti-Depressants: fluoxetine (trade name: Prozac®, Fontex®, Seromex®, Seronil®, Sarafem®), paroxetine (trade name: Paxil®, Seroxat®, Optipar®, Aropax®, Paroxat®), sertraline (trade name: Zoloft®), escitalopram oxalate (trade name: Lexapro®, Cipralex®), citalopram (trade name: Celexa®, Cipramil®, Emocal®, Sepram®), fluvoxamine maleate (trade name: Luvox®, Faverin®)

The Mad Market

Antidepressants are the third largest prescription drug market in the US. Antipsychotics are the sixth. Together, drugs made to treat mental problems are the largest class of drugs in the United States. And they are also the fastet growing.A slew of corporations are racing to take advantage of the mad market. A psychiatric patient may be forgen for assuming that the treatment he/she is on was created and sold soely for the benefit of curing the mental anguish of mankind. But such a view is nieve. The big pharmasuticals are in this market for the profit to be made, and this reality should be accepted by every psychiatric patient exploring the option of drug treatment. Every phase of a drugs life--particually the marketing phase--is affected by this drive for profit in a twenty billion dollar industry. The informed consumor should be wise to to the marketing tactics used by the drug makers, particually the television adverts as they don't allow the oppuntunity to read the product label as the magazine and internet ads do. And please always remember that despite the medical setting, even medical treatment is a market, and as with any market: buyer beware.

Arguments Against The Use of Anti-Psychotics

The drugs known as the Anti-Psychotics( aka neuroleptics, major tranquilizers) are perhaps the most dangerous drugs ever used in psychiatry. These drugs were discovered accidentally in the 1950's from their use in the dye industry. The first used was Chlorpromazine, and soon a whole new class followed. They were first marketed for use in schizophrenia, and sales were very brisk as mental hospitals all over the country switched from either treating or merely housing schizophrenics in hospitals, to the drug based therapy of the new medications. At first these drugs were heralded as miracle cures, but problems soon began to appear. The anti-psychiotics achieved their aim of subduing the patient by, quite simply, disabling his/her brain. And as would be expected this mechanism of action produced a wide range of serious, even life-threatening side effects. Psychiatric orthodoxy has recongized the most serious of these side effects, Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome and Tardive Dyskinesia, more dissident psychiatrists point to many more. Despite thier downright horrid side effect profile, the neuroleptics were never taken off of the market. Thier market was simply too large. Thier targets simply too helpless. Indeed, today derivitives of the original neuroleptics are the most common treatment given to people diagnosed with schizophrenia. A new class of "Atypical" neuroleptics have been created and the psycho-pharmacutical industry is keen to hearld thier lower side-effect profile. However, one look at one of thier product labels will show that there is still pleanty to be concerned about, including the possibility of sudden death in two different ways. Further, many psychiatric dissidents and former patients fear that the side-effects on the label are only the tip of the iceberg and that irreversable brain damage is the direct outcome of any neuroleptic treatment. If you or a loved one are facing a decison regarding anti-psychotic/neuroleptic treatment, the decision is yours and yours alone. But I urge you as always to be aware and do some research regarding these medications.-- The anti-pyschotics(neuroleptics, major tranquilzers): Typicals Chlorpromazine,Fluphenazine (Prolixin®, Haloperidol (Haldol®), Molindone, Thiothixene, Thioridazine (Mellaril®), Trifluoperazine, Loxapine. Atypicals Clozapine (Clozaril®), Olanzapine (Zyprexa®), Quetiapine (Seroquel®), Risperidone (Risperdal®), Ziprasidone (Geodon®), Aripiprazole (Abilify®), Sertindole (Serlect®, Serdolect®).

A Neuroscientist Speaks Out

For those of you who would like a little science to back up my concern for the psyco-pharmaceutical treatments that are now being used in psychiatry today, I would like to turn your attention to one Elliot Valenstein and his book Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health. Mr. Valenstien is a neuroscientist from the University of Michigan. His book explores the hard science of the psyco-pharmaceutical industry's claim that all mental disorders are caused by a known disorder of the brain, and that these disorders have their remedies in psyco-pharmaceutical drugs, most of which, Mr. Valenstien points out, were discovered accidentally, not custom designed to cure a 'disease'. For those who are scientifically inclined, this book is a great resource to draw upon when making your psyco-pharmaceutical decisions.-- Read Mr. Valenstien's latest interview.

Neuroscience: A Work in Progress

I believe in science. I am not a creationist, nor a loner who distrusts all of western civilization. Science has its uses, but it also has its limits. Science can create atomic energy, send a man to the moon, cure countless diseases, but it cannot (at least not yet) make us all blissfully happy. Just as every achievement of science was achieved by trial and error, so too is the achievement of pharmaceutically produced happiness. The question you must ask yourself when considering pscycho-pharmacuetical treatment is: Do I want to be a part of that process? Do I want to take the chance that I could be one of those errors? In the past psychiatry has committed some pretty gruesome mistakes. At one point in time cutting pieces out of people's brains or electrocuting them to near death was considered treatment. Obviously, as science has now realized, these treatments were nothing of the sort. They were barbaric, crude, damaging and disabling attempts at treatment. Today we have new treatments, undoubtedly less harmful than the old, but still part of the same trial and error process that every scientific discipline goes though and as such the legitimate question arises: are the drugs used to treat mental illnesses today safe for human consumption? There are varing answers, for some are safer than others. But no drug used in psychiatry today is as safe as its manufactuer claims or hints at in its ad campigns. I urge those who are considering psychiatric treatment to research your decision before you agree to treatment. Please check out some of these links for more information...