Featured Post

Attacks in Russian schools inspired by Columbine massacre

Three separate bloodbaths at Russian schools recently are all linked by the teenage attackers 'worshipping' the perpetrators of...

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


Young people taking antidepressants such as Prozac and Seroxat are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes when they are on the medication, scientists said.

Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) are a class of widely prescribed drugs, including fluoxetine, branded by Eli Lilly as Prozac, and GlaxoSmithKline’s paroxetine, branded as Paxil or Seroxat, designed to ease symptoms of anxiety and depression.
For the study, researchers led by Seena Fazel of Oxford University used a unique design which aimed to avoid confounding factors by comparing the same individuals’ behaviour while both on and off medication.
“The point of the design is that we’re comparing people with themselves,” Fazel told reporters at a briefing, adding that this helped minimise the impact of genetics or lifestyle factors.
Using matched data from Sweden’s prescribed drug register and its national crime register over a three-year period, they found that about 850,000 people were prescribed SSRIs and 1% of these were convicted of a violent crime.
While in most age groups the likelihood of criminal violence was not significantly different whether people were taking SSRIs or not, for 15-24 year-olds there was a very substantial increase – 43% – in their risk of committing violent crime while on the medication.
Moreover the results found a higher risk of young people being involved in violent arrests, non-violent convictions and arrests, suffering non-fatal injuries and having alcohol problems when they were taking the antidepressants – and also that those who took lower doses had a higher risk of being violent.
Fazel said it was possible that young people taking lower doses of antidepressants were not being “fully treated” for their mental disorder, leaving them more likely to engage in impulsive behaviour.
He added, however, that if the results are confirmed in further studies, “warnings about the increased risk of violent behaviour among young people taking SSRIs might be needed”.

Study finds young people on antidepressants more prone to violence Reuters 16 September 2015

Soaring drug use, a growing number of addicts, far too few clinics to treat them and a rising death toll. This might sound like a scene from an impoverished country run by drug cartels - but it is, in fact, the day-to-day reality for NHS patients who are prescribed psychiatric drugs to treat anxiety, insomnia and depression.
More than 80 million prescriptions for psychiatric drugs are written in the UK every year. Not only are these drugs often entirely unnecessary and ineffective, but they can also turn patients into addicts, cause crippling side-effects - and kill.
For instance, antipsychotics, commonly given to dementia patients to keep them quiet, raise the risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke. Psychiatric drugs also make falls more likely, and breaking a hip can shorten life significantly, while some antidepressants are linked to a potentially deadly irregular heartbeat.
And the death toll from these pills has been grossly underestimated. As I reveal in a new book, Deadly Psychiatry And Organised Denial, the true figure is terrifying: according to my calculations, based on data from published and unpublished sources, for psychiatric drugs are the third major killer after heart disease and cancer.
As an investigator for the independent Cochrane Collaboration - an international body that assesses medical research - my role is to look forensically at the evidence for treatments.
Previously this has led to me challenging widely-held assumptions about the benefits of breast cancer screening (I've calculated that every year in the UK, thousands of women undergo unnecessary treatment because of overdiagnosis), GP health MOTs, and the advice for cutting asthma attacks by using special mattress covers.

All these have certainly ruffled feathers, but what I've discovered about the damage caused by psychiatric drugs far outweighs anything else I've identified.
In fact, the data on all this is available if you know where to look, but I'm the first person to pull it all together - for instance, finding that the number of suicides among adults and children taking antidepressant drugs is actually 15 times greater than the number calculated by the U.S. drugs watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration.
Yet psychiatrists and GPs generally ignore or deny the appalling scale of this damage from drugs that are all too often used without medical justification.
Just this month, for instance, a study published in the BMJ found that thousands of people in England with learning difficulties are routinely prescribed antipsychotic drugs: these drugs do nothing to help these patients but are used as a chemical cosh.
I was alerted to the failings of psychiatric drugs eight years ago when one of my postgraduate students suggested an idea for her PhD thesis: 'Why is history repeating itself? A study on benzodiazepines and antidepressants.'
She explained she'd discovered that popular tranquilisers such as Valium (a benzodiazepine drug more popularly known as 'mother's little helper'), and before that the barbiturates, had been described as very safe when first introduced, but then turned out to be highly addictive.
When selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (antidepressants known as SSRIs) came on the market 20 years ago, their big selling point was that they were non-addictive. That proved just as wrong.
I decided to dig deeply into this area, and currently have three PhD students investigating what psychiatric drugs really do to people.
What we have found is truly astonishing. Doctors dispense them in large numbers because they believe drug trials show them to be effective, but the evidence is based on poor science.
The skeletons in this closet have been tumbling out at an alarming rate. Sleeping pills, for instance, stop being beneficial after a couple of weeks, yet patients are left on them for years, while antipsychotics are licensed if they show an effect in two placebo trials, no matter how small that effect is.
One reason why doctors have got it so wrong is a fatal flaw in the way the trials are done. No one is supposed to know which group is given the drug and which the placebo.
But in the trials it's widely known who's on a psychiatric drug because they cause definite side-effects such as nausea and dry mouth. The medics, whose account of how patients responded is used to judge how effective the treatment is, tend to report better results from the drug group, but these results are skewed by the fact that they knew the real drug had been given.
We know this happens because an analysis of trials by Cochrane Collaboration found that when the placebo was designed to cause similar side-effects to the drug, the psychiatrists reported just as good results from both groups.
In other words, the drug was found to be no more effective than the placebo.
Claims by psychiatrists that the drugs do work have to be taken with a pinch of salt, not only because good evidence suggests they don't, but also because those who run the trials almost always receive funding from drug companies.
Based on the same sort of flawed trials, antidepressants are also being handed out for conditions such as binge eating, panic disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and menopausal symptoms.
The claimed benefits can be ludicrously small, for instance: they cut the rate of hot flushes from ten to nine a day.
Yet despite the lack of good evidence for their benefits, 57 million prescriptions for antidepressants are handed out a year in England alone - and patients are left on them for years.
One reason why drug use is steadily expanding is that there is no chemical marker to diagnose depression or anxiety. So everyday changes in mood, such as feeling less happy or more anxious, can be a reason for treatment.
Most of us could get one or more psychiatric diagnoses if we consulted a psychiatrist or GP.
A successful treatment for depression would allow people to lead more normal lives - go back to work, salvage relationships. But in all the thousands of trials, I've never seen evidence that antidepressants can do this.
Some patients may become a little euphoric or even manic on them, but in patient surveys many report feeling worse, saying the pills change their personality, and not in a good way; they may show less interest in other people and report feeling emotionally numb. 'Like living under a cheese dish cover,' is a typical description patients use.
Sexual function fades; libido drops in half of patients and half can't orgasm or ejaculate. So antidepressants are not likely to save intimate relationships - they are more likely to destroy them.
When I gave a talk to Australian child psychiatrists, one of them said he knew three teenagers taking antidepressants who had attempted suicide because they couldn't get an erection the first time they tried to have sex.
These boys didn't know it was the pills - they thought there was something wrong with them. Although many psychiatrists still believe SSRIs cut the risk of suicide that can come with depression, it is well established that these drugs actually increase the risk in children and adolescents, and most likely in adults as well.
Despite the lack of a chemical marker for any psychiatric disorder, psychiatrists frequently claim the drugs work by correcting a chemical imbalance in the brain.
They say it's like insulin and diabetes - patients can't make enough serotonin. I've been told by a professor of psychiatry that stopping an antidepressant would be like taking insulin from a diabetic.
But it's nonsense - no one has found that depressed people have less serotonin in their brains, for instance - in fact, some antidepressants actually lower serotonin.
This fairy tale has proved very damaging and can lead to patients becoming addicted. They are given more pills or a stronger dose in the hope that the 'imbalance' will be fixed, and can be on them for years.
When they try to come off the pills and experience very unpleasant side-effects, patients say they are told their symptoms are the result of their illness coming back.
This ignores the fact that the drugs' withdrawal effects can mimic the symptoms of psychiatric disorders. It also doesn't fit in with what happens when patients in desperation reach for the drugs again: within a few hours they can be feeling better. Real depression doesn't fade that fast.
Doctors' misconceptions about the drugs they prescribe are turning temporary problems into chronic ones.
More than one million people in the UK are addicted to sleeping pills and anti-anxiety drugs, according to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Involuntary Tranquiliser Addiction, even though for years official advice has been to not prescribe them for longer than four weeks.
Patient surveys reveal that similarly large numbers are having problems withdrawing from antidepressants. The case of Luke Montagu is a vivid and horrifying example of the destruction antidepressants and benzodiazepines can cause.
He still suffers from the crippling effects of withdrawal seven years after coming off the drugs, which he should never have been prescribed in the first place.
Yet the NHS does almost nothing to help these victims. There are disgracefully few facilities to treat them - fewer than ten in the whole country, and all these are run by small charities, some of which are closing due to lack of funding.
We need to educate doctors so they know how these drugs really work, and show them how to help patients stop taking the pills (by very gently reducing the dose).
According to my calculations, if psychiatric drugs were only prescribed for a few weeks in acute situations, we would only need 2 per cent of the prescriptions written at the moment for insomnia, depression and anxiety. The saving in human and financial terms would be enormous.
Later this week, I will be speaking at a major conference on how we can reduce the use of these drugs, More Harm than Good: Confronting The Psychiatric Medication Epidemic, which has been arranged by the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry at the University of Roehampton in London.
My proposal is to start a campaign to Just Say No - it is time for a war on psychiatric drugs.
Peter Gøtzsche is a specialist in internal medicine and professor in clinical research design and analysis at the University of Copenhagen. His new book, Deadly Psychiatry And Organised Denial, is published by People's Press. Visit deadlymedicines.dk. The Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry, cepuk.org.

Prescription pills are Britain’s third biggest killer: Side-effects of drugs taken for insomnia and anxiety kill thousands. Why do doctors hand them out like Smarties?  PROFESSOR PETER GØTZSCHE 15 September 2015 

The California Legislature has passed a package of three bills aimed at reducing the amount of psychiatric medication prescribed to children in California's foster care system, sending the measures to Gov. Jerry Brown (D), the Woodland Daily Democrat reports (Seipel/Rogers, Woodland Daily Democrat, 9/12).


Last year, a San Jose Mercury News investigation found that children in the California foster care system are prescribed psychiatric drugs at a rate three times higher than the national average.

Specifically, the investigation found that nearly 25% of California children in foster care have been prescribed psychiatric drugs, including:
  • Antipsychotics;
  • Antidepressants;
  • Mood stabilizers; and
  • Stimulants.
In 1999, state lawmakers passed legislation requiring juvenile courts to approve psychiatric drug prescriptions for foster youth and review the decisions every 180 days.

However, the investigation found that the law has "done nothing" to lower such prescribing rates (California Healthline, 9/9).

Details of Bill Package

The three bills sent to Brown were:
  • SB 238, by state Sens. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and Jim Beall (D-San Jose), which would require the state to provide more data on the number of children in foster care who are prescribed psychotropic drugs, along with other medications that might cause harmful interactions;
  • SB 319, by Beall, which would establish a system for public health nurses to monitor and oversee anyone in foster care who is prescribed psychotropic medications; and
  • SB 484, by Beall, which would establish treatment protocols and state oversight of psychotropic drugs in group-home settings (Woodland Daily Democrat, 9/12).
A related bill (SB 253) was pulled from the package by its author, state Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel), to smooth out some issues with the Brown administration. SB 253 would have prohibited juvenile courts from authorizing psychotropic drugs without prior medical examination and ongoing monitoring of the child. Monning said he will reintroduce the measure in January 2016 (California Healthline, 9/9).

Beall's Comments on Passage of Bills

In a release, Beall said that SB 319 and SB 484 would "ensure powerful psychotropic drugs do not replace other effective and necessary treatments for children in foster youth group homes," adding, "Drugs should only be the final alternative after all other treatment options, such as therapy and counseling, are exhausted."

In addition, Beall said, "We must never allow the state's most traumatized children to be shackled with chemical restraints simply because it is the most expedient way to control their behavior" (Beall release, 9/10).

Bills To Increase Oversight of Foster Kids' Rx Use Sent to Brown September 15, 2015

New Medical Marijuana Law in California 13 SETTEMBRE 2015

Family of 4 dead: History of Depression and Psych Drugs August 21, 2015

Antioch theater shooter on psych drugs August 6, 2015

Operation Save Teens from drug abuse September 1, 2015

Big Pharma is killing Americans August 30, 2015



Ti piace?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...