On April 22, 2009, the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported that in 2006 more money was spent on treating mental disorders in children aged 0 to 17 than for any other medical condition, with a total of $8.9 billion. By comparison, the cost of treating trauma-related disorders, including fractures, sprains, burns, and other physical injuries, was only $6.1 billion.

In 2008, psychiatric drug makers had overall sales in the US of $14.6 billion from antipsychotics, $9.6 billion off antidepressants, $11.3 billion from antiseizure drugs and $4.8 billion in sales of ADHD drugs, for a grand total of $40.3 billion.

The path to child drugging in the US started with providing adolescents with stimulants for ADHD in the early 80s. That was followed by Prozac in the late 80s, and in the mid-90s drug companies started claiming that ADHD kids really had bipolar disorder, coinciding with the marketing of epilepsy drugs as “mood stablizers” and the arrival of the new atypical antipsychotics.

Parents can now have their kids declared disabled due to mental illness and receive Social Security disability payments and free medical care, and schools can get more money for disabled kids. The bounty for the prescribing doctors and pharmacies is enormous and the CEOs of the drug companies are laughing all the way into early retirement.

Psychiatric Drugs Explained

During an interview with Street Spirit in August 2005, investigative journalist and author of “Mad in America,” Robert Whitaker, described the dangers of psychiatric drugs. “When you look at the research literature, you find a clear pattern of outcomes with all these drugs,” he said, “you see it with the antipsychotics, the antidepressants, the anti-anxiety drugs and the stimulants like Ritalin used to treat ADHD.”

“All these drugs may curb a target symptom slightly more effectively than a placebo does for a short period of time, say six weeks,” Whitaker said. However, what “you find with every class of these psychiatric drugs is a worsening of the target symptom of depression or psychosis or anxiety, over the long term, compared to placebo-treated patients.”

“So even on the target symptoms, there’s greater chronicity and greater severity of symptoms,” he reports, “And you see a fairly significant percentage of patients where new and more severe psychiatric symptoms are triggered by the drug itself.”

Whitaker told Street Spirit that the rate of Americans disabled by mental illness has skyrocketed since Prozac came on the market in 1987, and reports: (1) the number of mentally disabled people in the US has been increasing at a rate of 150,000 people per year since 1987, (2) that represents an increase of 410 new people per day and (3) the disability rate has continued to increase and one in every 50 Americans is disabled by mental illness.

The statistics above beg the question of how could this happen when the so-called new generation of “wonder drugs” arrived on the market during the exact same time period. The truth is, the “wonder drugs” cause most of the bizarre behaviors listed by doctors to warrant a mental illness disability.

Psychiatric Drug Goldmine

The CIA “World Factbook” estimate the world population to be about 6.8 billion and the US population to be a mere 307 million. In an April 2008 report, the market research firm Datamonitor reported that the “US dominates the ADHD market with a 94 percent market share.”

ADHD drug prices at a middle dose for 90 pills at DrugStore.com, are: Adderall $278, Concerta $412, Desoxyn $366, Strattera $464 and Vyvanse $385. Daytrana costs $437 for three boxes of 30 nine-hour patches.

The SSRI and SNRI antidepressants include GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil and Wellbutrin, Pfizer’s Zoloft, Celexa and Lexapro from Forest Labs, Luvox by Solvay, Wyeth’s Effexor and Pristiq and Lilly’s Prozac and Cymbalta. The average price of these drugs is about $300 for 90 pills at DrugStore.com.

The prices for anticonvulsants can run as high as $929 for 180 tablets of Glaxo’s Lamictal, and $1170 for 180 tablets of Johnson & Johnson’s Topamax.

In 2008, the atypical antipsychotics took over the slot as the top revenue earners in the US, and include Seroquel by AstraZeneca; Risperdal and Invega marketed by Janssen, a division of J&J; Geodon by Pfizer; Abilify from Bristol-Myers Squibb; Novartis’ Clozaril and Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa. The average price on these drugs for 100 pills at DrugStore.com is about $1,000. Lilly also sells Symbyax, a drug with Zyprexa and Prozac combined, at a cost $1,564 for 90 capsules at DrugStore.com in May 2009.

The briefing material submitted to an FDA advisory panel in April 2009 reported that an estimated 25.9 million patients worldwide had been exposed to Seroquel since its launch in 1997 through July 31, 2007, in the US, and the second quarter of 2007 for countries outside the US. Of that number, an estimated nearly 15.9 million took Seroquel in the US, compared to only ten million patients in the rest of the world. In 2008, the US accounted for roughly $3 billion of Seroquel’s $4.5 billion in worldwide sales.

For the full-year of 2008, Eli Lilly reported worldwide Zyprexa sales of about $4.7 billion, with US sales of $2.2 billion and only $2.5 billion for the rest of the world.

FDA as Promotional Tool

On June 12, 2009, an FDA advisory panel gave the green light to expand the marketing of Zyprexa, Seroquel and Geodon for use with 13 to 17 year-olds diagnosed with schizophrenia and 10 to 17 year-olds diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The FDA usually follows its advisers’ recommendations.

“Such approval gives manufacturers a shield from liability – for illegally promoting the drugs for off-label use,” said Vera Hassner Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection.

“And such approval ensures increased use of these drugs,” she warned. “Manufacturers and mental health providers will profit while children’s physical and mental health will be sacrificed.”

“The body of evidence showing these drugs to be harmful is irrefutable,” she said, “it is documented in FDA’s postmarketing database, and in secret internal company documents uncovered during litigation.”

According to Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the atypicals increase the risk of obesity, type II diabetes, hypertension, heart attacks and stroke.

He said the drugs were marketed as safer and easier to tolerate than the older, cheaper antipsychotics because they would cause fewer neurological injuries like tardive dyskinesia and akathisia.

Those claims turned out to be totally false, he said, and “they continue to cause same neurological side-effects as the older antipsychotics.”

“Children are known to be compliant patients and that makes them a highly desirable market for drugs, especially when it pertains to large-profit-margin psychiatric drugs, which can be wrought with issues of non-compliance because of their horrendous side effect profiles,” according to a June 29, 2009 paper titled, “Drugging Our Children to Death,” in Health News Digest.com, by Gwen Olsen, who spent over a decade as a pharmaceutical sales rep, and authored the book, “Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher.”

Children are forced to take their drugs by doctors, parents and school personnel, she said. “So, children are the ideal patient-type because they represent refilled prescription compliance and ‘longevity.’”

“In other words,” Olsen noted, “they will be lifelong patients and repeat customers for Pharma!”

“The initiative to drug our children for profit has exceeded all common sense boundaries and is threatening the welfare of every American child,” she stated, and it “is up to each and every one of us to stop this madness!”

Drug Makers Busted

Most all of the psychiatric drug companies have come under investigation over the past several years for promoting their drugs for off-label use, especially with children. However, the fines they end up paying are trivial compared to the profits earned through the illegal marketing campaigns.

In September 2007, Bristol-Myers Squibb entered into a $515 million civil settlement with the US Department of Justice for illegally marketing drugs, including Abilify, for off-label uses. In the first six months of 2009, Abilify had sales of $1.9 billion. In 2008, the salary and compensation package of Bristol-Myers’ CEO, James Cornelius, was $23,150,236, according to the AFL-CIO’s Executive PayWatch Database.

On January 29, 2009, Paxil and Wellbutrin maker, GlaxoSmithKline, announced that it would record a legal charge in the fourth quarter of 2008 of $400 million relating to an ongoing investigation initiated by the US attorney’s office in Colorado into the US marketing and promotional practices for several products for the period 1997 to 2004. The government inquired about alleged off-label marketing as well as medical education programs for doctors, “other speaker events, special issue boards, advisory boards, speaker training programmes, clinical studies, and related grants, fees, travel and entertainment,” according to a Glaxo annual report.

In January 2009, Eli Lilly settled with the DOJ and more than 30 states for $1.4 billion over the off-label marketing of Zyprexa. The agreement included a $615 million fine for a federal criminal charge. But $1.4 billion was chump change considering that Zyprexa was still Lilly’s best seller in 2008, with sales of $4.69 billion. Lilly also has paid over $1 billion to settle lawsuits filed by Zyprexa patients. In the first six months of 2009, Zyprexa sales were $1.5 billion. In 2008, Lilly’s CEO, John Lechleiter, had a pay package worth $12,856,882

In September 2009, the DOJ reached a $2.3 billion settlement with Pfizer related to the off-label promotion of several drugs, including the psychiatric drugs, Geodon, Zoloft and Lyrica, in the largest health-care fraud settlement in history. But even though Pfizer took the entire $2.3 billion as an earnings charge for the fourth quarter of 2008, the drug maker was still able to post a fourth quarter profit of $268 million. Pfizer’s CEO in 2008, Jeffrey Kindler, had a salary and pay package of $15,547,600.

Johnson & Johnson is also dealing with the DOJ and state-level investigations into the off-label marketing of Risperdal. The company’s latest SEC filing lists nine subpoenas received by the company involving promotions of Risperdal, including one “seeking information regarding the Company’s financial relationship with several psychiatrists.” In the first six months of 2009, Risperdal earned $660 million. J&J’s CEO, William Weldon, had a pay package worth $29,127,432 in 2008.

AstraZeneca’s third quarter SEC filing lists a $520 million tentative settlement agreement with the US attorney’s office in Philadelphia to resolve allegations related to the off-label marketing of Seroquel. At “least 34 states are pursuing separate investigations of AstraZeneca’s marketing practices as part of a joint investigation and others may be conducting their own probes,” according to Ed Silverman on Pharmalot.

“A half a billion dollar one-time settlement is just a small cost of doing business for a company that sold $17 billion worth of the offending drug in the last five years,” Dr. Roy Poses points out on the Health Care Renewal web site. In 2008 alone, Seroquel had world-wide sales of more than $4.4 billion.

As of July 13, 2009, AstraZeneca was also defending approximately 10,381 served or answered personal injury lawsuits and approximately 19,391 plaintiff groups involving Seroquel, according to SEC filings. Some of the cases also include claims against other drug makers such as Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceutica and/or Bristol-Myers Squibb, the filing notes.

On September 23, 2009, Shire Pharmaceuticals received a subpoena from the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in coordination with the US attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking production of documents related to the sales and marketing of Adderall XR, Daytrana and Vyvanse, according to Shire’s third quarter report for 2009.

In a November 6, 2009, SEC filing, Abbott Labs said the federal prosecutor for the Western District of Virginia was conducting an investigation for the US Justice Department of whether the company’s sales and marketing of Depakote violated civil or criminal laws, including the Federal False Claims Act and an anti-kickback statute related to reimbursement by Medicare and Medicaid programs to third parties.

In 2008, Depakote had sales of $1.36 billion and Abbott CEO, Miles White, had a salary and compensation package of $28,253,387.

In February 2009, the DOJ unsealed a lawsuit alleging that Forest Laboratories marketed the antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro for unapproved uses in children, and paid kickbacks to induce doctors to promote the drugs, including Dr. Jeffrey Bostic at Harvard University. In its latest SEC filing, Forest disclosed that it reached an agreement in principle in May 2009 to settle the civil aspects of US federal and state probes. “Penalties in the civil settlement are covered by a $170 million reserve Forest created in April,” according to a November 9 report by Dow Jones.

Forest also disclosed that the agreement “does not resolve the government’s ongoing investigation into potential criminal law violations” related to Celexa and Lexapro, and thyroid drug Levothroid, Dow Jones notes. In 2008, the salary and compensation for Forest CEO, Howard Solomon, was $6,565,324.

Over the past year and a half, a large number of so-called “Key Opinion Leaders” in the field of psychiatry have been exposed for not fully disclosing money received from many of the drug companies above through an investigation by the US Senate Finance Committee under the leadership of Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley.

The list so far includes Harvard University’s Joseph Biederman, Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens; Charles Nemeroff and Zackery Stowe from Emory; Melissa DelBello at the University of Cincinnati; Alan Schatzberg, president of the American Psychiatric Association from Stanford; Martin Keller at Brown University; Karen Wagner and Augustus John Rush from the University of Texas and Fred Goodwin, the former host of a radio show called “Infinite Minds,” broadcast by National Pubic Radio.

Fines as a Business Expense

The fraud settlements are “merely a cost of doing business to these pharmaceutical Goliaths and, in fact, caps their liability for these crimes,” said Alaskan attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights), a public interest law firm.

“Most importantly,” he noted, “these settlements have not stopped the practice of psychiatrists and other prescribers giving these drugs to children and youth and Medicaid continuing to pay for these fraudulent claims.”

“Because of the massive, harmful, increase in the psychiatric drugging of America’s children and youth, who are inherently forced, PsychRights has made addressing the problem a priority,” he said.

Gottstein conducted an investigation and determined that the vast majority of off-label psychotropic drug prescriptions for children and youth that are paid for by Medicaid constitute Medicaid fraud.

PsychRights now has a national “Medicaid Fraud Initiative Against Psychiatric Drugging of Children & Youth,” designed to address this problem by “having lawsuits brought against the doctors prescribing these harmful, ineffective drugs, their employers, and the pharmacies filling these prescriptions and submitting them to Medicaid for reimbursement,” according to its web site.

“Anyone who submits or causes claims to be submitted to Medicaid for drugs that are not for a ‘medically accepted indication’ is committing Medicaid Fraud,” said Gottstein, in a July 27, 2009 press release announcing the launch of the national campaign.

“Those guilty of this Medicaid Fraud include psychiatrists and other physicians prescribing these drugs, their employers, and pharmacies submitting the false claims to Medicaid,” he pointed out.

PsychRights estimates that over $2 billion in such fraudulent Medicaid claims are being paid by the government each year.

“Once one sues over specific offending prescriptions, all of such prescriptions can be brought in, which means that any psychiatrist on the losing end of such a lawsuit will almost certainly be bankrupted, because each offending prescription carries a penalty of between $5,500 and $11,000,” PsychRights explained.

It is hoped that once the doctors and pharmacies realize they are subject to financially ruinous Medicaid fraud judgments, the practice will be stopped or substantially reduced.

“Each prescriber may have a million dollars or few, at most, to lose, but the pharmacies’ financial exposure can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars and it is hoped this will attract attorneys to take these cases,” the web site noted.

In September and October 2009, Gottstein gave presentations on the initiative at the annual conferences of the National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology in order to find people who are potentially interested and willing to pursue such cases.

“This was successful and we have at least a few such cases cooking,” he reported. “PsychRights stands ready to help people interested in bringing such suits.”

In late 2006, Gottstein won international fame by subpoenaing and releasing thousands of documents involving Eli Lilly’s illegal marketing of Zyprexa, which resulted in front page stories in The New York Times.

PsychRights also has an appeal pending on a lawsuit filed against the state of Alaska and responsible state officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that Alaskan children and youth on Medicaid have the right not to be administered psychotropic drugs unless and until a number of specific conditions are met. The lawsuit seeks to prohibit the state from paying for psychiatric drugs prescribed off-label to children and youth.

In responding to the lawsuit, the state claimed that they do have any control over or responsibility for the psychiatric drugging of children in their custody, or any responsibility under Medicaid, and moved for dismissal on the grounds that PsychRights does not have standing, or the right to bring the suit, because it was not harmed by the state’s actions.

The court agreed and dismissed the case. “We think the judge is wrong and have filed an appeal,” said Gottstein.

In May 2009, Gottstein sent letters to Sens. Charles Grassley and Herb Kohl and Reps. Henry Waxman, Bart Stupak, John Dingell and Barney Frank, describing the massive Medicaid fraud involved in the prescribing of psychiatric drugs to children in the US and asked for “assistance in stopping these illegal reimbursements.”

As of November 8, 2009, Gottstein reported, “I haven’t gotten as much as an acknowledgment of receipt from any of the members of Congress to whom I wrote.”

While pursuing causes on behalf of PsychRights, Gottstein donates all of his time on a pro bono basis.

by: Evelyn Pringle, t r u t h o u t | Report

Source: http://www.truthout.org/1213091

DRUG USAGE STATISTICS

Thomas Moore, author of Prescriptions for Disaster said that the current use of drugs like Ritalin is

taking “appalling risks” with a generation of kids. The drug is given, he said, for “short-term control

of behavior—not to reduce any identifiable hazard to [children’s] health. Such large-scale chemical

control of human behavior has not been previously undertaken in our society outside of nursing homes and mental institutions.”1

More than 8.5 million American children are prescribed powerful stimulants, antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs for so-called educational and behavioral problems. – 6 million are prescribed amphetamine-like stimulants or others, such as Ritalin, Adderall and Dexedrine.

- Between 1.5 and 2 million are prescribed antidepressants such as Paxil, Prozac, Celexa, Effexor, Serzone, Remeron, Zoloft, Luvox, and Wellbutrin.

- 500,000 children are prescribed antipsychotic drugs (also called neuroleptics, meaning “nerve seizing” or major tranquilizers).

- Unknown numbers of children are prescribed other psychiatric drugs, including minor tranquilizers such as Xanax, Valium and Ativan.

• A survey by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, released on April 21, 2005, found 10% of

teens abuse the stimulants Ritalin and Adderall.2

• Children 5 years old and younger are the fastest-growing segment of the non-adult population

using antidepressants today.3

• Between 1995 and 1999, the use of antidepressants increased 580% in the under 6 population and

151% in the 7-12 age group.4

• In 2002, roughly 11 million antidepressant prescriptions were dispensed, largely to boys under the

age of 12 diagnosed with “conduct disorders.”5

• Since 1987, when Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was added to the American

Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSMIV)

there has been a 900% increase in the number of children “diagnosed” with ADHD and a

665% percent increase in the production of cocaine-like stimulants for children.6

There are financial incentives behind so many children being drugged.

• In 2004, sales of the latest antidepressants reached more than $14 billion in the U.S. Nearly 11

million prescriptions were dispensed in 2002 for new antidepressants to 1- to 17-year-olds in the

U.S.7

• Sales of stimulants in the U.S. alone for children have reached more than $1.3 billion dollars a

year.8

• Between 1997 and 2001, prescriptions for the stimulant Adderall increased 1,017% since and

within a year of becoming available, Concerta captured 11% of the market.9

• Between 1991 and 2003, antipsychotic drug sales in the U.S. increased by 1,500%, from less than

$500 million to more than $8 billion. International sales reached more than $12 billion in 2002. 10

• In some U.S. communities, 20% of children are taking stimulants, according to the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) pharmacologist Gretchen Feussner. “That should be a wakeup

call that something isn’t right,” Feussner said.11

THE TRUTH ABOUT “CHEMICAL IMBALANCES”

The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) is a source of scientific

ridicule among medical professionals. Psychologist Tana Dineen, author of Manufacturing Victims,

said, “Unlike medical diagnoses that convey a probable cause, appropriate treatment and likely

prognosis [course of a disease], the disorders listed in DSM-IV are terms arrived at through peer

consensus”—a vote by APA committee members—and designed largely for billing purposes.12

In 2001, Simon Wessley, professor of psychiatry at King’s College and the Maudsley Hospitals, South

London, organized a poll and vote by 150 mental health specialists from around the globe on the 10

worst psychiatric publications in psychiatry’s history. Among the top 10 was the fourth edition of

DSM. The poll determined, “If you are not in the DSM-IV, you are not ill. It has become a monster,

out of control.”13

Psychiatry: The Pseudoscience

Because its diagnostic methods are based on opinion rather than scientific fact, psychiatry is a

pseudoscience. The late Dr. Sydney Walker, III, a neurologist, psychiatrist and author of A Dose of

Sanity, wrote, “Psychiatry has replaced the science of diagnosis with the pseudoscience of labeling.”14

Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus of the State University Medical University in

Syracuse, New York, states, “Since psychiatry is a pseudoscience, it is not surprising that psychiatrists

are especially eager to be accepted as scientific experts. Since they obviously cannot bring this about

by discovering the causes and cures of mental diseases which-tragically for psychiatrists no less than

for patients—do not exist, they have to do it by producing great quantities of gibberish. That is indeed

the most constant and most frequent thing psychiatrists do, in speech as well as in print.”15

With a significant departure from medical diagnosis, psychiatric diagnoses are devoted to

categorization of symptoms only, not the observation of actual physical disease. None of the diagnoses

are supported by scientific evidence of biological disease or mental illness of any kind.

The cornerstone of psychiatry’s disease model today is the theory that a brain-based, chemical

imbalance causes mental illness. Popularized by marketing, the notion is no more than psychiatric

wishful thinking. It has been thoroughly discredited by researchers, psychiatrists, psychologists and

medical doctors.

• Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of

Prozac Backlash, states: “We do not have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any

psychiatric diagnosis….In the absence of any verifiable diseases, in recent decades,

psychopharmacology has not hesitated to construct ‘disease models’ for psychiatric diagnoses.”

• He warns: “Patients are often explicitly told they have such a disease, usually to justify treating

them with medication. But when one looks closely, all the disease models are built on three

pseudoscientific cornerstones: superficial checklist diagnoses, putative [supposed, reputed]

‘biochemical imbalances,’ and alleged genetic determinism [genes].”

• Psychiatrist David Kaiser points out that “…modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the

genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness.…Patients [have] been diagnosed with

‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and…there is no

real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.”16

• Bruce Levine, Ph.D., psychologist and author of Commonsense Rebellion said: “Remember that

no biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for attention deficit disorder,

oppositional defiant disorder, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug

abuse, overeating, gambling, or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder.”17

• Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D., author of Blaming the Brain, is unequivocal: “[T]here are no tests

available for assessing the chemical status of a living person’s brain.”18

• “In recent decades,” Dr. Glenmullen adds, “we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical

imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent [hardworking] though these attempts have been,

not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was

thought to have been found, it was later proven false.” 19

• In 1998, the National Institutes of Health held an experts’ “Consensus Conference on the

Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD” that concluded, “We don’t have an independent, valid test for

ADHD; there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction…and finally, after

years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of

ADHD remains speculative.”20

Brain Scans Cannot Detect “Mental Illness”

While media and the general public have been fed “breakthrough” news that neuroimaging (brain

scans) appear to have identified mental illness, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus of

the State University Medical University in Syracuse, New York, says that psychiatry’s claim that

mental illnesses are brain diseases is “a claim supposedly based on recent discoveries in neuroscience, made possible by [brain] imaging techniques for diagnosis and pharmacological agents for treatment. This is not true.”

• A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in

September, 2001, noted that although gross differences in size or symmetry [arrangement of parts]

of brain structures can be quantified with neuroimaging, individual cells and cell layers cannot yet

be visualized. This means that, although the volume and shape of brain structures may be

determined, the underlying cause of any differences cannot.21

• An article published in the The Mercury News, in May 2004, stated, “Many doctors warn about

using [brain] imaging as a diagnostic tool, saying it is unethical—and potentially dangerous—for

doctors to use [it] to identify emotional, behavioral and psychiatric problems in a patient. The

$2,500 evaluation offers no useful or accurate information, they say.”22

• M. Douglas Mar, psychiatrist, says: “There is no scientific basis for these claims [of using brain

scans for psychiatric diagnosis].”23

• “An accurate diagnosis based on a scan is simply not possible,” stated Dr. Michael D. Devous,

Nuclear Medicine Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.24

Further, when brain scans do indicate any changes, it is most likely drug-induced.

In 2003, Jonathan Leo, Professor of Anatomy at the Western University of Health Sciences and

Professor David Cohen of the School of Social Work at Florida International University, reviewed 33

of the most recent brain-imaging studies of ADHD-diagnosed subjects. They confirmed that every

study concerned medicated kids, a major variable because stimulant drugs “cause very persistent

changes in the brain.” They also reviewed a widely touted 2001 National Institute of Mental Health

(NIMH) study that included unmedicated subjects and had claimed that unmedicated ADHD children

had significantly smaller brains (and this somehow supports that ADHD exists and is a neurobiological

disorder). However, the comparison group was two years older, so naturally the younger children had smaller brains.25

Dr. Valenstein also says: “It is well established that the drugs used to treat a mental disorder, for

example, may induce long-lasting biochemical and even structural changes [including in the brain],

which in the past were claimed to be the cause of the disorder, but may actually be an effect of the

treatment.” 26 Further, “It is now difficult to find mental patients who have not had a history of drug

treatment, and as a result many of the brain abnormalities found in these patients are probably

iatrogenic [doctor/treatment caused], that is, produced by the treatment rather than being the cause of the disorder.”27 [Emphasis added]

DRUG EFFECTS

Dr. Mary Ann Block, author of No More ADHD, points out: “The psychiatrist does not do any testing.

The psychiatrist listens to the history and then prescribes a drug.”28 And these drugs are poisons.

Quite apart from their physically damaging effects, stimulants prescribed to children do not do what

they are promoted to. For example, parents are told children will focus more while taking a stimulant

and this will improve their educational outcomes. However, studies show children who take stimulants do not perform better academically. Evidence presented to a National Institutes of Health conference on ADHD in 1998 said that children who take these drugs fail just as many courses, and drop out of school just as often as children who do not take them.29 This confirms a 1978 review of 17 studies of stimulant drugs that concluded “stimulant drugs have little, if any, impact on…long-term academic improvement….” Their major effect seemed to be an “improvement in classroom manageability.”30

Psychiatrists substitute the word “medication” for drug to ease the minds of parents and teachers,

conjuring up images of some benign cough syrup prescribed by a kindly family doctor. However,

psychiatric medications are all mind-altering drugs, many are addictive, and all have been abused.

The following is information about the more common drugs prescribed to children.

Stimulants

The stimulants most prescribed for ADHD and other so-called learning disabilities include Ritalin,

Adderall, Concerta, Metadate, Focalin and Cylert. As stimulants or amphetamine-likei drugs, they are

categorized by the DEA as Schedule II drugs in the same class as morphine, opium and cocaine. 31

The abuse of these stimulants in the United States is so great that in 1995, the United Nations’

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) asked governments to “exercise vigilance with regard to

trade in and dispensing of the substance [stimulant prescribed for ADHD] in order to prevent any

attempts to divert it into illicit traffic.”32

The same year the DEA said Ritalin could lead to addiction and that “psychotic episodes, violent

behavior and bizarre mannerisms had been reported” with its use.33

In 2000, ADHD drug manufacturers began “direct to consumer” advertising of these drugs in leading

women’s magazines and on television, breaking a 30 year United Nations Treaty that banned the

promotion of such drugs because of their high abuse potential.34

• The side effects of Ritalin include nervousness, insomnia, hypersensitivity, anorexia, blood

pressure and pulse changes, abdominal pain, weight loss and toxic psychosis. Suicide is a risk

during withdrawal.35 Ritalin and other stimulants potentially can also cause symptoms ranging

from thought disorder to cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heart beat), and can stunt a child’s growth.36

i Ritalin is amphetamine-like as it is very similar in chemical structure to amphetamine and its effects

on the body. An amphetamine’s chemical structure closely resembles natural stimulants in the body,

like adrenaline. It can reduce appetite and fatigue and “speed” you up. A drug of abuse, it is known as “speed,” “crystal meth” and “crank” and can cause addiction, serious bodily reactions and withdrawals. A stimulant refers to any mind-altering chemical or substance that affects the central nervous system by speeding up the body’s functions, including the heart and breathing rates. Common stimulants include cocaine, amphetamines, Ritalin, caffeine, and nicotine.

• Between 1990 and 2000, 186 deaths were linked to Ritalin. The risk is highest for abusers who

snort large amounts of the drug.37

• Dr. Walker reported in his book, The Hyperactivity Hoax, “While studies indicate that the drug is

probably only a weak carcinogen [cancer-causing agent], increasing the future risk of millions of

children—even a little bit—is not something to be done lightly.” He cited another report that

warned Ritalin “may have persistent, cumulative effects on the myocardium (the thick muscle

layer that forms most of the heart wall).”38

In 2005, Texas researchers warned that human studies linked Ritalin to a higher risk of cancer. The

study revealed that after only three months, one of a dozen children treated with Ritalin had a threefold increase in chromosome abnormalities associated with increased risks of cancer. All 12 children showed chromosomal “breaks” that are similarly associated. “This should raise a red flag,” Marvin Legator, an environmental toxicologist and principal investigator in the study, said. 39

Causing Drug Abuse

According to the DEA, the street abuse of Ritalin has become a major problem. The drug now sells for

$5 to $10 a pill on the black market. Known also as “Vitamin R,” “R-ball” and the “poor man’s

cocaine,” it is also abused by grinding up the drug and snorting or injecting it.40

• Stimulants, as Schedule II narcotics, can also lead to future drug abuse and addiction. In an

analysis of a community based group of adults born in the 1960s, the DEA concluded:

“Preliminary data indicated the medicated ADHD group had a higher lifetime frequency of

cocaine use and a higher percentage that used cocaine more than 40 times…this preliminary data

suggest that stimulant treatment of ADHD in childhood may be a risk factor for cocaine abuse in

adults.”41

• A 1998 study of Californian adolescents diagnosed with “ADHD” found that, as adults, those

treated with the stimulant were three times more likely to use cocaine.42

• The Journal of Forensic Science reported in 1999 that there is increasing evidence that Ritalin is

being diverted to illicit use by snorting or injection, with some fatalities, at least one from

intranasal use.43

• In 2000, the DEA said studies show neither animals or humans can differentiate between cocaine

and Ritalin—“They produce effects that are nearly identical.”44 In 2001, officials said ADHD

drugs were among the most stolen and most abused prescriptions, particularly by children who

share or sell their own pills. “This is not something that is driven by the Mafia. It’s the kind of

casual distribution that goes on in high schools where kids pass it around,” said Gene R. Haislip,

former head of DEA’s drug diversion unit.45

• The same year The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported

that psychostimulants have an abuse potential: “Very high doses of psychostimulants…may cause

central nervous system damage, cardiovascular damage, and hypertension. In addition, high doses

have been associated with compulsive behaviors, and in certain vulnerable individuals, movement

disorders.” A percentage of children and adults treated at high doses can also have

“hallucinogenic responses.”46

• In August 2001, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that Ritalin is

chemically similar to cocaine. Injected as a liquid, it sends a jolt that “addicts like very much,”

said Nora Volkow, M.D., psychiatrist from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.

The study also admitted that although psychiatrists have used this drug to treat ADHD for 40

years, they and pharmacologists have never known how or why it worked.47

• Dr. Richard Nakamura, acting director of the National Institute of Mental Health testified before

the U.S. Government Reform Committee hearing into ADHD in September 2002. Under

questioning by Committee Chairman, Congressman Dan Burton, Dr. Nakamura said, “The

stimulant properties of both [Ritalin and cocaine] derive from similar chemical properties.” When

asked whether a person grinding up Ritalin and making it into a powder form to snort, would

experience the same effect on the brain as snorting cocaine, Dr. Nakamura answered: “It would

probably not do as much for them. However, yes, they would get a high from ground up

methylphenidate [Ritalin].” He also said that addiction can occur if Ritalin is snorted.48

COMMON PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS

Stimulants

The Physicians’ Desk Reference lists the side effects of all stimulants. They are Schedule II controlled

substances, so categorized because of their enormous abuse potential.

• Adderall: This can cause mood swings, depression, weight loss, heart palpitations or irregular

heartbeat, involuntary muscle tics or movements, psychosis and restlessness. Adderall is an

amphetamine and potentially habit forming. A doctor should be contacted if a child experiences

vomiting, stomach pain, fever, unusual weakness or tiredness, severe headaches or mental/mood

changes. There is also a warning to contact a doctor immediately in the event of unusually fast

heartbeat, blurred vision, uncontrolled muscle movements (e.g., tics, tremors) or chest pain.49

Adderall, which now comprises 32% of the stimulant market for children, has also been

linked to violence when in 2000 a North Dakota judge acquitted 26-year-old Ray Ehlis of

murdering his 5-week-old daughter after two independent psychiatrists testified he was

suffering a severe psychosis induced by Adderall.50

• Concerta: Approved in 2000, this drug is chemically the same as Ritalin and can cause the same

side effects, such as nervousness, weight loss, stunted growth, heart palpitations, insomnia, tics,

psychosis, liver problems, hallucinations and depression. Withdrawal effects can include suicidal

thoughts.

• Cylert: Also known as pemoline, this is chemically different in structure to amphetamines and

Ritalin but is similar to them in its effects on the body. Side effects include hallucinations,

increased irritability, involuntary movements of the face, eyes, lips, tongue, arms and legs, liver

problems, loss of appetite, mild depression, seizures, tics and uncontrolled muscle spasms. There

have been reports of death related to liver problems in people taking Cylert. Britain and Canada

removed the drug from the market, but the FDA to date has allowed it to remain, despite its own

analysis that found Cylert increased the risk of liver failure almost 17 times. A 2002 agency

report found that stiffer label warnings had failed to prompt doctors to increase testing of patient’s

livers.51

In 1999, the Ontario Medical Association Committee on Drugs and Pharmacotherapy reported that

sales of Cylert were to be suspended in Canada, after a risk benefit assessment had been conducted

by Health Canada on the use of Cylert posing serious liver complications, including liver failure

resulting in death or liver transplantation. The findings said that the risks far outweighed the

benefits of continued use.52 Prescriptions of Cylert in Canada are now severely restricted and are

only available through Health Canada’s Special Access Program, which requires specific written

requests for the drug to be used.

• Dexedrine: This drug is chemically similar to Adderall and can cause the same side effects:

mood swings, depression, weight loss, heart palpitations or irregular heartbeat, involuntary muscle

tics or movements, psychosis and restlessness.

• Focalin: FDA approved in 2001, the same company that makes Ritalin manufactures Focalin. It

is a Schedule II controlled substance. 53 Adverse effects include decreased appetite, headache, dry

mouth, insomnia, irritability, stomachache, and weight loss.54

• Metadate: Approved by the FDA in August 2001, Metadate is a once a day [“extended release”]

version of Ritalin. In 2002, the FDA also approved Metadate to include the option of sprinkling it

onto a small amount of applesauce, making it the first once-daily methylphenidate product to

receive sprinkle administration approval.55 Side effects include headache, loss of appetite,

abdominal pain, insomnia, ticks, “zombie” demeanor, and moodiness.56

• Ritalin: Taken approximately every four hours, the side effects include nervousness, weight loss,

stunted growth, heart palpitations, insomnia, tics, psychosis, liver problems, hallucinations and

depression. The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) warns, “frank psychotic episodes can occur”

with abuse. Suicide is the major complication of withdrawal from Ritalin and similar drugs.57 In

2002, researchers at the University of Buffalo conducted studies that showed Ritalin might cause

long-term changes in the brain. Conducted on rats, the study revealed the changes to the brain are

similar to those seen with cocaine.58

• Strattera (non-stimulant): The drug, which was approved in 2002, was found to potentially

cause severe liver problems. In December 2004, a new warning was added to Strattera packaging

showing that the drug should be discontinued in patients who develop jaundice [unhealthy

condition that causes yellowness of the skin, eyes and body fluids] or liver injury. The FDA

noted, “The labeling warns that severe liver damage may progress to liver failure resulting in death

or the need for a liver transplant in a small percentage of patients.”59 Signs of the possible liver

problems include jaundice, dark urine, unexplained flulike symptoms, upper right-side abdominal

tenderness and a form of itchy skin known as pruritus [caused by irritation of the sensory nerve

endings].60 Other common side effects are headache, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting,

anorexia [eating “disorder”] and weight loss, nervousness, somnolence [drowsiness].61

• Wellbutrin: Also known as bupropion, this is an antidepressant (also prescribed for depression),

one of the non-stimulant drugs prescribed to the 20% who apparently don’t respond “properly” to

stimulants. Fatal heart attacks in those with a history of heart-rhythm disturbances have occurred.

62 It can cause seizures and at rates of four times that of other antidepressants.63 Other side effects

include agitation, insomnia, increased restlessness, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, psychotic

episodes, confusion, weight loss, and paranoia.64 Teens have abused the drug by crushing and

snorting it, causing seizures.65

Antidepressants

The new generation of antidepressants [Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox, etc.] was falsely promoted as a

dramatic new type of mood-altering drug, “a designer medical bullet targeting serotonin [a hormone

that transmits nerve impulses],” says Harvard University Dr. Glenmullen.66 “While the alleged

‘selectivity’ of the drugs makes good marketing copy,” he says, “implying that they target a depression center in the brain, no such center is known to exist.”67 Dr. Andrew Nierenburg, director of the depression research program at the Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor at Harvard, says, “The dark side of all this is that we have many elegant models but the reality is that [when it comes to] the exact mechanisms by which these things work, we don’t have a clue.”68

• In 2002, 14 years after Prozac came on the market, studies showed that up to 65% of the millions

who had taken these antidepressants had not been helped. People experienced emotional

numbing, restlessness, and memory lapses.69 Sexual dysfunction affected 60% of patients taking

these antidepressants.70

• In Britain in 2003, the medicine regulatory agency told doctors not to prescribe the drugs for this

reason.71 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Public Health Advisory of March 22,

2004, stated, “Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity,

akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal excitement, mild mania] and mania

[psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas],

have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with [Paxil-like]

antidepressants…both psychiatric and non-psychiatric.”72 Bizarre dreams and violent behavior

have also been reported.73

• The FDA also said these antidepressants have the potential to cause suicidal behavior. In Britain

in 2003, the medicine regulatory agency told doctors not to prescribe the drugs for this reason.74

• On 20 August 2004, the FDA announced that a Columbia University review of the pediatric

[child] clinical trials of Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Paxil and Prozac, found that young

people who took the antidepressants were more likely than those taking a placebo [sugar or fake

pills] to experience suicidal thoughts or actions.75

• An FDA official, Dr. Andrew D. Mosholder, found that most antidepressants are too dangerous

for children because of a suicide risk. He reviewed 22 studies, which showed that children were

nearly twice as likely to become suicidal as those given placebos.76

• On 15 October 2004, the FDA ordered pharmaceutical companies to add a “black box” warning to

antidepressants, saying the drugs could cause suicidal thoughts and actions in some children and

teenagers. The agency also directed the manufacturers to print and distribute medication guides

with every antidepressant prescription and to inform patients of the risks.77

• On December 9, 2004, ABC’s Prime Time Live exposed that at least 100 children in the United

States had committed suicide while taking these types of antidepressants and many others had

attempted it.78 The precise numbers are unknown.

• According to a report in 2005, the manufacturer of Prozac has settled at least 30 Prozac lawsuits

since 1990 for at least $50 million. It also agreed to pay $2.3 million in cash in 2000 to settle a

class-action lawsuit by California drug consumers.79

Violence and Antidepressants

• In November 2002, FOX National News reported that teenagers either taking antidepressants or

stimulants or experiencing the withdrawal effects of them committed 7 out of 12 school shootings

in the United States. One of these was Eric Harris, one of the teenagers responsible for the

Columbine school shooting in 1999. He had been taking Luvox, which lists mania as a side effect.

[The possible drug use by the remaining five school shooters is unknown as their medical records

are sealed.]

• The Physicians’ Desk Reference reports that during clinical trials of Luvox manic reactions

developed in 4% of children. Mania is defined as “a form of psychosis characterized by exalted

feelings, delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas.” Applying that figure to the number

of children on these types of antidepressants, that’s about 80,000 time bombs waiting to go off.

• Dr. Glenmullen says antidepressants could explain the rash of school shootings and mass-suicides

over the last decade. People who take antidepressants, he said, could “become very

distraught….They feel like jumping out of their skin. The irritability and impulsivity can make

people suicidal or homicidal.”80

• Dr. David Healy, director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine stated:

“What is very, very clear is that people do become hostile on the drugs.”81

Withdrawal Symptoms

• Withdrawal symptoms associated with SSRIs include deeper depression, which is why a person

needs to gradually stop taking them under a physician’s supervision.82

• Internal pharmaceutical company documents from 1997 show that in some studies, the number of

people taking Paxil who experienced withdrawal symptoms was shockingly high—up to 62%.

Documents directed sales reps to minimize concerns about discontinuation and avoid using the

word “withdrawal.” Forced to testify before Congress in October 2004, manufacturer

representatives admitted their own studies showed as many as 21% of people taking Paxil

experience withdrawal symptoms. Yet the drug packaging only reports a risk of 2%.83

Antipsychotics (Major Tranquilizers)

Approximately 500,000 American children are prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs, also called

neuroleptics [meaning nerve seizing], for so-called “schizophrenic” behavior or conduct “disorders.”

The older neuroleptics—first introduced in the 1950s—are more commonly known as Thorazine and

Haldol. The current ones are Risperdal, Clozaril, Zyprexa, and an even newer one called Abilify.

Psychiatrists learned very early on that neuroleptics cause Parkinsonian [nervous system damage

resulting in tremor and weakness in muscles] and encephalitis lethargica [brain inflammation]

symptoms.84

• The drugs damage the extrapyramidal system (EPS)—the extensive complex network of nerve

fibers that moderate motor control—resulting in muscle rigidity, spasms, and various involuntary

movements.85

• The drug-induced side effect, Tardive dyskinesia [Tardive, meaning “late” and dyskinesia

meaning, “abnormal movement of muscles”], is a permanent impairment of the power of

voluntary movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, fingers, toes, and other body parts.86 Individuals

you see walking the streets grimacing, shuffling and shaking are suffering, not from their “mental

disorder,” but from the damage induced by psychotropic drugs.

• Since the drugs’ introduction, researchers and psychiatrists have known the risk of neuroleptic

malignant syndrome, a potentially fatal toxic reaction where patients break into fevers and become

confused, agitated and extremely rigid. An estimated 100,000 Americans have died from it.87

• The latest antipsychotic drugs were introduced when the older ones stopped making manufacturers

sufficient profits and their damaging side effects could no longer be ignored. They are sold at

significantly higher prices, in one case at 30 times the price of the older drugs.88 One new

neuroleptic costs $3,000 to $9,000 more per patient, with no benefits to symptoms, side effects or

overall quality of life. 89

• One in every 145 patients who entered the drug trials for Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, and a

fourth atypical [new] called Serdolect died, and yet those deaths were never mentioned in the

scientific literature.90

• In 2003, The New York Times effectively retracted its earlier high praise for these antipsychotics

stating, “They were billed as near wonder drugs, much safer and more effective in treating

schizophrenia than anything that had come before.” However, now “there is increasing suspicion

that they may cause serious side effects, notably diabetes, in some cases leading to death.”91

Between 1994 and 2002, 288 patients taking the new antipsychotics developed diabetes; 75 became

severely ill and 23 died.

• Some of the newer drugs may be linked to pancreatitis [inflammation of the pancreas, the gland

that breaks down protein, fats and carbohydrates]. Weight gain is a problem, with some patients

gaining up to 65 pounds.92

• Rather than fewer side effects, the newer antipsychotics have more severe ones. These include

blindness, fatal blood clots, heart arrhythmia [irregularity], heat stroke, swollen and leaking

breasts, impotence and sexual dysfunction, blood disorders, painful skin rashes, seizures, birth

defects, extreme inner-anxiety and restlessness, death from liver failure, suicide rates two to five

times more frequent than for the general “schizophrenic” population, and violence and mayhem,

especially in young patients.

• The New York Times also referred to what had been known for more than 20 years—that one of

these drugs had a record of causing a life-threatening blood disorder, and that patients required

regular blood tests to monitor this side effect, also adding to its expense.

• In June 2005, the manufacturer of Zyprexa agreed to pay $690 million to settle 8,000 claims

against the drug. The drug accounts for one-third of the company’s annual drugs sales, generating

$4.4 billion in 2004 alone.93

• Nor are physical effects the full extent of the problem. Many patients complain that the drugs are

spiritually deadening, robbing them of any sense of joy, of their willpower, and of their sense of

being. While the exact danger and side effect profiles have changed, the atypical neuroleptics still

operate as a “chemical lobotomy.”94

Abilify [brand name for the chemical aripiprazole] has been on the market since November 2002 and

has been marketed as safe and effective with less side effects than earlier neuroleptics.

• Abilify has the following side effects: Blurred vision, headache, insomnia, light-headedness,

nausea, restlessness, sleepiness, tremors, vomiting, weakness, tachycardia [heart irregularity], heart

palpitation, hemorrhage [heavy, uncontrollable bleeding], cardiac arrest, heart failure, seizures and

weight gain. Nervous system side effects include depression, nervousness, hostility, suicidal

thoughts, manic reaction, abnormal gait [manner of walking] and confusion.95 Abilify can also

cause tardive dyskinesia.96

• In September 2003, the FDA requested the makers of six atypical antipsychotic drugs, including

Abilify, add a caution to their labeling language about the potential risk of diabetes and bloodsugar

abnormalities.97 Today, the information insert on Abilify lists hyperglycemia [abnormally

high blood sugar—usually associated with diabetes], hypoglycemia [abnormally low blood sugar]

and diabetes. 98

• In April 2003, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen conducted their own review of

information published on Abilify. They based their evaluation primarily on publicly available

FDA reviews of information submitted by the manufacturer of Abilify in gaining FDA approval for

the drug. FDA approval was based on just five trials lasting four to six weeks. According to

Public Citizen, “…nothing in these five trials can lead one to believe that aripiprazole (Abilify) is a

meaningful advancement in the treatment of schizophrenia.”99

Essentially, all antipsychotics damage the nervous system, which affects the brain and, therefore, the

communication system within the body. Studies also show that when patients stopped taking these

drugs, they improved. 100

All psychiatric drugs are dangerous. Neurologist Sydney Walker, III, wrote in A Dose of Sanity, “In

short, virtually every ‘safe’ or ‘harmless’ psychotropic drug introduced on the market was later found

to have serious or even fatal side effects.”101

DO PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS “HELP”?

Richard Hughes and Robert Brewin, authors The Tranquilizing of America, warned that although

psychotropic drugs may appear “to ‘take the edge off’ anxiety, pain, and stress, they also take the edge off life itself…these pills not only numb the pain but numb the whole mind.”102 In fact close study reveals that none of them can cure, all have side effects, some horrific, and due to their addictive and psychotropic properties, many believe that they cannot deal with life without them.

Peter Schrag and Diane Divoky, authors of The Myth of the Hyperactive Child, say that dozens of drug

experiments have been founded on the “dubious premise: that if the drug worked, or seemed to work, the subject must be suffering from the ailment for which drug was administered.”103 Because the person’s emotional state, behavior or outlook changes, there is a belief that the drugs are helping. However, a person could drink alcohol or take cocaine and may think they “feel better.” It doesn’t make it right and, in the case of psychiatric drugs, it is potentially very dangerous because the drugs mask physical conditions, which left untreated, can be catastrophic.

Because of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental for

Mental Disorders, psychiatrists have deceived millions into thinking that the best answer to life’s

many routine problems and challenges lies with the “latest and greatest” psychiatric drug.

However, Dr. Walker said that the DSM has “led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of Americans

who could be diagnosed, treated, and cured without the use of toxic and potentially lethal

medications.”104

Imagine, he says, what would happen if a physician “simply gave patients symptom-masking drugs

instead of diagnosing and treating them.” He gave the example of a patient visiting a general

practitioner with a swollen hand that is twice its normal size, feels hot and is turning an unpleasant

color. “Now suppose, the physician—instead instead of diagnosing the patient’s life-threatening

infection and treating the infection with antibiotics—simply prescribes pain-killing drugs and sends the patient home! Treating a patient’s behavioral symptoms with Prozac and Ritalin is no different.”

While the patient may be lulled into a temporary sense of wellness, whatever condition has caused the symptom is still present and often growing worse.

Professors Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk, authors of Making Us Crazy, say: “The public at large

may gain false comfort from a diagnostic psychiatric manual that encourages belief in the illusion that the harshness, brutality and pain in their lives and in their communities can be explained by a

psychiatric label and eradicated by a pill. Certainly, there are plenty of problems that we all have and a myriad [great number] of peculiar ways that we struggle…to cope with them. But could life be any

different? Far too often, the psychiatric bible [DSM] has been making us crazy—when we are just

human.”105

SUMMARY

The repercussions are telling. Hundreds of children have committed suicide while taking the latest

antidepressants. Millions more are prescribed “kiddy cocaine” [stimulants] for “disorders” that don’t

exist and put at risk of addiction and worse. Children diagnosed with “ADHD” and prescribed

stimulants can be later ineligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. In 1998, the military discharged

more than 3,100 recruits with psychiatric histories, pointing to a rise in “medication” and treatment of ADHD and other “behavioral disorders” as a reason for discharge.106

Parents must be better informed. Few, if any, parents faced with the school situation of their child

being labeled as “mentally” or “learning disordered” and coerced into taking psychiatric drugs, are told that there are many other factors that could be causing the child’s inattention, behavior problems or learning difficulties.

Common causes are poor reading and math skills requiring tutoring, environmental toxins, allergies,

nutritional deficiencies, and other easily detectable and treatable physical conditions. Special medical

doctors can do tests to determine if a person is experiencing an allergic reaction. Diet can also help.

In a study of 803 New York public schools and nine juvenile correction facilities, researchers increased fruits and vegetables and whole grains and decreased fats and sugars over a couple of years. No other changes were made in the schools or correctional facilities. Consequently, the academic performance of 1.1 million children rose 16% and learning disabilities fell 40%. In the juvenile correction facilities violent and non-violent antisocial behavior fell 48%.107

The Washington D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) cited 17 controlled

studies in a 1999 report that found diet adversely affects children’s behavior, sometimes

dramatically.108

Dr. Walker emphatically stated: “Physicians who skip the work of making an accurate diagnosis, and

cavalierly [casually] prescribe dangerous psychotropic drugs based solely on labels picked out of the

DSM are violating one of the most basic principles of medicine: to do no harm. And physicians who

prescribe drugs to perfectly normal, healthy patients looking for a magic pill to make them more

popular, or less sensitive to life’s ups and downs, are even more misguided: they are actually creating

brain dysfunction where none existed, and stunting their patients’ emotional growth as well.”

“A patient’s health is his or her most prized possession,” he added. “To prescribe medicines known to

cause grave risk to a patient’s health, and known to have few beneficial effects, is a perversion of the

physician’s duty and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. To prescribe such drugs as a means of

helping patients shirk responsibility or avoid life’s tough knocks is simply unconscionable. These

practices should be strongly condemned—not actively encouraged—by the American Psychiatric

Association.”109

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. If you are concerned about a psychiatric drug that you or another is taking, seek medical attention.

No one should stop taking a psychiatric drug without the advice or assistant of a competent, nonpsychiatric

medical doctor.

2. Any diagnosis of a “mental disorder” is not based on a test or any physical means to scientifically

substantiate it. It is important to find a medical doctor that will conduct a thorough physical

examination to first determine what underlying physical condition may be causing any unwanted

behavior or emotion, including, but not limited to testing for:

• lead- or pesticide-poisoning

• thyroid conditions

• early-onset diabetes

• heart disease

• viral or bacterial infections

• malnutrition

• head injuries or tumors

• allergies

• vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies

• mercury exposure

Often a child, for example, may act up or not focus because he or she is experiencing the effects of

such undiagnosed and, therefore, untreated conditions.

3. Concurrently, parents should also ensure that the child fully understands what he or she is learning

in school to determine whether he or she should see a competent tutor who acknowledges the value of phonics and the value of defining key words. There are educational solutions for behavioral and

classroom problems.

4. Any person or any parent whose child has been falsely diagnosed as mentally disordered which

results in treatment that harms should file a complaint with the police and professional licensing bodies and have this investigated. They should seek legal advice about filing a civil suit against any offending psychiatrist and his or her hospital, associations and teaching institutions seeking compensation.

CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR®) was co-founded in 1969 by the Church

of Scientology and Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, to investigate and expose

psychiatric violations of human rights and to clean up the field of mental healing. Today, it

has more than 130 chapters in 34 countries. Its board of advisors includes doctors, lawyers,

educators, artists, business professionals and civil and human rights representatives.

CCHR has inspired and contributed to many hundreds of reforms by testifying before

legislative hearings and conducting public hearings into psychiatric abuse, as well as by

working with media, law enforcement and public officials the world over.

For further information:

CCHR International

6616 Sunset Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90028, USA

(323) 467-4242

(800) 869-2247

http://www.cchr.org

http://www.fightforkids.com

http://www.psychcrime.org

e-mail: humanrights@cchr.org

REFERENCES

1 Jeanie Russell, “The Pill That Teachers Push,” Good Housekeeping, Dec. 1997.

2 “Survey: 1 in 5 Teens Getting High on Medications, Over-Counter Drugs,” NewsItem.com, 2 June 2005.

3 Joyce Howard Price, “Antidepressant Use by Preschoolers Rising,” The Washington Times, 3 Apr. 2004.

4 Jacqueline A. Sparks, Ph.D. & Barry L. Duncan, Psy.D., “The Ethics and Science of Medicating Children,” Center for Family Services, Palm Beach County & Florida Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change.

5 Jennifer Washburn, “Tainted to the Core: Why Conflicts of Interest are Hazardous to Your Health,” Institute for Public Affairs, In These Times, 20 June 2005.

6 Fred Baughman Jr., M.D, “Transcript: Calls for Investigation into Diagnosis of ADHD,” ABC Australia Online, 23 Mar. 2000, Internet URL: http://www.abc.net.au; “The White House on Ritalin,” New York Press, 29 Mar. – 4 Apr. 2000.

7 Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, “Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee With the Pediatric Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee,” Testimony of Dr. Gianna Rigoni from the Office of Drug Safety of the FDA, 2 Feb. 2004.

8 Kate Zernike and Melody Petersen, “Schools’ Backing of Behavior Drugs Comes Under Fire,” The New York Times, 19 Aug. 2001.

9 Karen Thomas, “Back to School for ADHD Drugs,” USA Today, 28 Aug. 2001.

10 “Leading Therapy Classes by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2003,” IMSHealth.com, 2004.

11 Op. cit., Karen Thomas.

12 Dr. Tana Dineen, Ph.D., Manufacturing Victims, Third Edition, (Robert Davies Multimedia Publishing, Montreal, 2001), p. 86.

13 “Ten Things That Drive Psychiatrists To Distraction,” The Independent, (United Kingdom), 19 Mar. 2001.

14 Sydney Walker, III, M.D., A Dose of Sanity: Mind, Medicine and Misdiagnosis, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 1996), p. 5.

15 Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., The Therapeutic State, Psychiatry in the Mirror of Current Events, (Prometheus Books, New York, 1984), p. 32.

16 David Kaiser, M.D., “Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry,” Psychiatric Times, Dec. 1996,

http://www.mhsource.com/edu/psytimes/p961242.html.

17 Bruce D. Levine, Ph.D., Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society, (Continuum, New York, 2001), p. 277.

18 Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain, (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 4.

19 Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash, (Simon & Schuster, NY, 2000), pp. 193, 196.

20 Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement Online, 16-18 Nov. 1998.

21 “Anatomical MRI of the Developing Human Brain: What Have We Learned? Magnetic resonance imaging; Statistical Data Included. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1 Sept. 2001.

22 Lisa M. Krieger, “Some Question Value of Brain Scan; Untested Tool Belongs in Lab Only, Experts Say,” The Mercury News, 4 May 2004.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Kelly Patricia O’Meara, “In ADHD Studies, Pictures May Lie,” Insight on the News, 19 Aug, 2003.

26 Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 126.

27 Ibid.

28 Dr. Mary Ann Block, No More ADHD, (Block Books, Texas, 2001), p.30.

29 “National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, No. 2, Vol. 39, p.

182; Op. cit., Dr. Mary Ann Block, p. 53.

30 Jan Strydom, Susan du Plessis, The Myth of ADHD and Other Learning Disabilities, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana, 2001), p. 43.

31 “Drug Scheduling,” U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Online, Internet URL: http://www.dea.gov.

32 Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1995, United Nations Publication, ISSN 0257-3717.

33 “Methylphenidate (A Background Paper),” U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Oct. 1995, p.

34 Jim Rosack, “Controversy Erupts Over Ads for ADHD Drugs,” Psychiatric News, 2 Nov. 2001.

35 Physicians Desk Reference, 1998, (Medical Economics Company, New Jersey, 1998), pp. 1896-1897. 36 Ibid., p. 1897.

37 Adrainne Jeffries, “Some Teens Abuse ADD/ADHD Drugs,” The Virginian-Pilot, 29 Mar. 2004.

38 Sydney Walker, III, M.D., The Hyperactivity Hoax, (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1998), p. 47.

39 Paul Wenske, “Small Study Links Ritalin, Cancer Risk,” The Kansas City Star, 17 Mar. 2005.

40 Kathleen Fackelmann, “Health campaign Takes Aim at Prescription Drug Abuse,” USA Today, 10 Apr., 2001; Nicole Ziegler, “Recreational Ritalin,” The Associated Press, 5 May 2000; Christine Langdon, “Tired? Pop your Pal’s Ritalin: Students Using RX Drug as Study Aid,” The New York Post, 28 May 2000; Kelly Trahan, “U. Michigan Study Finds More Adolescents Using Ritalin Recreationally,” Michigan Daily, Mar. 2001; Peter Maller, Laura Lynch-German, “Adults are Becoming Hooked on Ritalin’s Caffeine-Like Jolt,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12 Feb. 2001; Paul Zielbauer, New

York Times Service, International Herald Tribune, 25 Mar. 2000, p. 3.

41 DEA 1996 report, p. 29.

42 Nadine Lambert, “Stimulant Treatment as a Risk Factor for Nicotine Use and Substance Abuse,” National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 16-18 Nov. 1998.

43 “A Drug Disaster?” Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter September 2001 Vol. XVIII, No. 5, citing Journal of Forensic Science, 1999, Vol. 44, pp. 220-221.

44 DEA Congressional Testimony, Statement by Terrance Woodworth, Deputy Director, Office of Diversion Control, before the Committee on Education and the Workforce: Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, 16 May 2000.

45 Kay Lazar, “School Daze – Kid-Drug Ads Spark Concern,” Boston Globe, 2 Sept. 2001.

46 Op. cit. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement, p. 5.

47 Brian Vastig, “Pay Attention: Ritalin Acts Much Like Cocaine,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 22/29, 2001, Vol. 286, No. 8, p. 905.

48 Dr. Richard Nakamura, Evidence Before the U.S. Government Reform Committee Hearing on the Over Medication of Hyperactive Children, 26 Sept. 2002.

49 “Adderall,” DrugStore.com, Internet URL: http://www.drugstore.com.

50 Brian Witte, “Slaying blamed on reaction to hyperactivity drug,” Associated Press Wire, 25 Oct. 1999.

51 Gardiner Harris, “Citizens’ Group Wants Hyperactivity Drug Taken Off the Market,” The New York Times, 25 Mar. 2005.

52 “Drug Report,” Quarterly Report, Ontario Medical Association Committee on Drugs and Pharmacotherapy, 1 Dec. 1999.

53 Jim Rosack, “ADHD Treatment Arsenal Increasing Rapidly,” Psychiatric News, 21 Dec. 2001.

54 “Study Suggests Focalin (TM) LA Capsules (d-MPH-ER) Are Safe and Effective for ADHD in Adults,” PR Newswire, 5 May 2004; A.D.D. Warehouse website.

55 “ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER: FDA Approves Sprinkle Administration for Once-Daily ADHD Treatment,” Pain & Central Nervous System Week, 6 May 2002. 56 ADHDHelp, Internet URL: http://www.adhdhelp.org/metadate.htm.

57 Ibid.; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition–Revised) DSM-III-R, (American Psychiatric Association, Washington D.C., 1987) pp. 136, 175.

58 Kelly Patricia O’Meara, “Ritalin Could Cause ‘Long-Lasting Changes,’” Insight Magazine, 12 Dec. 2002.

59 “Attention Drug to Get New Warning,” Los Angeles Times, 18 Dec. 2004.

60 “Strattera to Get New Risk Label,” The Washington Post, 18 Dec. 2004.

61 “New Drugs in Pipeline,” Psychiatric News, 21 Dec. 2001.

62 Alice Park, “More Drugs To Treat Hyperactivity,” Time, 10 Sept. 2001.

63 Bupropion Wellbutrin, Prozac Truth website.

64 Ibid.

65 “Teen Suffers Seizure After Snorting Antidepressant,” HealthScoutNews Reporter, 23 Apr. 2003.

66 Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash, (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), p. 13.

67 Ibid., p. 203.

68 Ibid.

69 “Antidepressants Lift Clouds, But Lost ‘Miracle Drug’ Label,” The New York Times, 30 June 2002.

70 Op. cit., Joseph Glenmullen, p. 8.

71 “Worsening Depression and Suicidality in Patients Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications,” US Food and Drug Administration Public Health Advisory, 22 Mar. 2004.

72 Ibid.

73 “Adverse SSRI Reactions,” International Coalition For Drug Awareness website, Internet URL:

http://www.drugawareness.org; “Medication Profiles: Serotonin Reuptake Blocking Agents (SSRIs),” Anxieties.com website, Internet URL: http://www.anxieties.com; Karen Thomas, USA Today, 14 July 2002.

74 Op. cit., FDA Public Health Advisory, 22 Mar. 2004.

75 Anna Wilde Mathews, “FDA Will Seek to Revise Antidepressant Labels for Youth,” The Wall Street Journal, 20 Aug.

20, 2004; Gardiner Harris, “Antidepressant Study Seen to Back Expert,” The New York Times, 20 Aug. 2004.

76 Ibid.

77 Labeling Change Request Letter for Antidepressant Medications – FDA Letter, 15 Oct. 2004; “FDA orders strong ‘black box’ warnings on antidepressants used by children,” Associated Press Worldstream, 15 Oct. 2004.

78 Chris Cuomo, “DRUG DANGER COVER-UP? EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSED INFORMATION,” Prime Time Live, ABC News, 9 Dec. 2004.

79 Jeff Swiatek, “Uncertainty was Driver in Zyprexa Deal,” IndianapolisStar.com, 11 June 2005.

80 “FDA Mulls Antidepressant Warnings,” Daily Press, 21 Mar. 2004.

81 Ibid.

82 Kevin Lamb, “Increased Fears Over Side Effects Concern Antidepressant Users, Medical Experts,” Cox News, 26 Mar. 2004.

83 Op. cit., Chris Cuomo, Prime Time Live.

84 Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, (Perseus Publishing, New York, 2002), p. 203.

85 Ibid., pp. 253-254; Ty C. Colbert, Rape of the Soul, How the Chemical Imbalance Model of Modern Psychiatry has Failed its Patients, (Kevco Publishing, California, 2001), p. 106.

86 George Crane, “Tardive Dyskinesia in Patients Treated with Major Neuroleptics: A Review of the Literature,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 124, Supplement, 1968, pp. 40-47.

87 Op. cit., Robert Whitaker, p. 208.

88 Ibid., p. 286.

89 “Leading Therapy Classes by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2003,” IMSHealth.com, 2004.

90 Op. cit., Robert Whitaker, p. 269.

91 Erica Goode, “Leading Drugs for Psychosis Come Under New Scrutiny,” The New York Times, 20 May 2003.

92 Ibid.

93 Op. cit., Jeff Swiatek, IndianapolisStar.com.

94 Robert Whitaker, “Forced medication is inhumane…,” The Boston Globe, 9 June 2002.

95 “ABILIFY Rx Only (aripiprazole) Tablets,” Package Insert, revised Mar. 2004; “GENERIC NAME: Aripiprazole

BRAND NAME: Abilify,” Internet URL: http://www.MedicineNet.com, Last Editorial Review: 9/8/04; “Aripiprazole

Brand Name: Abilify,” Internet URL: http://www.HealthyPlace.com, Last updated 3/04.

96 Ibid.

97 “FDA: Antipsychotic Drugs, Diabetes Linked,” Associated Press Online, 18 Sept. 2003.

98 Op. cit., “ABILIFY Rx Only (aripiprazole) Tablets.”

99 “The New Anti-Psychotic Drug Aripiprazole (ABILIFY),” Public Citizen’s eLetter, Apr. 2003.

100 Op. Cit., Erica Goode.

101 Op. cit., Sydney Walker, A Dose of Sanity, p. 67.

102 Richard Hughs and Robert Brewin, The Tranquilizing of America (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York, 1979), p. 15.

103 Schrag and Diane Divoky, The Myth of the Hyperactive Child, (Pantheon Books, New York, 1975), pp. 56-57.

104 Ibid., p. 51.

105 Herb Kutchins, Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy, (The Free Press, NY, 1997), p. 265.

106 Dave Moniz, “Thousands of Troops Let Go for Psychiatric Troubles,” The Indianapolis Star, 28 Sept. 1999.

107 Op. cit., Dr. Mary Ann Block, p. 84.

108 Raymond M. Lombardi, N.D., D.C., C.C.N., “ADHD, A Modern Malady,” Nutrition Science News, Aug. 2000.

109 Op. cit., Sydney Walker, pp. 73-74.

Source: http://h11.protectedsite.net/files/10891/drug_effects0626.pdf

Current medical theory is that most psychiatric drugs work by changing the levels of chemicals called neurotransmitters (anti-convulsants, anti-epileptics, and “mood stabilizers” like lithium appear to work by changing blood flow and electrical activity in the brain in general). Neurotransmitters are linked with mood and mental functioning, and all the cells of the nervous system, including brain cells, use neurotransmitters to communicate with each other. When neurotransmitter levels change, “receptor” cells, which receive and regulate the neurotransmitters, can grow or shrink to adjust, and become more sensitive.

SSRI anti-depressants (“selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors”) for example are said to raise the level of the neurotransmitter serotonin present in the brain and reduce the number of brain serotonin receptors. Anti-psychotic medications like Haldol lower the level of dopamine and increase the number of dopamine receptors in the brain. This action on neurotransmitters and receptors is the same as for many street drugs. Cocaine changes the levels of both serotonin and dopamine, as well as noradrenaline, and alters receptors.
While these chemical changes are taking place, your consciousness works to interpret and respond in your own way, while your body responds in its way as well. Because everyone is different, your experience of medication may not be the same as other people, and will ultimately be uniquely your own. Trust yourself.
Why do People Find Psychiatric Drugs Helpful?

Unlike their risks, the benefits of psychiatric drugs are widely and loudly promoted in the media. The helpful aspects of the drugs, however, tend to be mixed in with inaccurate claims about biological causes and distorted by sensationalistic advertising hype. The information below is an attempt to cut through the confusion and describe the basic ways that many people find psychiatric drugs helpful.
• Sleep deprivation is one of the single biggest causes of, and contributors to, emotional crisis. Short term medication use can get you to sleep.
• Short term medication can interrupt and “put the brakes on” a difficult extreme state of consciousness or an acute moment of crisis. Ongoing use can sometimes prevent episodes of mania or depression, or make them less severe. Some people report that extremes and symptoms feel less severe and more manageable on medications.
• Interrupting crisis and getting some sleep can reduce stress in your body and settle you down, which can allow you to reduce chaos in your life and take care of yourself better with food, relationships, and other basic issues. This can lay a groundwork for greater mental stability and making changes that might not have been possible otherwise.
• Medications can sometimes help you show up for and function at work, school, and in your life, which is especially useful if you cannot change these circumstances. Work may require you to get up in the morning and avoid mood swings, and relationships may need you to avoid emotional reaction or sensitivity.
• All drugs have a powerful placebo effect: just believing they work, even unconsciously, can make them work. Recovery from very serious illnesses is possible just from receiving a placebo sugar pill the patient thinks is real, or undergoing
a “placebo surgery” believed to be real. In clinical trials many psychiatric drugs have little proven effectiveness beyond that of placebo, because of the powerful mental effect at work. The mind plays a central role in any healing, and there is no way to determine whether effectiveness for an individual comes from placebo or drug effects.
• Compliance also contributes to the placebo effect: sometimes people will feel better when they find a clear official explanation of their suffering to believe in, and when they follow and get support from a doctor, family member, or other authority figure.
• Advertising, especially direct-to-consumer television advertising (allowed in the US and New Zealand), is extremely powerful and influences people’s experience to fit their hopes and expectations.

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Factors associated with increased risk for any type of illicit drug use include at least one or more of the following:
Poor parent-child relations. Studies show that living in a stressful home environment with relatively little parental support and monitoring places adolescents at greater risk for drug use.
Family environments that model drug use. Adolescents are more likely to use drugs if someone in their home uses drugs. For example, parents who use drugs may practice poor parenting which may increase the risk of drug abuse for adolescents. Also, parental or sibling drug use sets a model of acceptable inappropriate behavior for teens, makes it seem like a normal part of life, and may encourage its acceptance by youth.
Peer drug use. During adolescence, peers become a major influence because of the increased time spent with them outside of the home. Some teens feel pressured to fit in and do what their friends are doing. Consequently, teens that have friends who use drugs are more likely to use drugs themselves.
High risk communities. Living in communities where drug use is widespread not only makes drug accessibility easier, but also normalizes the act of using drugs.
Low self-esteem. Adolescents who do not have positive views of themselves, or who lack support and encouragement from others are more likely to use drugs.
Poor school achievement. Teens who have negative attitudes toward school and low expectations of academic success are at increased risk of drug use. Also, teens who use drugs typically exhibit declines in grades, and inconsistent attendance at school.
What Are the Consequences?

The effects of drug use vary by type of drug and frequency of use, however, some consequences may include the following:
Mental and physical health problems. Teens who use drugs are at greater risk for developing a number of health problems including attention deficit disorder, anxiety disorders, phobias, and depression.
Increased likelihood of drug use later in life. Early drug use has been linked to positive attitudes toward drug use. Consequently, teens who begin drug use early are at risk for continued drug habits into and through adulthood.
Involvement in other illegal activities. Drug use has been linked to higher tolerance of deviant behavior among adolescents. This results in increased criminal activity for drug users compared to non-drug using peers.
Increased likelihood of death. Drug use increases the odds of death from accidental or intentional drug overdoses as well as engagement in other unsafe behaviors (e.g., driving under the influence).
What Can Parents Do?

Communication is key in dealing with any type of risk taking behavior during the teen years. The hectic pace of work and school can sometimes estrange family members, especially parents and teens. But make the effort to keep in touch with your teen. Find out what’s going on in his or her life. The best way to find out if your teen is using drugs is to just ask. During adolescence, parents may feel that their influence over their teen’s life is waning, but in fact, you have more power than anyone to prevent your child from using drugs. Here are some things that you can do to encourage your child to “Just Say No.”
Stay connected with your teen. Keeping up to date with your teen’s interests and friends is an important step in creating a warm, communicative, and open environment. If your teen feels that you are available and easy to talk to, then he or she will be more likely to share concerns that might lead to risk taking behavior.
Begin an ongoing conversation with your teen (vs. giving a one time speech). Make it clear that drug use is not an acceptable behavior in your family and be sure to talk about the reasons why. Talk about the consequences of drug use. Help your teen visualize two futures, one that includes drug use and one that remains drug free. Where do these paths lead? Discuss your teen’s life goals and how drug use can hinder them from reaching them.
Empower your teen. Teens tend to want to rebel against their parents’ standards or advice. Rather than dictate what your child should or should not do, remind him or her that they have the power of choice and that you trust that they can and will make good decisions.
Teens sometimes abuse substances as a way of alleviating stress. Some experiences in life (e.g., not making the basketball team, breaking up with a girlfriend or boyfriend) are both stressful and painful. Drugs are often sought as a means of temporarily easing pain or stress. Talk to your teen about any stressful events that are going on in his or her life and ways they can effectively handle them.
Know your teen’s friends. You can influence your teen’s choice of peers by talking with them about the qualities that make a good friend.
Encourage your teen’s self-esteem by praising their efforts and achievements. Help them to master the things that they are good at. Show them you care through your involvement in their lives/activities.
Take advantage of teachable moments. These include talking about scenes in movies or news headlines that deal with drug associated topics. Explain your position on these topics and ask your teen how they feel about what they are viewing.
Encourage healthy activities that promote the use of your teen’s interests and talents. Most teens are curious and are eager to try something new and challenging. High school is the peak time for both beginning substance use and beginning lifetime habits that include using illegal substances. Your parental example, support, and monitoring has a great influence on your teen’s behavior. Talk early and often about the consequences of and alternatives to using illicit drugs.
References and Resources
Anthony, J. C., & Petronis, K. R. (1995). Early onset drug use and risk of later drug problems. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 40 (1), 9-15.
Blum, R. W., & Rinehart, P. M. (1997) Reducing the risk: Connections that make a difference in the lives of youth. Minneapolis, MN: Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health.
Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., De La Rosa, M., Whiteman, M., Johnson, E., & Montoya, I. (2001). Adolescent illegal drug use: The impact of personality, family and environmental factors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24 (2), 183-203.
Gullotta, T. P., Adams, G. R., & Montemayor, R. (1994). Substance misuse in adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2001). Monitoring the future: National results on adolescent drug use. Bethesda, MD: The National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Kipke, M. (1999). Risks and opportunities: Synthesis of studies on adolescence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kurtzman, T. L., Otsuka, K. N., & Wahl, R. A. (2001). Inhalant abuse by adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 170-180.
Partnership for a Drug Free America: www.drugfreeamerica.org.
The National Crime Prevention Council: www.ncpc.org.
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration: www.usdoj.gov/dea.

FLM-FS-15-02
Urvia McDowell, M.S.,
Ted G. Futris, Ph.D.,
CFLE, Extension State Family Life Specialist and Assistant Professor,
Department of Human Development and Family Science, The Ohio State University
Source: http://ohioline.osu.edu/flm02/FS15.html

Tranquilizers, which slow down the central nervous system and cause drowsiness, numbed Ray’s agony, helped her sleep, and untied the relentless knot in her stomach. Soon, even if her doctor had prescribed one pill in an eight-hour period, she took two or three in an attempt to intensify the calming effect of the drug.

When the doctor stopped writing prescriptions for her and encouraged grief counseling, Ray began doctor-shopping–going from doctor to doctor, fabricating panic attacks, backaches, migraines, and other ailments that would get her multiple prescriptions for tranquilizers and pain killers. “I became a very good actress,” Ray says. “I thought I needed these drugs no matter what, even if I had to bamboozle the doctors to get them.”

Most patients take medicine responsibly, but approximately 9 million Americans used prescription drugs for non-medical purposes in 1999, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Non-medical purposes include misusing prescription drugs for recreation and for psychic effects–to get high, to have fun, to get a lift, or to calm down.

Experts stress that prescription drug abuse isn’t about bad drugs or even bad people. It involves a complex web of factors, including the power of addiction, misperceptions about drug abuse, and the difficulty both patients and doctors have discussing the topic.

There is also the delicate balance of curbing criminal activity related to drug abuse while making sure that people with legitimate health needs can still access care, says Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., director of NIDA. “We recognize the very real issue that millions of lives are improved because of prescription drugs–the same drugs that are sometimes abused,” he says.
Consequences of Abuse

Ray had convinced herself that abusing prescription drugs was safer than abusing heroin, marijuana, and other “street drugs.” “I would never do those,” she says. “I figured I had a prescription for what I was doing, which made it OK.”

Scott Walker, program director for substance abuse at the Mountain Comprehensive Care Center in Prestonsburg, Ky., says he hears that rationalization over and over. “Some people tell themselves they aren’t using something old Joe cooked up in a garage somewhere,” Walker says. They may figure a legitimate manufacturer made this, “so what could be the harm?”

As Ray’s life unraveled, she found out the harm can be great, whether you’re using heroin or sleeping pills. She lost her job as a computer programmer after repeatedly showing up late for work and falling asleep at her desk. Her son, a preteen at the time, couldn’t understand her erratic behavior and didn’t want anything to do with her.

Then in 1995, she crashed her car three times in one month while under the influence of tranquilizers and painkillers, seriously injuring others each time. Her driver’s license was revoked, and she served a one-year jail sentence in 1998. “I will always know in my heart that I could have killed those people,” she says. “It doesn’t matter that I didn’t kill them; it matters that I could have.”

Walker says that roughly half of the people undergoing substance abuse treatment at Mountain Comprehensive Care Center come after realizing that they found themselves in a hole too deep to get out of on their own. The other half, like Ray, come because of some criminal charge related to drug possession or drug use.

OxyContin (oxycodone), a controlled drug approved in 1995 to treat chronic, moderate-to-severe pain, has received considerable attention because of deaths and crimes associated with its abuse. (For more on the classes–or schedule–of drugs, see “Controlled Substances”.) OxyContin is a morphine-like narcotic that contains a high dose of oxycodone. Manufactured by Purdue Pharma, Stamford, Conn., the drug was originally believed to pose a lower risk for abuse because it is a controlled-release drug designed to be taken orally and swallowed whole, says Deborah Leiderman, M.D., director of the Food and Drug Administration’s controlled substance staff. The drug’s active ingredient, oxycodone, is slowly released over a 12-hour period. “But the safety of the drug is based on taking the drug exactly as intended,” she says.

Abusers sometimes disrupt the time-release formula of the drug to speed up absorption, often chewing the tablets, crushing them and snorting the powder, or dissolving them in water and injecting the drug to get a fast high. Abusers have also used OxyContin with other painkillers, alcohol, and marijuana. Several deaths have resulted, mostly in rural areas of the Eastern United States, especially in Virginia and West Virginia.

Other products containing oxycodone such as Percodan and Percocet have also been abused over the years. Abuse of opiates is not new; what’s new is the recent surge in local epidemics of opiate abuse (see “Most Commonly Abused”).

The most highly abused stimulants are illicit drugs, including cocaine and methamphetamines. There also have been recent reports of Ritalin (methylphenidate) abuse among middle and high school students. The drug, which produces effects more potent than caffeine and less potent than amphetamine, is prescribed to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other conditions. But some have used it to suppress their appetite or to stay awake while studying. The DEA lists Ritalin as a “drug of concern” and reports that some abusers have dissolved the tablets in water and injected the mixture, which can block small blood vessels and damage the lungs and retina of the eye.
Complexities of Addiction

It’s not that potentially addictive medications shouldn’t be used, says Richard Brown, M.D., M.P.H., associate professor of family medicine at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. “They have an important place in the treatment of debilitating conditions.” According to NIDA, drug addiction–characterized by drug craving that is out of control–is actually uncommon among people who use drugs as prescribed.

NIDA, along with several health organizations, has launched a national initiative to educate the public about the dangers of the non-medical use of prescription drugs, and the potential for abuse and addiction. With psychological addiction, there is a preoccupation with obtaining and using drugs that persists despite the consequences. Psychological addiction is distinct from physical dependence and tolerance, but the presence of these problems can complicate the treatment of addiction, says Alice Young, Ph.D., a professor in the department of psychology at Wayne State University in Detroit. “It is true that both psychological addiction and physical dependence can happen together,” she says, “but they are not the same.”

Young says that physical dependence, which is sometimes unavoidable, develops when an individual is exposed to a drug at a high enough dose for long enough that the body adapts and develops a tolerance for the drug. This means that higher doses are needed to achieve a drug’s original effects. “If the patient stops taking the drug, then withdrawal will occur,” Young says.
But the development of physical dependence doesn’t necessarily lead to addiction in all cases, she explains. “It means that the individual can’t just stop taking the drug; the dose has to be tapered,” a method to gradually decrease a drug’s amount over time to prevent withdrawal reactions.

In addition to promoting public education, NIDA’s initiative will foster new research on why certain people become addicted, says Leshner. “Some choose prescription drugs as the drug of choice, and others become addicted inadvertently,” he says. “We want to learn more about what makes some people more likely to stray from the prescribed plan than others.” NIDA also will support research into the mechanisms by which certain substances produce addiction.
Appropriate Use Is Key

Physician supervision and appropriate use is critical for all prescription drugs. Doctors consider a patient’s diagnosis and whether non-addictive treatments should be considered first.

“Very strong opiate drugs play a critical role in pain management,” FDA’s Leiderman says. “But they aren’t appropriate for all pain. Treatment needs to be tailored depending on a patient’s specific condition.”

Brown says doctors must also consider the patient’s medical history and whether an individual has had addictive disorders in the past. But a history of substance abuse doesn’t necessarily rule out using potentially addictive medications. “Patients should be honest about their substance abuse history because then it tells me to watch them even more closely,” Brown says.

A good rapport between a patient and doctor can make it easier to discuss problems that come up, and health-care professionals should carefully monitor patients who take potentially addictive medication. For some, that might require a periodic urine drug screen, Brown says. “This is not an issue of distrust or intrusiveness,” he says. “I explain to patients that it’s a way to help protect them, especially because people who are addicted may not recognize it. Addiction can make people do things they wouldn’t normally do.”

A couple of Brown’s patients experienced trouble with opioids and impulsivity–symptoms that led them to take more medicine than prescribed instead of waiting for the initial medicine to work. Brown picked up on the problems because both patients requested early refills. He switched them to non-drug treatments, such as physical therapy and relaxation techniques, until they could more successfully take prescription drugs.

Complicating matters is the fact that physicians are vastly undertrained in identifying drug abuse. “The average physician gets little training in drug abuse, mainly because drug abuse has only been recently recognized as a health problem,” Leshner says.
Brown says that some doctors are so concerned about penalties for overprescribing potentially addictive medications that they don’t treat patients appropriately. “Other physicians mean well and prescribe the drugs, but don’t know the warning signs of abuse,” he says. “Then there are those who just can’t say ‘No’ to patients who violate the prescribed plan.”

One recent survey from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York City indicated that nearly half of primary care physicians report having difficulty talking about substance abuse with patients.
H. Westley Clark, M.D., J.D., director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), says his agency began a training program last year to help address this major problem.

The joint project with the Health Resources and Services Administration will train faculty members in the health professions. “It’s not only for doctors,” Clark says. “Other health professionals, including nurses and pharmacists, should also learn about recognizing the signs of substance abuse, talking about it, and knowing when patients should be referred for treatment.”
There Is Help

For Ray, jail was the turning point. “There’s something about those metal bars slamming shut behind you that makes it all very real,” she says. A drug program in prison helped her beat addiction and taught her to cope with the triggers or life stressors that pushed her down the path to drug abuse.

“If you find yourself not following your doctor’s orders, buying drugs off the street, or doctor-shopping, know that there is effective treatment and you can get help,” Clark says. “If there is a treatment center within 100 miles of you, we can help you find it.” (See “Treatment Centers”.) Addiction is a brain disease typically treated with behavioral intervention, drug treatment, or often a combination.

Some treatments need to alleviate both withdrawal symptoms and the psychological addiction to drugs. Detoxification, the process by which the body recovers from tolerance and dependence, is considered a first stage in the sense that it purges drugs from the body. “It doesn’t constitute a treatment,” Young says. “Treatment has to address stopping future use.”

Methadone, a synthetic opioid, has been used for more than 30 years to treat some opioid addictions. Levo-alpha-acety/methadol (LAAM) is another opioid treatment.

With methadone treatment, the patient receives both behavioral intervention and an oral, daily dose that maintains the physical dependence. When people abuse drugs, they commonly use fast routes of administration such as injection or inhalation, which basically slam the drugs into the brain. Methadone treatment delivers the narcotic orally so that it is slowly released in the body. The intent is to lessen the chance that the patient will use illegal opioids, Young explains. Among the goals is to decrease cravings for the “rush” created when opioids are taken by fast routes, and to prevent the occurrence of withdrawal signs by maintaining a steady level of opiate in the body. “It’s a maintenance therapy over a long period of time, just like maintenance for diabetes, asthma, or any other chronic problem.”
Striking a Balance

Prescription drugs commonly are diverted through fraudulent prescriptions, doctor-shopping, over-prescribing, and pharmacy theft. Clark says that dealing with diversion requires the involvement of patients, physicians, and pharmacists, and that there are many variables linking these three groups.

“Sometimes it’s a matter of patients and physicians without adequate information about drug abuse,” Clark says. “Sometimes overworked pharmacies don’t notice when a patient is doubling up on a medication.”

But as pharmacists look out for false or altered prescription forms and doctors look out for suspicious complaints, patients with legitimate medical problems still need fair treatment, Clark says. “We don’t want to wind up punishing people in need.”

Ellen Stovall, president of the National Coalition of Cancer Survivorship, says some cancer patients have been frustrated with the lack of appreciation for assessment of their own pain. The last thing patients need is a setback to pain management, Stovall says. “We have all the important laws around the abuse of narcotics, but we need legislation and support to protect people who are experiencing real, honest suffering.”
FDA Strengthens Warnings for OxyContin

Because of continuing reports of abuse, the FDA has strengthened the warnings and precautions sections in the labeling of OxyContin controlled-release tablets, a narcotic drug approved for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. Some of these reported cases have been associated with serious consequences, including death.

OxyContin contains oxycodone HCl, an opioid agonist with addiction potential similar to that of morphine. Opioid agonists act by attaching to specific proteins called opioid receptors, which are found in the brain, spinal cord, and gastrointestinal tract. When these drugs attach to certain opioid receptors in the brain and spinal cord, they can effectively block the transmission of pain messages to the brain.

OxyContin is a controlled substance in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Schedule II provides the maximum amount of control possible under the CSA for approved drug products. (For more on the classes–or schedule–of drugs, see “Controlled Substances”.)

To educate health-care providers about the risks of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma of Stamford, Conn., manufacturer of the product, has issued a warning in the form of a “Dear Health Care Professional” letter, which will be distributed to physicians, pharmacists, and other health-care professionals. The letter highlights the problems associated with OxyContin abuse and explains the changes to the labeling, including proper prescribing information.

OxyContin, like morphine, has a high potential for abuse. It is supplied in a controlled-release dosage form and is intended to provide up to 12 hours of relief from moderate to severe pain. The tablet must be taken whole and only by mouth. When the tablet is crushed and its contents are injected intravenously or snorted into the nostrils, the controlled release mechanism is defeated and a potentially lethal dose of oxycodone is released immediately.

The FDA has worked with Purdue to make specific changes to the OxyContin labeling. The new labeling is intended to change prescription practices, as well as increase the physicians’ focus on the potential for abuse and misuse. Changes include a “black box warning,” the strongest type of warning for an FDA-approved drug. The new warnings are intended to lessen the chance that OxyContin will be prescribed inappropriately for pain of lesser severity than the approved use or for other disorders or conditions inappropriate for a Schedule II narcotic.

The FDA-approved use for OxyContin is for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe pain who are expected to need continuous opioids for an extended time. An important factor that must be considered in prescribing OxyContin is the severity of pain that is being treated, not simply the disease causing the painful symptoms.

The FDA continues to recommend that appropriate pain control be provided to patients who are living with severe pain. Although abuse and misuse are potential problems for all opioids, including OxyContin, opioids are very important treatment options for pain management when used appropriately under the careful supervision of a physician.

Because of the ongoing problem of OxyContin abuse and diversion, the FDA has met with the DEA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Purdue Pharma, and others. The FDA will continue to monitor reports of abuse and misuse of OxyContin and other opioids, and will work with other federal agencies and drug manufacturers to help ensure that these important drugs remain available to appropriate patients.

Because opioids are subject to abuse, the FDA is encouraging all manufacturers of opioids sold in the United States to review voluntarily, and revise as necessary, their products’ labeling to provide adequate warnings and precautions regarding these risks and to promote responsible prescribing practices.

For more information, patients and health-care providers can call Purdue Pharma at 1-800-745-7445, or go to the FDA’s Web site at www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/oxycontin/.
Use Prescription Drugs Safely
Always follow medication directions carefully.
Don’t increase or decrease doses without talking with your doctor.
Don’t stop taking medication on your own.
Don’t crush or break pills.
Be clear about the drug’s effects on driving and other daily tasks.
Learn about the drug’s potential interactions with alcohol, other prescription medicines, and over-the-counter medicines.
Inform your doctor about your past history of substance abuse.
Don’t use other people’s prescription medications and don’t share yours.

by Michelle Meadows

Source: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/501_drug.html

BRAIN-DAMAGING PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS ARE INFLICTED ON NURSING HOME RESIDENTS
These very same brain-damaging (so-called) neuroleptic/antipsychotic drugs are routinely administered – involuntarily – to mentally healthy old people in nursing homes in the United States. According to an article in the September/October 1991 issue of In-Health magazine, “In nursing homes, antipsychotics are used on anywhere from 21 to 44 percent of the institutionalized elderly… half of the antipsychotics prescribed for nursing home residents could not be explained by the diagnosis in the patient’s chart. Researchers suspect the drugs are commonly used by such institutions as chemical straightjackets – a means of pacifying unruly patients” (p. 28). I know of two examples of feeble old men in nursing homes who were barely able to get out of their wheelchairs who were given a neuroleptic/antipsychotic drug. One complained because he was strapped into a wheelchair to prevent his attempts to try to walk with his cane. The other was strapped into his bed at night to prevent him from getting up and falling when going to the bathroom, necessitating defecating in his bed. Both were so physically disabled they posed no danger to anyone. But both dared complain bitterly about how they were mistreated. In both cases the nursing home staffs responded to these complaints with injections of Haldol – mentally disabling these men, thereby making it impossible for them to complain. The use of these damaging drugs on nursing home residents who are not considered to have psychiatric problems shows that their real purpose is control, not therapy. Therapeutic claims for neuroleptic drugs are rationalizations without factual support.

SUPPOSEDLY “DOUBLE-BLIND” PSYCHIATRIC DRUG STUDIES ARE BIASED
Studies indicating psychiatric drugs are helpful are of dubious credibility because of professional bias. All or almost all psychiatric drugs are neurotoxic and for this reason cause symptoms and problems such as dry mouth, blurred vision, lightheadedness, dizziness, lethargy, difficulty thinking, menstrual irregularities, urinary retention, heart palpitations, and other consequences of neurological dysfunction. Psychiatrists deceptively call these “side-effects”, even though they are the only real effects of today’s psychiatric drugs. Placebos (or sugar pills) don’t cause these problems. Since these symptoms (or their absence) are obvious to psychiatrists evaluating psychiatric drugs in supposedly double-blind drug trials, the drug trials aren’t really double-blind, making it impossible to evaluate psychiatric drugs impartially. This allows professional bias to skew the results.
MODES OF ACTION: UNKNOWN
Despite various unverified theories and claims, psychiatrists don’t know how the drugs they use work biologically. In the words of Columbia University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D.: “How psychotropic drugs work is not clear” (The New Psychiatry, Mentor, 1985, p. 143). Experience has shown that the effect of all of today’s commonly used psychiatric drugs is to disable the brain in a generalized way. None of today’s psychiatric drugs have the specificity (e.g., for depression or anxiety or psychosis) that is often claimed for them.

LIKE TAKING INSULIN FOR DIABETES?
It is often asserted that taking a psychiatric drug is like taking insulin for diabetes. Although psychiatric drugs are taken continuously, as is insulin – it’s an absurd analogy. Diabetes is a disease with a known physical cause. No physical cause has been found for any of today’s so-called mental illnesses. The mode of action of insulin is known: It is a hormone that instructs or causes cells to uptake dietary glucose (sugar). In contrast, the modes of action of psychiatry’s drugs are unknown – although advocates of psychiatric drugs as well as critics theorize they prevent normal brain functioning by blocking neuroreceptors in the brain. If this theory is correct it is another contrast between taking insulin and taking a psychiatric drug: Insulin restores a normal biological function, namely, normal glucose (or sugar) metabolism. Psychiatric drugs interfere with a normal biological function, namely, normal neuroreceptor functioning. Insulin is a hormone that is found naturally in the body. Psychiatry’s drugs are not normally found in the body. Insulin gives a diabetic’s body a capability it would not have in the absence of insulin, namely, the ability to metabolize dietary sugar normally. Psychiatric drugs have an opposite kind of effect: They take away (mental) capabilities the person would have in the absence of the drug. Insulin affects the body rather than mind. Psychiatric drugs disable the brain and hence the mind, the mind being the essence of the real self.

THE AUTHOR, Lawrence Stevens, is a lawyer whose practice has included representing psychiatric “patients”. His pamphlets are not copyrighted. You are invited to make copies for distribution to those who you think will benefit.

Source: http://www.antipsychiatry.org/drugs.htm

The article, titled: “In era of pills, fewer shrinks doing talk therapy” suggests psychotherapy is losing ground to medication in the treatment of psychological disorders. It refers to a study published this week in the Archives of General Psychiatry illuminating a trend: American psychiatrists are moving away from psychotherapy in favor of psychopharmacology. The study reports statistics showing fewer patients going to psychiatrists for psychotherapy and fewer psychiatrists providing therapy. The article cites “the expanded use of pills and insurance policies that favor short office visits” as possible reasons for this shift.
So is psychotherapy dying? Some assorted thoughts I have on the topic:
- Not necessarily; at least this article doesn’t support that idea. All it says is fewer people are going to psychiatrists for therapy. With a growing number of masters and Ph.D. level clinicians providing psychotherapy at lower fees than MD’s, I’m not at all surprised patients are going elsewhere. Also, psychiatrists earn more for medication management than therapy, so it makes financial sense for them too.
- According to Psychology Today’s own 2004 study, more than 27% of all adults (an estimated 59 million people) received mental health treatment in the two years prior. Of this group, “47% report a history of medication, but no therapy; more than a third (34%) report a history of both medication and therapy; and 19% report a history of therapy, but no medication.” That’s 30 million people in psychotherapy during that two year period. Medication clearly has an edge over therapy, but therapy appears to be alive and well.
-However, the article does raise a question for my blog colleagues (blolleagues?) over in the Psychiatry department: is psychiatry dying? If psychiatrists are losing their chops or interest in therapy, and psychologists obtain prescription privileges (as a passionate segment of psychologists are lobbying), psychiatry could face an identity crisis.
-I need to make a disclaimer here. A psychologist commenting on psychiatry is professionally analogous to the Red Sox commenting on the Yankees. There’s a tenuous relationship at times between the two fields. I have nothing but respect for my psychiatrist colleagues, and personally have no desire to prescribe. Since I’ve been around I’ve understood psychiatrists to manage medication and only occasionally provide therapy. And if they did provide therapy, it was psychoanalytic. I personally adhere to psychoanalytic principles and understand the process and outcomes are not always amenable to insurance companies’ desire for quantifiable progress. There’s no medical code for Resolution of Oedipal Conflict. This may help explain why “fewer shrinks [are] doing talk therapy.”
- Who gets to be called “shrinks” anyway? I thought all therapists were shrinks. I’m a clinical psychologist, and I’ve been called a shrink for years. This article implies only psychiatrists are shrinks. Now I’m having an identity crisis.

So is therapy going the way of the VCR? Will mapping the genome, designer pharmacology and Internet-based treatment render the couch obsolete?
In my incredibly biased opinion, no. I think therapy is here to stay. At least long enough for me to save up money to retire without the benefit of Social Security. Here are five reasons I believe therapy will be around a while:
It’s natural: In this era of organic food, hybrids, naturopathic medicines, vaccine phobia, carbon footprints and Whole Foods, we’re more wary than ever of what we put in our bodies. We have a treatment for psychological problems that doesn’t involve ECT or chemicals, and is generally understood to be as effective: therapy. It’s sitting and talking with another person, the most natural interaction you can imagine – no preservatives, no carcinogens, no mercury, no child labor, no cholesterol, no fossil fuels. I’d call it green, but you still need to drive to your appointment.
It’s relational: We’re creatures in need of contact. As much as we love technology, human connection is essential. A great number of psychological problems are created or exacerbated by our significant relationships. Would it not make sense that the treatment would be relational as well? With our significant relationships dwindling by a third over the last 20 years, it seems relationships are more essential than ever.
It’s old school: Therapy has really only been around for the last century, but it feels like we have a deep therapy tradition in our culture. For many emotional issues, people first choose therapy. Couples wanting to get married or divorced tend to go to therapy. People looking to find meaning in life go to therapy. Turn on the TV and you’ll find Tony Soprano, Bob Newhart and Betty Draper all participating in therapy. For better or worse, it’s woven its way into our culture.
It’s evolving: It would be difficult to eliminate a field that is so eager to adapt to the times. Flipping through the program for the upcoming APA conference, I’m struck by the number of new, innovative, creative theories and applications being unveiled. Generation X & Y shrinks aren’t ditching psychotherapy, they’re using research and technology to improve upon it.
It works: Insurance companies might not want to pay for it, but they can’t deny its effectiveness. If it ain’t broke….

By Ryan Howes, Ph.D. on August 07, 2008 in In Therapy
Source: http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200808/is-psychotherapy-dying

Antidepressant drugs are medicines that relieve symptoms of depressive disorders.

Purpose

Depressive disorders may either be unipolar (depression alone) or bipolar (depression alternating with periods of extreme excitation). The formal diagnosis requires a cluster of symptoms, lasting at least two weeks.

These symptoms include, but are not limited to, mood changes, insomnia or hypersomnia, and diminished interest in daily activities.

The symptoms are not caused by any medical condition, drug side effect, or adverse life event. The condition is severe enough to cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Secondary depression, or depression caused by unfavorable life events, is normally self limiting, and may best be treated with cognitive/behavioral therapy rather than drugs.

Description

Antidepressant agents act by increasing the levels of excitatory neurostransmitters, or nerve cell chemicals that act as messengers in the brain’s nervous system. In 2003, a report showed that in addition to treating depression, use of antidepressant drugs may protect the brain from damage depressive episodes cause to the hippocampus, the area of the brain involved in learning and memory. Antidepressant drugs may be prescribed as a first-line treatment for depression, or in conjunction with other methods of controlling depression, such as behavioral therapy and exercise.

The main types of antidepressant drugs in use today are listed below, though the drugs available change frequently. For example, in mid-2003, the manufacturer of Wellbutrin released Wellbutrin XL, the only once-daily norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor for treating depression in adults.

tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitriptyline (Elavil), imipramine (Tofranil), nortriptyline (Pamelor)

selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs or serotonin boosters), such as fluoxetine (Prozac), paroxetine (Paxil), and sertraline (Zoloft)

monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAO inhibitors), such as phenelzine (Nardil), and tranylcypromine (Parnate)

tetracyclic compounds and atypical antidepressants which do not fall into any of the above categories

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors maintain levels of the excitatory neurohormone serotonin in the brain. They do not alter levels of norepinephrine. These have become the drugs of choice for a variety of psychiatric disorders, primarily because of their low incidence of severe side effects as compared with other drugs in this therapeutic class. SSRIs show similar actions and side effect profiles, but may vary in duration of action.

Tricyclic compounds, identified by their chemical structure containing three carbon rings, are an older class of antidepressants. Although generally effective, they have a high incidence of anticholinergic effects, notably dry mouth and dry eyes, which can cause discomfort. They also cause cardiac arrythmias. Because tricyclics act on both serotonin and norepinephrine, they may have some value in treatment of patients who fail to respond to SSRIs. Drugs in this class often are available at low prices, which may be significant when cost is a major factor in treatment. They also have been found useful in control of some neurologic pain syndromes.

Tricyclic antidepressants are similar, but may vary in severity of side effects, most notably the degree of sedation and the extent of the anticholinergic effects.

Tetracyclic compounds and atypical antidepressants are chemically distinct from both the major groups and each other. Although maprotilene (no brand name, marketed in generic form only) and mirtazepine (Remeron) are similar in chemical structures, they differ in their balance of activity on serotonine and norepinephrine levels.

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (phenelzine [Nardil], tranylcypromine [Parnate]) have largely been supplanted in therapy because of their high risk of severe adverse effects, most notably severe hypertension. They act by inhibiting the enzyme monoamine oxidase, which is responsible for the metabolism of the stimulatory neurohormones norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin. The MAOIs are normally reserved for patients who are resistant to safer drugs. Two drugs, eldepryl (Carbex, used in treatment of Parkinson’s disease) and the herb, St. John’s wort, have some action against monoamine oxidase B, and have shown some value as anti-depressants. They do not share the same risks as the non-selective MAO inhibitors.

All antidepressant agents, regardless of their structure, have a slow onset of action, typically three to five weeks. Although adverse effects may be seen as early as the first dose, significant therapeutic improvement is always delayed. Similarly, the effects of antidepressants will continue for a similar length of time after the drugs have been discontinued.

Recommended dosage

Dose varies with the specific drug and patient. Specialized references or a physician should be consulted.

Precautions

Antidepressants have many significant cautions and adverse effects. Although a few are listed here, specific references should be consulted for more complete information.

SSRIs. The most common side effect of SSRIs is excitation and insomnia. Excitation has been reported in over 20% of patients, and insomnia in 33%. Significant weight loss has been frequently reported, but most commonly in patients who are already underweight. A 2003 report showed that SSRIs also increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. SSRIs may cause some sedation, and patients should be cautioned not to perform tasks requiring alertness until they have evaluated the effects of these drugs. SSRIs are pregnancy category C drugs. In 2003, a new report demonstrated that late-term (third trimester) use of these drugs could cause neurological symptoms in newborns, including tremor, restlessness and rigidity. Most SSRIs are excreted in breast milk, and there have been anecdotal reports of drowsiness in infants whose mothers were taking SSRIs while breastfeeding.

Most notably, a joint panel of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued strong warnings to parents and physicians in 2004 about the risk of suicidal behavior in children and adolescents taking SSRIs.

Tricyclic antidepressants. Amoxepine (not marketed by brand, generic available), although a tricyclic antidepressant rather than a neuroleptic (major tranquilizer), displays some of the more serious effects of the neuroleptics, including tardive dyskinesias (drug induced involuntary movements) and neuroleptic malignant syndrome, a potentially fatal syndrome with symptoms including high fever, altered mental status, irregular pulse or blood pressure, and changes in heart rate. These adverse effects have not been reported with other tricyclic antidepressants.

The most common adverse effects of tricyclic antidepressants are sedation and the anticholinergic effects, such as dry mouth, dry eyes, and difficult urination. Alterations in heartbeat also are common, and may progress to congestive heart failure, stroke, and sudden death.

Tricyclic antidepressants are in pregnancy categories C or D, although there have been no formal studies of the drugs on fetal development. There are no studies of effects on newborns, but some anecdotal reports of malformations have resulted from animal studies. The drugs are excreted in breast milk.

Monoamine oxidase inhibitors. The greatest risk associated with these drugs is a hypertensive crisis which may be fatal and most often occurs when the drugs are taken with interacting foods or drugs. More common adverse reactions may include low blood pressure and slowing of heartbeat. Sedation and gastrointestinal disturbances also are common. MAOIs are in pregnancy category C. Safety in breast feeding has not been established.

Tetracyclics and atypicals. Because these drugs are individual, there are no group patterns of adverse reactions. Specific references should be consulted.

Interactions

The antidepressants have many drug interactions, some severe. Although a few are listed here, specific references should be consulted for more complete information.

SSRIs should not be administered with MAOIs. A wash-out period of about four weeks should be allowed before switching from one class of drugs to the other, five weeks if switching from fluoxetine (Prozac) to an MAOI.

MAOIs have many interactions, however the best known are those with foods containing the amino acid tyramine. These include aged cheese, chianti wine, and many others. Patients and providers should review the MAOI diet restrictions before using or prescribing these drugs. Because of the severity of MAOI interactions, all additions to the patient’s drug regimen should be reviewed with care.

Tricyclic compounds have many interactions, and specialized references should be consulted. Specifically, it is best to avoid other drugs with anticholinergic effects. Tricyclics should not be taken with the antibiotics grepafloxacin and sprafloxacin, since the combination may cause serious heart arrythmias.

Tricyclic compounds should not be taken with the gastric acid inhibitor cimetidine (Tagamet), since this increases the blood levels of the tricyclic compound. Other acid inhibiting drugs do not share this interaction.

SSRIs interact with a number of other drugs that act on the central nervous system. Care should be used in combining these drugs with major or minor tranquilizers, or with anti-epileptic agents such as phenytoin (Dilantin) or carbamazepine (Tegretol). In 2003, one of the biggest concerns regarding new prescriptions for tricyclic antidepressants was data concerning overdoses from these drugs. Information in Great Britain showed that this class of antidepressants was responsible for more than 90% of all deaths from antidepressant overdose. Physicians were being advised to prescribe SSRIs in new patients, but not to change the course of those who had taken tricyclics for years with success.

Key Terms

Cognitive behavioral therapy
A type of psychotherapy in which people learn to recognize and change negative and self-defeating patterns of thinking and behavior.

Depression
A mental condition in which people feel extremely sad and lose interest in life. People with depression also may have sleep problems and loss of appetite and may have trouble concentrating and carrying out everyday activities.

Pregnancy category
A system of classifying drugs according to their established risks for use during pregnancy. Category A: Controlled human studies have demonstrated no fetal risk. Category B: Animal studies indicate no fetal risk, but no human studies; or adverse effects in animals, but not in well-controlled human studies. Category C: No adequate human or animal studies; or adverse fetal effects in animal studies, but no available human data. Category D: Evidence of fetal risk, but benefits outweigh risks. Category X: Evidence of fetal risk. Risks outweigh any benefits.

For Your Information

Resources

Periodicals

“Antidepressant Drugs May Protect Brain from Damage.” Mental Health Weekly Digest (August 18, 2003): 2.

“FDA Approves Once-daily Supplement.” Biotech Week (September 24, 2003): 6.

“FDA Panel Urges Stronger Warnings of Child Suicide.” SCRIP World Pharmaceutical News (February 6, 2004): 24.

“GPs Told Not to Prescribe Tricyclics.” Pulse (October 13, 2003): 1.

“Late-term Exposure to SSRIs May Cause Neurological Symptoms in Babies.” Drug Week (August 8, 2003): 255.

“SSRIs Increase the Risk of Upper GI Bleeding.” Psychiatric Times (July 1, 2003): 75.

Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, Published December, 2002 by the Gale Group The Essay Author is Samuel D. Uretsky, PharmD.
Source: http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/antidepressant_drugs.jsp