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

FDA ALERT [6/16/2008]: FDA is notifying healthcare professionals that both conventional and atypical antipsychotics are associated with an increased risk of mortality in elderly patients treated for dementia-related psychosis.

In April 2005, FDA notified healthcare professionals that patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death. Since issuing that notification, FDA has reviewed additional information that indicates the risk is also associated with conventional antipsychotics.

Antipsychotics are not indicated for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.

This information reflects FDA’s current analysis of data available to FDA concerning these drugs. FDA intends to update this sheet when additional information or analyses become available.

To report any serious adverse events associated with the use of this drug, please contact the FDA MedWatch program using the contact information at the bottom of this sheet.

FDA is requiring the manufacturers of conventional antipsychotic drugs to add a Boxed Warning and Warning to the drugs’ prescribing information about the risk of mortality in elderly patients treated for dementia-related psychosis similar to the Boxed Warning and Warning added to the prescribing information of the atypical antipsychotic drugs in 2005.* See the last page of this document for a list of conventional and atypical antipsychotic drugs.

Considerations for Healthcare Professionals

Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

Antipsychotic drugs are not approved for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis. Furthermore, there is no approved drug for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis. Healthcare professionals should consider other management options.

Physicians who prescribe antipsychotics to elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis should discuss this risk of increased mortality with their patients, patients’ families, and caregivers.

Background Information and Data

Previously, in April 2005, FDA informed healthcare professionals and the public about the increased risk of mortality in elderly patients receiving atypical antipsychotic drugs to treat dementia-related psychosis (April 2005 Public Health Advisory and Information for Healthcare Professionals). At that time, the analyses of 17 placebo-controlled trials that enrolled 5377 elderly patients with dementia-related behavioral disorders revealed a risk of death in the drug-treated patients of between 1.6 to 1.7 times that seen in placebo-treated patients. Although the causes of death were varied, most of the deaths appeared to be either cardiovascular (e.g., heart failure, sudden death) or infectious (e.g. pneumonia) in nature. Based on this analysis, FDA requested that the manufacturers of atypical antipsychotic drugs include information about this risk in a Boxed Warning and the Warnings section of the drugs’ prescribing information.

Recently, two observational epidemiological studies1,2 were published that examined the risk of death in patients who were treated with conventional antipsychotic drugs.

Gill et al.1 performed a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada of 27,259 adults, 66 years of age or older, with a diagnosis of dementia between April 1997 and March 2002. The investigators compared the risk for death with use of an atypical antipsychotic versus no antipsychotic and the risk for death with use of a conventional antipsychotic versus an atypical antipsychotic. They found that atypical antipsychotics were associated with increased mortality as compared to no antipsychotic use as early as 30 days and persisting until study end at 180 days. The investigators found that conventional antipsychotic use showed a marginally higher risk of death compared with atypical antipsychotic use. The causes of death were not reported in this study.

Schneeweiss et al.2 performed a retrospective cohort study in British Columbia, Canada of 37,241 adults, 65 years of age or older, who were prescribed conventional (12,882) or atypical (24,359) antipsychotic medications for any reason between January 1996 and December 2004. The investigators compared the 180-day all cause mortality with use of a conventional antipsychotic versus an atypical antipsychotic. They found that the risk of death in the group of patients treated with conventional antipsychotic medications was comparable to, or possibly greater than, the risk of death in the group of patients treated with atypical antipsychotic medications. The causes of death with the highest relative risk were cancer and cardiac disease.

FDA considers that the methodological limitations in these two studies preclude any conclusion that conventional antipsychotics have a greater risk of death with use than atypical antipsychotics. FDA has determined, however, that the overall weight of evidence, including these studies, indicates that the conventional antipsychotics share the increased risk of death in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis that has been observed for the atypical antipsychotics. The prescribing information for all antipsychotic drugs will now include the same information about this risk in a Boxed Warning and the Warnings section.

*FDA is requiring the manufacturers to make these changes to the prescribing information for these drugs under its new authority to require safety label changes provided in Title IX of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (creating new section 505(o)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).

References

1. Gill SS et al. Antipsychotic drug use and mortality in older adults with dementia. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:775-786

2. Schneeweiss S et al. Risk of death associated with the use of conventional versus atypical antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients. CMAJ. 2007;176:627-632.

Conventional Antipsychotic Drugs Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs

Compazine (prochlorperazine) Abilify (aripiprazole)

Haldol (haloperidol) Clozaril (clozapine)

Loxitane (loxapine) FazaClo (clozapine)

Mellaril (thioridazine) Geodon (ziprasidone)

Moban (molindone) Invega (paliperidone)

Navane (thiothixene) Risperdal (risperidone)

Orap (pimozide) Seroquel (quetiapine)

Prolixin (fluphenazine) Zyprexa (olanzapine)

Stelazine (trifluoperazine) Symbyax (olanzapine and fluoxetine)

Thorazine (chlorpromazine)

Trilafon (perphenazine)

Source: http://www.fda.gov

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

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

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

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

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

“If the body is the temple of the spirit, the brain may be seen as the inner sanctum of the body, the holiest of places. To invade, violate and injure the brain, as electroshock unfailingly does, is a crime against the
spirit and a desecration of the soul.” – Leonard Roy Frank, shock survivor, editor and writer, 1991

Electroshock appears to be increasingly prescribed as a treatment for “clinical” depression and other so-called mental disorders. Women and elderly people, particularly old women, are its chief targets–more
damning evidence of psychiatry’s sexism and ageism. In the United States during the last ten years, an estimated 100,000 people have been shocked each year. In Canada, perhaps as many as 10,000 people, again mostly women, have been electroshocked each year, but nobody knows for sure because Health and Welfare Canada and the provincial health ministries do not publish ECT statistics, some of which are available on request.

Besides, ECT statistics are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, because collection methods differ from province to province and state to state; hospitals aren’t required to keep accurate ECT records and not all
hospitals are required to report ECT to provincial health ministries or state mental health departments.

I have discovered some recent shock statistics in Ontario which point to alarming trends:the increasing use of ECT and the targeting of women and the elderly for electroshock. Consider these statistical highlights:

1) In 1993-94, 11,360 shock treatments were administered to approximately 1,600 people in Ontario’s general, community and psychiatric hospitals – an average of seven shocks per patients. In 1994-95, 12,865 shocks were administered to over 1,500 people, a 12 per cent increase.

2) Most electroshock (over 80 per cent) in Ontario is administered in the public general hospitals, not provincial or private psychiatric hospitals.

3) Over 40 per cent of electroshock has been administered to people 60 years and older during the last five years.

4) In 1994-95, 97 elderly people, including 72 women (60 years and older), were subjected to 1,023 shocks in Ontario’s provincial psychiatric hospitals – a high average of approximately 10 shocks per patient. In
Toronto’s Queen Street Mental Health Centre, over 70 per cent of the shock patients are from its psychogeriatric unit.

5) In 1993-94, approximately 600 elderly people (60+ years) were subjected to 4,033 electroshocks in Ontario’s general and community psychiatric hospitals.

6) In the provincial psychiatric hospitals, the number and proportion of elderly people (65+ years) shocked grew from 70 (33 per cent) in 1990-91, to 82 (40 per cent) in 1993-94, to 44 per cent in 1994-95.

7) Among elderly and other ECT patients, significantly more women than men are electroshocked: two to three timnes more women than men have been electroshocked in both Canada and the United Stastes for many years.

8- During 1994-95 in the provincial psychiatric hospitals, 72 per cent of elderly shock patients (75+ years) were women, and significantly more
ECT was administered to an elderly woman than an elderly man (average 10.9 ECTs vs. 8.7 ECTs).

9) Women in their eighties and nineties have been electroshocked in general, community and provincial psychiatric hospitals in Ontario. In 1993-94, a total of 102 shocks were administered to at least 10 women of 85 years and older in general and community psychiatric hospitals. In 1994-95, at least 14 women of 80 years and older were subjected to 158 shocks in eight provincial psychiatric hospitals,an average of 11 ECTs per patient.

10) During 1994-95 in Ontario, the estimated cost of one electroshck treatment, including physicians’ fees, drugs, use of a hospital bed and nursing care, was $400. The (under) estimated total cost for all ECT that year was well over $1,000,000.

Two very common psychiatric myths state: first, that electroshock can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of suicide in people diagnosed with “clinical depression” or “bipolar affective disorder”; and second, that
electroshock is safe and effective for old and physically ill people.

The first myth was exposed at least six years ago by Dr.Donald Black and four colleagues. This study involving more than 1,000 depressed patients in Iowa found that there were no significant differences in the
suicide rate among the various groups treated with electroshock, antidepressants and no treatment. However, the higher percentage of deaths among the shock patients (85 per cent higher at two-year follow-up than the non-shock patients) clearly implicates shock as a contributing factor in their deatths (Black et al.,1989).

Regarding the second myth, Drs.David Kroessler and Barry Fogel’s longitudinal study involving sixty-five depressed patients 80 years and older found that for the ECT group, 27 per cent died within one year
following the “treatment”, but only 4 per cent of the “medicated” group died. In addition, one patient died after undergoing two ECTs. In other words, this study together with several previous ones, clearly show that
electroshock threatens people’s survival, especially if they are old and sick (Kroessler and Fogel, 1993).

Deaths related to or caused by electroshock are usually attributed to medical conditions, not reported or simply covered up in the medical-psychiatric literature. For exmple, only six or seven ECT-related
deaths in Canada have been reported in the Canadian medical-psychiatric journals during the last fifty years. No doubt a serious underestimate or cover-up. Nevertheless, respecred shock investigator and psychiatric critic, Dr. Peter Breggin, has estimated the general ECT death rate as one death for every 1,000 patients shocked, and a much higher rate of one death per 200 for elderly patients. However, in its official
shock-promoting booklet the American Psychiatric Association claims the ECt death rate from shock is !1 in 10,000″ patirents and that only “1 in 200″ patients suffer permanent memory loss (APA,1990). The Canadian
Psychiatric Association also claims there have been virtually no deaths or medical complications from electroshock in Canada, despite the fact that approximately 500 shock-related deaths and many more serious medical complications (e.g.,cardiac arrest, other serious heart problems, permanent epileptic seizures, brain damage) have been reported in the English langugage medical-literature for over 50 years since the early 1940s when electroshock was first introduced in Canada and the United States.

Together with many shock survivors and other shock critics, Peter Breggin wants electroshock banned, because psychiatrists routinely fail to warn patients about the serious risks of permanent memory loss and brain damage (a serious violation of informed consent), and because elderly, sick and frail patients are being increasingly targeted for electroshock. He explained his position in a recent phone interview with me last March:

“The escalating rate of shocking the elderly is one reason why I   have come out in recent years for a complete ban on the treatment.   The elderly are less able to defend themselves against shock
treatment, and their brains are more susceptible to devastating damage.”   (Breggin, 1996)

Leonard Roy Frank, an electroshock-insulin shock survivor living in San Francisco, shock critic, author and editor,insists that “ECB – electroconvulsive brainwashing” is a more accurate term. He agrees with
Breggin and asserts, “the studies indicate that it’s the elderly who are getting the most shock, and they’re the most vulnerable, not only physically but politically” (Frank, 1996). A 1989 report from California’s
Department of Mental Health supports Frank’s assessment; it reveals that 48 per cent of the 2,503 people shocked that year in the state were 65 years and older. Frank claims the figure is currently over 50 per cent and climbing.

Electroshocking women and elderly patients is also on the rise in England. For example, in a 1993 critique, patients’ rights advocate Alison Cobb reports that “…women are the majority of ECT patients (about 70 per
cent), half are over 65 years of age. …59 per cent of the 100 (in the study) … were aged over 65, the oldest being 92 years. Given the vulnerability of older people’s memory and cognitive abilities, this has
to be a grave cause of concern…”,(Cobb,1993).

Douglas Cameron, another outspoken shock survivor, critic and co-founder (with Diann’a Loper) of the World Association of Electroshock survivors based in Texas, is extremely critical of the alleged safety of
psychiatry’s modern shock machines, which can deliver as much as 300 to 400 volts of electricity to the brain:

“All modern day Sine Wave and Brief Pulse ECT devices are more powerful than early instruments. Modern day Brief Pulse suprathreshold devices have not proved safer than Sine Wave suprathreshold devices. Side
effects have been >convincingly identified as products of electricity. These facts warrant the elimination of all ECT machines from the marketplace” (Cameron,1994).

Since 1995, there has been growing public protest against the only shock machine in Whitehorse in The Yukon, stored in Whitehorse General Hospital. Apparently, the shock machine hasn’t zapped anybody in
Whitehorse (yet). The Second Opinion Society (SOS), the Yukon’s self-help advocacy group in Whitehorse, isn’t waiting. SOS has been organising rallies and marches against the machine.

More than fifteen years ago in Toronto’s Sunnybrook Hospital (a teaching, research and veteran’s hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto), psychiatrists Harry Karlinsky and Kenneth Shulman were
electroshocking elderly people. Most were in their 70s, some in their 80s. Karlinsky and Shulman (1984) reported having electroshocked thrity-three elderly atients (62-85 years old). At a follow-up study six months later, after having been subjected teo an average of 9 ECTs, only one-third of ther patients “were doing well”. Karlinsky and Shulman concluded that “clinically one is compelled to use ECT on an urgent or demand basis”. Compelled? In my recent phone interview with Dr.Shulman, chief psychiatrist at Sunnybrook, he said that electroshock is still administered to old people but only “from time to time, a relatively small
number.” He couldn’t say how many, but recalled the average age of his elderly shock patients is “73 or 74″. Shulman added he has “never heard” of any deths or serius medical crises from ECT at Sunnybrook or any other hospital in Canada. The ECT “mortality rate”, he added, was “similar to that for (general) anaesthesia”. He insisted that electroshock “remains an effective treatment for some debilitating and life-threatening
depressions”, and claimed the only ECT risk was “short-term memory loss”. He also asserted that electroshock is not controversial, and claimed that most patients “completely recover”. Shulman explained the use of electroshock on the elderly in these terms: “If we didn’t use ECT, these people would suffer tremendously and be at risk of dying”.

It is difficult to find any study to support the common psychiatric claim that electroshock prevents suicide or minimises the suicide risk. Further, the relapse rate from shock is over 60 per cent, which, according
to the American Psychiatric Association, still greatly minimises permanent memory loss, brain damage and death from ECT (APA,1990).

Some elderly patients have also been electroshocked at Toronto’s Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. Apparently nobody knows how many, partly because no accurate,up-to-date ECT statistics are kept at the Clarke,
according to Dr. Barry Martin, head of its ECT Unit. In a recent phone interview I had with Dr. Martin, he speculated that a total of “about 100 courses” were administered at the Clarke in 1995. Each course consists of 8-10 ECTs, at least 80-90 people were electroshocked last year. According to Dr.Martin, the main reason for shocking old people is, “severe depression that has not responded to medication” (e.g.,antidepressants).
Martin estimated the ECT death rate as “3-4 per 100,000 ECTs”, similar to that for “general anaesthesia”, and said he was “not aware” of any ECT-related deaths in Canada or anywhere else.

During a 15-month period in 1993-94, eight people died in Texas,”within two weeks of receiving electroshock”; over half were elderly patients (Smith, 1995).The Texas elderly death rate from ECT at that time was probably higher than 1 in 200.

Some very courageous shock survivors and advocacy groups are fighting back and want electroshock abolished in the United States and Canada. For example, 81-year-old Lucille Austwick successfully refused to be shocked while languishing in a Chicago nursing home a couple of years ago (Fegelman, 1995). While confined in the home, Austwick was depresseed, had stopped eating and was becoming frail, so a psychiatrist wanted to shock her. She repeatedly refused the “lifesaving:” treatment which she called
“bullshit”, and received strong legal support from the Illinois Guardianship Commission and other advocates across the United States. Last September, the Appellate Court “reversed the trial court’s ruling” which
had ordered a series of ECTs for her two years earlier.

Psychiatrists and other medical staff at St.Mary’s Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin were found to be violating the human rights of several elderly patients subjected to electroshock against their will (Oaks, 1995). Sparked by the courageous whistleblowing of psychiatric nurse Stacie Neldaughter, who was “fired after refusing to directly assist with a shock treatment”, several women shock survivors and anti-shock activists
organised a public protest outside the hospital in September 1994. In January 1995, the Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy issued a detailed and scathing 75-page report based on its own investigations, which documented serious violations of informed consent and other rights involving at least eight elderly women patients.
In Toronto from 1983 to 1992, there have been several anti-shock protest demonstrations, particularly in front of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and Queen Street Mental Health Centre. Non-violent civil
disobedience (“sit-ins”) were also held in the office of at least two Ontario health ministers, organised by the Ontario Coalition to Stop Electroshock (succeeded by Resistance Against Psychiatry). During a
non-violent public demonstration against electroshock in front of the Clarke in May 1988, shock survivor Jack Wild and I were charged with “trespass” and arrested while trying to hand out alternative and accurate
shock information to patients on one ward during visiting hours. We were arrested on the ward while engaged in a non-violent sit-in, fined over $50 each and lost our court appeals (Phoenix Rising, 1998).

Unfortunately, there have been no shock cases in Canada since “Mrs.T.” in 1983 (Weitz,1994). The “Mrs.T.” case involved a young, allegedly suicidal but cxompetent women who firmly and repeatedly refused
shock while being asked to consent by both her psychiatrist and a regional review board while incarcerated in Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. Although the case lost, “Mrs.T.” was not electroshocked. The national publicity and public outcry arising over the fact that people in Canada could still be shocked against their will led to a few important amendments in Ontario’s Mental Health Act, which now prohibits electroshock or other treatment for any person who refuses. However, electroshock can still be adminsitered against the will of an “incapable” person if he or she did not instruct a substitute decision-maker otherwise while capable. (Note: The judge’s decision in a 1997 Ontario court case involving a mother’s refusal to consent to shock for her “incapable” daughter” is pending.)

In March 1994 at a public City Hall meeting before the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Aging (TMCA), I presented some alarming ECT statistics from the Ontario government’s Ministry of Health which showed
that a disproportionately large number of people being electroshocked in Ontario’s psychiatric facilities were elderly people (over 40 per cent) and women (over 65 per cent). In one Final Report, the Committee recommend that, “the Chair of the TMCA should be asked to write to the Minister of Health to inform her of the data on ECT and the deep concern of the TMCA about the apparent misuse of this therapy.”

There is still no law banning electroshock in Ontario, Canada or the United States for elderly people or anybody else. However, some states have outlawed shock for young children. For example, Texas has banned shock for children under 16 years old, and California banned it for children under 14. There are no such age restrictions in Canada.

I believe that electroshocking old people is elder abuse. Electroshock is a crime against humanity. It should be abolished.

[acknowledgement - My sincere thanks to Lenard Roy Frank for his valuable editorial assistance.]

Don Weitz

References

American Psychiatric Association (1990). The practice of >electroconvulsive therapy. Washington: APA.

Black,D.W., Winokur,G., Mohandoss,E., Woolson,R.F. and Nasrallah,A. (1989) “Does treatment influence mortality in depressives?” Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 1(3), 165-173.

Breggin,P.R. personal communication in March 1996. Also see: Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin’s Press,1991), and Breggin, Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (Springer Publishing Co,1997)

California Department of Mental Health (1989). Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) report. Sacramento,California.

Cameron,D.G. “ECT:sham statistics, the myth of convulsive therapy and the case for consumer misinformation”. Journal of Mind and Behaviour, 15(1-2),177-198.

Clark,R (1983) From an invited address during the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in New York, May 1983.

Cobb,A. (1993) Safe and effective? MIND’s views on psychiatric drugs, ECT and psychosurgery. London: MIND Publications.

Fegelman,A. (1995) “Forced shock therapy faces key legal test”. Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2995.

Frank,L.R. (1991). “San Francisco puts electroshock on public trial:feature report”. The Rights Tenet, Winter 1991.

Frank,L.R. (1996) Personal communication on February 28, 1996.    Karlinsky,H. and Shulman,K. (1984). “The clinical use of electroconvulsive therapy in old age”. The Journal of American Geriatric
Society, 32, 83.

Kroessler,D. and Fogel,B.S. (1993) “Electroconvulsive therapy for major depression in the oldest old”. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1(1),30-37.

Oaks,D. (1995) :”Zap back against forced shock”. Dendron, 36,1-5.   Phoenix Rising (October 1988). “Toronto Protesters Arrested for Trying to Distribute Shock Information”, 22-23.

Smith,M. (1995) “Eight in Texas die after shock therapy in fifteen mnonth period”. The Houston Chronicle, March 7, 1a.

Weitz,D. (1984) “Shock case: a defeat and victory”. Phoenix Rising, 4,3/4,28a-30a.

Biographical note: Don Weitz is a psychiatric survivor, antipsychiatry and antipoverty activist in Toronto. He is co-founder of the former antipsychiatry magazine Phoenix Rising, former board member of Support
Coalition International (a coalition of approximately 100 survivor and human rights advocacy organizations in 14 countries), and co-founder of the Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA). He is also host-producer of “Antipsychiatry Radio” on CKLN (88.1FM) in Toronto. This unique program airs around 6:30pm on the last Friday every month.

Source: capa.oise.utoronto.ca/electroshocking.doc

There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year. Of the 16,694 people who died in alcohol-related crashes in 2004, 14,409 (86%) were killed in crashes where at least one driver or non-occupant had a BAC (Blood Alcohol) of .08 or higher. The legal limit for BAC is currently .08 in all states in the US.
Traffic fatalities in alcohol-related crashes fell by 2.4 percent, from 17,105 in 2003 to 16,694 in 2004. Although this is definitely an improvement, it is still a lot of dead fellow citizens. To put this in perspective, it is equivalent to a fully loaded Boeing 747 crashing, and leaving no survivors, every nine days all year long – over 39 airplanes in total.
The 16,694 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2004 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.
NHTSA estimates that alcohol was involved in 39 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 2004.
In 2004, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes. An estimated 248,000 people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.
The rate of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes is more than 3 times higher at
night than during the day (60% vs. 18%). The highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes who had BAC levels of .08 or higher was for males and drivers ages 21 to 24.
The percentages of drivers with BAC levels of .08 or higher in fatal crashes in 2004 were 27% for motorcycle operators, 22% for passenger cars, and 21% for light trucks. The percentage of drivers with BAC levels .08 or higher in fatal crashes was the lowest for large trucks (1%).
In 2004, 85 percent (11,791) of the 13,952 drivers with BAC of .01 or higher who were involved in fatal crashes had BAC levels at or above .08, and 51 percent (7,084) had BAC levels at or above .16. The most frequently recorded BAC level among drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes was .18.
The problem of alcohol and other drugs is one of abuse and not merely of use. Various drugs have various affects, and the effects depend on the method of administration, the amount taken and the social situation as well as the chemical composition of the drug. Alcohol is the most widely used drug, and its effects can be extremely deleterious. Many experts consider alcohol abuse much more serious than abuse of other drugs.

Around 1980, drug use of all kinds began to decline for the first time in two decades. In the 1990s, patterns of use fluctuated. Although less than in the peak years, use and abuse are still quite high. More than one-half all Americans drink and more than a third say that drinking has been a source of trouble in their families. Millions of Americans indicate that they are current users of marijuana. Many users tend toward multiple drug use. Most alcohol abusers are young and male but not poor, whereas other drug addicts tend to be young, male, poor, and a minority.
The meaning of the drug problem for the quality of life is seen in the consequences for physical health, psychological health, interpersonal relationships, and economic costs. Abusers suffer various undesirable effects in all areas, and they inflict suffering on others. The nation as a whole also suffers great economic cost because billions of dollars per year are involved in lost services and in efforts to combat the deleterious effects of abuse.

Major hazards associated with tobacco use:
Nicotine is a toxic, dependency-producing drug that is responsible for about one in every five deaths it the United States. People who smoke have a greater likelihood of developing cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and/or cancer of the larynx, mouth, and esophagus. Even those who do not smoke may be subjected to the hazard of environmental tobacco smoke—the smoke in the air as a result of other people’s tobacco smoking. Infants born to women who smoke typically have lower than average birth weights and sometimes have slower rates of physical and mental growth.

Problems associated with the use of prescription and over-the-counter drugs:
Some prescription drugs have the potential for short-term abuse and long-term psychological and physical dependence. This form of dependency is known as iatrogenic addiction-drug dependency that results from physician-supervised treatment for a recognized medical disorder. Over-the-counter drugs, which are widely advertised and readily available, may be dangerous when combined with alcohol or other drugs.

Categories of people which are most likely to use marijuana:
Most marijuana users are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five; however, use by twelve-to-seventeen-year-olds more than doubled in the 1990s. More men than women smoke marijuana, but teenage girls are slightly more likely than boys to have used marijuana at least once.

Major stimulant drugs in the United States:
Cocaine and amphetamines are the major stimulant drugs abused in the United States. Cocaine is an extremely potent and dependency-producing stimulant drug. Amphetamines can be obtained legally in the form of diet pills and pep formulas when they are prescribed by a physician.

Depressants and their health-related risk:
Depressants depress the central nervous system; they also may have some painkilling properties. The most common depressants are barbiturates and anti-anxiety drugs or tranquilizers. Users may develop both physical addiction and psychological dependency on these drugs. There is also the risk of potentiation-the drug interaction that takes place when two drugs are mixed together and the combination produces a far greater effect than that of either drug administrated separately.

Other drugs widely abused in the United States:
Narcotics or opiates, including natural substances (e.g. opium, morphine, and codeine), opiate derivatives (e.g. heroin and Percodan), and synthetic drugs with opiate like effects (e.g. Darvon and Demerol) are frequently abused. Hallucinogens or psychedelics such as mescaline (peyote), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), phencyclidine (PCP), and MDMA (Ecstasy) are also widely abused.

Drug addiction viewed by biological and psychological perspectives:
Biological explanations of alcohol and drug addiction focus on inherited biological factors and on the effects of drugs on the human brain. Psychological explanations of drug abuse focus on personality disorders and the effects of social learning and reinforcement on people’s drug-taking behavior.

Among social psychological factors is the alienation of users from the larger society. Many people believe drug use produces desirable psychic effects. These positive attitudes toward drug use combine with group norms and various ideologies that develop in groups. The ideologies explain and validate drug use.

Alcohol and drug addition view by sociological perspectives:
Interactionists believe that drug use and abuse are learned behaviors that are strongly influenced by families, peers, and others who serve as role modes. People are more prone to accept attitudes and behaviors that are favorable to drug use if they spend time with members of a drug subculture.

Symbolic interactions emphasize social meanings of drugs. Prohibition, for example, has been analyzed as a symbolic crusade: As the old order lost political control, it attempted to dominate society morally by wrapping itself in abstinence (morality) and associating drunkenness (immorality) with the newcomers.

Applying the symbolic interaction perspective pharmaceutical companies, with the cooperation of the medical profession, play a central role in getting Americans’ to define drugs as a first choice to relieve the stresses of everyday life. Defining problems of living as medical matters, known as the medicalization of human problems, includes defining unruly children as sick and in need of medication.
Various structural factors contribute to the problem. An important one is group norms. Integration into a group that approves drug use is one of the most reliable predictors of use. Role problems, including role conflict and undesirable role change, create stress in the individual and that stress can lead to abuse. Abusers are more likely to come from homes in which family members are abusers, from broken homes, or from hoes with problematic relationships.

Functionalists believe that drug-related problems have increased as social institutions such as the family, education, and religion have become fragmented and somewhat disorganized. However, use of alcohol and other drugs serves important functions even though some aspects of their use are dysfunctional for society.

Applying functionalism: Legal drugs are functional for the medical profession, their patents, and those whom manufacture and sell these drugs. Illegal drugs are also functional for their users, manufacturers (or growers), and distributors. The dysfunctions of drugs include miss-prescribing, arrest for breaking the law, and abuse that harms people physically and socially. A major latent function of illegal drugs is to support agents of social control.

According to conflict theorists, people in positions of economic and political power are responsible for making the sale, use, and possession of some drugs illegal. Conflict theorists also point out that powerful corporate interests perpetuate the use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other legal drugs.

Applying conflict perspective: Drugs have been criminalized to maintain interests of people with access to power. Opium, for example, was made illegal in an attempt to overcome the economic threat that cheap Chinese labor posed to white workers. Similarly, marijuana legislation was a tool directed against Mexican working class in the United States. Some see the heroine trade as a means of defusing revolutionary potential.

The purpose of prevention and treatment programs:
Primary prevention programs seek to prevent drug problems before they begin. Secondary prevention programs seek to limit the extent of drug abuse, prevent the spread of drug abuse to other substances beyond the drugs already experienced, and teach strategies for the responsible use of licit drugs such as alcohol. Tertiary prevention programs seek to limit relapses by individuals recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction.
They may be based either on a medical model or the therapeutic community. The best-known therapeutic community is Alcoholic Anonymous (AA).

Other factors to be taken into account in efforts to reduce the drug problem:
Alcoholism and drug abuse are intertwined with other social problems such as dramatic changes in the economic and technological bases of the society, the growing gap between the rich and poor, and inequalities based on race/ethnicity and gender.

In treating the problem, efforts to help the individual abuser or reduce the supply available to users have far exceeded efforts to get at the social roots of the problem. If it is to be dealt with effectively, both approaches are needed-attacks on the social factors as well as the treatment of individual abusers.

Conclusion:
What constitutes drug abuse is a matter of definition. What is considered drug abuse at one time or in one society may be considered drug use at another time or in another society. From the historical record, we know that drug use and abuse are ancient.

Americans have a strong pro-drug orientation, although they consider some drugs to be disreputable, and those who use them to be part of a social problem. People generally consider the particular drugs that they use to be outside the realm of a social problem.

A major problem in drug abuse is addiction—becoming dependent on a drug so that in its absence one feels the stress of withdrawal. One of the most highly addiction drugs is nicotine. Heroin appears to be less addicting than previously thought. The narcotics are addicting but in and of themselves do not cause crime or destroy people’s work incentive or health. Street addicts deal with a black market that demands exorbitant prices and motivates them to commit predatory crimes. Street addicts buy drugs whose purity are far from guaranteed—and suffer the consequences. Physician narcotic addicts, in contrast, maintain normal lives because they need not deal with a black market and are able to obtain pure drugs.

Developing an adequate social policy is difficult because drugs arouse strong emotions and biases. At a minimum, an adequate social policy would involve drug education that presents scientific findings honestly, whether they are favorable or unfavorable to any particular drug. It would also break the addicts’ dependence on a black market and provide help for their multiple problems. Alcoholics Anonymous appears to be a model recovery program.

It can be anticipated that the future will bring more use of drugs in the workplace, more effective products from pharmaceutical companies (which will further increase the demand for drugs), and social policies similar to those we now have: illegal status for drugs that are out of favor, stigmas for their users, and overflowing coffers for members of organized crime.

Source: www.dmacc.cc.ia.us/Instructors/elglick/Lec-3a%20(Drugs).doc

What is IDARS?
“IDARS” is an acronym for the International Drug Abuse Research Society. The purposes of IDARS are scientific, educational and charitable. The Society seeks to promote excellence in: 1) advancing the understanding of drug abuse, substance abuse, and addiction, 2) bringing together scientists of varying backgrounds and disciplines within the field of drug abuse research, 3) integrating drug abuse research directed at all levels of biological organization to improve prevention and treatment efforts, 4) promoting education in the addiction sciences, 5) informing the general public about the results and implications of current research in the addiction sciences.

Who are the members of IDARS?
Members of IDARS are research scientists and clinicians from around the world. The current president of IDARS is Dr. Michael J. Kuhar, Professor of Pharmacology, at the Yerkes National Primate Center of Emory University, in Atlanta, GA. The Executive Officer is Dr. Syed F. Ali, Head, Neurochemistry Laboratory, Division of Neurotoxicology, at the National Toxicological Research Center, Food and Drug Administration, in Jefferson, AR.

IDARS has 3 categories of membership.
Regular Members: Any credentialed research scientist or health professional working in the field of substance abuse may be considered for Regular Membership. Annual dues are $50.
Student and Post-Doctoral Fellow Members: Any post-baccalaureate student matriculated in an advanced degree program, or anyone participating in a post-doctoral training program, in a field related to drug abuse research, may be considered for this category of membership. Annual dues are $20.
Emeritus Members: Upon retirement, any member of IDARS may apply for Emeritus status. In some cases, distinguished scientists will be nominated for Emeritus membership. There are no annual dues for Emeritus members.

The current IDARS Board of Directors:
Peter Dodd, Brisbane, Australia
Francesco Fornai, Pisa, Italy
Carlos Jimenez-Rivera, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Timothy Maher, Boston, MA, USA
Deborah Mash, Miami, FL, USA
Jerrold Meyer, Amherst, MA, USA
Sakire Pogun, Izmir, Turkey
Marcus Rattray, London, UK
Susan Schenk, Wellington, NZ
George Uhl, Baltimore, MD, USA

When does IDARS meet?
IDARS will have annual meetings, where members and non-members alike can share their most recent research data. IDARS plans to hold its first meeting in Spring 2006 in Washington, DC. This year, many members of IDARS will attend a scientific conference entitled, “Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Drugs of Abuse and Neurotoxicity: Cocaine, GHB and Substituted Amphetamines”, which will take place from August 16-19, in Venice, Italy. The Venice conference is an official Pre-Satellite meeting of the 20th Biennial meeting of the International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN), held jointly with the European Society for Neurochemistry (ESN).

Worldwide Stimulant Abuse – An Emerging Health Crisis
“Stimulant” drugs produce a spectrum of effects that includes increased energy, cardiovascular stimulation, heightened mood and decreased need for sleep. After high doses or long periods of use, stimulants can produce a range of medical complications including heart attacks, strokes, psychotic episodes and seizures. From a molecular perspective, most stimulants interact with monoamine transporter proteins found on nerve cells. Stimulant drugs can be divided into two classes based on their transporter-mediated mechanisms of action: monoamine transporter blockers (i.e., cocaine) and substrate-type monoamine releasers (i.e., amphetamines) [reviewed in Baumann and Rothman, 2003]. It is noteworthy that many stimulants are useful medications with long histories of safety and efficacy, whereas others are highly addictive substances associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Illicit stimulants are some of most commonly abused drugs worldwide – during the year 2000, it is estimated that 34.3 million people used amphetamines, 14.1 million used cocaine, and 7.7 million used the amphetamine analog, 3,4,-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) [UNODC, 2003]. Such evidence supports the emergence of stimulant abuse as global health crisis.

“Super Coke” In Colombia – It’s the Real Thing!
The abuse of cocaine continues to be a problem in the US and other nations around the world. Colombia remains the number one producer of marketable cocaine hydrochloride and provides more than 80% of global supply. Figure 1 shows the explosive growth in Colombian cocaine production in the past few years. Cocaine alkaloid is extracted from the coca plant, Erythroxylaceae coca, which is cultivated throughout the Andean region (see Figure 2). Recently, anti-drug operatives in Colombia have identified genetically-modified (GM) coca plants that produce yields of cocaine much greater than normal. The “super coke” plants grow to heights of 7-9 ft whereas typical coca plants grow to heights of 3-4 ft. Furthermore, the GM plants are resistant to herbicides and produce up to 5-times more cocaine alkaloid than normal plants. The discovery of transgenic coca plants adds a troubling new dimension to the spread of cocaine abuse.

Few treatments options are available for cocaine-dependent patients, and the development of medications to combat cocaine addiction is a major challenge for biomedical research. IDARS scientists have discovered novel approaches for treating cocaine dependence. Christian Heidbreder and colleagues at Glaxo-Smith-Kline have identified and tested the selective dopamine D3 receptor antagonist, SB277011A as a potential treatment for cocaine dependence [reviewed in Heidbreder and Hagan, 2005]. In animal models, SB277011A blocks the ability of cocaine and stress to induce reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior [Xi et al., 2004]. Moreover, SB277011A appears to reduce drug-seeking behavior in general, suggesting that D3 antagonists could have anti-addictive efficacy in the treatment of nicotine, opioid and stimulant dependence.

“Ya-Ba” Da-Ba Doom in Thailand
Similar to the cocaine crisis, the abuse of methamphetamine is increasing in the US and abroad. One of worst epidemics of methamphetamine abuse is occurring in Thailand, where 70% of drug addicts, or 2.5 million people, are dependent upon methamphetamine. Most users ingest a tablet formulation of methamphetamine known as “Ya-Ba”, meaning “crazy medicine”. Figure 3 depicts the typical appearance of Ya-Ba tablets. Nearly all Ya-Ba confiscated in Thailand is produced in the neighboring country of Burma, by the drug-trafficking insurgent group, the United Wa State Army (USWA). USWA and other such groups pose a significant threat to the national security of countries in South East Asia and elsewhere. It is estimated that Burmese methamphetamine production exceeds 800 million tablets per year. Figure 4 shows Thai police prepared to destroy large quantities of confiscated Ya-Ba tablets.

The long-term effects of methamphetamine abuse in humans are not well studied, but in rodents, methamphetamine causes depletions of dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Methamphetamine-induced loss of monoamines could underlie depression and suicidal ideation that often accompany drug withdrawal. Members of IDARS have shown that methamphetamine can cause neurotoxic effects. Francesco Fornai and colleagues at the University of Pisa, in Italy, demonstrated that mice treated with methamphetamine display abnormal dopamine cells in the brain [Fornai et al., 2004a]. The affected cells have intracellular inclusions which resemble those found in Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Methamphetamine produces similar inclusions in cultured PC12 cells. While the clinical relevance of these data is uncertain, they suggest that methamphetamine abuse could predispose individuals to neurodegenerative disorders [Fornai et al., 2004b].

Ecstasy in the UK and Beyond: It’s Nothing to Rave About!
The “rave” scene continues to be major source of drug abuse in the UK, throughout Europe, and in the US. In particular, the substituted amphetamine MDMA (Ecstasy, or E) is commonly abused at all night dance parties, or raves. Users often take multiple doses of MDMA at once (i.e., “stacking”) or take supplemental doses of the drug repeatedly during the party (i.e., “bumping”). Figure 5 shows some examples of MDMA tablets. US statistics show that medical complications associated with MDMA use have risen exponentially – MDMA-related emergency room visits increased from 253 in 1994 to 4026 in 2002. Young people continue to experiment with MDMA despite the risk of adverse effects including depression, cognitive disturbances and memory problems. Figure 6 depicts a popular DVD program, “Generation E”, that describes the rave culture and criticizes attempts by the US government to criminalize rave-related activities.

The long-term consequences of MDMA abuse in humans are not well understood, and there is disagreement concerning the reinforcing properties of MDMA in animals and humans. IDARS scientists are exploring the potential addictive properties of MDMA. Susan Schenk and colleagues at University of Wellington, in New Zealand, have developed a novel paradigm where rats learn to self-administer MDMA [Schenk et al., 2003]. Their work shows that MDMA is a positive reinforcer in rats, and prior experience with cocaine engenders more rapid acquisition of MDMA intake. Dopamine appears to be involved in the addictive properties of MDMA, since D1 dopamine receptor antagonists reduce self-administration of the drug [Daniela et al., 2004]. These findings may have implications for the development of treatments for MDMA addiction.

New “Legal Highs” in New Zealand
A number of non-amphetamine designer drugs have appeared on internet websites where they are marketed as “legal Ecstasy”. In particular, the substituted piperazine analogs 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP, or ‘A2’) and 1-(m-trifluoromethylphenyl)piperazine (TFMPP, or ‘Molly’) are increasingly trafficked in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. BZP produces amphetamine-like stimulant effects in humans, suggesting the potential for abuse. Figure 7 shows BZP tablets confiscated by US authorities. The US DEA has moved swiftly to place BZP in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, making possession of this substance a criminal offense. In other places, however, BZP is legally available. A significant level of BZP abuse is occurring in New Zealand, where BZP is widely sold over the internet and at “party pill” shops. Figure 8 depicts the Rave.Net.NZ website, a popular site for sharing information about the rave scene in New Zealand.

The pharmacology of BZP, and other substituted piperazines, is not well characterized, but available data suggest that BZP has stimulant properties. Members of IDARS are examining the neurobiological effects of BZP in animal models. Michael Baumann and colleagues at the NIDA IRP have shown BZP interacts with monoamine transporters to release dopamine and serotonin from brain tissue in vitro [Baumann et al., 2005]. Microdialysis studies in rats show that BZP causes elevations in extracellular monoamines that are similar to the effects of methamphetamine. Likewise, self-administration studies in monkeys demonstrate that BZP is a powerful reinforcer with significant abuse liability [Fantegrossi et al., 2005]. The long-term effects of BZP are unexplored and warrant further investigation.

Michael H. Baumann, Ph.D., Staff Scientist, IRP, NIDA, NIH, Baltimore, MD, USA
Chairman, Membership Committee, International Drug Abuse Research Society (IDARS)

References
Baumann MH, Clark RD, Budzynski AG, et al. (2005) Neuropsychopharmacology 30: 550-560.
Daniela E, Brennan K, Gittings D, et al. (2004) Pharmacol Biochem Behav 77: 745-750.
Fantegrossi WE, Winger G, Woods JH, et al. (2005) Drug Alcohol Depend 77: 161-168.
Fornai F, Lenzi P, Gesi M (2004a) J Neurochem 88: 114-123.
Fornai F, Lenzi P, Gesi M (2004b) Ann N Y Acad Sci 1025: 162-170.
Heidbreder CA, Hagan JJ (2005) Curr Opin Pharmacol 5:107-118.
Rothman RB, Baumann MH (2003) Eur J Pharmacol 479: 23-40.
Schenk S, Gittings D, Johnstone M, et al. (2003) Psychopharmacology 169: 21-27.
UNODC (2003) Global Illicit Drug Trends, New York, NY, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Xi Z, Gilbert J, Campos AC, et al. Psychopharmacology 176: 57-65.

The IDARS reception held at the NIDA International Forum is generously supported by the following sponsors:

Bio-Rad Laboratories
C.A.R.E., Inc., Addiction Treatment Center
G & G Holistic Addiction Treatment, Inc.
Geller and Geller, P.A., Attorneys at Law
Luis and Stavroula Mendez
Novoneuron, Inc., Miami, FL.
Ocean Drive Magazine
Tango Technology

Source: www.idars.org/docs/IDARS-Final.doc

Everyone experiences anxiety at one time or another “butterflies in the stomach” before giving a speech or sweaty palms during a job interview are common symptoms. Other symptoms of anxiety include irritability, uneasiness, jumpiness, feelings of apprehension, rapid or irregular heartbeat, stomach ache, nausea, faintness, and breathing problems. Anxiety is often manageable and mild. But sometimes it can present serious problems. A high level or prolonged state of anxiety can be very incapacitating, making the activities of daily life difficult or impossible.

Besides generalized anxiety, other anxiety disorders are panic, phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and post traumatic stress disorder. Phobias, which are persistent, irrational fears and are characterized by avoidance of certain objects, places, and things, sometimes accompany anxiety. A panic attack is a severe form of anxiety that may occur suddenly and is marked with symptoms of nervousness, breathlessness, pounding heart, and sweating. Sometimes the fear that one may die is present.

Antianxiety medications help to calm and relax the anxious person and remove the troubling symptoms. There are a number of antianxiety medications currently available. The preferred medications for most anxiety disorders are the benzodiazepines. In addition to the benzodiazepines, a non-benzodiazepine, buspirone (BuSpar), is used for generalized anxiety disorders.

Antidepressants are also effective for panic attacks and some phobias and are often prescribed for these conditions. They are also sometimes used for more generalized forms of anxiety, especially when it is accompanied by depression. The medications approved by the FDA for use in OCD are all antidepressants clomipramine, fluoxetine, and fluvoxamine. The most commonly used benzodiazepines are alprazolam (Xanax) and diazepam (Valium), followed by chlordiazepoxide (Librium, Librax, Libritabs). Benzodiazepines are relatively fast-acting medications; in contrast, buspirone must be taken daily for 2 or 3 weeks prior to exerting its antianxiety effect. Most benzodiazepines will begin to take effect within hours, some in even less time. Benzodiazepines differ in duration of action in different individuals; they may be taken two or three times a day, or sometimes only once a day. Dosage is generally started at a low level and gradually raised until symptoms are diminished or removed. The dosage will vary a great deal depending on the symptoms and the individual’s body chemistry.

Benzodiazepines have few side effects. Drowsiness and loss of coordination are most common; fatigue and mental slowing or confusion can also occur. These effects make it dangerous to drive or operate some machinery when taking benzodiazepines especially when the patient is just beginning treatment. Other side effects are rare. Benzodiazepines combined with other medications can present a problem, notably when taken together with commonly used substances such as alcohol. It is wise to abstain from alcohol when taking benzodiazepines, as the interaction between benzodiazepines and alcohol can lead to serious and possibly life-threatening complications. Following the doctor’s instructions is important. The doctor should be informed of all other medications the patient is taking, including over-the-counter preparations. Benzodiazepines increase central nervous system depression when combined with alcohol, anesthetics, antihistamines, sedatives, muscle relaxants, and some prescription pain medications. Particular benzodiazepines may influence the action of some anticonvulsant and cardiac medications. Benzodiazepines have also been associated with abnormalities in babies born to mothers who were taking these medications during pregnancy.

With benzodiazepines, there is a potential for the development of tolerance and dependence as well as the possibility of abuse and withdrawal reactions. For these reasons, the medications are generally prescribed for brief periods of time days or weeks and sometimes intermittently, for stressful situations or anxiety attacks. For the same reason, ongoing or continuous treatment with benzodiazepines is not recommended for most people. Some patients may, however, need long-term treatment. Consult with the doctor before discontinuing a benzodiazepine. A withdrawal reaction may occur if the treatment is abruptly stopped.

Symptoms may include anxiety, shakiness, headache, dizziness, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, and, in more severe cases, fever, seizures, and psychosis. A withdrawal reaction may be mistaken for a return of the anxiety, since many of the symptoms are similar. Thus, after benzodiazepines are taken for an extended period, the dosage is gradually tapered off before being completely stopped. Although benzodiazepines, buspirone, tricyclic antidepressants, or SSRIs are the preferred medications for most anxiety disorders, occasionally, for specific reasons, one of the following medications may be prescribed: antipsychotic medications; antihistamines (such as Atarax, Vistaril, and others); barbiturates such as phenobarbital; and beta-blockers such as propranolol (Inderal, Inderide). Propanediols such as meprobamate (Equanil) were commonly prescribed prior to the introduction of the benzodiazepines, but today rarely are used.

Source: http://www.support4hope.com/medications/anti_anxiety/index.htm

Below are some common drug slang terms or drug street names:

STREET NAMES AND SLANG FOR HALLUCINOGENS
Marijuana
Pot, Reefer, Grass, Weed, Dope, Ganja, Mary Jane, or Sinsemilla, Urb,
Hashish
Hash
Mescaline and Peyote
Mesc, Buttons, and Cactus
Psilocybin (Shrooms)
Magic Mushrooms, ’shrooms
Lysergic acid diethylamide
Acid, Microdot, White lightning, Blue heaven, and Sugar Cubes
Analog of Amphetamines or Methamphetamines
MDMA (Ecstasy, XTC, Adam, Essence), MDM, STP, PMA, 2, 5-DMA, TMA, DOM, DOB, EVE
Phencyclidine
PCP, Hog, Angel Dust, Loveboat, Lovely
Analog of Phencyclidine (PCP)
PCPy, PCE

STREET NAMES AND SLANG FOR DEPRESSANTS
Nitrous Oxide
Laughing gas or Whippets
Amyl Nitrite
Poppers or Snappers
Butyl Nitrite
Rush, Bolt, Bullet, Locker Room, and Climax
Chloro-hydrocarbons
Aerosol sprays or cleaning fluids
Hydrocarbons
Solvents
Barbiturates
Downers, Barbs, Blue Devils, Red Devils, Yellow Jackets,
Yellows, Nembutal, Tuinals, Seconal, and Amytal
Methaqualone
Quaaludes, Ludes, Sopors
Tranquilizers
Valium, Librium, Serax, Equanil, Miltown, and Tranxene

STREET NAMES AND SLANG FOR STIMULANTS
Cocaine
Coke, Snow, Nose Candy, Flake, Blow, Big C, Lady, White, and Snowbirds, Powder,
Crack Cocaine
Crack, rock, freebase, Cookie,
Amphetamines
Speed, Uppers, Ups, Black beauties, Pep pills, Co-pilots, Bumblebees, Hearts, Benzedrine, Dexedrine, Footballs, and Biphetamine
Methamphetamines
Crank, Crystal meth, Crystal methadrine, and Speed
Additional Stimulants
Ritalin, Cylert, Preludin, Didrex, Pre-State, Voranil, Sandrex, and Plegine

STREET NAMES AND SLANG FOR NARCOTICS
Heroin
Smack, Horse, Mud, Brown sugar, Junk, Black tar, and Big H
Morphine
Pectoral syrup
Opium
Paregoric, Dover’s Powder, Parepectolin
Codeine
Empirin compound with codeine, Tylenol with codeine,
Codeine in cough medicine
Meperidine
Pethidine, Demerol, Mepergan
Analog of Fentanyl (Narcotic)
Synthetic heroin, China white
Analog of Meperidine (Narcotic)
MPTP (New heroin), MPPP, synthetic heroin

Source: http://www.njlawman.com/Feature%20Pieces/Drug%20Slang.htm

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 8, 2005; A01

washingtonpost.com

Source: j.b5z.net/i/u/2043019/i/washingtonpost.doc

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

By LAURA BLUE/LONDON Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008
Source: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1717306,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom