psychiatrists are ''in the pocket'' of drugs companies

by Mike M. Wed Sep 17, 2003 15:40

My reference to "middle class types" as "bastards" was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Look at it in the context of that posting.

by Mike M. Wed Sep 17, 2003 14:38

Sean, I give you five (I think) citations from peer-reviewed journals and you tell me I have not done research. You give internet links. I hate to break it to you Sean but the internet is not renowned as a consistent source of accurate information. There are not any standards, by and large, for publication on the net - all you need is a website. Journala tend to be a little more discriminating.

Is "meandering crap" more offensive to you than just plain "crap"?

I described reading the debate in the last thread as being akin to swimming throug a sewage pit - I make no apologies for that, I consider both to be unpleasant and arduous processes.

You did not hurt my feelings Sean - I am not terribly sensitive to your assaults. You did however anger me with your intense hypocrisy. You "don't want to make this personal" etc, as though I were making it so. Sean, you are the one who called me a fool and compared me to people who laugh at the mentally ill - is that objective fact-based commentary? And where is the objective value in misrepresenting my position as you have done on numerous occasions, most spectacularly at the end of the last thread?

You say that your position is borne out by comments of people who have been in psychiatric treatment. This is nonsense. I have not gone and totted up the pro and anti Sean comments up to now and have no interest in doing so, it is hardly scientific to draw conclusions with re the mediation of psychiatric illness based on a vote on a website. And furthermore, we do not know which contributors have been in psychiatric care and which have not. Not everyone who has been will consider it relevant to their points and I am not prepared to assume that everyone who describes themselves as such actually has been. I have no way of knowing and neither do you.

by sean fleming Wed Sep 17, 2003 13:16

Actually 'meandering crap' and 'sewage pit' were terms I had in mind. Also on another note you refer to 'middle class types' as 'bastards'. Anyway Mike in relation to my calling you a fool I apologise if I hurt your feelings.

Throughout this thread I hope I have drawn attention to the issues. You accuse me of not answering your points . I could easily say the same about you. Personally, I don't think I have the strength to repeat the questions you have failed to answer.

I believe that if the reader goes through this thread they will see that my writings are stronger and more insightful than yours. I think that has been borne out by some of the comments we have received from people directly affected by psychiatry. There is no time for silly outbursts and using Indymedia to vent personal frustrations and conflicts.

As I said before these are very important issues and I think you are wrong to mention Orla in the way you did. I am not Orla and she unlike you has it would seem by her writings done a good deal of research.

by Mike M. Wed Sep 17, 2003 11:41

Well Sean, I'm glad to see that this thread is wasting away like the last one did. I'm not interested in keeping up a dialogue with you - this is no disrespect, I simply feel it to be pointless. And nobody else seems to care anymore judging from the shortage of other postings. (Although I won't be a bit surprised if 'Orla' pops up in response to this observation).

As to your allegations re "foul language", do I take it that you refer to my (single) use of the words "crap" and "bollocks" in my first posting on the last thread. I would advise you Sean that these are terms which are in perfectly common parlance and which, in my generation and subculture at least, have lost any ability to shock or offend - hardly foul. But that is a matter of interpretation and you are entitled to yours.

As to my having called you a fool on a number of occasions, I believe it was 3 times and it was in the message immediately after you called me a fool. Indeed Sean, a fool could have told from reading that thread that this was a direct response to your contemptuous attitude.

And tell me Sean, why did you choose to ignore the citations I appended - you have been demanding them quite vocally for some time - didn't you want them?

And what about my response to your assertion that I am no better than people who laugh at the mentally ill? Not worthy of consideration I expect?

by sean fleming Tue Sep 16, 2003 19:51

Firstly, Mike you should remember that you also called me a fool several times and used foul language to describe my anti-psychiatry position. Anyway I’ve no interest in personality clashes.

Let’s focus again on the issues. My problem with psychiatry stems from the fact that orthodox psychiatry today follows the biological model. That is it strongly infers that so-called mental illnesses are organic brain diseases. My view is that there is no basis to this. There is no objective physical test, brain scans, blood test for example, which can indicate that someone has a brain disease or disorder called schizophrenia or bi-polar disease .

Psychiatry believes or at least strongly infers that these brain diseases or disorders are related to a bio-chemical imbalance in the brain. They believe that there may be a genetic factors involved. They point to twin trial studies in that regard. We don’t know exactly what the imbalance is as we have no way of measuring what is neurochemically normal or balanced against what is considered abnormal or imbalanced. We all have neurotransmission and it would vary from individual to individual depending on the situation or environment they are in. Proponents of biological psychiatry often point to twin trial studies to support their position. What about trials involving discordant identical twins - that is, those in which one twin is ‘mentally ill’ but the other isn’t. Many such have been carried out. Also many people diagnosed as mentally ill come from families where there is no history of ‘mental illness’. In the studies cited by biological psychiatrists why do they assume it’s genetic and not related to their family environment or societal factors.

You seem to believe that psychosocial factors trigger mental illness, triggering the disease inherent in the ‘mentally ill’ person. I believe that personal, societal, environmental factors can cause severe mental distress which can then get labelled as mental illness. Psychiatrists make their judgement on whether a person is mentally ill or not largely on the DSM of mental illnesses. This I hope you are aware is fundamentally flawed in the criteria it uses to define mental illness and in the course of several editions since the 1980’s was not able to define whether ‘schizophrenia’ was a biological brain disease or not.

You seem to believe that some psychiatric drugs in some instances do work. I believe that for many people they have caused misery and act as chemical straitjackets. You have already admitted that they don’t redress the bio-chemical imbalance related to the patient’s ‘illness’. I should inform you though that psychiatry infers that these drugs do help to redress that imbalance. The voices of people who have taken these drugs bear testimony to that. You say they help to treat the symptoms. I say they cause further problems, tardive dyskinesia and other serious neurological disorders. This (tardive dyskinesia) is now admitted by the profession to be caused by the drugs.

It may be the case that in some cases there is a biological determinant factor involved in severe mental distress and that some people may benefit from a period at a low dosage where sedative medication is concerned. A lifetime of neuroleptic drugs is not the answer. I have presented you with the scientific evidence that the drugs, certainly in the long term, cause brain damage and actually change the structure of the brain. People who have refused the medication are in my view showing considerable insight. It is though a matter for the person concerned. We know what the drugs companies have been involved in and one would need to be very naïve to believe all they say.

Presently I see no alternative but opposition to the psychiatric system. I know some folk see this as extreme but it is a view based on my own experience and in light of psychiatry’s ignoble history and contemporary harmful practices. The people who have suffered are sympathising with my viewpoint, not yours. They don’t think my views are senseless or without reason.

by Mike M. Tue Sep 16, 2003 13:54

Sean, you accuse others of being patronising yet your smugness and arrogance are beyond anything I have read here, matched only by your intense disregard for the actual content of the commentary of others.

It is outrageous and utterly despicable that you should compare me and others to people who laugh at mentally ill people on the street (who are these people? I live in a quite populous place and have never seen this - by and large you can't identify mentally ill people by observing their gait so I don't know how these swine identify their victims). You, Sean, remind me of right wingers who immediately respond to opposition to imperialism with cries of "al-qaeda fellow traveller" or to opposition to Israeli policy with re Palestine with cries of "Nazi! Anti-semite!". You appear incapable of hearing what i and others are saying.

I am not a biological psychiatrist. I do not believe that neurotransmitter abnormalities cause psychiatric illness - to say this, as I observed on the last thread that dealt with this topic, is absurdly reductionist. It is necessary, in order to deal with the problem, to find whence it originates. So I agree that in the vast bulk of cases (I refuse to say all as I can not justify to myself being so categorical as you - I don't claim to know everything) there is a very strong psychosocial element. I have made this point repeatedly Sean - did you not notice?

Now I am of the view that the effects of these psychosocial stressors must be mediated physically in some fashion. I believe that the brain is the seat of the mind - this is supported by the fact that damage to the brain leads to diminution of mental capacity, severe damage leading to a vegetative state. I believe that the effect of stress is to lead to a reduction/increase in certain neurotransmitters, which in turn are related to symptoms of depression/anxiety/schizophrenia etc.

I believe that it is not simply a matter of psychosocial factors. Just as our heights, builds, eyesight, intelligences etc. are not entirely dependent on environmental factors, nor are our levels of predisposition to psychiatric problems. Thus we can see that anxiety, depression etc tend to run in families - and this occurs even when kids are adopted, thus demonstrating that there is more to this inheritance than just growing up with this as a model. So I believe that some people, from birth, are more likely to succumb to mental illness. This does not make me a bigot or prejudiced - I do not believe that such people are inferior.

Sean - you accuse me of being patronizing and refusing to listen to reason. In the last thread you quite gratuitously and offensively addressed me as "you fool". Is this an example of how debate should proceed?

by sean fleming Mon Sep 15, 2003 19:52

I am at one with you there Sean. The misery , suffering and disfigurement these drugs have caused is truly heartbreaking. It angers me when I see and read the arrogance and patronising attitude of people who dismiss and ridicule people who speak about the harm these drugs have and do cause.They in my view are no better than the people who laugh at and ridicule the 'mentally ill' on our streets.

by Sean Crudden - impero Mon Sep 15, 2003 19:32 sean at impero dot iol dot ie Jenkinstown, Dundalk, Co Louth 042 93 71310

How Time Flies
Modern psychiatry is over fifty years old now. What has been the fate of the mental patient as time marches on?
THE modern pharmacological treatment for mental illness is just over 50 years old. Drug treatment has been toxic, disfiguring, disabling and degrading for the patient. The present system offers the compliant patient a lifetime of dependence and no hope of real recovery.

Psychotropic drugs are more of a scourge for the patient of today than the whippings and ice cold baths were for the patient of yesterday.

Ireland contains a largely static population of mental patients where things can be easily measured and assessed. Some people may already be convinced by my argument but the argument would be strengthened if it were backed by a substantial national study here in Ireland.

I stress that I am not asking patients to become non-compliant where they have been compliant. For my own part I have been a compliant patient for nearly three decades and I am old enough to remember a time when patients were strong and had an impressive physical presence.

Sean Crudden
Secretary
IMPERO

by sean fleming Mon Sep 15, 2003 18:57

In fact in relation to SSRI’s you should know that these drugs do not tackle the causes of depression. In fact in recent years the Seroxat scandal has awakened many people to the dangers of these so-called anti- depressants. People are much more aware of the dangers of prozac as well. You should check:

http://www.breggin.com/prozac.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4351264-103690,00.html


You say psychiatry does ‘observe a CORRELATION between such imbalances and psychiatric symptoms’.

Can you present the evidence that establishes the VALIDITY of ‘schizophrenia,’ ‘depression’ or other ‘major mental illness’ as biologically based brain diseases related to bio-chemical IMBALANCE?

Have you any evidence for a BASELINE STANDARD of a neurochemically-balanced ‘normal’ individual, against which a neurochemical ‘imbalance’ can be measured?

Have you any evidence that any psychotropic drug can help to correct ANY ‘chemical imbalance’ attributed to ANY psychiatric diagnosis?

Do you believe that psychiatric drugs do not cause tardive dyskinesia and other neurological disorders?

by Mike M. Mon Sep 15, 2003 17:45

I'd like to start by saying that much of this stuff has already been covered on a previous thread, alluded to by Chekov I think - maybe the editors might consider moving this discussion to the tail end of that one? There's really nothing new here.

I'm not going to repeat all the points I made in the previous discussion - they are there for anyone who wants to read them - maybe 10 or 11 pages back on the newswire?

I'm not sure exactly what Sean Fleming's background or angle are on this - I have said to him previously, as has Badman, that if he wants to oppose abuses within psychiatry, demand more psychotherapy, greater emphasis on autonomy, more advocacy etc I am in agreement with him all the way. I have said to him that the medical model of psychiatric illness does not insist that neurotransmitter imbalances CAUSE illness, but does observe a CORRELATION between such imbalances and psychiatric symptoms. This is not good enough for him, he insists that we deny any link between symptoms of psychiatric illness and biological matters. Sean does not explain how SSRIs can be demonstrated to work in depression. He ignores this rather inconvenient fact, other than to say that this is down to medical journals being in on the conspiracy too - a "fact" which makes his demand for citations of journal articles to support the use of pharmacotherapy rather redundant. Sean is a lot happier talking about antipsychotic medication as their huge side effect profile allows him to maintain that medics cheat in double-blind trials by identifying the side effects, thus identifying who is on the drug in question.

Sean knows I am not a psychiatrist or a medic or a chemist/pharmacist/shareholder - I have said all of this repeatedly. I advocate a greater emphasis on psychotherapy - it can be very effective. I oppose Sean's ideas because I believe they are senseless - Sean appears to feel that it is "fascist" to suggest that something ought to be done to help those with psychosis. He says that the symptoms of psychosis are actually the side effects of antipsychotic meds. Perhaps there was no psychosis before pharmacotherapy began?

By the way Sean, if you really want citations, try these:

Elkin I, Shea MT, Watkins JT, Imber SD, Sotsky SM ,Collins JF, Glass DR, Pilkonis PA, Leber WR, Docherty JP, et al (1989). National Institute of Mental Health treatment of depression collaborative research program: General effectiveness of treatments. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46(11), 971-982.

Barak Y, Wittenberg N, Naor S, Kutzuk D & Weizman A (1999). Clozapine in elderly psychiatric patients: tolerability, safety and efficacy. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 40(4), 320-325.

Sajatovic M, Ramirez LF, Vernon L, Brescan D, Simon M & Jurjus G (1996). Outcome of risperidone therapy in elderly patients with chronic psychosis. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 26(3), 309-317.

Marmar CR, Schoenfeld F, Weiss DS, Metzler T, Zatzick D, Wu R, Smiga S, Tecott L & Neylan T (1996). Open trial of fluvoxamine treatment for combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 57, s8, 66-70.

Fava M, McGrath PJ & Sheu WP (2003). Switching to reboxetine: An efficacy and safety study in patients with major depressive disorder unresponsive to fluoxetine. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 23(4), 365-369.



But i guess this stuff is just made up, part of the conspiracy.

I can't help wondering how Sean explains all the articles that suggest that psychotherapy is as effective as or more effective than pharmacotherapy, or the ones that report no significant improvement with the use of drugs - are they part of the conspiracy too Sean? Pulling the wool over the eyes of naive sorts like myself?

by sean fleming Mon Sep 15, 2003 17:02

Chekov,

I am not looking for the evidence that there is a biological cause to ‘mental illness’. It doesn’t exist. If one day they can prove that there is such a link, well, then I’ll have been wrong. Psychiatry strongly infers that there is a biological link and presents ‘evidence’ which is weak and has in fact been proven to be biased. I refer you to the history of the DSM of so-called mental illnesses. I hope you have heard of it. You mention double blind studies including twin studies – these have been proven to be thoroughly biased. You should check the link below. Unlike you, I am able to reference scientific research. It should expose the issue for you.

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/loren_mosher.shtml

Also psychiatric drugs do cause brain damage and other neurological disorders. That is a fact Chekov. Don’t run away from it. See examples of brain scan studies on:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/ioc/scan.shtml

See also:

http://www.breggin.com/neuroleptics.html

This is what psychiatric neuroleptic drugs do to your brain.

Practical alternative is conscious of a real problem. My view is that when someone is experiencing such a high level of mental stress, medication may be necessary- a tranquillising medication but for no longer than necessary. A lifetime of neuroleptic drugs is not the answer. In fact many alternative psychiatrists such as R.D Laing, Loren Mosher, Peter Breggin have shown that with the right emotional support and with careful attention to the root causes of a person’s emotional/mental distress a person can experience healing and renewal. In fact you should see:

http://www.moshersoteria.com/crazy.htm

Such an alternative system / community of support does point the real way forward and would save money in the long term. Mind disabling drugs are not the way forward. If as we now all agree there is no indisputable scientific evidence to prove the link between ‘mental illness’ and biology, let’s start looking at how ‘diseases’ of the mind as opposed to diseases of the brain can be addressed in a holistic way by paying careful attention to personal, societal and environmental factors.

by David Mon Sep 15, 2003 16:38

Many especially those designed to "treat" people who can be difficult to live with" are designed merely to sedate and lower the nuisance factor. Turning a sick person into a vegetable who is so lethargic he can do little harm.

Because so many drugs are so successful at doing this they are widely utilised as possible emergency treatments but these emergency treatments very often become long term and the symptoms become more focused on than the disease.
As long as the for profit development of Psychiatric drugs systm prevails then the system will be satisfiied merely to contain illness or anguish and damn those suffering to lives, from their own perspective, not worth living.

by chekov Mon Sep 15, 2003 15:46

if you are looking for proof that "so-called mental illnesses are caused by a bio-chemical imbalance in the brain" you won't find it, because there isn't any and very few psychiatrists would have a position close to this. Yours is a straw man argument and your history of debate here on Indymedia has basically just seen you thrashing this same poor straw man again and again.

Your claim that there is no evidence of genetical factors in psychiatric illness is ludicrous. Double blind studies, including twin studies, as pointed out at length by mike in the thread linked below, indicate a strong hereditary factor in many of the most common psychiatric illnesses (depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder).

I'm not going to rehash all of the arguments again, but I will just emphasise one point. If you want to discredit psychiatry, stop going on about this biological cause business, it's not relevant. The important question is "does this treatment alleviate the symptoms". There is overwhelming evidence that certain psychiatric medications do indeed alleviate certain intolerable symptoms in certain conditions.

by Practical Alternative Mon Sep 15, 2003 15:44

Ok fair enough I know the companies are all wankers and out for money, however I have a relative who has schizophrenia (as defined by the doctors), and I reckon its alot more complex than simple genetics or biochemistry (I'd say theres a definite environmental aspect to it aswell).
Anyway I've looked up several anti-psychiatry web-sites, what I've found is lots of stuff about how bad the drug companies are but hardly anything about a practical alternative, can the anti-psychiatry people tell me what a family should do with a somebody who refuses to eat for days on end, sleeps during the day and makes noise all night keeping everybody awake, including neighbours and leaves burning cigarette butts lying around the house (just a sample of behaviour over a number of years). This happens when the person in question refuses to take medication,
its right to criticise the drug companies for pushing a narrow drug-based solution, however the drugs do help with the more extreme symtoms of mental illness,what is the alternative for people and families with immediate needs????

by sean fleming Mon Sep 15, 2003 15:31

Chekov if you are so knowledgable on this subject then I would ask you to present and enlighten me with the referenced scientific evidence to prove that so-called mental illnesses are caused by a bio-chemical imbalance in the brain. If you prove to me that this is so then I will go back on all I've said before and admit I was wrong. Remember though that many people highly qualified in the field of medicine and neurology have said that there is no scientific proof in relation to this in terms of neurotranmission or genetics which can enable us to state as scientific fact that 'mental illness ' has a biological cause..You must remember that psychiatrists when they are pressed on this issue admit that it is their hypothesis. It is your closed mind which sadly is the problem.

by Chekov Mon Sep 15, 2003 14:45

I think that Sean's anti-psychiatry position is lunacy and very unscientific. I substantially agree with the points made by Badman and Mike in the previous thread about psychiatry, when Sean published 25 bullet points full of some of the most scurillous misrepresentations that have graced indymedia - which is saying something. Conor: companies spend money for one reason only - to make more money. This is not an anti-medic position at all, most of the doctors that I know agree with it.

by depixol junky Mon Sep 15, 2003 14:15

Novartis AG the Swiss-based colossus is, equal to Bayer Corp (US) and Glaxo Wellcome plc (UK), the biggest drugs company in the world. It is strange that so few people appear to have heard of it. It is also the largest agri-chemical company making insecticides, fungicides and other crop-protection chemicals.It is bigger even than the world-famous Monsanto, it is the most significant manufacturer of genetically-modified seeds and foods. The commercial idea is to ensure that edible plant life fits nicely with the crop-protection systems.

Novartis are also pioneers of what they call the science of "xeno-transplantation". They are putting human genetic "material" into animals such as pigs. Then the organs "harvested" from pigs are put into monkeys for now. The next stage of course is to put the organs into humans. Novartis is also believed to be keen on copyrighting human genetic "material" i.e. to possess the very foundation of humanity. Let Novartis try to assure us that the commercial strategy is not to perform the following. That they will not do with human beings what they have done with "their" seeds (i.e. to modify them so as to fit their chemicals). That they will not biologically engineer us humans in order to fit their drugs! Let them inform us that this is not so!

by sean fleming Sun Sep 14, 2003 21:16

I should point out that I am not a scientologist. There are many people who take a critical or anti-psychiatry stance. R.D Laing , was a qualified psychiatrist who totally opposed the way psychiatry operated, its biological model and drug treatments. Today similar individuals such as Peter Breggin, Thomas S. Szasz, Loren R. Mosher, all qualified psychiatrists and highly respected authors who have carried out a great deal of research- all of them oppose psychiatry. Why? Because there is no scientific basis to prove that so –called mental illnesses are caused by a bio-chemical imbalance in the brain or by genetic defects. Psychiatry strongly infers and believes that there is and therefore on this basis justifies the drug ‘treatments’ and ECT. The above on the otherhand believe in the need for a more holistic approach, group support, therapy, counselling, lifestyle changes, psychodynamic process of breakdown /breakthrough. The drugs are for many people killer psychiatric drugs. I have seen many people deeply affected by these drugs. For anyone who has confidence in their efficacy the question is: would you be willing to take them yourself or see your loved ones prescribed these drugs? what about ECT - an electrical current passed through the brain.

The history of the way these drugs were invented and devised is really quite shocking when you look into it. Therefore until there is a radical change to the way psychiatry functions and its adherence to the biological model, there is no alternative but opposition. I only wish that opposition would grow and develop.

by Ois Sun Sep 14, 2003 19:01

I agree with what you're saying Checkov but I'd be careful not be anti-psychiatrist because personally I think that the first post reads rather like scientologist propaganda. In so far as that it seems to be totally anti-psychiatrist.
That said I do think that way to many unnessecary psychiatric drugs are being prescribed in particular drugs like ritalin and all those ADD & HADD drugs.

by sp Fri Sep 12, 2003 20:04

In relation to the multi-national Merck mentioned in the article above – a subsidiary of this is Merck, Sharpe and Dohme (MSD).John Hanrahan and his family, based in Co Tipperary, challenged them in the 1980s. The Hanrahan family and their livestock fell ill after poisonous chemicals blew in from the MSD plant located one mile from their holding, which had been farmed for seven generations. The US chemical giant was a privileged guest of the nation located in an unemployment blackspot, where the right to pollute for profit took precedence over the citizen's right to clean air. The High Court dismissed the Hanrahan case in 1985 but the Supreme Court reversed the decision in 1988, forcing the US multinational to pay out an undisclosed sum in damages.

by Orla Fri Sep 12, 2003 19:46

This is not specifically about psychiatric drugs, but still interesting and relevant.


Conflict of Interest?

Medical Journal Changes Policy of Finding
Independent Doctors to Write

By John McKenzie
ABC NEWS.com
June 12


" Is it a case of, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?"


The New England Journal of Medicine will announce Thursday that it has given up finding truly independent doctors to write and
review articles and editorials for it, as a result of the financial ties physicians have with so many drug companies in the United States The Journal says the drug companies' reach is
just too deep...


No publication in this country influences the way your doctor treats an illness more than the New England Journal of Medicine. Since 1812, the Journal has scrutinized and published thousands
of clinical studies.

These "review" articles on drug therapy that can be pivotal. They tell doctors the strengths and weaknesses of new medications for everything form high blood pressure to obesity to cancer.

Now, the Journal will allow these critical evaluations to be written by people with financial ties to drug companies.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/NEJM_policychange020612.html

by sean fleming - Irish Association Against Psychiatry Fri Sep 12, 2003 17:33

Indymedia provides an excellent outlet for those opposed to biological psychiatry and I for one welcome that. Isn’t it interesting though how those sympathetic to the psychiatric system and the biological model it adheres to become so irate when their views are challenged? Resorting to foul and abusive language is no way to conduct a debate about such a serious issue.

This link below gives a good outline of psychiatry’s ignoble history and contemporary practice.

http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Moncrieff.htm

Also interesting and educational material as to what you should know about psychiatry and psychiatric drugs can be found at:

http://www.outlookcities.com/psych/

by Orla Fri Sep 12, 2003 17:16

' Drugs inquiry thrown into doubt over members' links with manufacturers'

'The credibility of a government inquiry intended to settle the controversy surrounding widely prescribed anti-depressant drugs was thrown into question yesterday by revelations that most of the members have shareholdings or other links to the manufacturers...'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,915766,00.html

by Orla Fri Sep 12, 2003 16:26

Hi all,

I heard of a drug company company which went after ER because of a story line in which someone in the story reacts to the drug. The kept the story but used the scientific name for the drug rather than the one people would see on the packet.

People might be interested in this website:

No Free Lunch

http://www.nofreelunch.org/

and also this story from the Journal of the American Medical Association which concludes

'Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data.'


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/7/921

For a bit of light relief here is a joke piece about how drugs are pushed

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1062627012574&call_pageid=991479973472

by conor Fri Sep 12, 2003 15:34

sean fleming - Irish Association Against Psychiatry

by conor Fri Sep 12, 2003 15:32

the article seemed to me to imply that consultants would prescribe drugs that are not suited to the paitent on the basis of a free golf trip.

this is not at all true.

consultants are clever enough to see their game - and know the difference.

all drug companies present - market - try to sell their drugs. they all compete to sell drugs to doctors in the market economy.this is a reality, and is not ideal.also:this is not akin to a bung from a property developer.

sure wed all love to live in paradise island, with greatly reduced amount of every kind of illness, but we dont. doctors are grossly overworked , and are not negligant or wreckless enough to allow a presentation / lunch etc from a drug rep seriously deviate their prefaired course of medication for a paitent.

the real evil of drug companies is being overlooked here.

by sean fleming - Irish Association Against Psychiatry Fri Sep 12, 2003 15:28

I would encourage readers to look at the following material. It will clearly show how psychiatric 'medication' seriously damages people.

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/ioc/scan.shtml

http://www.breggin.com/neuroleptics.html

by Chekov Fri Sep 12, 2003 15:14

why are pharmaceutical companies spending these lavish sums if they aren't getting anything for their money? Philanthropy? Can't they find any more deserving cause than medical consultants? The typical drug-company educational trip consists of a 5 minute introductory talk, followed by a weekend of golf, sunning or whatever. Is this the best use of time according to pedagogical theory or is something else going on here? When you say that these highly trained professionals aren't going to be bought through largesse, does the same apply to politicians? That is the defence of many of the tribunal defendants - "it was an unsolicited gift, and how dare you suggest that my favour could be bought". The truth is that the pharmaceuticals invest the money because it pays off. The decision to prescribe a particular drug over an alternative is often made on subtle grounds. The sub-conscious impressions made by largesse are a factor in influencing these subtle decisions. The problem is not limited to psychiatrists, it is common to all medical practitioners, and is especially acute when it comes to the consultants who have the most policy setting power.

by conor - UCDSA - in a personal capacity Fri Sep 12, 2003 15:03 conor at ziplip dot com

yes yes, the point being made of course is that pharm companies make "killer psychiatric drugs ", also that after 6 years medical training, and many many many more in hospitals, psychiatric consultants forget EVERYTHING, when on some free medical junket, and feel obliged or "in the pockets of" drug companies - and thus go against ALL that MEDICAL college, hospital and other training, to prescribe a course of killer psychiatric drugs to paitents/

fuckass

also: drugs have to undergo trials before they go on the market. independant trials.

pharm cos , like all industries are not free from sin (3rd world diseases are low on the list of priorities) , shouting about unfounded bullshit like this is an insult to anyone who has ever wasted their time overworking and educating themselves to look after you.

your contribution to the debate is unfounded and silly.

ass!

by ugh! Fri Sep 12, 2003 14:41

can't you make yourself clear?

by iosaf Fri Sep 12, 2003 14:13

do not let any article here dissuade you from that. If you are worried about these issues try talking to a trusted loved one or that counsellor/professional.
You are not alone. We are in a debate on cognitive process and indeed such health care and understanding of same will change in the next few years. But you must think of _yourself_ first.
Dont give up!

by joe strange Fri Sep 12, 2003 13:04

i don't think that is the point being made -conor has obviously the intellect of a frozen pea when it comes to showing some insight

by conor - UCDSA - in a personal capacity Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:23 conor at ziplip dot com

This is exactly the kind of simplistic bullshit youd come to expect on this newswire.

i know - lets shut down all pharmaceutical firms and stop making drugs.

i suppose the analysis is thus:

capitalism = sadness = prozac = happy with capitalism.

the next time you spanners get sick , try taking no drugs.

the chant of the newswire:
"lets regress 100 or so years"

by bb Fri Sep 12, 2003 04:41

that's been going on for decades- as long as there will be mood altering drugs, those who control them will be like gods- psychiatrists are like gods, it's a well known fact the wealthier your background the more likely you'll be institutionalized- eh, that's wher the money is, right? to think there are more people on prozac than there are Irish people...
"have a nice day!"

by niall Thu Sep 11, 2003 23:12

The link below is to an article in today Irish Times in relation to the above and does give serious cause for concern
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2003/0911/1815876660HMJUNKETS.html