Better Childhoods Through Chemistry

by Evelyn Pringle and Martha Rosenberg

Where do parents and teachers get the idea there’s “something wrong” with their kid and only an expensive drug can fix it? From Pharma’s seamless web of ads, subsidized doctors, journals, medical courses and conferences, paid “patient” groups, phony public services messages and reporters willing to serve as stenographers.

Free stenography for Pharma from sympathetic media includes articles like “One in 40 Infants Experience Baby Blues, Doctors Say,” on ABC News and “Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children,” on Science Daily.

For many, the face of the drugs-not-hugs message is Harold Koplewicz M.D. author of the pop best seller It’s Nobody’s Fault , and former head of NYU’s prestigious Child Study Center. In a 1999 Salon article, Koplewicz reiterated his “no-fault” statement, assuring parents that psychiatric illness is not caused by bad parenting. “It is not that your mother got divorced, or that your father didn’t wipe you the right way,” he said. “It really is DNA roulette: You got blue eyes, blond hair, sometimes a musical ear, but sometimes you get the predisposition for depression.”

Many regard the NYU Child Study Center which Koplewicz founded and led before leaving in 2009 to start his own facility, as helping to usher in the world of brave new pediatric medicine in which children, toddlers and infants, once expected to outgrow their problems, are now diagnosed with lifelong psychiatric problems. The Child Study Center is “a threat to the health and welfare of children,” and its doctors are “hustlers working to increase their ‘client’ population and their commercial value to psychotropic drug manufacturers,” charged Vera Sharav, president of the watchdog group, the Alliance for Human Research Protection.

A look at the Center’s stated mission provides no reassurance. Its goal of “eliminating the stigma of being or having a child with a psychiatric disorder,” and “influencing child-related public policy,” sounds a lot like a Pharma sales plan. And its boast about having “a structure that allows recruitment of patients for research studies and then provides ‘real-world’ testing for successful controlled-environment findings,” could send chills down the back of parents afraid their kids will be guinea pigs or money-making subjects.

In 2007, the fears of the Center’s skeptics were confirmed when it launched an aggressive, scare tactic marketing campaign called Ransom Notes in 2007. “We have your son,” said one ad, created with bits of disparate type like a ransom note from a kidnapper. “We will make sure he will no longer be able to care for himself or interact socially as long as he lives. This is only the beginning”Autism.”

“We have your daughter. We are forcing her to throw up after every meal she eats. It’s only going to get worse,” said another ad signed “Bulimia.”

“We are in possession of your son. We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him. Ignore this and your kid will pay,” said another add from “ADHD.” Other ransom ads came from “kidnappers” named Depression, Asperger’s Syndrome and OCD.

Created pro bono by advertising giant BBDO, the ads were planned to run in New York magazine, Newsweek , Parents, Education Update . Mental Health News and other publications and on 11 billboards and 200 kiosks said the press release.

Immediate Outrage

The hostage campaign drew immediate public outrage and more than a dozen advocacy groups joined together in an online petition calling for an end to it. “This is a demonstration of the assaultive tactics used by psychiatry today–in particular, academic psychiatrists and university based medical centers that are under the influence of their pharmaceutical partners,” Vera Sharav wrote in alerts to AHRP’s mailing list. “If Dr. Koplewicz et al are not stopped, the campaign will be hitting the rest of the country,” she warned, and informed readers that the campaign was formulated by BBDO, “a major direct to consumer prescription drug advertising firm,” asking the New York State Attorney General’s office to investigate.

Days after the backlash, the Center revoked the advertising campaign “after the effort drew a strongly negative reaction, ” reported the New York Times. Koplewicz told the Times the decision was made by the Center with no pressure from New York University and they planned to introduce a new campaign in the next three months. However, he left the Child Study Center at NYU in 2009 to start his own facility, initially called the “Child Study Center Foundation,” but changed to the “Child Mind Institute,” in 2010.

Though Koplewicz’ Child Mind Institute is supposedly a “non-profit,” it is ensconced on Park Avenue in Manhattan and Koplewicz’ hourly rate “can be as high as $1,000 (three to four times that of the average Manhattan therapist),” says the Times . In a chilling interview on Education Update Online about the Institute Koplewicz says the reason the facility works closely with schools “is simply that’s where the kids are,” drawing an analogy to Willy Sutton who said “the reason he robbed banks is that’s where the money is.”

Last month in the Wall Street Journal , Koplewicz wrote that “no studies have examined the effect of long-term use” of ADHD meds, but they “have been in use for 70 years, and there is no evidence that suggests any adverse effects.” But there has been a large federal study of the long-term effects of the drugs and it shows they are “ineffective over longer periods,” and “that long-term use of the drugs can stunt children’s growth,” reported the Washington Post. Oops.

Two features that characterize the pediatric medicine practiced by the pill enthusiasts are they term the “diseases” they identify under-treated and under-diagnosed and they urge early treatment when symptoms first appear. (Before the symptoms go away say cynics.)

Yet the very fact that such diseases are lifelong conditions is reason to wait to medicate kids say highly respected doctors. Nor can parents with medicated children know if their kids even needed the drugs since symptoms from the drugs are often called the “disease,” says Peter Breggin, M.D. in a recent interview.

One thing doctors on both sides of the pediatric drug controversy agree on is the decision to put a child on drugs will likely sentence him or her to a lifetime of medications. What they disagree about is whether that is good or bad thing.

Related:  Preschool Depression: The Importance of Early Detection of Depression in Young Children
Johnny get your pills
Millions of Children Held Hostage by Psychiatric Disorders 
Are ADHD Medications Overprescribed?
Conscience of Psychiatry

Scientists Recommend Dangerous Antipsychotic Drugs to Treat Cancer

Activist Post

The Obama administration recently announced that the US government will assist pharmaceutical corporations in finding prescription drugs to treat new diseases.

The focus of this collaboration will identify new uses for drugs that have already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“We need to speed the pace at which we are turning discoveries into better health outcomes,” said Dr. Francis Collins, of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “NIH looks forward to working with our partners in industry and academia to tackle an urgent need that is beyond the scope of any one organization or sector.”

Obama signed Executive Order (EO), Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council in 2010.

Now the medical journal Cell has published a research paper on using an extremely dangerous psychotropic pharmaceutical to treat cancer; one that has traditionally been used to treat schizophrenia.

Scientists are claiming that according to their extensive research, which consisted of analyzing thousands of different drugs to determine if they possessed anti-cancer effects, it is Thiroridazine — a “last resort” drug for schizophrenics — that is now purported to kill cancer stem cells.

Thioridazine is expected to be used to select and eradicate cancer stem cells that are found in leukemia and several other cancers such as breast, blood, brain, prostate, ovarian, lung and gastrointestinal.

Scientists claim that this hazardous pharmaceutical can be administered in cancer therapies, without the health-threatening side effects of current drugs on the market. It is being advertised as an alternative to chemotherapy and radiation.

A robotic stem cell screening system was devised by the research team to siphon through large amounts of drugs and previously unpublished data and drugs that are available on the market today. Thousands of chemical compounds were screened for potential effects on specifically breast cancer and leukemia.

“We discovered the drug by creating a new way of looking at different chemicals,” said Mick Bhatia, the principal investigator for the study and scientific director of McMaster’s Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute in the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine.

In order to do that, we have to put cancer stem cells in a dish, but also have normal stem cells to also test the compounds. We were able to do this with a robotic system, fully automated, that allowed us to go through 10 or 15 compounds [at first]. Now we can do this with thousands of compounds, eventually arriving at this drug that doesn’t do anything to normal stem cells, but kills cancer stem cells.

The unusual aspect of our finding is the way this human-ready drug actually kills cancer stem cells; by changing them into cells that are non-cancerous.

The praise Thioridazine is receiving omits the dangerous effects that this drug causes in humans.

Vomiting
Seizures
Ulcers
Urinary tract infections
Swelling
Slowed movements
Inability to produce facial expressions
Parkinson’s disease
Irregular heart beat
Sudden death

Thioridazine is classified as a conventional antipsychotic. Its prime function is to reduce the brain’s ability to process excitement; effectively rendering the patient docile and even-tempered.

There is a strong possibility of committing suicide while on this drug.

Bhatia’s study asserts that this discovery could inspire a new frontier in cancer therapies. He stated that there are an estimated 12 existing drugs that pose a “good potential for the same response.”

The researchers are not stopping with Thioridazine; they are moving onto other possible uses for already approved drugs.

Bhatia’s team is anxious to begin human trials with plans to use this pharmaceutical on leukemia patients. By studying patients whose cancer is in remission, the researchers hope to find that thioridazine will prevent a multitude of cancers.

Currently, the vitamin industries, by order of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) are being attacked by the US government to justify the force outlawing of natural medicine use. The CA is a creation of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The findings of this study are just the first of many “new uses” that the pharmaceutical industry will “discover” in order to utilize antipsychotic drugs to treat major diseases.

With the support of the Obama administration, soon we may all be on some kind of psychotropic drug.

Water additive bill filed in legislature

Lovely County Citizen, Feb. 2, 2011

LITTLE ROCK — House Bill 1205, subtitled the “Arkansas Water Additive Accountability Act,” will have the support of the Carroll-Boone Water District (CBWD) water operators, Office Manager Jim Allison said Monday.

The purpose of the bill, filed Jan. 24 by Rep. Loy Mauch of Bismarck, is “to establish criteria for substances added to public drinking water for purposes unrelated to potability; and for other purposes.”

The bill, if signed into law, will require public water operators to obtain proof of effectiveness, safety, purity and lack of adverse health effects from the supplier of any substance to be added to the water in order to prevent or treat disease.

Full story

SSRI Stories Antidepressant Nightmares

ssristories.com

This website is collection of 4,300+ news stories with the full media article available, mainly criminal in nature, that have appeared in the media (newspapers, TV, scientific journals) or that were part of FDA testimony in either 1991, 2004 or 2006, in which antidepressants are mentioned.

On December 15, 2010, PLoS Medicine released a study which showed that, in regard to prescription medications and violence, the FDA had received the most reports of violence from the SSRI & SNRI antidepressants (except for Chantix, the smoking cessation drug. The evidence of an association with violence was weaker and mixed for antipsychotic drugs and absent for all but one of the mood stabilizers.

Yet, the antipsychotics and mood stabilizers, given for the most serious mental illnesses, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, would be the most likely culprit involved in violence but, instead, it was the antidepressants which had the most reports of violence. They were given to patients that traditionally were the least likely to commit violence, the depressed and the anxious.

Full story