[BOOK] Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex

Renowned psychiatrist Peter Breggin documents how psychiatric drugs and electroshock (ECT) disable the brain. He presents the latest scientific information on potential brain dysfunction and dangerous behavioral abnormalities produced by the most widely used drugs including Prozac, Xanax, Halcion, Ritalin, and lithium. Even though this book was published a few years ago, it is still a highly relevant and import work

Many of Breggin's earlier findings have improved clinical practice, led to legal victories against drug companies, and resulted in FDA-mandated changes in what the manufacturers must admit about their drugs. This greatly expanded second edition, supported by the latest evidence-based research, shows that psychiatric drugs achieve their primary or essential effect by causing brain dysfunction, and they tend to do far more harm than good.

Author's website

Available through Amazon.com here.

Author's description of the book:

"For those who have been following my work or who wish an introduction to my lifetime reform efforts and scientific investigations in the field of psychiatry, the newly published second edition of Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex (Springer Publishing Company, 2008) has recently been published. It is a thorough and up-to-date presentation of my overall critique of modern psychiatry, including the latest medications and treatments.

"The new edition describes general principles for the safe withdrawal from psychiatric drugs with specific examples of withdrawal problems related to each type of psychiatric medication, including antidepressants, tranquilizers, stimulants, mood stabilizers and neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drugs. For interested professionals, patients and clients, it presents guidelines for how to conduct psychotherapy and counseling without resort to psychiatric drugs, even for the most emotionally distressed people.

"The new edition of the book presents evidence confirming many of the first edition’s most controversial conclusions. Research continues to demonstrate that antidepressants are ineffective in treating depression and instead increase the risk of suicidality. As another example, additional studies have shown that stimulants offer no long-term positive effects on the behavior of children and that these drugs suppress growth and make children prone to cocaine abuse as young adults. Recent reports continue to confirm that electroshock causes permanent brain damage and cognitive dysfunction.

"The scientific premise of the book is that all psychiatric treatments—drugs, electroshock and lobotomy—have their 'therapeutic' impact by disabling the brain. They do not improve brain function or correct biochemical imbalances, they cause brain dysfunction and biochemical imbalances. These brain-disabling interventions are then considered effective when the doctor, family, patient or society views impaired brain dysfunction in the target individuals as a desirable or beneficial effect. Because psychiatric drugs in reality do more harm than good, the psychopharmaceutical complex must devote billions of dollars to exerting its power and influence in the political, professional and public arenas.

"'Antipsychotic' drugs such as Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel and Geodon are used literally to chemically lobotomize millions of adults and children because the resulting apathy and indifference are seen as an improvement over their previously distressed and distressing state of mind or behavior. Millions more adults take 'tranquilizers' like Xanax, Ativan, Klonopin and Valium, suppressing their overall brain function in order to reduce feelings of anxiety. A large percentage of our nation’s children have their spontaneity reduced or even crushed by stimulant drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall and Strattera, causing them to become more docile and more obsessively attentive to rote work.

"Despite all the propaganda, antidepressants such Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and Cymbalta have no scientifically demonstrable effectiveness and are proven to cause suicidality, as well as violence and mania. They too 'work' by causing mental disabilities such as apathy and euphoria that are misinterpreted as improvements. Meanwhile, their continued widespread use is determined in part by the fact that withdrawal produces severe psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety and depression. In short, it is too difficult and painful for people to stop taking them.

"All psychiatric drugs have the potential to cause withdrawal reactions, including the antidepressants, stimulants, tranquilizers, antipsychotic drugs and 'mood stabilizers' such lithium. When the individual’s condition grows markedly worse within days or weeks of stopping the psychiatric drug, this is almost always due to a withdrawal reaction. However, misinformed doctors and misled parents, teachers and patients think that this is evidence that the individual 'needs' the drug even more, when in fact he or she needs time to recover from withdrawal effects.

"People commonly use alcohol, marijuana and other non-prescription drugs to dull their feelings. Usually they do not fool themselves into believing they are somehow improving the function of their minds and brains. Yet when people take psychiatric drugs, they almost always do so without realizing that the drugs “work” by disrupting brain function, that the drugs cause withdrawal effects, and that they frequently result in dangerous and destructive mental reactions and behaviors.

"Most consumers of psychiatric drugs do not realize how much these chemical agents disrupt the function of the brain and mind. As a result, their treatment in effect becomes involuntary. Many other adults are physically forced to these drugs in hospitals and even under outpatient commitment that allows for enforced drugging in the home. Because children cannot control their lives, or understand the implications of taking drugs, they are always involuntary participants in these brain-disabling treatments. Our society needs to stop forcing psychoactive drugs on its citizens, young and old.

"Electroshock provides a more obvious illustration of the brain-disabling effects of psychiatric treatment. Shock treatment is simply closed-head injury caused by an overwhelming current of electricity sufficient to cause a grand mal seizure. When the patient becomes apathetic, the doctor writes in the hospital chart, 'No longer complaining.' When the patient displays the euphoria commonly associated brain damage, the doctor writes, 'mood improved.' Meanwhile, the individual’s brain and mind are so drastically injured that he or she is rendered unable to protest. They are easily led to take repeated shock treatments. In many cases, family members must intervene to stop the destructive 'treatment.'

"The brain-disabling principle of psychiatric treatment is not a speculation. It is a solid scientific theory based on hundreds of evidence-based reports, clinical experience, and common sense observations. I believe it will stand the test of time."

"The new edition of Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry introduces the concept of medication spellbinding—the capacity of psychoactive drugs to blunt the individual’s appreciation of drug-induced mental dysfunction and, at times, to encourage a misperception that they are doing better than ever when they are, in fact, doing worse than ever. In the extreme, medication spellbinding drives individuals into bizarre, out-of-character destructive actions, including suicide and violence. Medication spellbinding is an aspect of the brain-disabling principle that explains why so many individuals take drugs of all kinds, from antidepressants to alcohol, when they are causing them great harm and even destroying their lives.

"The power of the psychopharmaceutical complex, a concept that I introduced in 1991 in Toxic Psychiatry, has now received confirmation from innumerable books by disenchanted members of the medical establishment. The new edition of Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry reviews some of these other books and articles, and presents details about how the drug companies continue to rule the world of psychiatry; they control research and journal publications, dominate medical education, collaborate with insurance companies and federal agencies, and finance organized psychiatry and medicine.

"This new edition of Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry has a long history, originating in the 1983 publication of Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain and then evolving into the initial 1997 edition of Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry. The concepts and information—contained 16 detailed chapters and 85 pages of scientific bibliography—provide a mountain of information about what’s wrong with modern psychiatry and what’s needed to correct it."

A Natural Fix for A.D.H.D.

The New York Times has an article by By Richard A. Friedman on A.D.H.D

Here's a brief Snippet

My patient “treated” his A.D.H.D simply by changing the conditions of his work environment from one that was highly routine to one that was varied and unpredictable. All of a sudden, his greatest liabilities — his impatience, short attention span and restlessness — became assets. And this, I think, gets to the heart of what is happening in A.D.H.D.

Consider that humans evolved over millions of years as nomadic hunter-gatherers. It was not until we invented agriculture, about 10,000 years ago, that we settled down and started living more sedentary — and boring — lives. As hunters, we had to adapt to an ever-changing environment where the dangers were as unpredictable as our next meal. In such a context, having a rapidly shifting but intense attention span and a taste for novelty would have proved highly advantageous in locating and securing rewards — like a mate and a nice chunk of mastodon. In short, having the profile of what we now call A.D.H.D. would have made you a Paleolithic success story.

In fact, there is modern evidence to support this hypothesis. There is a tribe in Kenya called the Ariaal, who were traditionally nomadic animal herders. More recently, a subgroup split off and settled in one location, where they practice agriculture. Dan T. A. Eisenberg, an anthropologist at the University of Washington, examined the frequency of a genetic variant of the dopamine type-four receptor called DRD4 7R in the nomadic and settler groups of the Ariaal. This genetic variant makes the dopamine receptor less responsive than normal and is specifically linked with A.D.H.D. Dr. Eisenberg discovered that the nomadic men who had the DRD4 7R variant were better nourished than the nomadic men who lacked it. Strikingly, the reverse was true for the Ariaal who had settled: Those with this genetic variant were significantly more underweight than those without it.

So if you are nomadic, having a gene that promotes A.D.H.D.-like behavior is clearly advantageous (you are better nourished), but the same trait is a disadvantage if you live in a settled context. It’s not hard to see why. Nomadic Ariaal, with short attention spans and novelty-seeking tendencies, are probably going to have an easier time making the most of a dynamic environment, including getting more to eat. But this same brief attention span would not be very useful among the settled, who have to focus on activities that call for sustained focus, like going to school, growing crops and selling goods.

In other words, it's not a disease at all, but a part of the normal spectrum of the human condition.

Big Pharma's Newest Money-Making Scheme: Adult ADHD

Evelyn Pringle has brought us another expose of disease mongering by the psych drug industry. Here's a snippet. Please visit the original post for all of the details

By Evelyn Pringle and Martha Rosenberg

Who belongs to this “untapped” market? Just about anybody.

There is good news and bad news about attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) -- that is, if you’re a drug company. The bad news is the kid market has peaked out with 4.5 million U.S. children now carrying the label. The good news is adult ADHD is an emerging market. In fact, adult ADHD, with symptoms similar to pediatric ADHD such as impulsivity, distractibility and difficulty paying attention, following instructions and meeting deadlines, is the next big thing.

"Immature adult market continues to offer greatest commercial potential," read a 2008 press release to the pharmaceutical industry from the market research agency Datamonitor: "Estimated to be twice the size of the pediatric ADHD population, the highly prevalent, yet largely untapped, adult ADHD population continues to represent an attractive niche to target."

Also seen on Alternet here

The Drugs, They Do Nothing!

Some selected snippets from this report

Short-term Intensive Treatment Not Likely to Improve Long-term Outcomes for Children with ADHD

Initial positive results gleaned from intensive treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are unlikely to be sustained over the long term, according to a recent analysis of data from the NIMH-funded Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA). The study was published online ahead of print March 2009 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Using reports from parents and teachers as well as self-reports from the children, now high school-aged, the researchers found that the youth’s functioning remained improved overall compared to their functioning at the beginning of the study, suggesting that available treatments can still be effective. However, they also found the following:

• The eight-year follow-up revealed no differences in symptoms or functioning among the youths assigned to the different treatment groups as children. This result suggests that the type or intensity of a one-year treatment for ADHD in childhood does not predict future functioning.
  
• A majority (61.5 percent) of the children who were medicated at the end of the 14-month trial had stopped taking medication by the eight-year follow-up, suggesting that medication treatment may lose appeal with families over time. The reasons for this decline are under investigation, but they nevertheless signal the need for alternative treatments.
  
• Children who were no longer taking medication at the eight-year follow-up were generally functioning as well as children who were still medicated, raising questions about whether medication treatment beyond two years continues to be beneficial or needed by all.

Basically, parents become disillusioned with the failed promise of the easy fix of drugs for the treatment of this "condition"

A red flag about medicating young children

A column from the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript by Bonnie Harris

World-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist and director of the research team at Mass General Hospital Dr. Joseph Biederman has been found by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa to have failed to report millions of dollars he has received over the years from the drug companies that make the drugs he prescribes for ADHD and bipolar disorder. Biederman and his research team are responsible for putting the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, previously thought to start in young adulthood, on children as young as three.

The reported diagnosis of bipolar disorder grew 40-fold between 1994 and 2003. And that data is five years old. Biederman is the number-one influence on doctors nationwide who diagnose and medicate children with bipolar and attention-deficit disorder. Antipsychotic drugs previously prescribed for adults are now being given to children as young as three -- one of whom died at age 4 from an overdose her mother gave her desperately trying to control her behavior.

According to Medco, a pharmacy benefits manager, 500,000 children and teenagers were given at least one prescription for an antipsychotic in 2007, including 20,500 who were younger than 6 years old. Biederman claims, "The average age of onset is about four .... It's solidly in the preschool years."

Another 3-year-old was reported by his mother to have violent and explosive outbursts. After a year of treatment, his mother says a psychiatrist told her he thought her son was bipolar. As the boy's mother reported, "He would tell us, you know, 'You donlove me.' ''You don't like me.' 'I don't like myself.' 'I hate myself.' 'I'm stupid.' 'Nobody likes me.' 'I wanna die.' Four-year-olds don't talk like that." After the boy was put on a fourth medication, the family decided that was enough and took their son to Seattle Children's Hospital, where they were told he was not bipolar. He now takes medication for hyperactivity and a sleep disorder. And he's learning to deal with his explosive moods through a behavioral program. The family claims there is no comparison to the child they are parenting today compared to the one diagnosed as bipolar.

Dr. John McClellan, familiar with this boy's case, says the children's psychiatric hospital he runs in the state of Washington is filled with kids who have been misdiagnosed as bipolar. He says it has become a catchall for aggressive and troubled children.

Please, let this report be a red flag to all who have children too quickly diagnosed with ADHD, bipolar disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and others.

A young child claiming that no one loves him, that he's stupid, hates himself, or wishes he could die is often a child who is crying out for acceptance and attention from the influential adults in his life who have yet to understand him and his problems. With that understanding, adjusted expectations, removal of damaging behavior modification techniques such as punishment, many children, even those with chemical imbalances and disorders, can have appropriate behavior without medication. So many children in today's world react strongly to being told what to do and how to do it, to feeling disrespected with regular criticism and punishment, to not fitting in to a schoolroom full of other children who seem to be able to "get it" more easily, to being easily overstimulated or misunderstood for the reasons beneath their behavior.

Children who feel misunderstood are capable of highly inappropriate behavior that is trying to signal their need. They don't know how to say "Hey, this isn't working. My needs are not getting met." So they act it out -- louder and more dramatically the longer the misunderstanding. One of the children diagnosed with bipolar disorder had a father who had been accused of abuse. This factor was not part of the equation of the diagnosis.

We must look to the reasons -- the root causes -- of why our children don't, won't or can't do what we ask. Diagnoses often feel validating and relieving when our attempts at control don't work to get our children to comply. We can shift the blame onto to "problem" and we don't have to change how we parent.

Let me be absolutely clear that I do not consider the parent to blame. It is the culture in which we live that does not support parents to support their children. We are still in a children-must-do-as-we-say mentality and if they don't -- well now we can medicate them and we don't have to deal with it. Let me also say that are many cases in which medication is helpful and necessary.

But please lets start to put more effort into understanding children, their temperaments, the reasons for their behavior, their need for acceptance and compassion, their desire to get it right and their frustrations when they can't.

Let's not medicate those frustrations before thorough evaluations can be conducted by several professionals looking at the behavior from different perspectives.

And please let's take some responsibility for what we, their parents and teachers, are presenting to our children that become triggers for disruptive behavior.

---

Bonnie Harris, M.S.Ed,. is the director of Connective Parenting. Past columns can be found on her Web site, http://www.connectiveparenting.com. E-mail questions or topic requests to bh@bonnieharris.com.

Solid evidence that artificial food additives can cause ADHD-like symptoms

As reported in the medical journal the Lancet; here's the abstract:

Food additives and hyperactive behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Donna McCann PhD a, Angelina Barrett BSc a, Alison Cooper MSc a, Debbie Crumpler BSc a, Lindy Dalen PhD a, Kate Grimshaw MSc b, Elizabeth Kitchin BSc a, Kris Lok MSc a, Lucy Porteous BSc a, Emily Prince MSc a, Prof Edmund Sonuga-Barke PhD a, Prof John O Warner MD c and Prof Jim Stevenson PhD email address a Corresponding Author Information
Summary
Background

We undertook a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial to test whether intake of artificial food colour and additives (AFCA) affected childhood behaviour.

Methods

153 3-year-old and 144 8/9-year-old children were included in the study. The challenge drink contained sodium benzoate and one of two AFCA mixes (A or B) or a placebo mix. The main outcome measure was a global hyperactivity aggregate (GHA), based on aggregated z-scores of observed behaviours and ratings by teachers and parents, plus, for 8/9-year-old children, a computerised test of attention. This clinical trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials (registration number ISRCTN74481308). Analysis was per protocol.

Findings

16 3-year-old children and 14 8/9-year-old children did not complete the study, for reasons unrelated to childhood behaviour. Mix A had a significantly adverse effect compared with placebo in GHA for all 3-year-old children (effect size 0·20 [95% CI 0·01–0·39], p=0·044) but not mix B versus placebo. This result persisted when analysis was restricted to 3-year-old children who consumed more than 85% of juice and had no missing data (0·32 [0·05–0·60], p=0·02). 8/9-year-old children showed a significantly adverse effect when given mix A (0·12 [0·02–0·23], p=0·023) or mix B (0·17 [0·07–0·28], p=0·001) when analysis was restricted to those children consuming at least 85% of drinks with no missing data.

Interpretation

Artificial colours or a sodium benzoate preservative (or both) in the diet result in increased hyperactivity in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old children in the general population.

Affiliations

a. School of Psychology, Department of Child Health, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
b. School of Medicine, Department of Child Health, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
c. Department of Paediatrics, Imperial College, London, UK

Are Food Dyes Fueling Kids' Hyperactivity?

ABC News has a report this evening on a request to ban 8 different food colorings from foods sold in the USA. Naturally, the food companies are not pleased. You can see the original press release here:

CSPI Urges FDA to Ban Artificial Food Dyes Linked to Behavior Problems

From the ABC News Report:

The Center for Science in the Public Interest today called on the Food and Drug Administration to ban artificial coloring in all U.S. foods based on a controversial claim that artificial coloring is behind the rise in kids' behavioral problems, like Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

"I think it's crystal clear the dyes affect kids' behavior," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. "The tougher questions are how many kids, and to what extent is their behavior affected? But time is long overdue to get rid of these dyes from the food supply. Let scientists study them in a laboratory."

[...]

Judy Mann of Silver Spring, Md., whose 10-year-old son Jake Kushner suffers from ADHD, said she had tried everything to confront her son's disorder, such as eliminating gluten, eating organic and visiting a psychiatrist and a psychologist.

After looking at the ingredients in buttered movie theater popcorn following one of Jake's outbursts, she became convinced that food dyes played a part in his explosive behavior.

"We started not eating popcorn at the movie theater and he stopped having problems after the movies," Mann said.

"And then a few weeks after, he had five Skittles … and he hit the roof," she added. "And that's when we were sure it was the dyes and not the sugar. And since we've cut them out, it's been an amazing difference."

Since two-year-old children are naturally calm and attentive, the playful and unruly ones are starting to receive ADHD drugs

We have this report from Australia

Toddlers as young as two are being diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed drugs including Ritalin.

Figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph reveal 311 children in NSW aged five and under depend on controversial medication, including 58 four-year-olds and 13 three-year-olds.

Health Department figures show that, nationally, doctors have prescribed ADHD drugs to five toddlers aged only two, despite possible side effects.

The mother of one four-year-old who has been on Ritalin since the age of three said she knew there could be long-term effects but the change in her son's behaviour was worth the risk.

"At first I was hoping he didn't have ADHD and I didn't want to put him on medication but I thought I should give it a go and there has been a big improvement," the single mother of two told The Daily Telegraph.

But the disturbing figures tell only part of the story.

They cover scripts subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - only a proportion of the young children on ADHD drugs.

With Australia's ADHD rates among the highest in the world, the federal Department of Health said prescriptions paid for without PBS subsidies "are a significant portion of the total scripts".

It has no corresponding data for them.

The most widely prescribed drugs for the youngest children, according to the figures to March this year, continue to be Ritalin and the longer-lasting associated drug, Concerta, which was added to the PBS last year.

Dexamphetamine is the next most popular while Strattera, a longer-lasting non-stimulant, is less popular and prescribed mainly for children aged six and older.

As well as the three and four-year-olds, there are 240 five-year-olds on subsidised ADHD drugs in NSW. There are 6692 6- to 10-year-olds, 9006 11- to 15-year-old and 2584 16- to 18-year-olds.

The figures follow the State Government's ADHD review which found there was no overprescribing of drugs.

But child psychiatrist Jon Jureidini said he was disappointed at the number of preschoolers on the list.

"I would be confident that they (the drugs) are being inappropriately used in most cases of preschool children," Dr Jureidini said.

"ADHD is not a good explanation for putting these children on drugs.

"I have seen children of that age displaying very disturbed behaviour but it is usually a medical problem or significant family circumstances that are undermining their well-being."

However paediatrician Dr Michael Kohn, the treating doctor for the four-year-old, said he was not surprised at the number of children on ADHD medication.

Dr Kohn, a senior staff specialist in paediatrics at The Children's Hospital at Westmead, said the prescribing of ADHD drugs to children aged four and less was strictly controlled in NSW.

Specialists needed the permission of the state's Stimulant's Committee with the committee having to meet on each individual case.

Brits To Ban Food Colors Linked To ADHD In Kids

Report from the Independent, tip of the hat to Furious Seasons

Food regulators moved to ban artificial additives from hundreds of products yesterday, three decades after parents began complaining that their children suffered mood swings after consuming brightly coloured sweets, cakes and drinks.

The Food Standards Agency recommended ministers call for manufacturers to remove six artificial colours by the end of 2009 and lobby for a European Union-wide ban. The FSA's advice to parents will be strengthened to warn them about the dangers of the E-numbers tartrazine (E102), quinoline yellow (E104), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), ponceau 4R (E124) and allura red (E129).

These colours and the preservative sodium benzoate (E211) were linked to hyperactivity in a £750,000 study by Southampton University, which found they made primary school children become distracted and fail a computer attention test.

The researchers estimated that 30 per cent of cases of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) would be prevented if companies removed the colours used in the £13bn-a-year global additives industry.

The decision means the country's biggest confectioners and supermarkets, such as Cadbury and Haribo, will have to reformulate hundreds of products including ice cream, sweets, milkshakes and fizzy drinks.

Some products for which replacements have not yet been found – mushy peas, Turkish delight, and battenberg and angel cakes – may be taken off the shelves temporarily or permanently. The Southampton researchers had warned the seven additives were as harmful as lead in petrol, which was banned after it proved to lower children's IQ by five points. Their research, in The Lancet in September, was the evidence that artificial additives worsened the behaviour of normal children as well as those diagnosed with ADHD.

The European Food Standards Agency dismissed calls for action on the additives last month but at a meeting in London yesterday, the FSA's board decided to back the most stringent of five options recommended by officials.

Dame Deirdre Hutton, who chairs the Food Standards Agency, said: "It is the agency's duty to put consumers first. These additives give colour to foods but nothing else. It would therefore be sensible, in the light of the... study, to remove them."

The board decided to take no action on sodium benzoate because it was "a preservative" rather than a colour. E211, which is linked with other potential health problems, is found in many soft drinks including Diet Coke, Irn-Bru, Lucozade and Fanta, and its removal would pose a significant technological and financial challenge to drinks companies.

The FSA stressed that its decision "does not mean there is an immediate ban".

Campaigners welcomed the first decisive move in the UK against additives, whose effect on hyperactive children were first identified in 1975. Richard Watts, of the Children's Food Campaign, said: "This decision is good news for children and parents, who have known for many years that these additives affect children's behaviour." Anna Glayzer, an Action on Additives campaigner, said the FSA had put the consumer first. "We will be keeping a close eye on the industry to see what effect the voluntary ban has."

The Food and Drink Federation said the recommendation was "bizarre", as manufacturers were already removing the additives. "[Most] products don't contain these colours," a statement said.

The six colourings facing a ban

Tartrazine (E102)

Description: Synthetic yellow dye found in sweets, biscuits, mushy peas

Products: Disney Winnie the Pooh Cake Kit, Lidl orange jelly, Bacardi Breezer tropical lime, Asda mushy peas

Health effects: causes hyperactivity, linked to allergic reactions and migraine.

Quinoline Yellow (E104)

Description: Synthetic dye in sweets, pickles, smoked fish

Products: Aero orange, Galaxy Minstrels, M&Ms, Bassett's Sherbet Lemons

Health effects: Causes hyperactivity and is linked to rashes. Banned in US.

Sunset Yellow (E110)

Description: synthetic yellowdye found in sweets, ice cream, fizzy drinks

Products: Cadbury Creme Egg, Haribo Jelly Beans, Irn-Bru

Health effects: causes hyperactivity and linked to stomach upsets and swelling of skin.

Carmoisine (E122)

Description: Synthetic red dye found in ready meals, sweets

Products: Love Hearts, Galaxy Minstrels, Cadbury Mini Eggs, various lollipops

Health effects: causes hyperactivity and is alleged to cause water retention in those allergic to aspirin. Banned in US.

Ponceau 4R (E124)

Description: synthetic red dye found in sweets, biscuits, drinks

Products: Bassett's Pear Drops, Halls Blackcurrant Soothers, Supercook Alphabet Icing

Health effects: causes hyperactivity and is believed to cause problems for asthmatics. Banned in US.

Allura red (E129)

Description: synthetic red dye found in sweets, soft drinks, Turkish delight

Products: Fry's Turkish Delight, Cadbury Mini Eggs, Maynards Wine Gums

Health effects: causes hyperactivity and may bring on allergic reactions.

My Kid Doesn't Have ADD, Etc. But I Had Him "Labeled" Anyway

A sad commentary seen in the rant section of the Burbia Blog

When I meet a mother these days who does not have a child in occupational or physical therapy, I have the urge to shake her violently, maybe slap her, and say, "Are you mad, woman? Don't you know that something is wrong with your child?! Don't you care about Seamus/Suri/Maeve/Shiloh (take your pick)?"

OK, that was a joke, but it goes to the dilemma I've faced over the past 6 months. I had to decide whether to "label" my child, something that caused a bit of family strife and internal conflict. I came to the conclusion that, like it or not, the new normal of childhood is abnormal. And I found my near 40-year-old self caving to peer pressure, like an insecure teenager at a beer pong party.

My toddler has always been tightly wound and when he began preschool the director made it clear within two days she thought something was wrong with him. (Back story: at 3 years old, he had never been in any childcare, and because we are sadly lacking in grandparents or family close by, my son had never been in the care of anyone other than his parents. And I mean no one, not once, ever.) When pressed, the director used the phrase “Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified,” and then tried to console me about this by saying "all of us could be diagnosed with something!"

At home minutes later, furious googling ensued, showing PDD to be on the autism spectrum. Since you can see that I am splaying out this sorry saga for perfect strangers to read, you might suspect that I am not one to suffer through problems silently. After I got this news from the preschool director, I proceeded to tell everyone I knew about it, and even people I didn't know, like my unsuspecting seat mates at Starbucks.

The first thing I noticed was the stark generational difference.

Anyone over the age of 50 (including a close relative) believed strenuously that we had medicalized every normal trait of childhood, that "rambunctious" had become ADD, that "sassing back" had become Oppositional Defiant Disorder, that "shy" and "nervous" had become mild autism, "sensitive" had become Sensory Integration Disorder, "awkward" had become Asperger's, "klutzy" had become a gross motor deficit. And they believed that medicalizing the natural diversity of child behavior was one step away from medicating the child, which they viewed as an unmitigated travesty (their view, not mine).

The second thing I realized was that among the parents I knew, well over 50 percent had their child in some form of therapy (I counted), hence my assertion that the new normal was in fact abnormal, a claim that would certainly make a statistician's head spin.

So it was with these competing impressions that I entered the evaluation process with our public school district. Frank was not found to have PDD, but rather a fine motor deficit and also a lack of "body awareness" (known to the pros as proprioception), which, in the evaluators' eyes, explained an array of seemingly disparate behaviors.

Did I believe any of it? Without question, I knew my son was well behind on fine motor skills. As for proprioception, well, I'm not sure I buy it. I'm not saying there aren't behavioral challenges for my son (which, by the way, have greatly improved after six months of school), but I'm not positive that lacking body awareness is at the root of them all. I should also say that my natural contrarian inclination would lead me to side with the older generation, who think we run the risk of turning borderline quirks into maladies.

But here's the ruthlessly honest truth of how I decided what to do. I did something because everyone else was doing it; I was undeniably a lemming. I chose to accept therapy and the attendant label because, frankly, more than half of my friends or acquaintances had done the same (even the ones like me who view the labels for marginal problems as faintly absurd).

I felt as if my son would be at a disadvantage if he did not get the therapy offered by the school district. I wish I could say my decision-making had more integrity. Maybe I can blame my lack of spine on my (diagnosed) pre-menopausal anxiety disorder. I just hope my son doesn't one day read this. I can hear myself saying to my rebellious teenager, "well, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?" And his answer, rightly, would be "well YOU did, Mom!"

Linda Keenan is a contributing writer at Burbia. Linda worked 7 years as a head writer/senior producer for various programs on CNN. Before that she worked as a writer/producer for Bloomberg TV. She now writes satire, primarily about parenting culture, at Thoroughly Modern Mommy

Schoolboy found hanged in his bedroom after Ritalin prescription was increased

A report from the Daily Mail.

A schoolboy who was taking Ritalin has been found hanged in his bedroom.

Anthony Cole, 15, had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and recently had his prescription for the drug increased.

Recent research claims that Ritalin, also used to combat hyperactivity in children, has led to many developing "manic and psychotic" symptoms.

The drug has previously faced criticism for side effects that include mood swings and sleeping difficulties.

Anthony's father said he had noticed the schoolboy becoming snappy and acting as if in a trance shortly before he died.

Days earlier, he had asked his mother how to write a will and enquired about life insurance.

On Saturday, an hour after cuddling her and telling his family he loved them, Anthony was found dead by his father.

Colin, 51, of Conniburrow, Milton Keynes, said yesterday: "He was just so cheerful and always smiling, but I think he bottled a lot of his feelings up.

"He had said he was worried about his GCSEs and that bigger boys at school had been picking on him.

"He had his problems but on school holidays he seemed so much calmer and happier.

"But when he went back to school after the recent half-term break he became really snappy and tense. Sometimes he acted like he was in a trance."

"He was a very inquisitive boy, he was interested in electronics and mechanics. On Saturday he was watching me fix a plug and asking lots of questions.

"He disappeared to his bedroom and about an hour later we called him down for lunch. But when he didn't reply I went upstairs and found him hanging there."

Anthony's mother Tina, 45, added: "I was peeling potatoes with him when he asked me about making a will.

"I was really shocked but I thought it was just his inquisitive nature. We have a lot of unanswered questions.

"Sadly Anthony has taken many of the answers with him."

Anthony, who leaves his twin brother and sister, ten, and sister, 13, was prescribed Ritalin six years ago when he was diagnosed with ADHD. An inquest into his death will take place in June.

Two years ago, an investigation by the U.S. authorities said the drug should carry a warning that those taking it could suffer from mania and aggression.

The drug and related brands have been blamed for 11 children's deaths in the UK.

Psychiatrist ordered to Mental Hospital after blaming Ritalin for School Violence in Court Cases.

Not sure where to go on this one. Sounds like she is getting into trouble for upsetting the status quo. From the Sydney Morning Herald

A psychiatrist known as a "hired gun" in court cases has been ordered into treatment by medical authorities after being accused of a dubious diagnosis.

Yolande Lucire has been reprimanded by the NSW Medical Board after its professional standards committee disagreed with a diagnosis she made in a medico-legal case and questioned her professionalism.

The eastern suburbs forensic psychiatrist is well-known in legal circles and her testimony in a criminal trial last year sparked a NSW judge to slam doctors for creating a generation of "Ritalin kids", who were now committing violent crimes.

Dr Lucire said she could not defend herself because of a non-disclosure order, but said the matter "did not relate to patient care". She can continue to practise.

Dr Lucire suggested her controversial stance on the links between the antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicide meant some in the psychiatric fraternity questioned her ability.

Dr Lucire, who is the partner of former federal Labor senator and former president of the Evatt Foundation Bruce Childs, charges upwards of $500 to be an expert witness in criminal and civil cases.

The medical board took issue with her diagnosis of residual organic hallucinosis in a patient and she was ordered to see a board-approved senior psychiatrist "for the purpose of seeking and taking advice with a view to improving some aspects of her practice of medicine".

She said she would comply. Dr Lucire has more than 30 years' experience in psychiatry, including lecturing in universities and 12 years as a forensic consultant at Long Bay prison hospital.

In the trial of a 20-year-old man on assault and indecency charges last April, Judge Paul Conlon relied on Dr Lucire's testimony that the accused showed characteristics of borderline personality disorder when he was taken off an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug at 16 after a decade on it.

His judgement, which made the links between the drugs and violent young offenders, caused controversy.

Child psychiatry and its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry: theoretical and practical issues

An interesting abstract to an editorial newly published in the journal Advances in Psychiatric Treatment:

The pharmaceutical industry is primarily responsible to its shareholders and so making profit is its primary motivation. The industry’s marketing techniques affect not only prescribing habits of doctors but also concepts of mental health. This editorial examines the impact this has had on both theory and practice in child and adolescent psychiatry. Undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry contributes to a skewing of the literature towards biological disease models of childhood mental health in order to support the use of the pharmaceutical companies’ products. Using fluoxetine and stimulants as two case examples, the article illustrates how pharmaceutical companies have contributed to widespread acceptance of erroneous beliefs about the safety and efficacy of using psychotropic drugs in children and adolescents. Suggestions are made on how child psychiatrists, both individually and collectively, can incorporate this knowledge into their professional development and practice.

Typical of such journals, you have to be a paying subscriber to read the editorial

Harvard Psychiatrists Target 4-year old Children (New Video)

I recently came across this post, complete with YouTube Video as evidence. Originally I found it on an automated website, generated with stolen pages for content. I tracked it back to the original post, and found it was from the fine folks at the Alliance For Human Research Protection.

Four-year old Rebecca Riley' was a casualty of psychiatric "treatment. Her death from a combination of prescribed of toxic psychotropic drugs is a demonstration of medicine derailed from its legitimate therapeutic mission. The public was shocked that when still a toddler--aged 28 months--Rebecca was "diagnosed" with both bipolar disorder and ADHD by a board certified psychiatrist.

But a cadre of child psychiatrists at the nation's most prestigious medical centers, have made their career by working hand in glove with drug manufacturers on whose behalf they test the most toxic drugs in young children and lend their reputations to promote the use of these drugs--and drug combinations for young children--seemingly without regard for children's safety or welfare.

An example of crass commercialism can be seen in a MGH advertisement (2001) posted on YouTube that sought to recruit children as young as 4 to serve as human guinea pigs in one of its numerous lucrative psychotropic drug trials.

The ad is an example of disease mongering and pathologizing childhood behavior. MGH department of psychiatry instills fear in parents by insinuating that their child's behavior problems are biological:

"Your child may be facing a chemical problem that you can't manage without help." "We're Mass General, and we can help." The number given to call is 617-724-4MGH.

A report in the Boston Globe (2005) revealed that "After decades of offering continuing medical education classes in Boston, Harvard Medical School teaching hospital--Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)--last year raised $6.5 million from Cephalon Inc., Janssen Medical Affairs, GlaxoSmithKline, and Wyeth for its 2005 program. The pool of money will allow the psychiatry department to dramatically expand its continuing medical education program with live lectures in 24 cities, teleconferences, and around-the-clock webcasts."

Dr. Robert Birnbaum, medical director of the Division of Postgraduate Education for the psychiatry department insults our intelligence when he claims : "The companies don't have any input into the curriculum, and there is no ongoing dialogue throughout the year."

As Dr. Arnold Relman, a Harvard Medical School professor, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, observed: "I am skeptical that a company would give a lot of money just to be able to say 'We were nice to the Mass. General Hospital."

The post also extensively quotes from the Boston Globe article

And now from our sponsors: Diseases for Sale

We found a post that probably needs to be quoted in full:

If you're a physician, you know Medscape. A division of that internet health care behemoth, WebMD, Medscape pounds our inboxes daily with offers of free CME. Much of the CME is industry-sponsored, which is not exactly a news item for most of us. But what you may not be aware of is that Medscape sells its disease-specific "resource centers" to the highest bidder. For example, the ADHD Resource Center is purchased by Shire, the Bipolar Disorder Resource Center is owned by GlaxoSmithKline, and the Pharmacological Management of Pain Resource Center is now the property of Cephalon.

How much do companies pay in order to take control of what doctors learn? Good luck extracting this information from Medscape, but rumor has it that about $500,000 gets you a sort of "base package" which includes four articles. The sponsoring company gets to specify the topics and the authors, of course. There is a menu of extras, so if you really want to saturate the medical mind with your marketing message, you can presumably part with well over a million. And this doesn't include income from the advertising banners that appear to populate each and every web page on the site.

Yes, doctors know Medscape. And Medscape knows money.

Psychiatric drugs in the life of the Nebraska mall sniper Robert Hawkins

From an interview on ABC News Good Morning Program:

Rodriguez said her son's life had been a challenge from the start. She divorced Hawkins' father when the boy was 3-years-old, she said, and by 5 he was taking prescription Ritalin and Zoloft. She said she watched, feeling helpless the way a parent can, as raw anger took root inside her son.

First there were fights at school, she said. Then he was caught smoking cigarettes. Then marijuana.

He became a ward of the state in 2002 after apparently threatening his stepmother. He was moved through facilities and foster homes for several years, until he was released in 2005. Two weeks before the shooting rampage, Hawkins parted ways with his girlfriend.

Rodriguez said she sympathizes deeply with the families of her son's victims.

There is no reason to suppose that these deadly drugs did not continue while Hawkins was in state custody. Or that the known side effects of these drugs did not have a deadly impact.

More foster kids getting drugged.

From a much longer article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. There are also a number of heart wrenching letters in the comments section following the original story, indicating the horrific need for political reform in the foster care system.

When Laticia Anderson's son entered foster care in 2005, a social worker described the 4-year-old as "an extremely smart little boy who loves school."

But over the next six months, as he was shuttled from an emergency foster-care placement to two foster homes, his personality changed.

The boy would explode in tantrums, gouge his own flesh, even consider killing himself. Social workers and pediatricians could not quell his outbursts.

Frustrated, they resorted to Depakote, an anti-seizure medication intended for adults but occasionally given to children to alter their moods.

And then her son's personality really changed, Anderson said. The boy she knew as playful and exuberant was, when she visited him, distant and withdrawn - "almost like a zombie."

Like Anderson's child, hundreds of foster children in Monroe County each year are placed on psychotropic, or mood-altering, drugs. Though questioned in some medical and psychiatric quarters because of long-term health risks, the use of the psychotropic medications on foster care children in Monroe County is on the rise, a Democrat and Chronicle investigation shows.

The investigation included analyzing data from county, state and federal agencies; interviewing experts locally and nationwide; interviewing families of some local foster children on medications; and reviewing public records of Monroe County Family Court cases in which the prescription of the drugs has been an issue.

The investigation reveals that:

• In 2002, about a third of the county's foster care population, 327 children, were prescribed one or more common psychotropic drugs. By the end of 2006, the number had increased about 40 percent to 457 foster children, or almost half of the county foster care population.
• In the five years from 2002 through 2006, according to state data, Medicaid expenditures for common psychotropic medications for Monroe County foster children nearly doubled - an increase almost four times the statewide rate.
• Psychotropic medications are also more commonly used at residential foster care treatment centers than in the past, according to medical and psychiatric staff. At the nonprofit Hillside Children's Center, for instance, 55 percent of the foster children are prescribed one or more psychotropic drugs.
• 2006 records show that more than one of every eight foster children in Monroe County is on some kind of drug to combat psychosis, a severe form of mental illness characterized by lost contact with reality.
• Very young children are also prescribed the psychotropic medications, according to county data.

Last year, a 1-year-old foster child was prescribed the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, and two 4-year-old foster children were prescribed Depakote. Pediatricians say Risperdal and Depakote, if properly monitored, can be safely prescribed for young children, but some medical experts worry about possible health effects. Risperdal has been associated with heart disease in older adults; Depakote has been linked to liver failure in children younger than 2.

Drugs a straitjacket?

Foster care advocates say children are a particularly vulnerable population, often invisible to the public and beset with higher rates of mental and emotional illness in large part because of the disruptive - and sometimes abusive - lives they've led.

This leads to a conundrum: Are foster children legitimately prescribed psychotropic drugs more commonly because they have so many needs? Or are the drugs used more as a convenient way to straitjacket troublesome behavior?

The use of such drugs "definitely has gone up, and I say that with much reluctance because I don't think these medications are necessarily safe medications," said Dr. Mohsen Emami, a staff psychiatrist at St. Joseph's Villa in Greece, a nonprofit residential facility for troubled youths.

Across the country, while the use of psychotropic medications for all children has increased, the rate of use for those in foster care has grown even faster. By some estimates, foster children receive psychotropic drugs at a rate two to three times that of other children.

"I have no doubt that many, many kids are overmedicated," said Dr. Martin Irwin, a Syracuse-area psychiatrist who has been contracted by counties and treatment centers around the state to help decrease the use of psychotropic drugs for foster children.

"It's out of control in general, but the worst problems are in foster care because there's basically nobody advocating for the kid."

There is also much more in this follow up article

A Democrat and Chronicle investigation shows an escalating use of psychotropic medications for foster children in Monroe County — reflecting a national trend. Some experts say that's because foster children have far greater rates of mental illness and emotional disturbance than other kids.

Yet physicians and lawmakers nationwide now fear that the increasing prescription of the drugs, without ironclad assurance of their safety, could be sentencing foster children to physical or mental ailments later in life. Two trends are especially worrisome:

• Many psychotropic drugs prescribed to children and teens have not been tested for effectiveness or safety in youths.
• The prescription of multiple psychotropic medications for individual children, such as Jessie Sayyeau, has become more common.

[...]

Eight years ago, between 75 percent and 80 percent of the drugs prescribed for children had not been studied for pediatric use, said FDA's Murphy. In 2002, Congress passed laws providing financial incentives to companies that conducted pediatric testing on medications. Under the law, the companies were granted exclusivity, meaning the time was extended before competing generic brands could be approved and reach the market.

Murphy said regulators are seeing results, but many drugs already commonly prescribed off-label probably won't be tested for pediatric use. A March study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that about two-thirds of drugs prescribed for children are used off-label, which, the report said, "places children at risk of being exposed to ineffective treatment or incorrect dosing."

Many critics say that, despite the congressional action, far more needs to be done.

"If the United States does not build a more adequate system for studying and monitoring drug safety, then it's reasonable to think, down the road, we're going to see (side effects) in children that are going to surprise us," Zito said.

Lilly Makes Billions Off Zyprexa While Approved for Schizophrenia Only

Another fine article by Evelyn Pringle, as seen here (others featured on our site here)

Lilly Makes Billions Off Zyprexa While Approved for Schizophrenia Only

For the first four years that Zyprexa was sold in the US, the promotion of the drug for any use other than adult schizophrenia was illegal. When the FDA approves a drug for a specific use, it can only be marketed for that use. Eli Lilly gained approval for schizophrenia in 1996 and the drug was not approved to treat bipolar disorder until 2000.

Zyprexa belongs to a class of drugs known as "atypical" antipsychotics, which arrived on the market in the US beginning in 1993. Other drugs in this class include Seroquel, sold by AstraZeneca, Risperdal marketed by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen, Geodon, sold by Pfizer, Abilify, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Clozaril manufactured by Novartis.

Schizophrenia is considered the most severe of all mental illnesses and is said to occur in only about 1% of the population. The definition of the disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, IV, reads as follows:

Schizophrenia is a disorder that lasts for at least 6 months and includes at least 1 month of active-phase symptoms (i.e. two [or more] of the following: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior, negative symptoms.)

Experts say it would be highly unlikely that a competent psychiatrist could misdiagnosis this condition because the symptoms are so extreme and distinct.

Once a drug is approved to treat one condition, it is legal for doctors to prescribe the drug for other uses. These unapproved uses are referred to as "off-label," and can mean prescribing a drug for a longer duration than specified, at a different dose, in combination with other drugs, or with a different patient population than listed on the label.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits companies from promoting a drug for uses other than those approved and the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits companies from providing remuneration to induce or reward doctors for prescribing products for beneficiaries of Federally funded health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Accordingly, during the first four years that Zyprexa was sold in the US, Lilly sales representatives were not allowed to discuss any use other than adult schizophrenia and discussions of other uses were not allowed in any company funded event. Lilly itself noted at a July 20, 1995 presentation that the market for Zyprexa was limited the year before it was approved, estimating the total schizophrenia market to be only about $1 billion.

However, the drug was Lilly's best selling product by 2000, with worldwide sales of $2.35 billion, according to Lilly's 2001 Annual Report filed on January 28, 2002.

Zyprexa was approved for adults with bipolar disorder in 2000 and US sales rose 23% over 1999, to $1.69 billion in 2000. The next year, it became Lilly's first product to have sales in excess of $3 billion worldwide, and US sales rose 29% to $2.18 billion, according to the Report.

Experts say there is no way that Zyprexa could have become Lilly's most widely prescribed drug in the US without influencing doctors to prescribe the drug off-label. For instance, even though Zyprexa was approved to treat the manic phase of bipolar disorder only, which is typically brief, patients were kept on the drug for years.

According to Ellen Liversidge, her son was prescribed Zypexa for bipolar disorder and he remained on the drug for two years, during which time he gained about 100 pounds, until he went into a coma and died of profound hyperglycemia on October 5, 2002.

Ms Liversidge says she later learned that other countries had required Lilly to add warnings about the risk of drastic weight gain, hyperglycemia, and diabetes to the label of Zyprexa in the spring of 2002, months before her son died.

On February 12, 2006, due to increased antipsychotic use, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration announced a plan to study their use by children in the Florida Medicaid program. The agency stated in a press release that close to 18,000 children took antipsychotics in 2005 and more than 475,000 prescriptions were written in the past 5 years.

On October 7, 2007 the AHCA released a report entitled, "The Use of Antipsychotic Medications with Children," that said pediatric use of antipsychotics increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s after a decline in the 1980s and stable use in the early 1990s. The increases were largely attributed to the arrival of the atypicals, starting in 1993.

The report noted that both commercial and Medicaid populations experienced increased use and that one study documented a 75% increase in the commercially insured population of 0-17 years from 1997 to 2001, and another study of use in the commercial managed care population from 1996 to 2001 found a 127% increase among children aged 0 to18.

The study found that antipsychotic use in the Medicaid populations in the late 1990s was already 3-4 times higher than commercial populations but also grew in the early 2000s. In Texas, prescription rates for kids rose 141% between 1996 and 2001 and in another program in the Midwest, usage grew 304% over the same time period, the report stated.

The authors said the analyses reveals that the drugs are used to treat a broad spectrum of disorders, and some of these disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and major depression, "clearly do not call for antipsychotic treatment."

The study found that in the 0 to 5 age group, 53.8% of the antipsychotics were prescribed for ADHD and in the age group 6 to 12, 48% were prescribed for ADHD.

The report noted that the use of antipsychotics with children under 6 is generally not recommended and "should be considered only in very rare circumstances."

The authors pointed out that the risk associated with the increased use would be significant even if the medications were prescribed for indications approved for adults since most would agree that in this context children can not be considered "little adults."

But the medications are now being used to treat a broad spectrum of disorders never anticipated or approved for adult use and we "therefore lack even the adult analogy in trying to estimate safety, tolerability and effectiveness of antipsychotic agents in the pediatric population," the authors wrote.

A September 2007 study in the Archives of General Psychiatry, reported that the number of children in the US diagnosed with bipolar disorder had increased from about 20,000 in 1994 to roughly 800,000 in 2003.

One of the world's leading experts on psychopharmacology, UK psychiatrist and professor, Dr David Healy, author of, "The Latest Mania: Selling Bipolar Disorder," says bipolar disorder in children is all but unrecognized outside the US and it is unlikely that a significant proportion of these children would actually meet the DSM criteria for the disorder.

A group of researchers that Dr Healy credits with turning American children into profit centers via the pediatric diagnosis of bipolar disorder is led by psychiatrist, Dr Joseph Biederman, at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

According to Dr Healy, Massachusetts General conducted clinical trials with Zyprexa and Risperdal in children as young as four, and recruited participants by running TV ads featuring clinicians and parents informing other parents that difficult and aggressive behavior in children aged four and up might be caused by bipolar disorder.

"This does more than recruit patients with a clear disorder," Dr Healy notes, "it suggests that everyday behavioral difficulties may be better seen in terms of a disorder."

He explains that it would be all but impossible in a short-term trial of sedative drugs in pediatric states characterized by overactivity to not show some behavioral changes that could be regarded as beneficial, so the outcomes of the trials would naturally appear to validate the bipolar diagnosis and increase the prescribing of drugs.

As for the recent claims that child suicide rates have significantly increased since the FDA added warnings about an increased risk of suicide to the labels of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants (SSRIs), Dr Healy says if suicide rates have increased at all, it is most likely due to doctors switching children from SSRIs to antipsychotics.

In the last two or three years, he explains, drug companies have marketed bipolar disorder by claiming that the problems from SSRIs were the result of patients being misdiagnosed as depressed when they should have been diagnosed as bipolar and given antipsychotics.

However, Dr Healy says, "the antipsychotics have just as great an increase in suicide risk as SSRIs, if not greater."

Many experts are now blaming the Biederman gang for the death of 4-year-old Rebecca Riley, who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and ADHD at the age of 2-and-a half. Her doctor, Dr Kayoko Kifuji, a psychiatrist at Tufts New England Medical Center in Boston, kept her on a 3-drug cocktail that included an atypical, an anti-seizure medication and a drug approved to treat adults with high blood pressure, until her death in December 2006.

In a June 19, 2007, editorial in the Boston Globe, pediatrician Dr Lawrence Diller wrote, "Biederman and his colleagues at Harvard are the professionals most responsible for developing and promoting those standards of care -- which include diagnosing preschool children as young as 2 with bipolar disorder and treating them with multiple medications."

At the October 13, 2007 conference of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, Dr Fred Baughman, author of, "The ADHD Fraud," and a well-recognized expert on psychiatric drugs, discussed the death of the 4-year-old in a presentation titled, "Who killed Rebecca Riley?"

The answer, according to Dr Baughman and many other experts in the field of psychiatry and child development at the conference, is the Biederman gang, due to its promotion of a diagnosis for attention deficit and bipolar disorder in children as young as infants.

Dr Baughman says the aim of the "psycho-pharmaceutical cartel" in the 1990s was not to increase the market for psychiatric drugs, "it was to invent a market out of thin air."

About a month before Rebecca's death, on November 23, 2006, Dr Biederman defended the prescribing of multiple drugs to children in the New York Times by comparing it to doctors prescribing multiple drugs to treat heart disease, diabetes, cancer and aids.
“Child psychiatry is not any different,” he said. “These drugs have revolutionized how we treat severe psychopathology in children.”

A report in the June 17, 2007 Boston Globe by Scott Allen, revealed that Dr Biederman has received research grants from 15 drug makers and serves as a paid speaker or adviser to seven, including Lilly and Risperdal maker Janssen.

Dr Kifuji is apparently a fan of the Biederman gang, judging by Mr Allen's report, in which her attorney, J W Carney Jr, states, "They are by far the leading lights in terms of providing leadership in the treatment of children who have disorders such as bipolar."

The legal filings in Rebecca's case show that Dr Kifuji also diagnosed the other two Riley children, ages 6 and 11, with ADHD and bipolar disorder and placed them on the same drug cocktail, with the cost of all mental health services and drugs covered by Medicaid.

Former Federal fraud investigator, Allan Jones, says the atypical makers were able to turn the schizophrenia drugs into cash cows by influencing the doctors and state officials involved in the approval of formularies that specify the drugs that can be used by persons covered by public health care programs.

Each state has an approved formulary and "before a drug can be prescribed for a patient on Medicaid it has to be on the list," he explains.

Evidence to support this claim came on August 21, 2007, when the Associated Press reported that drug companies had spent a lot of money on two members of the Minnesota panels who helped select the drugs covered by Medicaid. Dr John Simon earned $354,700 from drug makers between 2004 to 2006, and Robert Straka, a University of Minnesota pharmacy professor, was paid $78,000 while he served on the panel, the AP said.

And on August 27, 2007 the Pioneer Press reported that Dr Simon earned the most money from Lilly, “whose antipsychotic drug Zyprexa is the most costly each year for Minnesota's fee-for-service health program for the poor and disabled."

Lilly's financial disclosure records show payments to Dr Simon of $91,854.95 in 2004 alone. On October 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that he had quite the panel.

The corruption of advisory committees has led to criminal charges against a state official who was fired in Pennsylvania. On November 21, 2006, Steven Fiorello, the Director of the Pharmacy Services, and chairman of the formulary committee, was charged with one count of conflict of interest for accepting money from drug companies and one count of failing to disclose income on Statements of Financial Interests.

"Fiorello served on a committee that decided which drugs would be used for mental health treatment in all state hospitals - decisions which guided more than $9 million in annual drug purchases," the state's Attorney General said in a press release.

While he was helping to guide the purchases, the press release stated, "he was also paid more than $12,000 by drug companies for appearances, speeches and presentations, as well as service on a drug company advisory board."

In October 2006, a state official in Texas, Dr Steven Shon, was fired after the state's attorney general found that Janssen had improperly influenced him to place Risperdal on the state formulary, while he was receiving money from Janssen.

According to Lilly's August 6, 2007 second quarter SEC filing, the California Attorney General's Office has subpoenaed documents related to Lilly's "efforts to obtain and maintain Zyprexa's status on the formulary, the marketing and promotion of Zyprexa, and the remuneration of health care providers."

Lilly's off-label marketing of Zyprexa has come under scrutiny in the past several years, in large part, because lawmakers and law enforcement agencies became suspicious about the skyrocketing costs of a drug approved to treat such limited conditions being prescribed to so many patients in public health care programs.

According to Lilly's SEC report, Medicaid fraud lawsuits filed against Lilly thus far include the states of Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. Arkansas is the latest state to file a lawsuit.

The Medicaid fraud allegations include that Lilly illegally marketed Zyprexa for off-label uses while concealing the serious health risks associated with the drug, and most specifically high blood sugar levels, extreme weight gain and diabetes.

The lawsuits seek to recover not only the money paid to purchase Zyprexa for patients on Medicaid but also for the medical care of persons injured by the drug. Mississippi alleges that about 10% of the Medicaid patients who took Zyprexa in that state have developed diabetes which will require life-long care.

Montana's lawsuit alleges that Lilly gave kickbacks to doctors, promoted Zyprexa as a sedative in nursing homes, and created a 280-person sales force to promote the drug exclusively for off-label uses, specifically in long-term care facilities.

The West Virginia complaint alleges that Lilly promoted Zyprexa for off-label conditions including anxiety, sleep disruption, mood swings, attention deficit and dementia and "benefited from its misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct by gaining sales of Zyprexa at the expense of other, safe, effective drugs."

In private litigation, since June 2005 Lilly has entered into settlements with approximately 30,200 claimants in the US for about $1.2 billion and there were still about 350 lawsuits covering about 540 claims pending in the US at the time of the August 2007 filing.

However, off-label prescribing has obviously not ceased because in 2006, Zyprexa sales were $4.3 billion and for the second quarter and first half of 2007, US sales of Zyprexa increased 4% and 5%, respectively, and international sales increased 14% during both periods, according to Lilly's SEC filing.

Additional lawsuits are now being filed on behalf of suicide attempt survivors and the family members of suicide victims who died while taking Zyprexa. They allege that Lilly knew about the increased risk of suicide associated with the drug but failed to warn the public while it widely promoted the Zyprexa for off-label uses.

An August 2002 analysis of clinical trial data on drugs approved by the FDA between 1985 and 2000, by Dr Arif Khan of the Northwest Clinical Research Center in Bellevue Washington, found the rate of completed suicides in the antipsychotic trials to be 752 per 100,000, an astronomical number considering that the suicide rate is only 11 per 100,000 for persons in the general population.

Families seeking legal advice regarding Zyprexa related suicide can contact the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman Law Firm at: (800) 827-0087; http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/

Evelyn Pringle
evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net

(Written as part of the Pharmaceutical Industry Litigation Monthly Round-Up, Sponsored by Baum Hedlund's Pharmaceutical Antidepressant Litigation Department)

(Evelyn Pringle is a regular columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)

Mild Lead Poisoning Misdiagnosed as ADHD

As seen in this report, low levels of lead in the blood have been linked to ADHD. What this means is that what is actually mild lead poisoning is misdiagnosed as ADHD, although reports continue to not use that specific language. This adds to a picture where many ailments are misdiagnosed as ADHD. What are these doctors doing?

Even minute levels of lead in the blood – lower than levels previously believed to cause no harm – have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

The research, by Michigan State University, involved only a small sample of children, 150. All children had levels of lead in their blood, but all at levels below the 10 micrograms per deciliter level that is currently considered safe by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, those with ADHD had higher levels of lead in their blood. The findings will be published Feb. 15 in Biological Psychiatry.

Joel Nigg, the psychologist who directed the study, said the neurotoxic effects of lead in the blood can interfere with stages of brain growth, such as synapse formation – a critical element in the development of appropriate self-regulatory control. Children age 2 and younger are particularly vulnerable, he said.

The findings are concerning, particularly in light of the rash of toys and other children's products that have been recalled this year due to the presence of lead paint. Other effects of lead, including lowered IQ and other permanent brain damage, at higher levels of exposure, have been well documented.

Lead paint in old homes is still believed to be the greatest source of lead exposure for children, and no studies have looked yet at how or whether toys have been a significant source of exposure. Two more children's products were recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and their manufacturers last night: a potty training seat and holiday figurines.

“No one can completely eliminate all dust and lead from those houses,” Nigg said. “If you’re a parent of an infant or toddler in an older home who is worried about this, your best advice is to become scrupulous about sweeping up dust and dirt, filter tap water, remove chipped paint and monitor what your children put in their mouths.”

Nigg is continuing his research in the Lansing, Michigan area, and he is seeking the parents of children age 8-16, whether or not they have an ADHD diagnosis. To volunteer, call 517-432-4894.

More at the link

More Fallout From ADHD Study - British Peer calls for ADHD care review

From the BBC - While this is a positive step, the Baroness might be shocked if she were to ever learn the actual truth. When disease is profitable, you get more disease.

A peer and neuroscientist will call on ministers to examine how attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is diagnosed and treated in the UK.

Independent peer Baroness Susan Greenfield will raise the issue in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

Her intervention follows a BBC Panorama programme which highlighted US research suggesting drugs are no better than therapy for ADHD in the long-term.

There was also evidence that their use may stunt child growth.

The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD by the University of Buffalo has been monitoring the treatment of 600 children across the US since the 1990s.

Most of the estimated 500,000 children in Britain with ADHD receive no treatment at all.

But of those that do, most - about 55,000 last year - are prescribed stimulants like Ritalin and Concerta.

Baroness Greenfield will call for a wide-ranging inquiry into the huge increase in ADHD diagnoses.

She said: "As well as assessing ADHD drugs themselves, we also need to find out urgently why there has been such a remarkable increase in the numbers of children being diagnosed with ADHD in the last 20 years or so.

"Could the changes to our ways of living be contributing to this increase?

"The time is ripe for an inquiry exploring the actual causes of ADHD that goes beyond merely evaluating the pros and cons of Ritalin.

"Such an inquiry could consider diverse factors ranging from diet through to screen-based activity and how they may be changing the way both children and adults interact socially.

"Children live a fast-paced, highly interactive, response mode type of existence, and maybe as a result when they go to school they find it harder to sit still."

A Department of Health spokesperson said the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) had advised that drugs should only be used to treat ADHD as part of a comprehensive treatment programme, including behavioural therapy.

"Careful, informed clinical decision-making, involving the parents and child should involve discussion of the benefits versus the risks of all interventions.

"We have also asked NICE to develop a clinical guideline on both the pharmacological and psychological interventions to treat ADHD."