Study shows 80% of suicides in Sweden are by people on anti-depressants.

As reported on Natural News

A Swedish writer has accused the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) of covering up evidence suggesting a connection between psychiatric drugs and suicide. Under a recent law, Swedish health-care providers must fill out reports on all suicides committed by patients under their care or within four weeks of a health care visit. The reports are then sent to the NBHW, which compiles and analyzes them.

Recently, the NBHW released the first report analyzing the 367 suicides recorded in 2006. "Not a single word is written about the most compelling fact: Well over 80 percent of persons killing themselves were treated with psychiatric drugs," Janne Larson writes.

According to data received via a Freedom of Information Act request, more than 80 percent of the 367 suicides had been receiving psychiatric medications. More than half of these were receiving antidepressants, while more than 60 percent were receiving either antidepressants or antipsychotics. There is no mention of this either in the NBHW paper or in major Swedish media reports about the health care suicides.

Why the truth won't be reported in the mainstream media

"It was contrary to the best interests of Big Pharma and biological psychiatrists" to expose the information, Larson writes. "It blew the myths of antidepressants and neuroleptics [antipsychotics] as suicide protecting drugs to pieces. It would also have hurt the career of many medical journalists to take up this subject; journalists who for years have made their living by writing marketing articles about new antidepressant drugs."

These statements are quite true. The conspiracy of silence between Big Pharma and the mainstream media is now so strong that accurate news about the dangers of psychiatric drugs is rarely reported. As we recently saw in the death of Heath Ledger, the mainstream media is quick to blame the victim, but slow to realize that the real cause of these behavioral problems rests with the chemicals that alter brain function (and therefore alter behavior).

Evidence has emerged that a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) actually increases the risk of suicide in those who take them. While such claims have been hotly disputed by the pharmaceutical industry and many psychiatrists, experimental, epidemiological and case study evidence continues to emerge that reinforces such a link. The evidence suggests that those taking SSRIs are approximately twice as likely to commit suicide as those not taking such medications. This risk increase appears to be independent of the specific diagnosis or other underlying health factors.

Even worse, recent research published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine reveals that antidepressant drugs don't work any better than placebo at reducing depression. This study looked at all the clinical trials conducted on SSRIs, not just the ones selected by drug companies for publication. It reveals that SSRI drug manufacturers committed scientific fraud in censoring studies that did not show positive results. Now, the whole world knows that the disease mongering and hype behind antidepressant drugs was based on pure scientific fraud.

Links between SSRIs and suicide

The link between SSRI use and suicide in youths has been firmly established enough that the United States and United Kingdom have licensed only one such drug (fluoxetine, marketed under the brand name Prozac) for use by those under the age of 18. In the United Kingdom, off-label use by children is blatantly illegal. In the United States, the FDA requires a "black box" warning that SSRIs may increase the risk of suicide in those under the age of 18, but that warning is routinely ignored, and hundreds of millions of doses of Prozac have been taken by children and teens.

A "black box" warning is the most severe warning the FDA can issue without withdrawing a product from the market. In December 2006, an FDA advisory panel recommended increasing the age on the SSRI black box warning to 25 years of age. In reality, the black box warning is a way for the FDA to allow dangerous drugs to remain on the market: It gives them an excuse to say, "We warned you!"

The dangers of Prozac

Prozac has been found to increase the risk of aggressive and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. When the drug was first submitted to the FDA for approval in 1985, the agency's then-chief safety investigator, Richard Kapit, suggested that the drug bear a "labeling warning [for] the physician that such signs and symptoms of depression may be exacerbated by this drug." In 2004, the FDA finally added the labeling requirement.

Antipsychotics may also increase suicide risk by inducing a condition known as akathisia — a subjective, often-misdiagnosed feeling of inner restlessness that can range from mild anxiety to a feeling of overwhelming doom. Akathisia can also be induced by certain SSRIs, including Prozac and Paxil. A 2006 study published in PLoS Medicine concluded that akathisia induced by antipsychotic use is significantly correlated with suicide, and that the condition appeared to be overwhelmingly more likely in patients taking SSRIs than in those taking a placebo, with 10 times as many patients on SSRIs exhibiting symptoms severe enough that investigators were forced to pull them from the study.

Yet Larson alleges that the Swedish government has failed to investigate any potential link between SSRIs or antipsychotics and suicide. The investigation form that the government sends to local healthcare providers to fill out after a suicide does not contain any questions about drug treatment.

According to Larson, a truly objective investigation would have to look at whether the patients exhibited symptoms that could be attributed to akathisia (which is nearly always a drug side effect) and whether suicide was preceded by an increase or abrupt drop in drug dosage.

"[NBHW] claimed: 'Every investigated suicide where one can see flaws that can be taken care of, can contribute to the prevention of further suicides,'" Larson writes. "Yet no investigation at all was done in the suicide-inducing effect of antidepressants and neuroleptics."

Suicides and violent behavior

It is important to note that nearly every school shooting that has happened in the United States over the last decade has been conducted by young males who were taking antidepressant drugs. The drugs not only cause suicidal behavior, they also seem to promote extreme violence towards other individuals. In most school shooting cases, the young men committing the violence also committed suicide after killing classmates and teachers. These are classic signs of antidepressant use.

Dr. Fred Baughman (www.ADHDfraud.org) has spoken extensively about the link between antidepressants and violent behavior, and has accused the drug companies of lying to the public about depression in order to sell more antidepressant drugs. His most recent article is published at OpEdNews

The 'Gilbert Affair' - notes on the decline and fall of Swedish Psychiatry

The following discusses some medical research by Christopher Gillberg, and what has come to be known as the “Gillberg affair”. As seen here, which also has references to many original sources. The whole matter gets worse the more one looks into it, and supports many speculations as to the probability of fraudulent research (especially ADHD) and fictional diseases.

This follows a number of scandals diminishing the reputation of Swedish psychiatry, which now seems to be in tatters and ruins.

The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman published its English Summary for the fiscal year ending June 2006. The Summary is 26 pages long; 18 pages are about the Gillberg case. [Available here in PDF Form] It is very critical of both Gillberg and Gothenburg University.

Christopher Gillberg is a professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Gothenburg University, in Sweden. He is internationally known for his research, and he has been a professor or visiting professor at the universities of Bergen, London, New York, Odense, San Fransisco, and Strathclyde. He is also author or editor of several scientific books, and he has authored or co-authored more than 300 research articles.

A significant portion of Gillberg's research has been about a psychiatric concept known as “DAMP” (Deficits in Attention, Motor control, and Perception). DAMP is related to Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The concept of DAMP was conceived by Gillberg, but DAMP has been ignored or strongly criticized by other researchers.

Much of Gillberg's research on DAMP has involved children in the city of Gothenburg, Sweden. Gillberg undertook a study of children in Gothenburg who had been born in 1971. The study began when the children were 6–7 years old (in 1978), and lasted until the children were adults. Some of the children were diagnosed as having DAMP; others were not.

By following the children through to adulthood, the study was able to draw conclusions about how having DAMP affects peoples lives. For example, the study concluded that children with DAMP had more problems with the law, drugs, interpersonal relations, etc. when they reached adulthood than people who did not have DAMP.

Gillberg's study is one of very few studies to follow a group of people from childhood to adulthood (such a study is known as “longitudinal”). The study is thus important evidence for the hypothesis that having DAMP (or ADHD) as a child adversely affects the person's life in adulthood.

In the study, Gillberg asserted that one out of ten Swedish children have either DAMP or a similar neuropsychiatric problem. (A neuropsychiatric problem is a mental illness which is almost always inherited or otherwise congenital.) The optimal treatment for such problems generally involves the use of psychiatric drugs, e.g. Ritalin. Such drugs are typically prescribed for many years.

Eva Kärfve, a professor of sociology at Lund University, in Sweden, and Leif Elinder, a Swedish pediatrician, were highly skeptical of Gillberg's conclusion that about 10% of Swedish children had a congenital mental illness. They were also concerned because the safety of the psychiatric drugs on the developing brains of children is questionable, and because good-quality evidence for the drugs' long-term effectiveness is lacking.

Allegations of misconduct

In 2000, Gillberg and his colleague Peder Rasmussen published a major article describing an investigation of the Gothenburg study participants. (Most of the data for the investigation was actually gathered in 1993, when the participants were 22 years old.)

Kärfve and Elinder claimed to find serious discrepancies in the article. In 2002, Elinder petitioned Gothenburg University to investigate Gillberg's research for fraud. His petition was handled by the Ethics Committee, which dismissed it, after receiving a response from Gillberg. Kärfve then petitioned the university for an investigation. Her petition was considered more carefully. Ultimately, the Ethics Committee voted on whether or not to refer the matter to the Swedish Research Council for investigation. The vote was 3–1 against.

The main issues in the allegations made by Kärfve and Elinder seem clear. For example, Gillberg would not supply the names of the various specialists who examined the study subjects (for psychiatric disorders, etc.); even more, Gillberg repeatedly claimed that he had supplied the names—but he would not say what the names were.

Acts such as this obviously support suspicion of misconduct. Moreover—and importantly—they do not require specialist training in neuropsychiatry to understand. The decision of the Ethics Committee seems to have been based at least partially on the belief that a researcher with a reputation as great as Gillberg's could not have committed fraud.

Data requested

Kärfve and Elinder also requested access to the data used in the Gothenburg study, so as to investigate for themselves. They were denied this, on the grounds that the study participants had been promised confidentiality. They asked for the data to be anonymized (i.e. obfuscated so that individuals cannot be identified: this is a standard practice). They were told, however, that this could not be done.

Kärfve and Elinder took the matter to court, under the Swedish law of the Principle of Public Access. The court decided that they would be allowed access to some of the data. Gillberg refused to respect the court's decision. Instead, Gillberg asked to have the research material scrutinized by outside experts. A panel of appropriate experts was promptly constituted by the Swedish Research Council.

Before the panel could begin work, however, the Gillberg group asked Ove Lundgren, who was the Chairman of the Ethics Committee (and a Professor Emeritus of Physiology at the university) to examine the data. Lundgren was asked to do this as a private person, i.e. not representing the Committee. There was 22 meters of material, including about 100,000 pages. Lundgren was given four hours to scrutinize all this. He found nothing that seemed seriously wrong.

Gillberg then told the rector of the university that the Chairman of the Ethics Committee had done an investigation and that as a result “the accusations about scientific fraud … definitely could be dismissed”. (The head of the faculty of health sciences—the Sahlgrenska Academy—at the university supported Gillberg in this.) Gillberg then withdrew his prior agreement to have the research material scrutinized by outside experts. His justification was that such scrutiny was no longer needed, because Lundgren had now acquitted him of fraud.

The members of the Ethics Committee later responded to all this by publishing a letter stating that the Committee “never acquitted Gillberg of the allegations” and that “the question about scientific fraud never has been investigated”. Lundgren said on Swedish TV that he thought he had been used/exploited by Gillberg.

Gillberg gave an additional reason for refusing to make the data available: he said that the study participants had been asked what they thought of this, and all but one was strongly opposed. That is true, but the Swedish journalist MarieLouise Samuelsson discovered that there is more to the story. Her report is referenced below; briefly, the story is as follows.

Among the study participants, there was a widespread belief that an investigation (by Kärfve and Elinder) would mean that virtually everyone would be allowed to see the research data. For example, a man who was a participant made a comment on Swedish television where he warned that “your worst enemy would get access to this sensitive information”. Gillberg also analogized an investigation thusly: “What would you say if you had AIDS and your doctor threw your medical records out on the street?”.

In reality, only Kärfve and Elinder would have been able to see the data, and they had to sign statements agreeing to maintain confidentiality. (Moreover, they had asked for the data to be anonymized: even if Gillberg's claim that anonymization could not be done completely was valid, this could have been done at least partially.)

As well, the study participants were not simply asked if they were for or against making the data available. Rather, each participant was telephoned by someone representing the Gillberg group, and afterwards received a strongly-worded letter of protest against making the data available.

It is clear from all of this that the study participants were pressured and misled into opposing an investigation. It is worth considering what motives Gillberg could have had for doing that.

Gillberg, with assistance from the university, asked the court to reconsider its prior decision to require that the data be made available. The court dismissed this. The rector of the university, Gunnar Svedberg, then wrote a letter to Elinder and Kärfve, saying that although the university was required to comply with the judgement of the Swedish court, it would not be doing so in this instance. The reason he gave was that doing so would cause mental stress to Gillberg and colleagues.

Data destroyed

The question about access to the research material went to court several times, each time with the court ruling that some access should be allowed. On 4 May 2004, the Swedish court ruled for the fifth and final time that the research material had to be made available to Elinder and Kärfve.

The following weekend, three of Gillberg's coworkers, one of whom was his wife, deliberately destroyed almost all of the material. They argued that to obey the court order to make the material available would violate the promises of confidentiality that had been made to the study's participants. Gillberg claimed in an interview with the British Medical Journal that he was “completely unaware” of the destruction until after it was over.

Afterwards

In June 2005, Gillberg and the rector of Gothenburg University, Svedberg, were convicted (by a criminal court) for not making the data available to Kärfve and Elinder. Gillberg received a suspended sentence and a fine; Svedberg received a fine. Gillberg appealed his conviction up to the Supreme Court, and had his last appeal rejected in April 2006. Separately, the three coworkers were convicted for destroying the data. Each of the three received a suspended sentence and a fine.

The rector resigned his position at the university. Gillberg and his colleagues, though, continue with their work. In November 2006, Gillberg was awarded a substantial research grant by the Swedish Research Council. Gillberg also continues his research and his clinical practice in Britain (at the University of Strathclyde and the National Centre for Young People with Epilepsy).

The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman published its English Summary for the fiscal year ending June 2006. The Summary is 26 pages long; 18 pages are about the Gillberg case. It is very critical of both Gillberg and Gothenburg University.

The Swedish government decreed a new regulation for the handling of research misconduct allegations. The decree states, “A university that, by a petition from someone or in any other way, receives information about possible scientific misconduct in research, artistic reseach, or any other research at the university, will investigate the allegations”.

The whole affair has been the topic of much discussion in the media in Sweden, where it is known as the “Gillberg affair”. To date, there has been little media coverage outside Sweden, with the exception of Norway.

In Norway, the newspaper Dagsavisen ran a series of stories about the Gillberg affair. This led to a loss of confidence in Gillberg, who was head advisor of the Children in Bergen project (a project involving close to 10,000 children). Consequently, in February 2006, Gillberg resigned his position there.

Other criticisms

In 2005, Per-Anders Rydelius, Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Karolinska Institute, and Rolf Zetterström, past chief editor of Acta Paediatrica, published a report on the Gothenburg study. The report pointed out that the Gillberg group, in order to prove their hypothesis, repeatedly changed diagnoses and information in their material: “Accessible articles [from the Gillberg group] reveal that those studied have been managed in an unscientific way, a conclusion that does not need strengthening by what could have been found in the destroyed research material”. (Another problem is the boy:girl ratios in the study; the ratio in the control group is 1:1, whereas the ratio in the index groups is 4:1.)

Supplements

Petitions to the Ethics Committee

Timeline for the Gillberg affair

External discussions

Scientific Misconduct blog on the Gillberg affair

The endocrine effects of the psychiatric drug Zyprexa are extremely dangerous, says Swedish Professor in Psychiatry

As reported here with a tip of the hat to Furious Seasons

Speaking out about the harmful effects of the psychiatric drug Zyprexa, the Swedish Professor in Psychiatry, Rolf Adolfsson, said: “There is nothing worse than seeing a young person 17-18 years with a weight gain of 40-50 kg, and no one does anything! What is Swedish psychiatry doing?”

The psychiatrist spoke out in Swedish national television, in a program covering the illegal marketing of Zyprexa and the harmful effects of the new so called atypical neuroleptics. Zyprexa is the 6th most sold drug in Sweden, all categories.

Despite the fact that nine States in the US are suing the manufacturer of Zyprexa, Eli Lilly, and despite the fact that almost 30.000 persons have been awarded 1.2 billion dollars due to the injuries caused by Zyprexa, there has been a complete silence about this affair in Sweden.

Until now.

The Professor, who according to the program has been investigating harmful effects of drugs for the last 7 years, further said:

“I’ve seen so many complications, and I have met so many patients – that I completely choke. Are we so damned gullible, and it must be – there is only one thing – marketing.”

When the reporter takes up the endocrine effects of the new neuroleptics, Professor Adolfsson says that they are extremely dangerous. He says:

“You die prematurely, 10-15 years.”

” And upon the surprised follow-up question from the reporter if he means that the pharmaceutical industry, with these new drugs, drives persons with schizophrenia to an early death, Dr. Adolfsson simply responds:

“Absolutely!” He says: “Everybody knows that weight gain is completely catastrophic for all forms of illness ahead, even cancer.”

And:

“It is the central thing for the development of two things: One is vascular diseases and the other is diabetes.

It is further revealed that the Professor has had a long relationship with Eli Lilly (10-15 years). He says:

“And I have discussed very much with them that you have to be trustworthy – this I maybe said 5-6 years ago – they must come out and say: This is a very dangerous thing with our drug, because people are gaining weight. And you must do these and these tests, and if we have this increase in weight so quickly, then you must switch to another drug.”

But obviously Eli Lilly and Swedish psychiatry did not listen. At that time the Swedish Medical Journal was filled with ads for Zyprexa, with pictures of calm persons, and the key words for Zyprexa were: Strenghth, Carefulness, Simplicity.

And still, in 2007, the marketing material for Zyprexa in Sweden contains these same words.

In addition to that the patient leaflet, in its English version, contains false statements that the condition of the patient is comparable to diabetes and the usual suggestion, that Zyprexa gives a chemical balance in the brain. The known, serious harmful effects are still made to nothing, with the following wording: “People usually experience few or no side effects. Drowsiness or dizziness may occasionally occur, and some people may experience increased appetite, which can lead to weight increase.”

In the program Dr. Adolfsson raises the question: “Why doesn’t Swedish psychiatry react?”