The Bitter Pill

2008-05-25T14:03:00.000-07:00

Virginia Tech

2008-03-20T00:37:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVga826IQHA

Senate Bill Proposes to Screen and Medicate Mothers

2008-03-20T00:32:00.001-07:00

Senate Bill Proposes to Screen and Medicate MothersBy Ann Shibler Published: 2008-03-13 18:24 Email this page printer friendly version

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:Called the MOTHERS Act, S. 1375 seeks to encourage and implement education, screening, health services, and anti-depressant medications for mothers-to-be or new mothers for post-partum depression, all according to the dictates of the federal government.

Follow this link to the original source: "MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Anti-depressants to “Treat” Postpartum Depression"

COMMENTARY:Here’s another fabulously clever way for the government to have more people drawn into its clutches through a nationwide screening program, this time focusing on post-partum depression. And it is brought to you by the very busy and liberal Senator Robert Menendez, (NJ), and co-sponsored by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Introduced in May 2007, and presently lodged in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, S. 1375 would provide the impetus and funds necessary to institute a program that would promote referral of mothers-to-be and new moms by nurses, doctors and mid-wives to "mental health care specialists" if they exhibit any signs of "mood disorders," even if it’s during the pregnancy.

The bill is a bitter pill, but its language is unsurprisingly sugar coated:A bill to ensure that new mothers and their families are educated about postpartum depression, screened for symptoms, and provided with essential services, and to increase research at the National Institutes of Health on postpartum depression.

The use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a class of antidepressants — i.e., psychotropic drugs — would be recommended and administered as part of the "essential services" program. The effectiveness of SSRIs that include Prozac, Zoloft, Lexapro, etc., have been questioned. There have also been concerns about side effects from the drugs leading to violent behavior.

Most SSRIs carry black box warnings for "suicide" as a side effect, or even "homicidal ideation." Obviously real physical and mental damage could occur in unborn developing babies if their mothers are coerced into taking these dangerous, addictive, and unpredictable drugs, not to mention to the mothers themselves. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that "post-partum mood disorders" are a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance, so the answer must be drugs. But many women report getting through their real post-partum depression with the love, help, and support of family and friends, and alternative methods. Some have discovered alternatives (scroll down toward the end) to treating post-partum depression that can be as simple as diet changes, supplements, or exercise.

The relative effectiveness of drug treatments for post-partum depression or for any other medical condition is not really the point, however. The real issue is federal involvement. A course of treatment should be an individualized arrangement formed through doctor-patient consultation. The federal government should not be involved, given the potential that Big Pharma lobbyists might well desire a program, such as the one proposed, because it would lead to lucrative sales. Not content with "mental health" screenings for school children and military veterans that have real and permanent consequences, now big government plans to intrude into the womb as well.Ann ShiblerAnn is the Editorial Assistant for the John Birch Society.

read more digg story

No recourse, of course

2008-02-20T22:30:00.001-08:00

For decades, we've been kept in the dark about the risks of drugs because of FDA bias. Now that we finally know more about a few drugs, the government is pushing us to ignore the risks, take the drugs, and not complain when more people die.

The Supreme Court says we can't sue medical device makers if a wrongful death occurs, and apparently the Bush administration made it legal for states to prohibit lawsuits against drug companies for FDA-approved drugs. We already have the pandemic vaccine immunity law. What next?

I have this friend, we'll call her Kate. Kate has been taking antidepressants for years. When she heard about a petition to ban the deadly drugs, she got her panties in a wad. You see, Kate thinks her quality of life depends on the drugs, and she doesn't think we should take them away from her. It's more important that she feels like she will earn an A in her psychiatry 101 class in grad school than it is that my neighbor's daughter is not stillborn. Yep. I see the logic there. Kate says that if she stops taking her drugs, she can't function - at all! So I ask, if you need the drugs then why do you try to stop taking them... no reply.

I have this other story for you... it's about the petition against the MOTHERS Act. (See: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-dangerous-and-invasive-mothers-act) Unfortunately, the hero to so many people - presidential candidate Barack Obama, is a cosponsor of this bill. You see, Barack got all his advice from NAMI. That's pretty much all you have to hear to want to take a pit stop at the airsickness bag aisle of your brain's mental grocery store.
Listening to anything that the wonderful people over at NAMI have said is like agreeing with George Bush if he tells you to waste gas when it costs $3 per gallon, or buying a shirt with giant holes in the breast area. It's a bit counterproductive and stupid. And bad for everyone (ok except the breasty shirt holes idea, that might come in handy for nursing or something!).

When the NIU shooting story first came on the air, I was in the middle of dinner at our local pizzeria with my family. It was Valentine's day. I have to say I really wasn't shocked. I was sad, and just waiting for the news of which drugs the shooter had taken. It turns out, he stopped Prozac 3 weeks before killing all those people. Yet, he was still taking 2 other psych drugs!

People say, stay on your meds - but that's exactly what leads to deaths like Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole Smith, etc. And Britney's manager is crushing drugs and putting them in her food to keep her quiet.

The "big-brother is quite alright", majorly stupid mentality of this country has got to stop.

Looking for any evidence of Barak's potential innocent ignorance on the MOTHERS Act, I decided to stop off at his website. It says on there that he supports mental health parity as one of his MAIN goals for the country. His estimated impact on the US economy for untreated mental illness is like $100 billion or something like that...

But he doesn't mention the cost of actual treatment of mental illnesses, which I think is a number like $2 trillion per year (is that worldwide or in the US? Not sure, but I think it's just us...). And more important is the cost in lives.

When you add it all up, everyone loses. Drugs that kill. Doctors that force. And treatments that harm and are incredibly expensive. Where does all this money go? Into further efforts to oppress us, take away our rights even more, and kill more people.

The impact in terms of lives is a cost that we can't begin to measure.

How much is my life, or my son's life, or my second baby's life worth to you, or to Barack Obama? I am guessing he would much rather trade my life any day just so he could be president.

Until Barack Obama is enlightened, I can't support his campaign. If you look into other candidates, you might find a few who are actually in favor of securing your rights, not just talking pretty to the masses, and with the corporate stamp of approval.

"Recovering without medication thread removed for moderator review"

2008-01-15T08:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=828645

Fortunately I archived everything I had at:
http://babywhys.org/mdc.htm

How long until the next one gets deleted

See the suicidal on antidepressants thread (if drugs work so well at preventing suicide please explain this!!!!)
http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?p=10288110&posted=1#post10288110

archived at:
http://babywhys.org/MDCsuicidalantidepressantusers.htm

Here we go again

2008-01-14T13:52:00.001-08:00

Let's see how long it takes for this one to go south. http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?p=10281450&posted=1#post10281450

I wonder how many of these people are drug reps lurking to pounce on anti-drug messages.

Leading Families to the Slaughter: An Open Letter to all so-called Breastfeeding "Advocates"

2008-01-14T10:06:00.000-08:00

The hypocrisy of conclusions in "But is it safe for my baby" and "Overcoming Postpartum Psychosis" featured in Mothering Magazine, and other actions of breastfeeding advocates is quite disturbing.

I feel that it is relevant to include some background about the way that families have been led astray, particularly by institutions and people who claim to be promoting natural health.

First, here is some background on how I became aware of the issues that tie breastfeeding and psychiatric drugs.

In 2004, my 3-day-old son suffered a life-threatening choking incident (from formula he could not digest) only a few minutes after we arrived at Children's Hospital, having brought him in on the recommendation of paramedics due to the fact that he was overly lethargic and looked like he was blue around his mouth, on his hands, and on his feet. The staff at Children's hospital saved his life and admitted him for observation overnight, but I was so upset about having witnessed him choking nearly to death that I became extremely anxious about his safety. To make a long story short, I was given Zoloft samples by my OBGYN at 6 days postpartum, for anxiety, and as a "preventive" treatment to ward of the possibility of severe PPD. By postpartum day 9 (day 3 on Zoloft), I was suicidal and homicidal. I checked into an ER and they forcibly held me in a psych unit for 2 days. They tried to give me several new drugs in addition to Zoloft and told me that I had to keep taking Zoloft. If I had not been breastfeeding my son, I may have agreed to take them, but all of the new drugs they tried to give me (one of which was Zyprexa) were listed as being clearly contraindicated for nursing mothers. I declined the new drugs.

I observed other patients in the hospital who were sleeping nonstop for the first couple of days they were there, and one man who was so disabled by his medications that his speech was slurred, he could barely keep his balance, and he was extremely confused. I also observed a patient locked in a padded room who jumped violently at the window and stared out with wide bloodshot eyes- he reminded me of an angered caged animal. I was thankful that I had not become as disabled as they were and it was obvious to me that the drugs I was taking were not quite as physically toxic as the ones they wanted me to add.

I returned home with strict orders from the psychiatrist to stay on Zoloft and see a psychiatrist, a therapist and take parenting classes. Over the next few months I experienced a dose-dependent worsening of homicidal thoughts from increases in Zoloft dosage. Finally I got off the drugs and went back to being a normal person not obsessed with homicide or suicide. Since then I have been following the actions of the FDA, drug companies, and breastfeeding advocates closely.

Thanks to the FDA black box warnings I am confident that my life, my son's life, and many others that I have come in contact with have been spared. This is not good news for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, or any other multi-billion dollar drug company.

Prior to my decision to discontinue Zoloft, the homicidal urges were so bad that my psychiatrist recommended that I wean my son and go on Zyprexa. She clearly stated I would not be allowed to breastfeed if I took it, and this was one factor in my decision not to try Zyprexa. The continuation of Zoloft also eventually led to my realization that Zoloft was not working for me no matter how many months' time I let it "start to work."

I eventually wrote a letter to a breastfeeding advocate and psychologist named Kathleen Kendall-Tackett expressing my concern that new mothers were being encouraged to breastfeed while taking SSRIs because this could lead to psychosis and the perceived need to wean to take drugs like Zyprexa. see: http://chaada.org/smf/index.php?topic=189.0 http://chaada.org/smf/index.php?topic=236.0 and
http://uniteforlife.org/breastfeeding.html

I also wrote to Peggy O'Mara at Mothering Magazine to ask her to do an article about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs like SSRIs for new moms.

To my surprise, this past spring Mothering Magazine ("Natural Family Living" is its subtitle) published an article titled "Overcoming Postpartum Psychosis" in which they cited Kathleen Kendall-Tackett's opinions and Thomas Hale's research (he is the author of Medications in Mother's Milk) as justification to condone breastfeeding continuing, despite the use of drugs like Zyprexa.

This article was the story of one mother who went psychotic, and was hospitalized. In the hospital she recommended that her psychiatrist check out Hale's book, and the psychiatrist actually allowed her husband and child to come to the hospital to stay with her 24-7 and cosleep and allow the baby to nurse on demand for the 9 day stay while she was also taking antipsychotic drugs. Breastfeeding was touted as the only connection the mother had left to reality and sanity and the only healing force in her life. (So why take the antipsychotic drugs?)

The author described her first experience in the hospital as one where they injected her with a drug because she was rambling off a paranoid delusional speech about her fears that someone was plotting to murder her grandmother, and after the injection she quickly passed out and slept for the first time in a long time. The article claimed that mothers should be allowed to take antipsychotic drugs while breastfeeding as long as they avoided nursing during peak concentration times.

I was truly shocked at the position of the magazine and the so-called health experts, both because of their failure to address the dangers of drugs, and their endorsement of a practice that puts mothers and babies at serious risk.

To make a very long story much shorter, over the past year I have seen antipsychotic drugs promoted for breastfeeding moms in New Beginnings (LLL magazine), Mothering Magazine, and on the Thomas Hale website. Knowing that Mothering Magazine's online forums have a lot of natural-health minded people, I also attempted several times to post information about the dangers of psychiatric drugs. Almost invariably, my threads were deleted. At two different points I complained but I was told that my posts were deleted due to violation of the User Agreement. This seemed to be untrue because my posts were only deleted after I began posting proof of what I was saying by posting articles and abstracts that demonstrated the dangers clearly.

Prior to my providing additional proof when what I was saying had been "discredited" by drug users on the forum, I had violated the user agreement from the very first post. Yet the threads I was posting in were going on as debates for weeks before the threads eventually were removed altogether. (To read the paradoxical and restrictive user agreement, click here: http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html It prohibits posting links to other forums, even if you wrote the thread, for instance my personal story on the CHAADA message board was not allowed because it disrupted the continuity of their message board by taking you to another, you are not allowed to post any links or text that go to a website that is critical of Mothering Magazine or their discussion boards or website, you are not allowed to debate sensitive topics, you are not allowed to debate with a moderator or raise any public questions about what the moderator has done, and you are not allowed to post text of any copyrighted material that exceeds 100 words despite fair use guidelines which allow this for educational and non-profit distribution).

After my threads were deleted (without warning, so I do not have a copy of the first thread which was removed) I got into a dispute over this issue with the administrators and Peggy O'Mara, and eventually I was quite rudely written off. I stayed away from the boards for a while but then went back to post on different topics and also noticed that some of my threads were removed without explanation or comment.

So if you go to the PPD board or any other board on Mothering.com's discussion board, you can see that the only information that is invariably allowed and not subject to removal is that which promotes a pharmaceutical agenda. Although you may find information about alternatives, if you say anything negative (especially if the information is compelling) about psychiatric drugs, your posts are likely to be removed.

According to a friend I met on the forum who came to my defense, Mothering Magazine has been engaging in discrimination against certain sectors of society (including Scientologists) since the 1980s. This realization was a disappointment considering their appearance as being a magazine about acceptance and tolerance and natural family living. Why would a PPD forum which promotes drugs to new breastfeeding mothers fit in with that mission?

In addition, I was not the only one who was censored. A long-time member of the board who wrote a book on the dangers of vaccines was censored and angered to the point that she left the board altogether and all of her posts from several years were removed by moderators.

My friend's posts have also been subject to censorship and removal and she has received warnings of being banned. The moderators even removed threads she had written about her husband's death while she was newly grieving.

I have noticed other turnarounds in the Mothering magazine opinions, notably on breastfeeding in public. They went from writing about the power of women (they even published a report I wrote claiming our constitutional rights to stand up for each other and defend nursing in public as a human right, to a position which claims that our rights are non-existent due to a lack of enforcement or a lack of adequate state and local laws. See: http://www.babywhys.org/nurse%20in.htm and http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/lactation-law.html
and also http://www.babywhys.org/philosophyoflactivism.htm and http://www.mothering.com/resources/bfpocketguide.pdf and http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/breastfeeding/breastfeeding-law.html )

Although, it seems, based on the dates, that the magazine has just been confused. One year you need to be afraid, the next year breastfeeding is fine, the next year you better bring your lawyer and 2,000 supporters if you want to feed your baby.

Now it seems they have also begun to turn around on the stance against vaccines, publishing an article in the most recent edition by a doctor who is in favor of vaccinating every patient no matter the consequences. Mothering Magazine has long been known as the most radical of anti-vaccine advocates in all of the major parenting publications. They have even come out against HIV and AIDS drugs for women who want to breastfeed, saying that it's perfectly ok to risk giving your baby HIV by breastfeeding, and not to use them to help your own case of HIV or AIDS (because they are contraindicated for nursing). Yet now it seems that to these breastfeeding advocates, an unnecessary and dangerous drug for a nonexistent chemical imbalance is fine to use while nursing an infant, and can rightly be promoted as a good preventive for severe cases of Possible Andrea Yates Copycat Disorder. (PAYCD)

It would not surprise me very much if they soon start to come out against cosleeping or in favor of circumcision or hospital birth with epidurals. Although the root of this recent position on drugs and breastfeeding seems to be the notion that you must breastfeed at all costs. However as I stated in the original UNITE article "Leading Families to the Slaughter" - formula has never put a baby into a coma, as far as I am aware.

Recent studies undertaken on antipsychotic drugs have revealed that patients on placebo actually improved more than those taking atypical antipsychotics, like Zyprexa. Any magazine or advocate who ignores the facts and censors those who try to get the word out about dangers poses a very serious danger to families and society and shows a total disregard for ethics. We have been slowly deluded and our society is being eaten away, our rights are eroded and ignored, and our health and safety threatened.

I have been reluctant to speak out against Mothering, Thomas Hale, Kathleen Kendall Tackett, and New Beginnings because I know people make mistakes. But this type of mistake seems to be more a generally intended goal than an accident.

I examined the research which has been claimed as evidence of safety of both SSRIs and of Zyprexa for nursing moms and what I found was disturbing. A full written analysis is forthcoming - but in short, the studies were done on extremely small samples, side effects were disregarded, and most of the women in the studies were not exclusively breastfeeding. When a significant portion of a baby's diet is formula, it's obvious that any exposure will be reduced.

Given the absolute refusal of the FDA and certain mental health advocates to accept the negative outcomes from our current slew of psychiatric drugs and interventions, it is not too surprising that others such as those in the media or in positions of influence in the natural health community can get away with ignoring the facts.

I guess it all comes back to the original lies of chemical imbalances and the backwards serotonin theory (see http://uniteforlife.org/links.html#books)

For anyone who has not seen it, the DVD Psychiatry: An Industry of Death is extremely informative on the history of psychiatry and psychology. I highly recommend you watch it. You can find it at http://www.cchr.org/index/5285/15242/

Needless to say, my subscription to Mothering Magazine is not being renewed. I encourage others to speak out if they too have been censored or if they disagree with the ideas in the magazine. The readers won't continue buying the magazine if it becomes too full of false and dangerous ideas. In fact one of the only reasons to continue reading would be to monitor the manner in which decline of reason and the rise of dangerous dogma are promoted and innocent young families are unknowingly deluded.

To Mothering Magazine, should you read this blog, I urge you to prove me wrong by changing your ways and apologizing to those who have been censored. I also encourage you to overhaul your user agreement and revamp or remove the PPD and mental health forums so they will not be players in supporting one of the most evil of all enterprises we face in our world.

My Objection to a New 2-Week Injectable Version of Zyprexa (an NDA with the FDA)

2008-01-14T09:43:00.000-08:00

If you see the open letter to Mothering Magazine below, I stated that I did not believe that Thomas Hale would recommend antipsychotic drugs during breastfeeding. I was wrong. Based on a 2003 study of 7 women, 6 of whom were "evaluable," the entire world now is subject to the irresponsible recommendation to use Zyprexa while breastfeeding. Lilly wants more patent protection for Zyprexa so they are proposing a new injectable formulation that is a 2-week long-lasting shot. Please read my letter to the FDA below and send your objection letter to the email address or fax number provided here.

This written testimony is being submitted to the FDA for the Feb. 6 Zyprexa hearing on concerns about increased somnolence with the new formulation.You have until January 18 to submit your written testimony to:
Diem-Kieu H. Ngo, Pharm.D., BCPS LCDR, U.S. Public Health Service Program Management Officer Food and Drug Administration Office of Executive Programs Advisors and Consultants Staff (HFD-21) 5630 Fishers Lane Room 1093, Rockville MD, 20857 Telephone: 301-827-6765 Fax: 301-827-6778 diem.ngo@fda.hhs.gov
======================================================================
I submit this testimony as an extreme objection to possible approval of any NDAs for new formulations of the highly dangerous drug Zyprexa, and particularly to the proposed intramuscular, extended-release, long-acting (2 week) version. A 2-week-long extended-release formulation which could potentially threaten children who are incapable of efficiently metabolizing it (such as breastfeeding infants), and which carries increased somnolence effects compared to older formulations, will inevitably lead to "SIDS" in some infants if the drug is allowed to be given to breastfeeding women. Should this occur, increased cases of depression in mothers who lose their infants because of drugs will increase subsequent profits for Eli Lilly through additional sales and continued drugging of grieving mothers and families.
For the sake of expediency I'll assume you understand that psychosis is commonly caused in postpartum women by administration of SSRIs. (I know that it is, because I survived the dose-dependent worsening of homicidal and suicidal urges and even one hallucination which started after only 3 days on Zoloft. My family and I suffered through for about 5 months - starting with Zoloft samples at 6 days postpartum following the birth and near death of my son in July 2004, and continuing through months of frightening urges, expensive hospital bills and visits to psychiatrists and therapists, my condition worsening to the point of near loss of control over my own thoughts or actions until I discontinued the drug. I also know this from the research that I have read over the past 3 years.) I believe that the push to medicate mothers with antipsychotic drugs serves more than the purpose of attempting to control psychosis, bipolar disorder, or extreme depression (which Zyprexa does not do - recent studies undertaken on "antipsychotic" drugs have revealed that patients on placebo actually improved more than those taking atypical antipsychotics, like Zyprexa).
Even if Zyprexa were discontinued by someone who tried it, in favor of a lesser poison, an SSRI would only lead people back to a place where they feel they cannot function without antipsychotic drugs. And so the cycle of sacrifice on the altar of profit and power will continue... Among the effects produced by Zyprexa (and there are almost 3,000 known side effects), somnolence seems to be the most advantageous to the psychiatric staff who will be dealing with patients. With or without breastfeeding mothers' use, a long-lasting extended-release version which increases somnolence beyond what these major tranquilizers already do will make the task of filling beds and subduing psychiatric patients much easier and more profitable. And it will pose a serious threat to young children whose parents and doctors are quick to medicate them for the "symptoms" which are nothing more than the effects of other toxic drugs and foods - things that your organization should never have allowed to be legally fed to and injected into children.
The current cost of atypical antipsychotics is $300-$600 more per month than older antipsychotic agents and sales are steadily increasing. This is Eli Lilly's best-selling drug, and with all the new users of SSRIs and other psychosis-inducing, FDA-approved drugs, it is likely to remain a profitable drug as long as it enjoys FDA approval, patent protection and inadequate warnings, and even potentially bring in huge sales as a generic drug.Even though Zyprexa has not been studied in under 18s, I can tell you that every day parents feed their children antipsychotic drugs like Zyprexa because of court orders. Why in a country supposedly regulated by your agency is this allowed to happen? This is criminal! If you do approve the new intramuscular version of Zyprexa extended-release I hope you will do the right thing and create requirements for this drug to be severely controlled. It should be illegal for a psychiatrist to force-drug a child with this medication or any medication which causes permanent neurological damage and tics. It should be illegal for a pregnant or breastfeeding mother to take it.
According to the package label for current formulations, intramuscular administration of Zyprexa results in a plasma level 5 times that of oral dosage tablets and reaches that concentration within 15-45 minutes, compared to 6 hours for the oral version. What will be the speed and exposure level of a longer-acting version? In addition, the somnolence effect is more pronounced in current intramuscular versions compared to oral tablets, and it is reported to be worse in the newer version for which Lilly seeks the patent.
And what are intramuscular injections used for? Most commonly they are used in cases of forced treatment for hospitalized patients. Given the fact that almost every patient who enters a psych ward will be given an antipsychotic agent, the potential for worsened adverse events is profound. The situation which we are faced with is one where the order of a doctor - even one who has never met the patient - but is told of her situation over the phone - can legally require a patient to be locked up, deprived of informed consent, and force-drugged with poisons approved by your organization. So I ask, are you the FDA, charged with regulating drugs and foods that the public faithfully trusts are safe or "safe enough," or are you merely a tool drug companies use to persuade the public to trust in their so-called science, proprietary and twisted as it may be?

The label for Zyprexa includes a warning against nursing an infant while taking the medication. However, recently Dr. Thomas Hale and Kathleen Kendall-Tackett (among others) have encouraged breastfeeding mothers who experience psychotic episodes to make their way immediately to a hospital and get treatment with Zyprexa without interrupting breastfeeding. According to Mothering Magazine, psychotic breastfeeding mothers can safely continue nursing while taking Zyprexa if they avoid feeding during peak plasma concentration.
What is the likelihood that a doctor will know when the peak concentration in a nursing mother will be, when only one study has been cited by advocates of this position as an excuse for evidence of safety, and this was conducted on a sample with 7 women? Most breastfeeding studies have samples this small, even for drugs like Zoloft, with samples as small as 4 women, and totaling around 30 women in all. In addition, many studies purporting to study breastfeeding women have actually involved mostly women who were not exclusively breastfeeding, with the infant who was exclusively breastfed being the one who experienced seizures and coma and other serious effects.
Not to mention that psychiatric patients are often given multiple drugs which cause concentrations of Zyprexa to become elevated and increase the somnolence effect. The Zyprexa package label also cites reports of pregnant women using Zyprexa which led to 1 neonatal death, 3 therapeutic abortions, and 1 spontaneous abortion (or miscarriage). Though the package label states that infant exposure through breast milk is as high as 1.8% of the maternal dose, the article cited by Thomas Hale in his recommendations that Olanzapine is an acceptable drug for breastfeeding mothers claims that out of the six "evaluable" samples... the exposure was only 1% of the maternal dose. They only studied 7 people, 6 of whom were "evaluable", yet on this weak basis the drug is recommended to breastfeeding mothers for psychosis, bipolar disorder and extreme depression.
How can we in good conscience expose infants to risks like excessive somnolence, hypotension, seizures, tardive dyskinesia and multiple other effects? This drug has not been studied or approved for children under 18, yet it is now being prescribed to breastfeeding mothers and apparently some pregnant mothers as well.
This is completely irresponsible, and even though the advice of breastfeeding advocates differs from what the package inserts say (as to the the level of exposure to the baby, the claims of no side effects in babies, and in the attitude about the reasoning behind the claims being based on liability versus risk), people are currently going along in droves with the most dangerous advice, rather than heeding the most cautious approach.
How is a mother who is under the influence of a drug which causes extreme somnolence supposed to prevent the baby from nursing at peak concentration times? Anyone who has ever seen a patient under the influence of antipsychotic agents knows that the other profound effects of Zyprexa can incapacitate you to the point that you would not even be able to care for yourself, much less an infant. A drooling, barely able to walk or talk woman, whose bodily functions have been disrupted cannot be expected to do anything to take care of a baby safely, and the expectation that she would is dangerous. If any woman taking the drug actually were able to continue caring for her baby she would at minimum be severely impaired. Perhaps she could lie around nursing her child 24 hours a day and increase the exposure, but it is doubtful she could do much more.
A mother who is told to take Zyprexa while nursing cannot be expected to manage breastfeeding in a way that would minimize exposure at a peak concentration time, particularly if she is also taking another agent like Prozac which enhances plasma levels of olanzapine. If concomitant medications or intramuscular injection are used, the concentration multiplies 5 times or more, and could reach peak concentration in a shorter amount of time (according to the package label, 15-45 minutes from intramuscular injection alone and potentially faster if mixed with other drugs). How is a mother supposed to guess how all the factors play a role? Furthermore, Zyprexa increases prolactin levels and will thus increase milk supply and overall exposure for the baby (especially by increasing the likelihood of engorgement and mastitis, thereby encouraging the mother to nurse more frequently, especially during potentially peak concentration times).
Most women who would be so insistent on nursing as to continue doing so while taking this medication would be those who are also co-sleeping and night nursing. Increased somnolence above and beyond current levels caused by existing formulations, in this type of co-sleeping situation, would be even more dangerous than somnolence in other patients due to the lack of the awareness of the baby's whereabouts and the potential for a mother to fail to notice whether her baby is nursing when a potentially peak concentration time is taking place. Is increased bonding worth the risk that these drugs pose to infants? Somnolence, seizures, coma, inability to regulate temperature, all effects of Zyprexa... these pose so much risk to babies for SIDS that it sounds like population control or eugenics to recommend them. Even if all psychotic mothers and their babies were accidentally killed by drugs we will still have more come along because of SSRIs and other FDA-approved drugs.
Infants cannot metabolize drugs at the same rate as adults - drugs are more readily absorbed, more free-floating drug courses through their veins, their kidneys work at 30-40% the capacity of adults, and brain concentrations are always higher than the dose would suggest (10 to 30 times higher) due to the immature blood-brain barrier. It takes infants much longer to rid themselves of a single dose. How long will it take an infant exposed to Zyprexa to eliminate it - especially if the child is a newborn? If the toxic effects are noted in an infant who is exposed to an even longer-lasting formulation (such as a 2-week formulation), it will already be too late to do anything to save the child. Prozac has caused coma in infants exposed through mother's milk... why would we put them at risk with a drug much more toxic?
Involuntary injection with a formulation of a highly dangerous drug which will not wear off for 2 weeks will pose a particularly serious threat in any case of a breastfeeding mother who comes to the hospital for psychosis. It is not unreasonable to assume that psychiatric staff may at some point inject a woman with this prior to learning that a mother is breastfeeding, nor is it unlikely that the mother may insist on the basis of Hale's endorsement that she can continue nursing her baby on this drug. If this is allowed, there is no doubt that mothers who start the treatment will probably continue an oral version if they are sent home. If the drug were to be banned to breastfeeding women (a burdensome choice you could easily enact by declaration due to safety concerns), then any mother mistakenly forcibly injected with this drug will also be forced to discontinue breastfeeding, most likely permanently.
If the FDA approves the New Drug Application and hands Eli Lilly another several years of patent protection in a market that has grown to over 4 billion dollars per year and is ever-expanding, we will have a dire situation on our hands.
Doctors do not abide by your recommendations, or even necessarily those of drug companies, and currently even though the package insert says that pregnant and breastfeeding women should not use Zyprexa - or women who use it should not breastfeed, this advice is not being heeded. Three years ago I was told that I should wean my baby and take Zyprexa - that the "symptoms" I was having stood a better chance of relief with a toxic drug that my baby could not have. I chose not to go on Zyprexa or wean my son. Instead I eventually realized that no matter how long I gave Zoloft to work, it was only going to make me more homicidal. I was even told it was not Zoloft, but that I was just crazy, and ought never to have more children. But I got off Zoloft and as a result I got better. I had a second child (an un-interfered-with home birth attended by a CNM), and experienced no PPD whatsoever in the past 16 months since my second son was born.
Psychiatrists have demonstrated no concern for safety whatsoever, even prescribing cocktails of drugs to very young children for completely ridiculous reasons despite the evidence that children can die from being given these medications (not to mention that adults can too).
You go after chiropractors or doctors who administer unapproved hormone treatments, sandwich carts that serve tainted food, and vaccine manufacturers who put contaminated drugs into vials intended for injection into newborns, and you should equally go after judges who court-order parents to drug their children, psychiatrists who prescribe these drugs and others in a cocktail, and any hospital that force-treats someone with harmful medications. There should be some sort of improved warning or prescription process that applies to Zyprexa and the entire class of drugs so that mothers will not be led astray and into dangerous territory by people who haphazardly attempt to be their advocates.

We have entered a brave new world where drug companies seek FDA approval for new versions of old drugs for financial reasons alone. Much of the public has seen how dangerous Zyprexa is, yet it remains a growing market for those who are unaware, or for those who are forced, or for those who mistakenly believe they have chemical imbalances which can only be corrected by the "right" medication. To consider approving a more dangerous version of Zyprexa simply for the financial gain of Eli Lilly, knowing that it puts patients at even greater risk is unthinkable. This drug currently costs several hundred dollars more per month than older antipsychotic agents. The very clear incentive to prescribe such an expensive drug or forcibly inject it into a patient should make you all pause and ask yourselves if you are in this organization for the ultimate mission of ensuring the safety of Americans or for keeping the drug companies profitable and powerful.

On behalf of the 257 members of CHAADA (Children and Adults Against Drugging America) and on behalf of members and friends who are unable to attend this meeting or submit written testimony due to the fact that they are currently in the midst of having their children forcibly poisoned and ruined by these drugs, I urge you to do the right thing and consider what possible implications your actions will have. The Eli Lilly corporation does not need more patent protections for a drug that is already causing so much disease in our country, especially in an even more dangerous form than the current formulation. Hopefully by the time their existing patent expires in 2011, this drug and others will already have suffered a ban, or the government will rein in their out of control actions and regulate them like a company that claims to promote health should be regulated instead of a company out for profit and more disease markets.
Your SSRI black box warning for suicide played a role in saving my life in 2004, secured my son's safety with me as his sole caregiver for the first time in his life, and made it possible for me to go on to have another child. The public has been deluded for too long and it is your responsibility to issue the types of warnings, bans, and denials of drug approval applications that will ensure public safety. We do not need more Zyprexa, more expensive Zyprexa, or more long-lasting Zyprexa. There are enough generic, less toxic drugs and placebos for doctors to experiment on us with to last us until the sun implodes or explodes, our planet is destroyed, and the solar system gets its claws on Eli Lilly and pulls it straight to Hell (unless I am mistaken and we are already living in it).

Sincerely,
Amy PhiloBreastfeeding mother of two boys
Founder, http://www.uniteforlife.org/Co-Founder, http://www.chaada.org/FOunder, http://www.babywhys.org/

History of Neuroleptics and Dangers of SSRIs

2007-10-03T13:13:00.000-07:00

http://4thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
Click on the title above to read the blog...

Breastfeeding and Medications: "Experts" Lead Families to the Slaughter

2007-09-25T19:31:00.000-07:00

I have analyzed some common advice given to moms with PPD about medications and breastfeeding. It's important to note that Hale only claims to have studied about 30 babies when he recommended Zoloft. Also, Prozac can cause COMA in the baby. SSRIs work the same way.
Also it's important to note that Omega 3s have been so successful for treating depression, that a recent study on bipolar disorder was halted because they considered it unethical to continue the placebo group and immediately put them all on 14 tabs of fish oil a day.

Please also see the home page of uniteforlife.org for some very important articles and announcements.

Unsuspecting Magazine Perpetuates Advertising Claims

2007-05-03T23:31:00.000-07:00

I am republishing this as an open letter, due to the highly likely possibility that it will not appear in Mothering Magazine ever...

Dear Peggy and others at Mothering Magazine,

I found it very disappointing when I received my Mothering Magazine today and learned the magazine seems to be promoting or condoning anti-psychotic drugs for psychosis, especially duiring breastfeeding. These drugs are the equivalent of a chemical lobotomy and the drug companies, FDA, and psychiatrists warn that mothers who use them should not breastfeed. Please visit http://www.moshersoteria.com/ and http://www.doctoryourself.com/ for information on treating psychosis with nutrition and other non-psychotropic drug-based, but empathetic methods.

I have visited the Thomas Hale web forum for lactation professionals and read many of the messages on the board. I do not believe that Dr. Hale would advocate using anti-psychotic drugs in a breastfeeding mother based on the information I have seen. I am extremely appalled that your magazine would imply that such a decision could ever be safe for the child. I thought I was just about the most enthusiastic advocate of breastfeeding that you could find until I encountered this insane attitude that breastfeeding should continue even with the presence of drugs like anti-psychotic drugs, which are probably the most physically dangerous drugs I can think of next to perhaps chemo.

The sad thing is, drugs like these only damage the brain and cause life-long problems, yet people who take them and go into "relapse" or experience adverse effects often mistake the drug's effects for their underlying condition. See http://www.breggin.com/, especially the latest article on the spellbinding effects of psychiatric drugs.

On page 10 you stated that Bipolar Disorder is a chronic medical condition like diabetes or high blood pressure. But did you know that bipolar disorder has no objective method for diagnosis, and that it often arises as a reaction to SSRIs? Almost anyone can be diagnosed with it because the criteria are so broad and vague. There is no medical test that can tell you you have "bipolar disorder" and the criteria for diagnosis were voted on at a conference by a show of hands of psychiatrists.

The DSM itself grows each year, due to the fact that they have to have a numeric code to bill insurance for everything. The latest "disorder" to be added is DTD or developmental trauma disorder, used to describe children who were abused. How is this an example of something defective with the child, a chemical imbalance that is chronic, or anything biological? This is obviously the result of circumstances and not some mysterious brain defect or lesion or medical condition which a drug would treat.

Furthermore, your mention of multiple medical conditions that "explain" mental illness is an obvious and glaring contradiction. If you are going with the psychiatrist's definition of "mental illness" then it would have to be something that is not explained by an underlying medical cause. Check the DSM criteria for diagnosis! Having an underlying medical condition precludes diagnosis with all categories of their disorders. If you ask any psychiatrist what is the medical cause of depression or psychosis, they will tell you they don't know the origin of the "mental illnesses." Therefore, promoting depression, psychosis, etc. as medical conditions is a major error and only perpetuates the advertising claims and popular misinformation so prevalent in society.

The reference to stigma is the classic pharmaceutical advertising scam used to play on our fears while perpetuating misinformation, shame, and depriving people of informed consent. When we refer to the difficulty people have admitting they have a problem they need treatment for, it very conveniently hides the problems with the mental health system and puts shame back on the people who are suffering. People assume that if you won't go to a psychiatrist or talk about your problems, or voluntarily submit yourself to a locked ward, that you are in denial. However, as your articles did point out, there are multiple ways to address any underlying medical issues at play, and I was very glad to see those mentioned. I hope that people can find these alternatives helpful to them and not go down the road of anti-psychotic drugs while breastfeeding just because your magazine implied that it would be safe according to Hale.

The more we talk about "stigma" the more stigmatizing mental issues become. The people who are out here advocating for patient rights and informed consent do not "blame the victim" but rather we hope to empower them with information on the dangers of the "standard" methods of "treatment." Some people simply cannot accept that anyone would decieve so many people purely for a profit.

There was no mention of the real cause of the killings perpetrated by Andrea Yates. It was not PPP but rather abrupt withdrawal from two very dangerous drugs, Effexor, and Haldol, that led to those murders. Yates had been taking beyond the maximum dose of Effexor in combination with Haldol, but due to the fact that this can be extremely physically dangerous her doctor stopped the Haldol and lowered the Effexor. It wasn't the PPP that was responsible for the deaths of her children, it was the influence of psychiatric drugs making her so much worse in the first place, combined with the hellish withdrawal caused by such abrupt discontinuation.

All psychiatric medications are brain damaging and perpetuate problems and create new "mental illnesses" in addition to causing malfunctions in all of the body systems - ranging from liver damage to heart failure to thyroid and cholesterol problems, pituitary and breast cancers, even stillbirth and birth defects, genotoxicity, etc.

I also found it interesting that you mentioned that PPD was not evident before industrialism - this is so revealing! Yes, our society is messed up in many ways that leads to a lack of support, and that should be more evidence to you that these are not always medical conditions or mental illnesses caused by a mysterious chemical imbalance, but rather, many times, real symptoms of problems with our ways as a culture. It wasn't until psychiatry began to invade the society, around the same time you mention, that people began to suddenly be plagued by so many psychological "disesases."

Human behavior can be "abnormal" but as you rightly pointed out in your articles, there is sometimes a medical explanation. Depression and psychosis are not diseases, they are warning signs of either other physical illnesses such as nutrient problems, drug reactions, thyroid problems, etc. or else normal reactions to out-of-the-ordinary stressors. Emotions are often about events in our lives, so much more than chemicals.

Stress does take a toll on our bodies and brains, but if there is any chemical imbalance to be observed, it would not be treated effectively by psychiatric drugs.

To advocate drugs for psychosis and imply that they are appropriate for depression shows a complete lack of attention to the real and very widespread danger - the psychiatric drugs themselves - which have caused school shootings including Virginia Tech, workplace shootings, infanticide, murder-suicide, and likely SIDS and other permanent problems such as autism which might occur in an infant or young child exposed to the drugs.

"Benefits" of psychiatric drugs do not outweigh the risks. The drugs are ineffective and dangerous. Please visit http://www.ssristories.com/, http://www.drugawareness.org/, http://www.chaada.org/, and http://www.uniteforlife.org/ for more information as well.

In closing, I want to remind you of something you wrote about in a past issue. Women giving birth in hospitals had approximately a 67% (or higher?) rate of PPD or the "baby blues." The rate was a fraction of that for out-of-hospital and home births.

I have found this to be true. My first baby was born in a hospital in a highly medicalized fashion and I was given many drugs, including several shots of epinephrine, which is known to cause mental disturbance. Thanks in large part to information from Mothering Magazine, my second baby was born at home.

After my first baby was born, medical intervention led to a life-threatening choking incident for him and severe anxiety for me, followed by a Zoloft prescription for "Post-Partum Anxiety." I experienced many of the things that were mentioned in the PPP article, except that my reactions were mostly caused by drug adverse events. Once I got off Zoloft, I went back to being a normal person again. I have been on the other side, and seen the horrors that these drugs can do, and how horribly the "system" treats you when you are "diagnosed" with a mental illness.

For more than two years since that experience, I have researched the drugs and talked with dozens of people who have lost their loved ones to the drugs or other psychiatric interventions.

There is one woman in Australia who is being forcibly medicated (and has been so for 29 years) with anti-psychotic drugs by order of psychiatrists, because when she was a teenager a doctor force-medicated her with an "antidepressant" and she has experienced adverse reactions such as psychosis that were used to justify continued forced drugging. Despite numerous requests, petitions, appeals, et cetera, her father and advocates from around the world have been unable to convince psychiatrists to help her withdraw from the drugs. Instead they are attempting to commit her.

This is what I fear the most when I read articles that are simply unknowlingly promoting a pharmaceutical agenda. Innnocent people like the woman I mentioned above will be pulled into psychiatric "treatment" and a lifetime of drugs and more drugs, potential committment, and no doubt severely scarred lives. The author of your PPP article is fortunate that she was able to get a caring psychiatrist, and had the support and medical attention she needed from a variety of sources and disciplines to find a healthy alternative, wean from the meds, and recover from her psychosis.

In contrast, those living in poverty or without access to the best medical care are not so lucky. If a poor person is to receive benefits at all for mental illness, such as state benefits, they will only receive the standard bottom-rung treatment, which is to pile multiple drugs on them and get it paid for by the state. When this fails, they will probably wind up in prison or a locked ward or state hospital, yet more drugs will be administered with the pharmaceutical companies collecting the hefty paychecks.

Some people would even prefer that "mental illness" be culled out of society by eliminating it from the gene pool (and this would not be possible since we can't prevent human suffering by trying to breed happy people). How sad that the ideas promoted as our "salvation" are the very basis of evil notions such as these. For examples of the less extreme scenarios, there is the quite legitimate fear that mental illness diagnoses or complications from drug treatment could lead to discrimination in the schools and the workplace, loss of parental rights, or committment. If more people are exposed to the dangerous psychiatric drugs, then this reality will befall more and more people as they become sicker and sicker.

Yet out of fear of what might come, doctors are quick to drug anyone who shows remote signs of depression or anxiety because they believe it is a true medical emergency that drugs be administered to "prevent" tragedies. Misinformation, advertising, and plain lies by the spin doctors have convinced many people that drugs prevent suicide, homicide, etc. But the opposite is actually true. The drugs cause symptoms to become much worse, and people lose touch with reality, and can even enter an REM sleepwalk state and commit mass murder while thinking they are having a nightmare.

It is not more health insurance or government benefits that we need for mental "health," but more promotion of and benefits for wellness care from all of the "alternative" practices you mention in your articles. If you can consider that there are many movements to discredit the tremendous value of nutrition, vitamins, homeopaths, chiropractors, et cetera, perhaps you can see how this boils down.

The bottom line is that drug companies want more "mental health awareness" and more discrediting of alternatives. They want everyone to think about mental illness and then start to think they have some form of it. They want more people to take drugs for that "crisis" time in their lives, and more people to end up on them permanently.

I highly encourage you to publish a follow-up story about the dangers of prescription psychiatric drugs and the massive campaign to promote them, rather than allowing your magazine to be used as a gullible messenger from the drug companies to the health-oriented community you reach.

As I mentioned before, my second baby was born at home. As it turns out, with my first baby I had post-partum thyroiditis. My hyperthyroid state was not treated appropriately the first time, but the second time I knew I would have thyroiditis again, and I had my thyroid levels monitored. This time I haven't suffered the scary psychotic features like I did because of adverse drug reactions to Zoloft the first time around. I did breastfeed my first son while on Zoloft for a few months, and nearly weaned him to take anti-psychotic drugs because Zoloft made me psychotic, and I did not realize that it was the fault of the Zoloft for several months. Once I did realize what the real problem was, rather than wean him, I weaned myself from Zoloft and continued breastfeeding. Today he is nearly 3 years old and still nursing.

I have lived the nightmare of having suicidal and homicidal urges because of prescription drugs, and I have found victory over the drugs and the psychosis they caused. I hope that more women out there who are on SSRIs or other prescription psychiatric drugs will get the information that they need to consider whether they can become healthy again by getting off of the drugs gradually and while under close supervision.

Sincerely,
Amy Philo
http://www.chaada.org/
http://www.uniteforlife.org/

P.S. Several months ago, a thread of mine was deleted from the message board on Mothering.com. I had posted some information about the dangers of antidepressants, but apparently I was censored. After receiving such an insult, I was discouraged about the magazine & website. Today's issue is further discouragement. I am anxiously awaiting the next issue, so I can distract myself with good things about the magazine again. I hope you'll take all this information and alternate perspective into consideration and perhaps publish another perspective on psychosis.

Psychiatric Torture: German 17-year-old institutionalized under authority of Hitler-era law outlawing home schooling

2007-02-13T22:04:00.000-08:00

In a world in which political oppressors and insanely evil people masquerade as doctors and seem to control certain aspects of law and policy, and drug companies and other big corporations seem to control what's considered reasonable and medically necessary "for their own good" we can't be surprised that the masses are not engaging in any sort of peaceful resistance. They simply go along with whatever someone else tells them to do, feel, believe, or ignore.

Go to the website listed in the first paragraph of the letter below and find the email address and web form to leave a comment. Feel free to forward or notify human rights groups around the world.

Here is what I sent:

Hi,

I read a story about a 17 year old girl who had been expelled from school and was subsequently home schooled. Fifteen police officers went to her house, removed her from her home, had her evaluated and thrown in a psych ward, a.k.a. prison. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020502.html

This is so wrong. I can't believe that your country actually makes home schooling illegal. You need to free this girl immediately. Since when is being "developmentally delayed" a crime? Do you allow anyone who isn't "smart enough" to be thrown in a locked ward? How do you determine intelligence or developmental milestones? If I were to come and "evaluate" your psychiatrist who made the determination I am positive I would find him morally deficient. Should I be allowed to throw him into prison because I don't like his ideas?

If you find a toddler who isn't walking by 16 months do you put him in foster care? If you have a child who isn't talking early enough do you drug them? If you are going to establish a "norm" then there must be some allowance for people with "disabilities" to be able to live free in your society. Home schooling does not cause "developmental delays." I am appalled that a law established by the Hitler regime is being enforced today, and that anyone in your country can possibly justify this at all.

I have a friend who is German and Scottish - her child had a seizure disorder. She lives in Switzerland - she is a CPA and takes good care of her son. If the doctors had not been able to medicate him with an experimental drug that was fortunately successful in his case, he would have become mentally retarded. If he lived in Germany, would you go to her home and take him from his mother, traumatizing him for the rest of his life? Would you throw him in a psych ward and start drugging and restraining him?

This is political and unnecessary. I suspect there is some motive for this other than the supposed "developmental delay" or illegal home schooling. Exactly what is the real reason that authorities chose to remove this girl and not the rest of her siblings from the home? After all, if it's the parents' fault then the rest of the siblings are in danger of also becoming "delayed" (and we should ALL have to apparently conform to some sort of standard development to keep our freedom).

I feel so awful for the girl who was removed from her home. I can't believe you are allowing an ongoing holocaust of people your country considers unfit for the society. I thought your country encouraged trade school tracks for those who didn't intend to go into academia. Since when is failing Latin and Math a reason to put someone in a psych ward?

This is human rights abuse and I hope that the international community comes down hard on your outdated, unjust and evil policies.

As an American, I have many friends who home school. I cannot understand why this is still illegal, and why the girl is being taken from her family. Why not simply put her back in a public school? Why take her from the people she loves?

This fits into the category of psychiatric torture. I hope that you guys get in serious trouble for this. Your psychiatrists or judges or whoever is responsible should have to pay the family a huge compensation for this abuse, and the girl should probably find a way to escape to a more sane country not ruled by Hitler-age politics.

Amy Philo
Frisco, Texas USA

SSRIs are Actually Depressants... The Big Suicide Loophole

2006-12-15T21:53:00.000-08:00

Breggin says it best, so for now my comments are unnecessary.

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

The Big Suicide Loophole in Antidepressant Drug Safety Studies
By
Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
On December 13, 2006 the FDA’s Psychopharmaceutical Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) is meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland to discuss antidepressant-induced suicidal behavior in adults. In 2004 the FDA held similar hearings on children and concluded that antidepressants do in fact cause suicide in humans under age eighteen. A warning has been placed in all antidepressant labels or package inserts.
Now the agency has given advanced notice of its new findings—antidepressants, all of them according to the FDA, cause increased suicidality in young adults. Suicide occurs more than twice as much on antidepressants than on sugar pills in individuals under age 25.
First the agency admits that antidepressants cause suicidality in children. Now the agency admits the drugs cause the same disasters in young adults. Meanwhile, an independent review of all antidepressant trials submitted to the FDA has shown that the drugs are no better than placebo.[i] America’s drug watchdog needs to come clean. It’s been approving depressants as antidepressants.
The Largest Loop Hole
But it gets worse. The primary data on suicidality has been generated in short-term controlled clinical trials planned by drug companies, carried out by drug company hacks, and evaluated by drug company employees at corporate headquarters. If that kind of carefully cultivated evaluation bears such bad fruit, imagine what the real data must show.
Since I first began working as a medical expert in product liability cases way back in the early 1990s, I’ve spent innumerable hours culling the sealed data contained within the files of companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly. Among other things, I long ago found evidence that Paxil and Prozac cause suicidality in adults. These discoveries then led to settlements in product liability suits brought against the two companies brought by surviving family members. I’ve also communicated my conclusions in books like Talking Back to Prozac and the Antidepressant Fact Book and in scientific articles but the primary data until recently remained sealed.
Drug company groomed data creates the biggest loophole in the FDA’s evaluations of drug safety. In May 2006 GSK published a Dear Healthcare Provider letter admitting that Paxil causes suicidality in depressed adults, but even that data was diluted before it was processed. The real picture is even worse.
Paxil Suicide Data Sealed in Company Files
I recently published analyses of previously sealed GSK data on Paxil suicide in the peer-reviewed journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry. I combed the data out of GSK files during a several-day investigation of the company’s Paxil records. My original medical-legal report recently became unsealed and provided the basis for the published reports.
The first report shows how GSK omitted some suicides and suicide attempts from their tables and from the data sent to the FDA.[ii] The second shows how the company hid data on Paxil-induced akathisia (psychomotor restlessness) and its relationship to suicidality.[iii] The third shows how the company hid the basic concept of activation or stimulation that recently became a central part of the newly mandated antidepressant labels.[iv] [Go to Breggin Selected Scientific Papers for Paxil Special Reports 1 through 3]
Prozac Suicide Data Sealed in Company Files
The sealed Prozac data from Eli Lilly also came from my investigations of the company as a medical expert in product liability suits. BMJ (The British Medical Journal) recently obtained the sealed documents from an anonymous source and released them to the FDA and the U.S. Congress. The documents are contained in four Lilly PDFs that can be downloaded from my professional website [http://www.breggin.com/].v]
Lilly PDFs 1 to 3 show that the drug company knew in 1985 that patients taking Prozac had a 12 to1 increase in suicide attempts compared to placebo or to an older antidepressant. This original data and the analyses were never shown to the FDA until the BMJ recently forwarded them to the agency. The FDA has never responded. [Go to Lilly PDF 1] [Go to Lilly PDF 2] [Go to Lilly PDF 3]
Lilly PDF 4 contains several studies. Most important, two in-house memoranda show that Eli Lilly was purposely hiding suicide attempts and suicide ideation by coding them under false categories, such as “depression” and “no drug effect” (pages 3 and 4 of Lilly PDF 4). Eli Lilly employee Claude Bouchy expressed shame about going along with this fraudulent practice: “I do not think I could explain to the BGA [the German regulatory agency], to a judge, to a reporter or even to my family why we would do this especially on the sensitive issue of suicide and suicide ideation.” [Go to Lilly PDF 4] The data used to evaluate antidepressant-induced suicidality in adults is not reliable. This is a fact the FDA has yet to face. The data has been pruned, culled and manipulated by the drug companies before being tabulated and released. The FDA must send investigators into the original drug company files to search and analyze the primary sources of data, much as I have done as a medical expert in product liability suits against drug companies. I will be happy to share my knowledge with FDA officials on how to conduct these searches and analyses.
[i] Kirsch, I. and Sapirstein, G. (1998). Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication. Prevention & Treatment, 1, Article 0002a, 16 pages, posted June 26, 1998. www.journals.apa.org.
[ii] Breggin, P. (2006a). Court filing makes public my previously suppressed analysis of Paxil’s effects. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 77-84, 2006. Available on www.breggin.com.
[iii] Breggin, P. (2006b). How GlaxoSmithKline suppressed data on Paxil-induced akathisia: Implications for suicide and violence. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 91-100.
[iv] Breggin, P. (2006c) Drug company suppressed data on paroxetine-induced stimulation: Implications for violence and suicide. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 8, 255-263.
[v] Lilly Documents, Folders 1-4 (2006). Dr. Breggin analyzes Eli Lilly Prozac-induced suicide and violence documents now in possession of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). http://www.breggin.com/. Retrieved December 10, 2006.
Go to Scientific Papers of Peter R. Breggin, MD
Home - Books - Biography - Resume - Contact Dr. Breggin
Peter R. Breggin, MD101 East State Street, # 112 Ithaca, New York 14850 By Appointment Only Phone 607 272 5328 Fax 607 272 5329

Knowledge - The Anti-Drug

2006-12-11T14:17:00.000-08:00

Plato wrote an essay called “The Cave.” A man lives in a cave his whole life, and one day the entrance to the cave is opened and a bright light shines in. He leaves the cave, and is at first completely blinded by the bright light. But after his eyes have had time to adjust, he sees the world as it really is for the first time. Life is brand new outside the cave; the darkness which he had been living in his whole life is no longer limiting his vision.

Are you as aware as you should be? The saying goes, if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. Can you see what is going on around you and the way that people are manipulating others? Or do you take things for granted because they are the status quo? I sincerely hope you will choose to step out of the cave and see what a wonderful thing life can be when you work with your body and spirit, instead of suppressing it with drugs or shock or even unnecessary surgery. I hope that your perspective will be a light to guide others to the truth. We must shine that light for all to see. We must also show others the ways that they are being trapped in darkness.

Some people like to say that we don’t know why things happen, that everything happens for a reason, and it’s all part of a master plan. The plan is compared to a painting that God is working on, or a rug that he is weaving. The thread of our life may not make much sense the way it is being worked in the moment, but if you get some perspective you can see why it was twisted or bent in such a way. A dot of paint on a canvas may not make sense, but when you get back far enough to see the big picture, it’s very clear what the story is.

God is not the only one working on a rug. In case you haven’t noticed, there are some very powerful people in our world trying to work their magic. Usually this means they are trying to get the most money. But what will money do for them anyway? Life is fleeting, and you can’t take possessions with you.

If you have faith in a life after death perhaps you can grasp the idea that what is most important while we are alive is fulfilling our purpose rather than filling our pocketbooks.

Two years ago I had my first baby. The birth was the beginning of an experience I had not planned on. I wanted an unmedicated birth, but wound up with just about every drug and procedure available short of a c-section. After the birth I was crying a lot because I wasn’t dealing well with the challenges that I was facing. When my son nearly choked to death from trying to vomit some formula that he couldn’t digest, I became intensely frightened for his life. Feeding him was the only way to keep him alive but I was afraid to feed him because I was afraid he would choke again. I saw my doctor after having a panic attack, and he gave me Zoloft.

Today I help spread awareness about the harm that drugs like Zoloft can do. I met many people online who, like me, experienced psychotic effects from SSRIs or other meds. Now I know why that happens. It is definitely the drugs and not the person. I am thankful that I have survived that ordeal, not only for myself and my children, but also so that I can hopefully help to prevent the same thing, or something much worse, happening to someone else. Perhaps this is the reason that I went through the horrible pain of months of drug-induced psychosis. Perhaps the sacrifices my family made, and the risks we were exposed to were for a good reason in the end. Perhaps it was part of a larger plan.

Many groups have formed, and many survivors have been desperately trying to get the message out to as many people as possible. It is time for us to unite together to fight the massive machine of drug company influence in our society.

There are many issues facing us that need our action. I see them as opportunities. Together we can research, publicize, counsel, heal, and lobby for important changes in our country and the world. The impact we have will affect many lives.

People who doubt our stories, research, or points of view should realize that everything we say is out of a genuine desire to help others, not from greed like that of a giant pharmaceutical company or an industry that capitalizes on illnesses or weaknesses without offering any real solution. Skeptics should seriously question any of their defense arguments if they happen to be almost verbatim compared to those written in drug company manuals, advertisements, and official statements.

Please join the movement against harmful drugging and mistreatment of human beings. Help create a better future by uniting together for this worthwhile cause - bringing awareness to the risks of using psychiatric drugs or electroshock.