People News
Tom Cruise clashes with Matt Lauer in interview
By Cindy Locke Jun 24, 2005, 16:41 GMT
Tom Cruise sat down with Today host Matt Lauer in an interview that aired on the NBC morning show Friday.
The interview was going fine while fiancée Katie Holmes watched Lauer ask Cruise how he is feeling these days. Cruise answered, “It's a great time in my life. I'm engaged. I'm really happy. I can't restrain myself.”
After Cruise said, “I still feel that I will talk about what I want to talk about, and I will not talk about what I don't want to talk about,” Lauer asked him if his relationship with Holmes is just a publicity stunt.
Cruise replied: “There's always cynics, always has been, always will be. I have never worried, Matt, about what other people think and what other people say. You can't.”
The interview grew tense as Lauer started to ask questions surrounding Scientology. He asked Cruise if he could ever be with someone who didn’t embrace Scientology. Cruise replied: “It's something you don't understand. You can be a Christian and be a Scientologist. It is a religion in that it deals with the spirit, you as a spiritual being.”
Lauer asked Cruise about the riff between him and Brooke Shields. Cruise told Lauer he didn’t understand the effects of prescribing the drug Ritalin. Cruise’s reaction caused Lauer to say defensively, “I'm not prescribing Ritalin, Tom, and I'm not asking anyone else to do it.”
The tension between the two men grew when Lauer mentioned how psychiatry helped Shields. “I've never agreed with psychiatry, ever," declared Cruise. "Before I was a Scientologist I never agreed, and when I became a Scientologist, I never agreed. As far as the Brooke Shields thing is concerned you have to understand, look, I really care about Brooke Shields – she's a wonderful and talented woman, and I want her to do well, and I know psychiatry is a pseudoscience. She doesn't understand the history of psychiatry, just as you don't understand it, Matt. I do. ... All it does is mask the problem.”
Things went more smoothly on Thursday night when Cruise appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman. When Letterman asked Cruise about his engagement dinner in Paris, he said: “We ate chocolate. Just the desserts… You know, there are times when you just stare at each other. It’s astounding.”
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in People
- 1. Justin Bieber can't move eyebrow after concussion
- 2. Pamela Anderson wants to move back to Canada
- 3. Queen Elizabeth excited about concert
- 4. Usher: I'm a genius
- 5. Jake Shears received death threat
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
Didn't anyone ever teach Tom Cruise it's rude to interrupt? His behavior on this show was atrocious. He is the crazy one with a chemical imbalance and needs the very meds he's speaking against.
It is clear that Tom Cruise lacks a true understanding of psychopharmacology. Condesendingly, Tom says to Matt Lauer 'Matt, you don't even know what Ritalin is.' Tom calls it an anti-psychotic drug, which it is not - Ritalin is a stimulant that may well be over-prescribed, and if abused can in fact bring on a psychotic episode. Nevertheless, when used properly for it's intended purpose, Ritalin has indeed helped numerous people. What research has Tom been reading?
As for his claim that vitamins and exercise can cure mental illness, I would have to ask Tom for his definition of mental illness. They do come in a variety, and if we take Bi-polar disorder as an example, Tom would be hard-pressed to provide any meaningful data that show diet and exercise to be an effective treatment/cure.
Yes, psychiatry's history is riddled with horrendous mistakes - but the history of ANYTHING - the development of ANYTHING is full of faults. It's learning from them that causes progress.
For the record, Tom, I, too, believe we are not alone in this universe. It would be vain and arrogant to think that were are the sole spirits in this vast expanse. I do, however, draw the line at Scientology's theory that the spirits of dead aliens are the cause of our mental problems.
It would be most interesting to know what Tom's young fiance thinks of his most recent interview with Matt Lauer.
I really used to like Tom Cruise, but those days are over. He was such a pompous ass on the Today Show that I cannot hardly stand to look at him now. If this is what 'love' does to a person, than I must have never been in love and I have been married for many years. I will not see his latest movie now just because I no longer like him. But then, as the true scientologist that he is, he shouldn't care one way or the other.
Give em a break...or you'll get broke.
Tom Cruise claimed to know what he was talking about, read the psychiatry literature, and knows the 'history of psychiatry.' Nothing he said actually demonstrated his knowledge of any of these things. He made claims of such knowledge, and by his emphatic repetition, attempted to be convincing. He was far less than that. If anything, he showed his ignorance of such things in his comments to Matt Lauer and about Brooke Shields and others who have benefitted from such medications. He also completely misrepresented the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression and bipolar disorder. In effect, his ignorance and lack of qualifications in the field of medicine and psychiatry, combined with his potential influence as an entertainer, could have seriuos deleterious effects on the portion of the public who may be helped by such medications.
Tom provided his viewers with a reminder of where he has some skill, acting. His opinions about anything other than acting is just as important as his opinions about interest rates. He is an actor; just a talking face. We should not expect him to be any more....
I agree with the opinion above me that we should just let the man act. That is what he does best and I believe he does it well. I am not a Tom Cruise freak or anything I just think too many people expect to much from entertainers. If we based our music selection on musicians personal lives, opinions, and mental health we would probably not have much to listen to. So OK! he gave his honest opinion on live television... well it was only an opinion and it is as right or wrong as yours or mine. Just my two cents.
I have taken many of the things that Mr. Tom Cruise has said lately about depression and how medication only masks the problem verrrrry offensive. I take his statements so personally because my mother is bipolar .She has been sick for 9 years and has taken almost every medication out there, medications for depression anxiety etc. and she was even suicidal at one time. I makes me angry that he has tryed to make mental illness seem so minute a problem that it could be treated with so called vitamins and exercise. I wish that it were that simple but the truth is that mental illness is very complex.What i personally learned in the years my mother has been sick is that doctors are learning new things every day and still doing research to try and understand bipolar disorder. Hopefully there will come a day that we can find an answer for people with any mental illness so they can live fairly normal lives. My mother unfortunately has not even found a temporary solution like many of the celebrities i have read about with bipolar. She is currently on 10 medications a day and still feels horrible can not do regular things like cook because her hands tremble so bad and her mouth trembles extremely . Unfortunately i have not been able to find her a doctor that can get her on the right track. So my suggestion to Mr. Cruise if i had a chance to speak to him about depresiion etc. 'Live a week in my shoes dealing with my mother and her disorder. I respect your views and wish that i could give my mom vitamins and excercise and she would be well but there is a fine line between expressing your views and commenting on what someone with depression (Brooke Shields) should or shouldn't do.
Um........ A celebrity does not a doctor make. Frickin' brainwashed idiot. I was hoping that his 'woman' Ms Holmes would be one that had a brain of her own but apparently not. If you want to check out what the FBI thought and wrote about L.Ron Hubbard, go to this site: http://xenu.net/archive/FBI/table.html
It appears that Hubbard was a
Hopefully if tom cruise does have chidren of his own, they do not have bi polar or any other problems cause the poor child would suffer for the rest of his or her life. Maybe that is why the lord will not bless him with a child of his own. I know he has adopted some children so I horpe they are fine and that nicole will get them help if they need it.I wonder how he would react if katie had post pardum depression? I bet the vitamin industry would be pretty happy knowing that $ is headed their way if she does get post pardum depression.
How dare Tom Cruise talk to anybody like that! That was so rude! Poor Matt! It's true. Tom's the one who needs the ritalin perscribed to himself. He needs help. He was hot in his Risky Business days, but, those days are long gone. i USED to be a fan. But I do think he gave an award winning performing performance in 'COLLATERAL'. IT'S A SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In 1988 i suffered these strange attacks; heart pelpatation, night sweats, numbness throughout my arms and hands and the fear of dying constant. I underwent a series of test from MRIs to stress test, you name i had it done(all test came up negative)It wasn't until two years later when my doctor diagnosed me with server panic attacks and depression caused by a chemical imbalance; I went through diffrent medication until the right one was found for me. I am 40 years old today and thank GOD for the doctors HE put into my life. My point being; if MR.Cruise was a docter and not an actor i'd take the time to listen to what he had to say on this subject However, he is an actor and for him to jugde those who need medication and the help of a therpist, angers me to no end. if Mr. Cruise would talk the time to see how hes been acting lately he might find he has a Multuple Personalitie Disorder however, i'm only an artist not a doctor.
Tom Cruise went WAY too far. He is just a 'movie star' and nothing else. He certainly is not qualified to comment with any authority on psychiatry. I view him as a total control freak, and that is why he is with Miss Holmes...he can control her totally. Hopefully her parents will hire a deprogrammer to get her away from Tom and his cult.
HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED THE WAY KATIE SMILES? IT'S NOT EVEN SMILING! SHE'S JUST TRYING TO SHOW ALL HER TEETH. IT LOOKS REALLY STUPID!
I read it this weekend. She was open and honest, she did not want to go on medication, however, she did to get her life back. How dare an actor, As In TOM CRUISE who is not a doctor make such a comment,and he says he knows about meds and so forth. When he is able to have a baby, and his wife goes through the living hell she went through, let him talk. Lets face it, Katie is the best that ever happen to him. Has he had any close calls to that type of situation.
Brooke, I say pay no attention to the 'Man' who knows not much other than a woman _ no offense Katie_ than 10 weeks
Reminds me a little bit of other cults.
That is what the first commentator said of this article.
Well, that reminds me of the cult of george bush.
They try to tell us it is christianity, but it is not
it is a cult of bush.
And it looks a lot scarier than a religion of self discovery
which includes the powers of the spirit that dwells within.
A concept I think might be a bit too complicated for most
bush cultists.
Tom destroyed ANY of his self proclaimed knowledge of psychiatry and medication with his first statement:
'There's no such thing as a chemical imbalance'
His statement, in and of itself, proves that Tom has no idea of psychiatry let alone physiology. I've got news for Tom (and apparently his mentor Tim Robbins) that there is a very real chemical in the brain called serotonin(C10H12N2O)that directly affects ones feelings of 'normalcy' or 'well-being', etc. It's a PROVEN fact that drugs such as Prozac inhibit the production of serotonin in the brain which allows those suffering from severe depression (chemical imbalances OF serotonin)to have a feeling of 'normalcy' and 'well-being'.
According to Tom, things such as PMS (neurochemical changes within the brain)and Diabetes (lack of glucose [C6H12O6]) aren't chemical imbalances within the body. Tom, you really did your research. You have obtained the ultimate knowledge that has eluded EVERY Scientist and doctor that has ACTUALLY done the research since these diseases and disorders have existed.
What a schmuck!
Tom Cruise ought to sit down and shut-up! He certainly thinks very highly of himself, telling Matt Lauer that he knows nothing of psychiatry while Tom knows it all. Anti-depressants do get over used, but they help a tremendous amout of people, myself included. I'm sure it's a very easy life Tom Cruise leads with tons of money to have other people to do the mundane tasks of life for him. Cruise can dish out criticism to others like a big know-it-all, but he sure can't take it when anyone questions anything about his Scientology. I just hope neither of his kids ever develop any kind of mental illness. He'd be such a supportive parent!! And for the person who asked what chemical is out of balance in the brain in respect to mental illness-a lot of the time it is seretonin. How about Tom Cruise taking in all the mentally ill homeless and he can put them on the right diet and exercise program, and give them all the vitamins they need. I'm sure that will cure all the schizophrenia and the like in the world. Yeh right!
i mean really he appears to be a brainwashed idiot who can only see the world through his brainwashed eyes. if all mental illness could be cured with vitamins and exercise believe me, alot of people would be popping vitamins and out exercising. many vitamins can be as toxic as ANY kind of medicine if taken in excess, if he were the *informed* individual that he states he is, he would know that.
Ok, I have to go on with another simple flaw in Tom's brainwashed analogies.
Wow, Ritalin has become a street drug.... Hey jackass, why do you think that is???? Maybe because the fact that Ritalin has an entirely DIFFERENT effect on people that the drug wasn't intended for!!! If you are against doctors subscribing Ritalin for the wrong reason's, that is one thing, but to say that it is now a street drug and that's why it's a bad drug makes you look ignorant at best. If there is no such thing as 'chemical imbalances' then why does Ritalin affect the children who take it entirely different than those who get it off the street for a high??? I hope people do realize that Ritalin has a calming effect on the people it is subscribed to and the opposite effect to those taking it as a recreational drug.
Everyone should quit raggin on Tom.
he is just making the point that the pharmacutical industry is raping the american people of money, health, and free thinking.
In america a doctor will give you a pill for every problem.
everyone who thinks they need to be on a pill for the rest of their life should just smoke some of that Medical Marijuana!
its the safest drug in the world(no one has ever died of Marijuana or an overdose)
plenty people have died from oding on Ritilan, and Adderal,
i've taken paxil its a bullshizn money making scheme
all you need is weed, its free it grows in the ground, and you dont have to smoke it, edible
Phzier ownes your souls
Actors should stick to acting and singers should stick to singing. Would show bizz people please stop trying to save the world and talk about topics they know nothing about. Once they have properly qualified themselves and build up some work experience in the particular field then they should comment. Until then, they should keep their trumpet shut, listen to others who do know and learn from them.
dear Tom Cruise, ''I CHALLENGE YOU TOM CRUISE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE....
I am not only a mental health professional but one who has suffered from depression for 20 years. after watching you and undergoing a serious bout of depression( my meds stopped working'pooped out', I went off all my medication. Five days later, I attempted suicide and wound up in the hospital. thank you for this and your ignorant words. I CHALLENGE YOU TO TREAT ME YOUR WAY AND THEN I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PUBLICLY REVEAL YOUR FINDINGS.
ap or Daissymay@aol.com
Tom Cruise is exhibiting the classic symptoms of a BiPolar in the hypo-manic stage. He had better up those 'vitamins and exercise' before he goes into a full blown psychotic stage and finds himself in a mental hospital. As the mother of a BiPolar I have seen how the cycle goes and it is not pretty. It is very dangerous for a BiPolar in denial to be spouting opinions on psychiatry and medication. Get some help Tom!
To tell the truth, i do no even know where to begin after listening to Tom on the Todays show, way over in South America.In slow motion he looked like a psycho. ironically claiming to know so much about Psychiatry.He was not promoting Wars of the Worlds.He was trying to win souls.And if you have a 1000 more like him walking around talking about Scientology, we may have a world full of angry people who is bent on thier mortal belief and refuse to give a listening ear to anyone else's point of view. I actually started to believe that Tom had a doctorate in Medicine.
It appeared as though, he was not himself, another thing, was speaking through him, he is taking these friction movies way too seriously.
His behavior was un called for, unprofessional on international television, and i would say ,even on the Ophra show, he was in his koo,Koo nest, flustering , up and down like a chimpansy who has just found a mate,( let's see what happens six years from now).
I think sometimes money and religion are reasons for some individual's lost of vision.
As the West Indians would put it, 'him mad sick, head na good'
My sympathy to his intended wife, and his new found Hollywood's version of love.
He needs to get himself together,because his behavior these days on television is scary. I wish him good health, body, mind , soul and spirit.
Girlfriend open your eyes wide,if you think you are inlove, because it will cool off.
Tom Cruise voiced his opinion on Psychiatry, and on anti-depressants. First, it is only his 'opinion'. He is not a medical doctor, nor does he appear to have all of the facts regarding those suffering from mental depression. I found Mr. Cruise's demeanor embarrassing. He made a fool of himself interupting, and attacking Matt Lauer.
Many people who suffer from immense depression, have tried homeopathic treatment, exercise, meditation, and numerous other alternatives to anti-depressants. When these alternatives fail it is not anyone's fault. Serotonin is a major part of the brains function, and when it is depleted and depression escalates beyond control, a qualified Psychiatrist will assess the patient's history. Often an anti-depressant is prescribed in order to help produce the proper amount of serotonin, or dopamine. When the seratonin levels have improved and the patient is feeling alive again, they are slowly weaned off. A diabetic is prescribed insulin, a person with high blood pressure often prescribed medication to help lower the blood pressure to prevent life threatening consequences. Anti-depressants are not to mask a problem Mr. Cruise. Tranquilizers can and often do mask medical problems, maybe you are a bit confused, or misinformed. Please spare us your lack of education regarding this extremely important medical topic. Your commentary on Brooke Shields was uncalled for. Attacking her personal decision to take an anti-depressant was low, and disrespectful. You say you don't care what people think or say about you, well maybe you should consider other peoples feelings before opening your mouth and judging others.
I hope you think before you talk next time.
Anyone who claims not to care what other people think or say is either lying or, worse, is a sociopath. Although Tom Cruise purports to be indifferent, he definitely cares about what others think - he has to, he's in the business of selling his movies, no? It's just too bad his arrogance motivates him to share his ignorance with the entire world. Yes, only Tom Cruise, understands the history of Psychiatry, that evil psuedo science so unlike Scientology. He has been rather quiet this past week. Perhaps he's seen the error of his ways? No, I don't think so. Busy planning the upcoming wedding. Poor, poor Katie.
Tom Cruise is promoting the teachings of a CULT. Spread the word, learn about Scientology and how they brainwash people turning them into psychotics, like we all saw on The Today Show. L. Ron Hubbard was a kook Sci-Fi writer who was quoted as saying the real money would be made in starting his own religion. That's exactly what he did. Go to the website Operation Clambake to learn about the dangers of the cult called Scientology.
Hey Tom, how long until you put on the purple robes, nike shoes, and drink some cyanide? In case you didn't know, YOU ARE IN A CULT!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure where Tom gets his research on treating mental illness with vitamins and exercise...but I think his demeanor in this interview clues us into the fact that he is anything but a credible source.
Does Tom think that the pedophiles,rapist,kidnappers and murderes need vitamins and exercise to cure them? Do you think that Jessica Lynch would still be alive if her killer took his vitamins or do you think that if he saw a doctor and told him his problem she would still be slive?I do not think that vitamins and exercise will help the unstable.
I put down the wrong Jessica sorry I was watching a story about her and had that last name in my mind.I do not know the last name of the Jessica that was kidnapped.I know Jessica Lynch was the girl in Iraq and that she is still alive.
Her name was Jessica Lunsford.
Tos,
THANK YOU, IT WAS BOTHERING ME I COULD NOT REMEMBER THE LAST NAME.
Tom is a very intellegent human being who happens to be an actor. Just because a person is an actor instead of an average person like you and me, does not mean that his opinions do not count- he just has publicity to voice his opinions. What if you had a very strong opinion on a subject or felt that something was very very wrong? Wouldn't you take the opportunity to shed some light on that subject? Would you rather hear celebrities talk about mindless crap? We, as a society, should explore subjects like this further. WE DEFINATELY SHOULD. When our children are fat, hyper (because of the extreme amounts of sugar in their diets and inactivity), and given mental drugs as a 'cure all'; we definately need to look into this subject. If heroin was sociabilly acceptable because people were ignorant, wouldn't you speak up about it? If you knew it was wrong? I think that it's important for Americans to use their right to free speech to stand up for things that they believe in.
Tom Cruise needs to do some serious damage control after his ridiculious rantings on Oprah and the Today Show. If he doesn't he can kiss his career goodbye. If he can't see how idiotic he sounded and looked it makes me wonder if he has even given serious thought to making a lifelong committement to someone almost half his age after dating for a very short time. Bottom line, if I was going to listen to an actor's opinion on psychiatry I would choose someone like Brooke Shields, (an Ivy League graduate), over a recruiter for a cult.
Perhaps he's right? And if we all did a little research for ourselves instead of assuming doctors (of any religion or any cult)held some unattainable knowledge then we'd know why he was right. You don't HAVE to rely on other people to learn or understand or research.
Tom Cruise, whether liked or not, has the freedom to chose any cult, religion or belief that we all do. Has he committed an atrocity? People with various philosophies or beliefs sometimes do - look up http://downingstreetmemo.com for instance to see what is done by so-called Christians.
I don't believe Cruise has committed a heinous crime or harmed anyone - and unless he does, surely bad-mouthing his actions only serves to reflect badly on our own religion or philosophy?
As for understanding the issues before slamming the person, a little research on Ritalin would help. How it was approved for use, the corruption behind the approval. And most importantly the effects on children, known 30 years ago, recorded in follow up studies on children placed on Ritalin. Then a little more thought and research to work out why Ritalin is still on the market.
The very disturbing follow-up of children on Ritalin thirty years ago is here:
http://www.audiblox2000.com/learning_disabilities/ritalin-effects.htm
The equally disturbing effects on crime levels in Vancouver are here:
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/health/PSYCHIATRY.htm
AS for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that psych meds are based on, probably the most damning of all statements was from the Paxil manufacturer itself, in a legal document:
'...In May 2003, the maker of the SSRI Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), announced that it was withdrawing claims contained in its promotional material for Paxil (called Seroxat in Ireland and the UK) that the drug worked by normalizing levels of serotonin. GSK acknowledged that the link between depression and serotonin levels is unproven and that such claims “were not consistent with the scientific literature.”
Finally, from a British site quotes, from an MD over there who used to be a consultant for the pharma industry, with regard to psych drug clinical studies being falsified where deadly side effects were written up as nausea:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=182310&messageid=1108216551
Dismissing or discrediting information simply based on personal dislike or jealousy or religious prejudice is not showing intelligence. Valid evidence of risks and dangers is as relevant to your future (and that of your children) whether it comes from a Christian, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Moslem, a Scientologist, a Communist or a Little Green Man from outer space.
Listen to what he was trying to say objectively (rather than as to how he said it, or how you perceive him or his 'religious or philosophical views - which are irrelevant to the issues of drugs in any case) and then research around it and make informed conclusions.
Each one of us has the ability to learn for ourselves in order to survive, and information that you seek out might one day save your life or that of your children. Wasting that capacity by running down an actor for the 'way' he presented the information in a short interview is simply showing how little we use our innate survival tools and demonstrates why we have become a society with little concept of how to help ourselves and so become trusting and reliant on others to deal with our own problems.
I can see a few people have expressed very strong doubts about the capability of natural healthy supplements assisting people with problems. Alongside a doctor who, rather than research for himself the effects of suicidality occuring in reduction of dose and in cold turkey withdrawal, blames his suicidality on Tom Cruise. Remember that when tempted to rely on doctors for information.
A little internet research would have led him to withdrawal advice that patients on drugs have to rely on when their own doctors fail so miserably to bother researching the effects of the drugs they prescribe:
http://www.benzo.org.uk/healy.htm
As far as health supplements are concerned, this again is where research before opinions becomes useful.
Here are a few videos on supplements and psychiatric illness, etc.
Essential Fatty Acid Studies. EFA, a part of Omega 3 which Fish Oil is high in. A natural part of a healthy diet, lost through the introduction of fast and junk foods.
1998 NIH Workshop on Essential Fatty Acids (EFA's) in Psychiatric Disorders:
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega2.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega3.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega4.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega5.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega6.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega7.ram
And as for other naturally healthy nutrients, vitamins, minerals, amino acids etc found in NUTRITIOUS food, then there are various studies such as this one showing the improvement in children's behaviour and that of juvenile offenders and all simply achieved by a change in diet:
http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/information/oith/oith99.htm
'...In the long term
Dietary management does not produce a magical change within an hour the way medication can. But what do studies show of long term effects?
Following up after two years on families avoiding additives and salicylates, U.S. researchers found 13 out of 14 mothers described their children's behaviour as having improved since the end of the study. Typically, they reported marked improvement in schoolwork and a steady, gradual increase in self-control.
In a British study which used the Few Foods diet, 92% of children in the study were still continuing with the diet when last seen. Researchers commented that being on an acceptable diet did seem to make a remarkable difference in the lives of many of these families.
A study of 6000 institutionalised juvenile offenders found antisocial behaviours were reduced by nearly half following the introduction to a diet low in processed foods. Not everyone improved equally. About 20 per cent of the delinquents accounted for nearly 50 per cent of the bad behaviour. Behavioural improvements started within a few weeks of beginning the diet and continued improving over a period of nearly five months, when they stabilised at the reduced level. Further reading: Conners, CK Food additives and hyperactive children, Plenum, 1980...'
And a number of other dietary trials here:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=182310&messageid=1111271035
We seem generally to have become dependant on others rather than making an effort to solve our own problems through a lot of aspects of our lives. Dependant on industry processed and packaged foods rather than ensuring for ourselves that we eat well. Then when the inevitable shift from healthy body/mind to unhealthy occurs as a result, we again trust other industries to produce some magic cure instead of correcting the cause.
The problem is that our huge level of dependancy breeds, in those playing to that dependancy, a confidence that we have so little self capability left that we will accept their theories and their foods and drugs without bothering to use our heads and our minds to check out what they DO in the process of bringing us convenient food or comforting drugs. The survival of the fittest means just that. People we 'rely on' are the fittest. People relying on others are not. So if a food additive or drug is unsafe then those purporting it to be safe are the winners. Those relying on a others for problems that could be solved with information and effort become the losers. The real losers of course, are those who are intended to be reliant until sufficiently matured, our children. They should be protected by adults who have themselves been reliant but have learned the skills of survival and have matured to at least a necessary survival level of self reliance. That way those adults go on to protect and teach the children of the next generation tools of survival.
This can't happen when adults remain dependent, reliant for themselves and their offspring (and teaching their children reliance) on others (the 'fittest' in the survival game) to provide 'safe' food, drugs and environment.
We can take charge of our diet. We can speak out about unsafe drugs. We can research and make positive steps to become the fittest - to take some charge back on our own lives.
It seems to me that however Tom Cruise is perceived, or however limited his time to explain, or whatever his philosophy for living, he was simply trying to help,and had the courage to do so, by alerting people to realising that those we rely are not necessarily ethical and the products they produce are not necessarily safe. Its up to each of us to use the innate (but seemingly forgotten) survival tools we've been given as a species, those of learning and acting on what we learn - if we want ourselves and our children to survive in a world where not everyone is as trustworthy as we would hope they are.
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/49892004.htm
KIRSTIE ALLEY, KELLY PRESTON and JOHN TRAVOLTA have joined TOM CRUISE's controversial battle against anti-depressants - by launching a public drive to restrict the use of medicines they believe cause suicide and violence among users.
Alley, Cruise, Preston and her husband Travolta are long-term followers of L RON HUBBARD's Church Of Scientology, which has been labelled a 'cult' by some critics.
And Cruise recently angered the American Psychiatric Association (APA) by attacking the use of anti-depressants, because the controversial faith teaches that drugs and psychiatry are destructive and dangerous.
But Alley, Preston and Travolta have leapt to the WAR OF THE WORLDS hunk's defence, by joining a group of doctors who are pushing for American authorities to put tougher warnings on prescription medication about their possible side-effects.
Alley and Preston wrote an open letter to the Food and Drug Administration, which reads, 'We can no longer sit back and let the clock tick, waiting for more deaths, suicides or people driven to violent acts by psychotropic drugs.'.
Alley explains, 'Parents in particular have been misled about the effects of these drugs. They are highly addictive; kids are using them more than street drugs to get high.'
Preston adds, 'Parents don't know that these drugs are turning kids into walking time bombs. Eight out of the last 13 school shooters were taking prescribed psychiatric drugs, and only now is the FDA investigating the fact these drugs can cause violence.'
Evidence is the key factor that should lead people to conclusions, not the personal beliefs of those who pass on that evidence. Whether or not some of the people who are concerned about OUR children and their future happen to be scientologists (though there are very many more that are not) has nothing to do with the evidence.
With regard to the statement by Alley and Preston '...driven to violent acts...' and their comment on 'school shootings' we should assess the evidence.
Before reading further please consider that at BEST the drugs in the cases listed in the website below were very obviously ineffective or the incidents would not have occured. At worst? You have to make up your own minds. Not all are school shootings, but several are.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=182310&messageid=1111669122
'...Jeff Weise, 16, (PROZAC) Minnesota School Shootings March 2005, killed his Grandfather and Grandmother, then went on a rampage at the school killing a teacher, a security officer, 5 students (and wounding 7 others, 2 critically), before exchanging gunfire with police and then shooting himself.
Christopher Bernaiche, 26, (Prozac) of South Rockwood in 2002. Two days after Prozac dosage doubled, fired wildly around killing 2 men, and wounded 3 others after pool game argument. (Defense pleaded mentally ill and prozac induced rage, jury verdict 1st degree murder. Judge has recently ordered a retrial as prosecution withheld info sent to them relating to evidence linking prozac and violence. Retrial Pending)
David John Hawkins aged 76, Australia (Zoloft) strangled his much loved wife with no warning. (Judge found: 'I am satisfied that but for the Zoloft he had taken, he would not have strangled his wife').
Andrew Myers, 28 (Zoloft) Within two weeks of starting on Zoloft he hit a long-time friend in the head with a spiked, pronged brass knuckle-type weapon known as a 'ninja key ring' during an argument. Attempted murder charges. (Acquitted - zoloft induced).
Leslie Demeniuk, Florida, (Zoloft then Paxil) killed her four-year-old twin sons in 2001. (Trial is on hold while prosecutors appeal a judge’s ruling that two defense experts could testify that Demeniuk was “involuntarily intoxicated” and “psychotic” as a result of taking Zoloft and then Paxil.).
Donald Schell, (Paxil). 48 hours after starting Paxil, he killed his wife, daughter, granddaughter and himself. (Jury found Paxil at cause and ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay $6.4 million to surviving family members.).
Merrilee Bentley Australia, (Paxil then Effexor) attempted murder (with suicide) of her young daughters. (Judge ruled that Effexor had 'gravely impaired' Merrilee Bentley's capacity for rational thought and action. He imposed a two-year suspended jail sentence and told her she was free to go home.).
Christopher Pittman, aged 12, (Paxil then Zoloft). Known amongst family as 'pop-pops shadow', he had always been very close to his grandfather. Shortly after being prescribed Zoloft he shot both his grandparents dead and burned the house down. Imprisoned, he waited 3 years for trial, and was then tried as an adult - a practice acceptable in the USA. (Defense pleaded involuntary intoxication. Preparing for the expected homicidality-zoloft link, Pfizer lawyers involved themselves early into the case with prosecution. Jury opted for murder verdict).
Victor Brancaccio aged 16 (Zoloft) Florida, Learning disability. 2 months into Zoloft & with increasing hostility and anger, killed a woman who said something which upset him while he was taking a walk to try to calm down. (Judge refused to instruct the jury re involuntarily intoxication, Victor was convicted of 1st degree murder, life sentence)
A mother (Prozac) professional female, Australia, drowned her young son in the bath while on the drug. (Not jailed, now doing well)
Case in Middleton (an SSRI) Western Australia, while suffering SSRI induced akathisia. (Court of Appeal)
Daryl Dempsay, 35, (Zoloft) stabbed his wife and two children at their home in Burlington, Kan., then shot and killed himself.
Mark Barton, Atlanta day trader, (Prozac) killed his family and others in a shooting spree before taking his own life.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow, (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
Cory Baadesgaard (Paxil then 300 mgs Effexor) in Matawa, WA school shooting. This was not long after being taken off Paxil cold turkey and changed over to Effexor.
Sergi Babarin (Luvox withdrawal) The Salt Lake Family History Library shooting leaving three dead.
Dr. Debra Green (Prozac) Kansas City, MO, set her home on fire, killing her children.
Eric Harris aged 17 (Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 in Colombine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and injured 23 others, before killing themselves.
Shawn Cooper of Notus, aged 15 (SSRI and Ritalin) took a 12 guage shot gun to school and started firing, injuring one student and holding the school hostage for about 20 mins.
Barbara Mortenson aged 66 (Prozac) attacked her 81-year-old mother, biting her more than 20 times and leaving chunks of flesh strewn on the floor after being on prozac for two weeks.
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) - school shooting in El Cajon, California.
Another boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) had a stand off at the school.
Jarred Viktor aged 15 (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan aged 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Matthew Beck (Luvox) shooting at the lottery in Connecticut that left five dead in a murder/suicide.
Edward Leary aged 49 (prescribed combo of Prozac, Effexor, and 2 other psych drugs) computer consultant. Bombings in NY subway, 50 injured. (Defense pleaded drug intoxication, verdict of guilty, 94 years prison sentence).
Elizabeth Bush aged 13 (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania.
Little Timmy. 10 year old (Prozac) in southern Florida.
Nick Mansies (Paxil) in New Jersey who was convicted of killing a little boy selling cookies door to door.
Sue Gray, Orange County, CA (Paxil) who co-workers described as a very caring nurse, killed several elderly people.
Officer Stephen Christian (Prozac) one of the finest officers on the Dallas Police force, who ran into a police substation shooting at fellow officers and was killed.
Williams Evans (Zoloft) shot one co-worker at the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services before shooting himself in Columbus, OH.
Christina Fetters aged 14 (Prozac) in Iowa who killed her favourite aunt.
David Rothman (Prozac) killed two co-workers and himself at the Dept. of Agriculture in Inglewood, CA.
Christopher Vasquez (Zoloft) killed Michael McMorrow in Central Park.
Megan Hogg (Prozac) duct taped the mouths and noses of her three little girls and took a handful of pills.
Steven Leith (Prozac), teacher of Chelsea, Michigan, shot dead the school superintendent and wounded two others including a fellow teacher.
Vera Espinoza (Prozac) in Randolph, VT shot her small son and daughter before shooting herself.
Mr Cunningham (Prozac) in Layton, UT axed his wife and daughter to death.
Margaret Kastanis (Prozac) used a knife and hammer to kill her three children before stabbing herself to death.
Andrea Yates (Remeron-Effexor) of Houston, TX, drowned her five children in the bathtub. The drugs had been prescribed at one and a half times the maximum dose.
Elderly man (Paxil) in Dallas, TX strangled his wife before shooting himself twice in the chest.
Lynwood Drake III, (Prozac and Valium) of California, shot and killed six people before shooting himself.
Larry Ashbrook (Prozac) killed seven people and himself in a Forth Worth, Texas, church.
Larramie Huntzinger (Zoloft) ran his car into three young girls killing two in Salt Lake City, UT.
Mary Hinkelman (Prozac), a nurse in Baroda, MI shot her two small daughters and her sister before shooting herself.
Lisa Fox (Prozac) shot her small son and her dog before shooting herself in Brighton, MI.
Debi Louselle (Zoloft) shot her daughter and then herself in Salt Lake City, UT.
Gloria B. (Prozac) in Pleasant Grove, UT killed her 17 year old son with a sledge hammer while he slept before she attempted suicide by drinking drain cleaner.
Larry Butzz, (Prozac) a superintendent of schools in Ames, IA shot his wife, son and daughter before shooting himself.
Michael McDermott (Prozac) - Software tester who walked into work and shot seven co-workers.
Joseph T Wesbecker, Kentucky (Prozac) went into work with an AK-47 and a couple of pistols, killed 7 co-workers injured 12.
Gail Ann Ransom. (Prozac) Became increasingly violent after beginning Prozac treatment culminating in the strangulation of her mother.
Kip Kinkel (Prozac and RITALIN) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
Hank Adams: (Prozac) Former San Diego Deputy Sheriff shot his wife and himself to death in front of his seventeen-year-old daughter.
Reginald Payne (Prozac) UK teacher aged 63, eleven days into Prozac suffocated his wife and then committed suicide by jumping off a cliff.
Duncan Murchison, (Prozac) threatened to murder his girlfriend while on a rampage.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac/Ritalin) , Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work. He used a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
Luke Woodham aged 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
Larry Gene Ashbrook (Prozac) killed seven people and himself in church in Fort Worth Texas.
Boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 who in seizure activity from Zoloft had a stand off at the school.
Chris Shanahan aged 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Mrs. Phil Hartman (Zoloft, but also taking Cocaine) , killed her husband and then herself. (Wrongful death court case was filed but settled by the Zoloft manufacturer)
Marilyn Lemak (Zoloft) of Naperville, IL killed her three children.
Young man in Amarillo, TX, young man (Prozac, Ritalin and another antidepressant) burned down a church and pastor’s home.
Kristine Marie Cushing, age 39 (Prozac) shot and killed her two children, then shot herself in failed suicide attempt.
Kenneth Seguin (Prozac) drugged his two children, cut their wrists and dumped their bodies in a nearby pond before driving home and killing his wife with an axe while she slept.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin) a 14-year-old opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded, one of whom was paralyzed.
Young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, aged 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, aged 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, aged 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, aged 19, (Psychiatric Drugs - various) Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
Jeremy Strohmeyer, aged 18, (Dexedrine) raped and murdered a 7-year-old African American girl in Las Vegas, Nevada shortly after commencing dexedrine 'treatment'.
Ryan Ehlis, college student, (Adderall)
in North Dakota, killed his infant daughter in a psychotic episode shortly after commencing adderall 'treatment'. '
For every extreme case you cite, there is a counter example of someone whose life has been saved with medication.
With all due respect, how do you know any lives has been saved. Evidence?
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/2004-09-22-suicide-rates-doubled-5-14.htm
Suicide rates doubled for children of 5-14 years old over the past 20 years! Research by James W. Prescott, Ph.D.
For youth age 15-24 suicide has been the third leading cause of death for well over a generation. Last year 15 million prescriptions were written for (SSRI) antidepressants for children and teenagers. Suicide rates have now DOUBLED for children of 5-14 years old in the past generation...
Suicide is the third highest cause of death among teenagers age 15-24. Suicide rates have doubled for children of 5-14 years old in the past generation. Last year 15 million prescriptions were written for (SSRI) antidepressants for children and teenagers.
Recently the (FDA) acknowledged an increased suicide risk associate with children taking (SSRI) antidepressants. The mental health of our children is worse off today than it was 50 years ago. But for years the National Institute of Health (NIH) has been following a biomedical model that seeks a drug to solve every problem. It's clearly been a massive failure.
Dr. James W. Prescott, past Health Scientist Administrator of the Development Behavioral Biology Program of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NIH) says 'Clearly something is wrong in our culture when our children and teens are driven into suicide, despair, and [legal] drug addiction. The NIH and America are not asking the important question: 'Where is all of this coming from and what can we do to prevent it?'
AMERICA'S LOST DREAM: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
By James W. Prescott, Ph.D.
(http://www.violence.de/prescott/appp/ald.pdf)
V. Depression and Suicide in Children and Youth of America
Depression and suicide are of epidemic proportions in America. Suicide has been the third leading cause of death in the youth age group of 15-24 years for the past generation (1979-1997) and is the fifth and sixth leading cause of death in the 5-14 year age group for the years 1979 and 1997, respectively. Tables 2 & 3 show that the suicide rates have doubled in the 5-14 year age group from 1979-1997. Table 4 gives the number of suicidal and homicidal deaths for the years 1979, 1994 and 1998 for the age groups of 1-4 years; 5-14 years and 15-24 years. The total number of suicidal deaths in these age groups for the years 1979, 1994 and 1998 are 5,398; 5,274 and 4,321, respectively. This represents an average of 4,999 suicide deaths per year for these years.
Given the average of 5,000 suicidal deaths per year, the estimated total number of suicidal deaths in these age groups from 1979-2000 is 105,000 children and youth who have committed suicide over this past generation. More children and youth (ages 5-24 years) have committed suicide in the past ten years than the total number of American combat lives lost in the ten year Vietnam War (est. 55,000 v 47,355), yet little or no public attention has been given to this reality and what it represents.
There are an estimated 60,828 suicides in the 25-44 year age group for the five years from 1994-1998 (12,166x5=60,828), an estimated total of 121,656 American lives lost to suicide for ten years in this age group that is more than double all the American lives lost in the ten year Vietnam War.
Table 5 gives the suicide rates as a percent of the homicide rates for these specific age groups and for the years 1979, 1994 and 1998. For the 5-14 year old age group, suicide rates, as a percent of homicide rates, have systematically increased from 1979 to 1998, as follows: 1979:36%; 1994: 60 %; 1998:73 %.
Suicidal death, relative to homicidal death, has dramatically increased for our children and youth in the 5- 14 year age group from 1979-1998. The question that remains unanswered is why do our children and youth prefer suicidal death to living in America, presumably the healthiest, wealthiest, and greatest nation of the world? Clearly, these dramatic increases in suicide rates over a single generation cannot be attributed to any changes in the human gene pool.
These statistics indicate that America is an unsafe nation to rear its children and this conclusion is also supported by the epidemic of depression that afflicts our children and youth, as evidenced by their massive psychiatric medication (Zito, et.al, 2000). Some 1.5 million prescriptions of the anti-depressant class of drugs called the serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SRIs, e.g., Prozac) are given annually to children and youth and some 3 million prescriptions of Ritalin are prescribed annually. The problem of underestimating child/youth suicides in our society is as real as it is for child abuse homicides, previously cited (Herman-Giddens, et.al, 1999), where they found that child abuse homicides were underascertained by 62%. It is reasonable to project a similar or larger underestimation of suicidal deaths, given the higher societal and family shame and guilt that is associated with suicidal death, particularly of children and youth. Undoubtedly, many suicidal deaths are hidden in the accidental death statistics and are a greater problem than the current statistics indicate.
The pioneering study of Salk, et al (1985) found prenatal and perinatal stress factors in 81% of teen suicides that represented a 400% increased risk of suicide compared to the control subjects. The studies of the Jacobson group in Sweden also documented the role of perinatal trauma and obstetric medications on later adult behaviors of suicide, homicide and drug addictive behaviors, where increased risks for some of these behaviors was as high as 500% compared to control groups (Jacobson, et al, 1987,1988, 1990, 1998/ 2000). The study of Raine, et al (1994) found birth complications and maternal rejection predicting violent crime at 18 years of age, which adds additional evidence that prenatal/perinatal trauma contributes to adult behavioral disorders. The report of Levy (1945) that the trauma of circumcision can lead to homicidal and suicidal emotional states should not be neglected in the overall assessment of prenatal, perinatal and postnatal factors that contribute to child, teen and adult emotional-behavioral disorders.
VI. Psychiatric Medications of the Children and Youth of America.
Breggin (1994, 1995, 1998) has warned America about the effects of a Toxic Psychiatry upon the children and youth of America, which have gone unheeded. The psychiatric drugging of the children, youth and adults of America have become worse where there is little or no questions being asked by the psychiatric-political establishment as to why are all these psychiatric drugs are necessary. Breggin (2000) provides a framework for the prevention of the psychiatric drugging of the children and youth of America and a path to follow, if natural happiness is to become a reality, which is the true prevention of depression and violence.
Zito, et al (2000) have reviewed the prevalence of psychotropic medication use in children and youth; and in preschool-aged children from 1991-1995 from two state Medicaid programs and an HMO. They reported: The prevalence of psychotropic medication treatment for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders has significantly increased in the United States during the last few decades, particularly in the last 15 years. Specifically the 5 through 14-yearold age group has experienced a great increase in stimulant treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHS), and the 15 through 19 -year- old age group has had sizable increases in the use of antidepressant medications (pp.1-2)... The rate of psychotropic medication prescribed for preschoolers in the MWM program increased substantially from 1991-1995. The increase was greatest for clonidine (28.2-fold), stimulants (3.0-fold), and antidepressants (2.2-fold). By contrast, neuroleptic use did not increase substantially during this time (p.4)... Methylphenidate (Ritalin) use according to age group in children and adolescents in the MWM program was most prominent for those aged 5-14 years... The largest methylphenidate increase (311%) was among 15 through19- year olds, whereas the 2 through 4- year-olds, like the 5-through 14 -year-olds, had a smaller but still substantial increase (169% to 176%) (pp.4-5)...
Several prominent trends characterized the use of psychotropic medications in preschoolers during the early to mid 1990s. Overall, there were large increases for all study medications (except the neuroleptics) and considerable variation according to gender, age, geographic region, and health care system. These findings are remarkable in light of the limited knowledge base that underlies psychotropic medication use in very young children. Controlled clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of psychotropic medications for preschoolers are rare. Efficacy data are essentially lacking for clonidine and the SSRIs and methylphenidate's adverse effects for preschool children are more pronounced than for older youths. Consequently, the vast majority of psychotropic medications prescribed for preschoolers are being used offlabel. (P.5).
Recall that this 5-14 year age group showed a doubling of suicide rates over the past twenty years (supra).
http://www.narpa.org/prozac.revisited.htm
The Boston Globe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nation / World
See also, 'Prozac data kept from trial, suit says,' Globe 6/8/00, p. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prozac revisited
As drug gets remade, concerns about suicides surface
By Leah R. Garnett, Globe Staff, 5/7/2000
Just as the 14-year patent on Prozac is about to expire and the drug's maker, Eli Lilly and Co., is preparing to launch a new version, a body of evidence has come to light revealing the antidepressant's dark side.
The company's internal documents, some dating to the mid-1980s, as well as government applications and patents, indicate that the pharmaceutical giant has known for years that its best-selling drug could cause suicidal reactions in a small but significant number of patients. The reports could become critical as Lilly seeks government approval for its new Prozac.
Among the findings:
- Internal documents show that in 1990, Lilly scientists were pressured by corporate executives to alter records on physician experiences with Prozac, changing mentions of suicide attempt to 'overdose' and suicidal thoughts to 'depression.'
- Three years before Prozac received approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in late 1987, the German BGA, that country's FDA equivalent, had such serious reservations about Prozac's safety that it refused to approve the antidepressant based on Lilly's studies showing that previously nonsuicidal patients who took the drug had a fivefold higher rate of suicides and suicide attempts than those on older antidepressants, and a threefold higher rate than those taking placebos.
- Lilly's own figures, in reports made available to the Globe, indicate that 1 in 100 previously nonsuicidal patients who took the drug in early clinical trials developed a severe form of anxiety and agitation called akathisia, causing them to attempt or commit suicide during the studies.
- Though Lilly has steadfastly defended the drug's safety and downplayed studies linking Prozac to suicide, the patent for the new Prozac, R-fluoxetine, expected to be marketed by Lilly beginning in 2002, notes that the new version will not produce several existing side effects including 'akathisia, suicidal thoughts, and self-mutilation,' which the patent calls 'one of its more significant side effects.'
- A McLean Hospital researcher and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Martin Teicher, whose early 1990s studies linked Prozac to akathisia and suicide, is a co-inventor of the new Prozac, which Lilly plans to market, along with Timothy J. Barberich, the CEO of Sepracor Inc., a Marlborough drug company, and James W. Young.
- A just-published book, 'Prozac Backlash,' by a Cambridge psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, has drawn Lilly's ire for discussing Prozac's link to suicide, tics, withdrawal symptoms, and other side effects of Prozac and similar antidepressants.
Lilly officials continue to defend the drug's effectiveness, saying its track record is borne out by the fact it is still the most widely prescribed drug of its kind. In a written statement, Jeff Newton, a Lilly spokesman, said: 'There is no credible evidence that establishes a causal link between Prozac and violent or suicidal behavior. There is, to the contrary, scientific evidence showing that Prozac and medicines like it actually protect against such behaviors.'
Using figures on Prozac both from Lilly and independent research, however, Dr. David Healy, an expert on the brain's serotonin system and director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales, estimated that 'probably 50,000 people have committed suicide on Prozac since its launch, over and above the number who would have done so if left untreated.'
Healy, meanwhile, is conducting a new study that he says is the first of its kind, giving antidepressants to healthy people to study possible links to suicide. The results are expected to be published in June.
Prozac's success is certainly unquestioned. The introduction of the drug to the US market in the late 1980s changed the way Americans viewed their most intimate emotions and limitations. Billed as a wonder drug to combat depression by boosting levels of the brain chemical serotonin, Prozac and others like it were also said to remedy a host of human frailties from poor self-esteem and concentration to fear of rejection.
By the end of last year, more than 35 million people worldwide were using the drug, which provided Lilly with more than 25 percent of its $10 billion in 1999 revenue.
Yet the problems with Prozac were known even before it was introduced to the US market. Figures in a 1984 Lilly document indicated that akathisia, the severe agitation that can lead to suicide, occurs in at least 1 percent of patients, a level considered a 'frequent' event, and as such must be disclosed in a company's product literature and package inserts. But there is no such disclosure in Prozac's US literature, and it is not clear whether the FDA panel charged with approving Prozac simply overlooked or did not have access to certain critical data of Lilly's.
As a result, researchers say that most US doctors do not know to warn patients of the potentially dangerous effect which, according to published literature on the topic, can be alleviated with sedatives or by going off the drug.
German regulators, who eventually approved Prozac for use in that country, require a warning label about the risk of suicide and suggest the concurrent use of sedatives when necessary.
Akathisia is listed in Lilly's US product literature, but as an infrequent event in Prozac users. No mention is made of its potential relationship to suicide.
A relationship, however, was found in a Globe search of US patents. The patent for the new Prozac or R-fluoxetine (US Patent no. 5,708,035), which Lilly will market after the existing patent expires in 2001, contains a wealth of information about the original Prozac. According to the patent, the new Prozac will decrease side effects of the existing Prozac such as headaches, nervousness, anxiety, and insomnia, as well as 'inner restlessness (akathisia), suicidal thoughts and self-mutilation' - the same effect Lilly has contended has not occurred in any substantial way in some 200 lawsuits against it over the past decade. Most of the suits were settled out of court and the terms kept confidential.
A 1990 communique
In an electronic communique obtained by author Glenmullen dated Nov. 13, 1990, from Claude Bouchy, a Lilly employee in Germany, to three Lilly corporate executives at the company's Indianapolis headquarters, Bouchy says he and a colleague 'have problems with the directions our safety people are getting from the corporate group (Drug Epidemiology Unit) and requesting that we change the identification of events as they are reported by the physicians. . . . Our safety staff is requested to change the event term `suicide attempt' [as reported by the physician] to `overdose.' '
Bouchy continued that '. . . it is requested that we change . . . `suicidal ideation' to `depression.' '
And then Bouchy makes an appeal to his US Lilly colleagues: 'I do not think I could explain to the BGA, 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. At least not with the explanations that have been given to our staff so far.'
Lilly has also aggressively sought to discredit researchers who published data linking its product to suicide. One of its early targets was Dr. Martin Teicher, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a McLean Hospital researcher, who wrote a crucial paper on the link between suicide and Prozac in 1990; he found that 3.5 percent of patients put on Prozac either attempt or commit suicide due to severe agitation from akathisia. As a result of Lilly's campaign, many in the psychiatric community say they believe Teicher has distanced himself from his original work. But in a rare interview with the Globe, Teicher said that he stood by his work, and that the ability of Prozac to induce suicide in a minority of patients 'is a real phenomenon.'
Teicher, Barberich, and Young filed their patent for the new Prozac in August 1993, the same year Teicher published another report, this one in the journal Drug Safety titled 'Antidepressant Drugs and the Emergence of Suicidal Tendencies.'
The paper was a direct challenge to data reported in the March 1991 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry by Drs. Maurizio Fava and Jerrold Rosenbaum of Massachusetts General Hospital. Their study found no significant difference in 'suicidal ideation' in patients treated with fluoxetine compared to those receiving other antidepressants.
Teicher wrote in his 1993 paper that Fava and Rosenbaum's statistics were flawed. Using Fava and Rosenbaum's data, Teicher came to the opposite conclusion: namely, that patients on Prozac were at least
three times more likely to become suicidal than those on older antidepressants.
The FDA came up with similar results even before Teicher published his 1993 data. Dr. David Graham, chief of the FDA's Epidemiology Branch, wrote on Sept. 11, 1990, that Lilly's data on suicide and Prozac, as well as the Fava and Rosenbaum study, were insufficient to prove that Prozac was safe. In an internal FDA memo, Graham wrote: 'Because of apparent large-scale underreporting, the firm's analysis cannot be considered as proving that fluoxetine and violent behavior are unrelated.'
'Prozac Backlash'
Now a decade later, Lilly has targeted Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, whose book 'Prozac Backlash' has apparently incensed Lilly executives.
Glenmullen, a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a clinician at the Harvard University Health Services, says he wrote the book because he was alarmed by the number of patients who were reporting severe side effects from the serotonin-boosting antidepressants including Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, and Luvox. 'The two most upsetting side effects were patients becoming suicidal on the drugs, and the development of disfiguring facial tics,' he said in an interview.
After obtaining hundreds of pages of FDA documents through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as internal Lilly memos that are part of the public record in lawsuits filed against the drug company, Glenmullen wrote that Lilly had tried to downplay side effects of Prozac for years.
Lilly alerted newspapers and TV stations to the book and began a campaign to discredit the author, saying that Harvard Medical School professors were unfamiliar with his work and didn't recognize his name. Glenmullen, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, is one of 415 clinical instructors in medicine at Harvard.
Blast from a critic
Chief among Glenmullen's critics is Mass. General's Rosenbaum, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who, in a written statement sent to the Globe calls 'Prozac Backlash' a 'dishonest book' that is ' manipulative' and 'mischievous.'
But Rosenbaum's objectivity has also been questioned. Not only was his 1991 study on Prozac and suicide criticized by at least two sets of researchers as well as the FDA, documents obtained by the Globe show that Rosenbaum's relationship to Lilly is a cozy one: he has served as a Prozac researcher and sat on a marketing advisory panel for Lilly before Prozac was launched.
When asked in an interview why he was speaking out against Glenmullen's book, Rosenbaum said that the suicide controversy was 'old news' and that the book presents the information as new research. He noted that akathisia is 'pretty rare' and that 'it doesn't occur more than in people given a placebo.'
But because there is no official reporting system for drug side effects, no one knows how common drug side effects are, said Larry Sasich, a research analyst at Public Citizen in Washington, D.C.
'There is no active surveillance system to look at adverse events,' he said. 'Unless something very unfortunate happens and a large number of people are harmed in a unique way, no one is going to look at it; nobody ever puts two and two together.'
Sepracor's patent
On April 12, the Federal Trade Commission opened the way for Lilly to market Teicher's, Barberich's, and Young's new Prozac, for which Sepracor holds the patent. The new Prozac, R-fluoxetine, is a modified form of an ingredient found in Prozac, which, according to Sepracor, not only has fewer side effects but more potential uses and benefits than the original.
In making the decision, the FTC rejected arguments from its lawyers and the generic drug industry that the agreement unfairly limits generic Prozac competition.
According to a Sepracor press release dated April 13, the company will receive an upfront payment and license fee of $20 million from Lilly and an additional $70 million based on the progression of the drug. Sepracor will receive royalties, and in exchange, Lilly will get the exclusive world rights to R-fluoxetine for all indications and uses. Lilly will be responsible for the development of the drug, regulatory submissions, product manufacturing, marketing and sales, according to the release.
Glenmullen wonders whether the new Prozac will, in fact, be little more than an effort to prolong the life of a product with a soon-to-expire patent.
Although it is touted as having fewer side effects, no one knows what effects may surface once large numbers of people begin taking it for months or years. In the epilogue to his book, he simply says: 'Like any new drug, it too will be an ongoing experiment.'
http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/media/ssri/Paxil_murder.htm
- Vickery pointed out that **volunteers** in the Paxil test experienced anxiety, nightmares, hallucinations and other side effects - definitely caused by the drug - within two days of taking it. As early as four days, one volunteer experienced akathisia, a form of agitation that increases the risk of violence and suicide. Two **volunteers** attempted suicide after 11 and 18 days, respectively.
'The first words out of the defense lawyer's mouth were 'Two pills didn't cause this crime,'' Vickery says. 'What we showed were a host of incidents **from their own internal documents,** all occurring within a day or two or three, all of them related to the drug. -
http://adbusters.org/metas/psycho/prozacspotlight/lillysuicidestour/
- Healy had designed his 'healthy volunteer study' to compare the psychological experience of being on a serotonin antidepressant versus a non-serotonin antidepressant, but before he knew it, two of his volunteers became dangerously agitated and suicidal. Both were taking the SSRI drug. The adverse reactions couldn't easily be blamed on psychological instability – these were healthy volunteers. And the rate of 10 percent made it clear that such results were not so rare as to be incidental. -
http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/factsheets/Factdepression.htm
- In 1997, British psychiatrist Dr David Healy wrote a report recommending the use of psychotropic drugs in children but changed his mind about antidepressants when he noticed his in-tray 'filling with files on teenagers committing suicide within a week or two of commencing Prozac' -
- Dr Healy estimates that at least 250,000 people worldwide have attempted suicide **because of Prozac alone** and 25,000 have succeeded. He has conducted trials which showed that SSRIs caused even some healthy volunteers to become agitated, and in some cases, suicidal.
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
(Expert Witness correspondence with a Drug Regulatory Agency on PRE-MARKETING CLINICAL TRIALS)
- '...Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial'.
'Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability.'
' Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened.'
'...records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance.'
'Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;'
'But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout, as far as I can make out... ' -
EVIDENCE on the efficacy / benefits of antidepressants on children
http://www.ahrp.org/risks/SSRI0204/KirschAntonuccio.php
- There are a total of 12 published randomized clinical trials in the entire world literature (see studies marked with an * in the reference list). Eight of these 12 trials failed to find any significant benefit of medication over inert placebo. Only 4 of the RCTs claimed significant differences between drug and placebo, and these did so only on clinician rated measures, not patient rated measures.
Of the 12 published randomized trials, 4 assessed SSRIs, 7 assessed tricyclics, and one assessed both SSRIs and tricyclics. Four of the five SSRI-placebo comparisons indicated significant differences. None of the TCA-placebo comparisons showed significant differences.
Three of the clinical trials did not report means and/or standard deviations, leaving 9 for meta-analysis. When these nine studies are combined, the placebo response is 87% of the drug response. It is 75% of the SSRI response and 97% of the tricyclic response.
Thus, the meta-analysis indicates that tricyclics have no significant pharmacological effect on depression in children. The effect of SSRIs is statistically significant, but it is not clinically significant. Overall, the effects of antidepressant medication are weaker in children than in adults (cf. Kirsch & Sapirstein, 1997; Kirsch et al. 2002). These conclusions are consistent with those found in all 7 prior reviews of the effects of antidepressants in depressed children (Ambrosini et al., 1992; Dujovne et al., 1995; Fisher & Fisher, 1996; Hazell et al., 1995; Kastelic et al., 2000; Michael & Crowley, 2002; Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 1996).
These results were drawn from studies with design flaws that typically favor the study drug. For example, they frequently exclude placebo responders before random assignment, rely on ratings by clinician's who have a vested interest in the outcome, and are likely to be unblinded by medication side effects (Antonuccio et al., 1999; Antonuccio et al. 2002). Furthermore, these results are drawn from the published literature, which is subject to publication bias and ãfile drawerä problems, meaning that many studies with negative results do not to get published. Adding unpublished studies, most of which have negative results, will surely shrink the difference between antidepressants and placebo even further.
In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of antidepressant use in children, the committee must consider the benefits as well as the risks. Clinically meaningful benefits have not been adequately demonstrated in depressed children. Therefore, no extra risk is warranted. An increased risk of suicidal behavior is certainly not justified by these minimal benefits. Neither are the established increased risk of other commonly reported side effects, which include agitation, insomnia, and gastrointestinal problems.
The highest possible standard should be applied to scientific data involving drug treatment of children because children are essentially involuntary patients. Those of you on the committee who are parents know this to be true, because when your children have prescription medication for something that ails them, you make them take it as prescribed, whether they want to or not.
Children given antidepressant medication often do get better but so do children given placebo. Thus, the clinical trial data suggest that improvement is due primarily, perhaps entirely-- to the placebo effect. Instead of medication with demonstrated side effects and minimal effectiveness, children can be offered interventions like exercise and cognitive behavior therapy that have been found to produce therapeutic effects on depression without the medical side effects and risks (e.g., Clark et al., 1999). -
EVIDENCE on the efficacy of antidepressants overall
http://www.swedish.org/16944.cfm
- Researchers Analyzed 47 Studies
Psychologists Irving Kirsch, PhD, of the University of Connecticut and Thomas Moore, PhD, of George Washington University analyzed the results of 47 studies on antidepressant drugs. **The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used these studies for approval of the following antidepressants,** which were prescribed most widely between 1987-1999:
Sertraline (Zoloft)
Paroxetine (Paxil)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Citalopram (Celexa)
Venlafaxine (Effexor)
Nefazodone (Serzone)
In each of the 47 studies, participants were given either an antidepressant or an inactive dummy pill (known as a placebo), but neither they nor the researchers knew which one they were taking.
Little Difference in Depression Scale Scores
At the beginning and follow-up of these studies, both sets of participants took the 50-point Hamilton Depression Scale to compare rates of depression before and after treatment. Overall, for participants taking the placebo (inactive dummy pill), the average improvement on the Hamilton Depression Scale was 8 points, whereas those given antidepressants had an average improvement of 10 points. According to lead researcher Dr. Kirsch, the difference is clinically negligible.
What Does This Mean?
According to Dr. Kirsch, although the mean differences between the antidepressants and placebo were small, **statistically the drugs appear to be more effective than the placebo.** However, the small difference between the drug and placebo can be viewed in two different ways:
The antidepressants actually had an effect, albeit a small one, or
The antidepressants had little effect and the difference resulted from an enhanced placebo effect
The Placebo Effect: Reflecting the Powers of the Mind
Placebos are substances with no known pharmacologic value. The placebo effect occurs when participants in a study experience improvement after taking what they think could be a powerful treatment when, in fact, they are only taking a placebo. Since there is no scientific evidence to explain the positive effects of a placebo, the effects are seen as psychologic. In other words, the participant thinks he or she is taking a drug that will produce results and therefore begins to feel an improvement. Whether participants are actually taking a drug or a placebo, their expectations of feeling better can lead to improvement. That is, the placebo effect illustrates the power of the mind.
Possible Enhanced Placebo Effect
In the antidepressant study, it is possible that the placebo effect was enhanced. Although participants were not told whether they were taking a placebo or an antidepressant, many were aware that antidepressants produce side effects. Participants having side effects could have concluded that they received the antidepressant and therefore expected to feel better, a belief that ultimately improved their mood. In this study, the enhanced placebo effect may be small, but the drug/placebo difference on the Hamilton Depression Scale was also small (only 2 points).
More Effective Measures May Be Needed
So how effective are antidepressants? According to the research presented by Dr. Kirsch and his colleagues, we really don’t know. Dr. Kirsch admits that there may be problems with the way drug trials are conducted. The design of the placebo-controlled studies may overshadow the true effectiveness of the antidepressants. In this study, it is assumed that the difference between the placebo’s effect and the drug’s effect is due to the efficacy of the drug. It’s possible that the placebo effect played a smaller role in the participants taking the antidepressant. This would mean that the antidepressants had a greater effect, which was indicated by the difference between the two figures.
The researchers concluded that better ways are needed to measure the effectiveness of treatments for depression. In addition to medication, depression is often treated with psychosocial interventions, exercise, and psychotherapy. -
http://www.usnewswire.com/
- Newshound Investigations: Psychiatrists, Heal Thyselves; FDA and Other Drug Regulatory Officials Back Cruise Mon Jul 4, 1:22 PM ET
ADVERTISEMENT
To: National Desk
Contact: Christine Head of Newshound Investigations, 731-868-4271 or christinejournalist@hotpop.com
PADUCAH, Ky., July 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by Newshound Investigations:
Many have watched with growing concern the misdirected controversy over Tom Cruise and his remarks about psychiatric drugs.
It is amusing that the mental health industry is slamming Cruise for having a conflict of interest because he belongs to a church that opposes the use of mind altering drugs, while completely ignoring the fact that psychiatrists receive untold billions from pharmaceutical companies and then produce 'research' on the same drugs developed by those who pay them. Hmmm....
As the saying goes, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.'
Unlike members of the American Psychiatric Association, (APA), Cruise is earning his money from public, (movie fans) not private interests.
Of course, the APA and big Pharma would love to convince the public that it's only Scientologists who are raising concerns about psychiatric drugs.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
Just this past week, on July 1, after more than 15 years of denial that a suicide risk exists for adults taking one of the so-called 'selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors' SSRI antidepressants, the Food and Drug Administration posted a public health advisory acknowledging: 'Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior.'
The FDA also plans to analyze all the antidepressant clinical trial data maintained by the drugs' manufacturers spanning more than 20 years.
'The FDA has asked these manufacturers to identify all placebo-controlled trials conducted in adults in their development programs for their antidepressant products, regardless of the indication studied, and to provide information from these trials to FDA.'
According to Dow Jones News, The FDA also announced that it would make labeling changes to Johnson and Johnson's drug Concerta, which belongs to a certain class of drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, describing psychiatric events such as 'visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior as well as aggression or violent behavior.'
As if that weren't enough, this week, the Wall Street Journal- -not exactly a bastion of anti-corporate sentiment--reported that the FDA also posted information about patients who displayed suicidal tendencies during trials of Eli Lilly 's antidepressant Cymbalta (duloxetine).
The FDA site states that a 'higher-than-expected rate of suicide attempts was observed' in the studies after the formal portion of the trials had concluded. According to an investigative report by Jeanne Lenzer and Nicholas Pyke, a review of the FDA adverse drug report data shows that there have been 13 suicides and 41 deaths reported among patients taking duloxetine (Cymbalta). However, five suicides that had occurred during Cymbalta clinical trials-including that of Traci Johnson, the 19 year old Bible student--are being concealed and are unavailable when requested under the Freedom of Information Act from the FDA.
The Wall Street Journal also reported that the FDA acknowledged Lilly's efforts to prevent the agency from posting safety information about Cymbalta. Lilly questioned FDA's authority, raising 'legal issues including our use of confidential commercial data.' The Journal reports: 'The agency took the action despite earlier objections from Lilly.'
Let's not forget that in fall, 2004, the FDA also decided to affix warning labels about suicide risk for the SSRI class of psychiatric drugs.
Using the APA's logic, I suppose we must now conclude that members of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research are all Scientologists.
Or what about officials in the United Kingdom who banned the antidepressant Paxil for use on children under 18. Does that mean all the drug monitoring officials in the UK are also Scientologists?
Earlier this year, officials in Canada pulled the drug Adderall off the market. The drug, also used to treat ADHD was pulled from shelves after sudden deaths, heart-related deaths, and strokes in children and adults taking usual recommended dosages. I suppose we must now conclude that Canadian officials are also part of Tom Cruise's conspiracy.
The public is growing tired of psychiatrists who have become nothing more than drug company shills, passing their 'research' off as legitimate medical treatment at the expense of peoples' lives.
So you think psychiatric drugs are so safe?
Thousands of people were told the same thing in the 1960s about Thorazine (chlorpromazine) and who now have a disease of involuntary movement called Tardive Dyskinesia, for which there is no cure. It's caused directly by psychiatric drugs. I've seen the damage first hand and it's not pretty.
So, you think psychiatric drugs are wonderful and worth the risks?
Talk to the families who've had loved ones commit suicide after being put on psychiatric drugs such as Prozac.
Skeptical? Go to your local psychiatric hospital and just observe for yourselves the long-term effects of these drugs. Look at the patients, watch them, talk to them and then ask yourselves 'does this constitute life improvement?' Ask the patients the last time they were given a medical exam.
The voices of these patients can barely be heard because of the billions drug companies and their psychiatric puppets have spent advertising their specious concern to the world. Sadly, for the most part, big media--which receives hundreds of millions in advertising dollars from this industry--has also bought into Big Pharma hype at the expense of public safety.
Nobody, including Tom Cruise is stating that depression isn't real; just that there are other, alternative and effective therapies to mind altering drugs.
Meanwhile, the adverse side effects, deaths, suicides and lawsuits keep piling up.
Many mental health consumers, religious organizations, libertarians and others are concerned about the Brave New World of psychiatry; it is not limited just to Scientologists.
But bravo to Scientologists for having the courage to speak out and share the truth in an era when 'truth' for psychiatry is defined by Big Pharma's bottom line instead of genuine concern for their patients' well being.
Psychiatrists, heal thyselves. -
Sorry, I forgot to put a name on my thread. The one citing personal family experience of the failures of psych. meds. Also, I feel I should mention that I am a mother of three and have had Post Partum Depression. It goes away with time. It is like any trauma, having a child, and it takes a body a while to recoup, the mind will follow. After my second child, and a bungled C-section, it hit me quite hard. I wallowed for about a week then decided to do something constructive. I strapped my baby to my back and took long walks, I built a deck off the front of my home, combined with taking care of my family, I didn't have time for depression.
Seems a lot of you think you know what you're talking about, yet you put words in Tom's mouth. You also seem to not know that Katie (Couric) did a sort of follow-up interview with a Harvard professor on the subject of psychiatry and chemical imbalance in the brain shortly after this interview with Matt. The Harvard professor, too, said there was no such thing as a chemical imbalance. How many of you watched that? Seems like none.
Also, if celebrities shouldn't be listened to outside of their jobs then why are all you posers always copying their fashion, mimicking them and so intersted in their personal lives? I guess you only listen to celebrities when it suits you.
'Nough said.
Oh, P.S. To that guy who said Tom couldn't get two women pregnant or whatever, how would you know what Tom's plans for kids were and are now? I never saw anything about Tom unable to have kids. Maybe he just wants to adopt. Yet another chatboard idiot pretending to know things.
To the raging homo know as Tracy: you claim Tom says he has all the answers. I'm sorry, I didn't hear him say any of that. I also didn't see him act like no one can touch him. You are confusing him for a braggert such as Kid Rock. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a fan of that a*shole.
You say you doubt he's ever had to deal with someone with Postpartum Depression. Yes, you doubt but you don't know. You make another assumption which you know nothing about. Perhaps he has dealt with people with this condition and has helped them so he might actually have some experience with this.
It's funny to hear you tell which day Tom should consider the best day in his life. I mean, what the f*ck is it to you anyway which day he considers the best in his life? What do you care? Oh, that's right, you just needed some cheap insult material.
A lot of people here are saying Tom doesn't know much about psychiatric drugs and disorders. Seems more people don't know much about Tom.
Also, you guys must either all think alike or just share the same lines.
The same could be said about you and your fellow scientologists, Pear.
What a great, intelligent comeback.
At least I don't put words in other people's mouths. And that was really clever of you to assume I'm a Scientologist. Apparently psychics are cruising the web.
Sorry, Tom is right.
better a new dog at home that a pil.
for anti-deperession find your-self your family your gifts! fing God!
The boss, the office , the credit cards are yours, confront them and fix them!!
problem is solve. you are responsible for your future, what do you know it's what it counts!!! wake-up smell the CAFE fix it! demand IT, make IT better!! eat better, walk every day! think without DRUGS of any Kind . how difficulkt!!
you see , you see what you want to see. neighbor, a better husband or wife, a better human been, do no poison your kids. love them !!! do not save time( your Time) with drugs, take them to the park, share more time with them , if the running a lot maybe the wiil be a champions in something; soccer?
marathon? basketball? baseball? just give them a chance! kiss them every morning!, every nigth!. that what Tomm is talking about , that all.
No scientologist here, just one ordinary guy with personal experience of the destruction psychiatric drugs can cause to someone much loved. One ordinary guy standing with many other ordinary folk with similar experiences.
Paxil
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?oky71&1
Prozac
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?lilpro&1
Most important, children
http://www.petitiononline.com/forkids/petition.html
Anecdotes don't impress. Real data, real research does. Just as certain cancer treatments do not work for everyone, certain psychotropic drugs will not be useful for everyone. Does this mean they should be demonized? Certainly not. Mental illness is real. Use whatever treatment works best for you. For some, that means medication. That's it, plain and simple.
To the long and gay-winded named commentor above:
You're half right. Real research and real data are what matters. However, these annecdotes are SOMEWHAT a way of telling the effectiveness of something. They are certainly not the end-all, but they do matter.
Medicaion is the issue here, and though it could be argued that there is some success with some individuals, the UNsuccess of the medication should also be argued. There have been deaths and general catastrophe as a result of these medications so you cannot just make it a simple matter of 'it works for some but not others'. So far I have not heard of any real way to tell whom they will work for and whom they will not, nor have I heard of a psychiatrist ever actually trying to do this. These medications are passed out like Pez and there is more often than not no studying for alternatives to psychotropic medication, whose basis is actually on the THEORY of a chemical imbalance. This is not 100% proven but that's what psychiatry is operated on.
I agree there are crazy people and sane people and people who are messed up and people who are not. But the kind of mental illness I see nowadays are more of a sentence to a long term if not life time of drugs, psychoanalysis and other 'uncomfortable', to say the least, forms of treatment. If mental illness is so real and these people know what they're doing I would have expected some better results than the overcrowded prisons, increasingly dumb and misbehaved kids and mental institutions full of soon-to-be-dead people.
But you're right. Research and data matter, not annecdotes, but so do results.
To the poster directly above Pear.
On Page 5 someone has posted detailed 'real data and real research', did you not read any of it?
A small sample of the data on the previous page:
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
(Expert Witness correspondence with a Drug Regulatory Agency on PRE-MARKETING CLINICAL TRIALS)
- '...Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial'.
'Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability.'
' Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened.'
'...records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance.'
'Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;'
'But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout, as far as I can make out... '
I understand that cancer drugs do not get onto the market if they cause deaths in clinical trials. Do you believe that the psychiatric drugs listed above would have got onto the market had the makers submitted the 'real research' results at the time?
It takes cold, inhumane, utter arrogance (and a certain degree of scientific ignorance) to dismiss the deaths of many individual children and adults (any life other than your own) as merely 'anecdotal', particularly when those lives have been lost because of FALSIFIED 'real data'.
There is no 'real data' to prove that the above drugs have saved any lives. It is all anecdotal and, as you said yourself, 'anecdotes don't impress'!
A little word from one anecdote to another more 'arrogant and ignorant' anecdote.
Because FALSIFIED data was submitted and unsafe drugs went onto the market, thousands of 'anecdotes' lost their lives. Oddly, the 'anecdotal' relatives of those 'anecdotes' happen to see their young 'anecdotes' or parental 'anecdotes' or sibling 'anecdotes' as actual, caring, loving human beings who, having been given the gift of life, had the right to continue to live and to grow, to learn, to achieve and to eventually contribute to the good of those lives they touched throughout their own. The right also to the protection of 'REAL' data submissions for medicines, based on 'real research' exposing the 'REAL' dangers as based on clinical studies.
Posted by Laura Linderman on 2005/8/15 19:13:00
Tom Cruise's Comments About Psychiatry Are Distorted and Damaging, According To Editor-in-Chief Harold Koplewicz, M.D.
NEW ROCHELLE, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 15, 2005--The incalculable harm done by actor Tom Cruise's 'premeditated attack on psychiatrically ill patients' during a Today show interview results from his disparaging and belittling comments about psychiatric illness and its treatment, which may discourage affected patients from seeking help, states an editorial in the most recent issue (Volume 15, Number 3) of Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (www.liebertpub.com). The editorial may be viewed free online at www.liebertpub.com/cap.
In the editorial entitled, 'Tom Cruise: Entertaining or Dangerous,' journal Editor-in-Chief, Harold Koplewicz, M.D. emphasizes the need for continued and expanded research into understanding the varied causes of psychiatric illness and a renewed focus on developing safe and effective medications that must be prescribed and used appropriately. 'Like all of medicine, psychiatric knowledge is far from perfect,' writes Koplewicz. He emphasizes, however, that millions of lives have been saved and enhanced by antipsychotic and antidepressant medications, which today are safer and more effective than in the past.
Cruise's distortion of the facts and attacks on the use of effective agents to treat disorders ranging from schizophrenia to depression to attention deficit disorder in children, as well as his aggressive denunciation of the individuals who prescribe and use these medications, is part of an underlying motive aimed at 'recruiting vulnerable individuals to the Church of Scientology,' of which Cruise is an outspoken follower, asserts Koplewicz.
Citing the importance of recent advances in treating psychiatric illness and of the increasing openness with which these problems are being recognized and discussed, Koplewicz urges the public to embrace the message that, 'Mental illness is real, common, and treatable.'
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology is an authoritative peer-reviewed journal published quarterly in print and online. The Journal is dedicated to child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral pediatrics, covering clinical and biological aspects of child and adolescent psychopharmacology and developmental neurobiology. A complete table of contents and free sample issue may be viewed online at www.liebertpub.com/cap.
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including CyberPsychology & Behavior. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry's most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm's 60 journals, books, and newsletters is available at www.liebertpub.com.
Posted by someone on Page 5 (and reposted by me on Page 6)
'...http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
(Expert Witness correspondence with a Drug Regulatory Agency on PRE-MARKETING CLINICAL TRIALS)
- '...Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial'.
'Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability.'
' Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened.'
'...records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance.'
'Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;'
'But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout, as far as I can make out... '
ALSO posted by someone on Page 5:
'FDA & Other Drug Reg Officials Back Cruise Jul 19th, 2005 - 09:52:59 AM
http://www.usnewswire.com/
- Newshound Investigations: Psychiatrists, Heal Thyselves; FDA and Other Drug Regulatory Officials Back Cruise Mon Jul 4, 1:22 PM ET
Many have watched with growing concern the misdirected controversy over Tom Cruise and his remarks about psychiatric drugs.
It is amusing that the mental health industry is slamming Cruise for having a conflict of interest because he belongs to a church that opposes the use of mind altering drugs, while completely ignoring the fact that psychiatrists receive untold billions from pharmaceutical companies and then produce 'research' on the same drugs developed by those who pay them. Hmmm....
As the saying goes, 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.'
Unlike members of the American Psychiatric Association, (APA), Cruise is earning his money from public, (movie fans) not private interests.
Of course, the APA and big Pharma would love to convince the public that it's only Scientologists who are raising concerns about psychiatric drugs.
But nothing could be further from the truth.
Just this past week, on July 1, after more than 15 years of denial that a suicide risk exists for adults taking one of the so-called 'selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors' SSRI antidepressants, the Food and Drug Administration posted a public health advisory acknowledging: 'Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior.'
The FDA also plans to analyze all the antidepressant clinical trial data maintained by the drugs' manufacturers spanning more than 20 years.
'The FDA has asked these manufacturers to identify all placebo-controlled trials conducted in adults in their development programs for their antidepressant products, regardless of the indication studied, and to provide information from these trials to FDA.'
According to Dow Jones News, The FDA also announced that it would make labeling changes to Johnson and Johnson's drug Concerta, which belongs to a certain class of drugs used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, describing psychiatric events such as 'visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior as well as aggression or violent behavior.'
As if that weren't enough, this week, the Wall Street Journal- -not exactly a bastion of anti-corporate sentiment--reported that the FDA also posted information about patients who displayed suicidal tendencies during trials of Eli Lilly 's antidepressant Cymbalta (duloxetine).
The FDA site states that a 'higher-than-expected rate of suicide attempts was observed' in the studies after the formal portion of the trials had concluded. According to an investigative report by Jeanne Lenzer and Nicholas Pyke, a review of the FDA adverse drug report data shows that there have been 13 suicides and 41 deaths reported among patients taking duloxetine (Cymbalta). However, five suicides that had occurred during Cymbalta clinical trials-including that of Traci Johnson, the 19 year old Bible student--are being concealed and are unavailable when requested under the Freedom of Information Act from the FDA..'
AND THE ACTUAL BEST EVIDENCE FOR THE DRUGS also posted by someone on Page 4 or 5:
'EVIDENCE on the efficacy of antidepressants overall
http://www.swedish.org/16944.cfm
- Researchers Analyzed 47 Studies
Psychologists Irving Kirsch, PhD, of the University of Connecticut and Thomas Moore, PhD, of George Washington University analyzed the results of 47 studies on antidepressant drugs. **The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used these studies for approval of the following antidepressants,** which were prescribed most widely between 1987-1999:
Sertraline (Zoloft)
Paroxetine (Paxil)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Citalopram (Celexa)
Venlafaxine (Effexor)
Nefazodone (Serzone)
In each of the 47 studies, participants were given either an antidepressant or an inactive dummy pill (known as a placebo), but neither they nor the researchers knew which one they were taking.
Little Difference in Depression Scale Scores
At the beginning and follow-up of these studies, both sets of participants took the 50-point Hamilton Depression Scale to compare rates of depression before and after treatment. Overall, for participants taking the placebo (inactive dummy pill), the average improvement on the Hamilton Depression Scale was 8 points, whereas those given antidepressants had an average improvement of 10 points. According to lead researcher Dr. Kirsch, the difference is clinically negligible.
What Does This Mean?
According to Dr. Kirsch, although the mean differences between the antidepressants and placebo were small, **statistically the drugs appear to be more effective than the placebo.** However, the small difference between the drug and placebo can be viewed in two different ways:
The antidepressants actually had an effect, albeit a small one, or
The antidepressants had little effect and the difference resulted from an enhanced placebo effect
The Placebo Effect: Reflecting the Powers of the Mind
Placebos are substances with no known pharmacologic value. The placebo effect occurs when participants in a study experience improvement after taking what they think could be a powerful treatment when, in fact, they are only taking a placebo. Since there is no scientific evidence to explain the positive effects of a placebo, the effects are seen as psychologic. In other words, the participant thinks he or she is taking a drug that will produce results and therefore begins to feel an improvement. Whether participants are actually taking a drug or a placebo, their expectations of feeling better can lead to improvement. That is, the placebo effect illustrates the power of the mind.
Possible Enhanced Placebo Effect
In the antidepressant study, it is possible that the placebo effect was enhanced. Although participants were not told whether they were taking a placebo or an antidepressant, many were aware that antidepressants produce side effects. Participants having side effects could have concluded that they received the antidepressant and therefore expected to feel better, a belief that ultimately improved their mood. In this study, the enhanced placebo effect may be small, but the drug/placebo difference on the Hamilton Depression Scale was also small (only 2 points).
More Effective Measures May Be Needed
So how effective are antidepressants? According to the research presented by Dr. Kirsch and his colleagues, we really don’t know. Dr. Kirsch admits that there may be problems with the way drug trials are conducted. The design of the placebo-controlled studies may overshadow the true effectiveness of the antidepressants. In this study, it is assumed that the difference between the placebo’s effect and the drug’s effect is due to the efficacy of the drug. It’s possible that the placebo effect played a smaller role in the participants taking the antidepressant. This would mean that the antidepressants had a greater effect, which was indicated by the difference between the two figures.
The researchers concluded that better ways are needed to measure the effectiveness of treatments for depression. In addition to medication, depression is often treated with psychosocial interventions, exercise, and psychotherapy. ..'
Could it be that the 'fruit (and vegetable)' poster above this one is one of the few relative left who is fooled into limiting their vision down a now very well understood and exposed tunnel of evidence well described in
' ignoring the fact that psychiatrists receive untold billions from pharmaceutical companies and then produce 'research' on the same drugs developed by those who pay them' ?
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE COUNTS, not recipients of pharmaceutical funding afraid of losing the benefits so long enjoyed from the industry, desperately clinging on to the hope that more falsified statements will supercede all the evidence that is now available worldwide about the REAL evidence and why it was hidden.
THE EVIDENCE that counts is that which was submitted to the FDA to obtain a license to a medicine, and even though some of that evidence was falsified, it still does NOT back up the glowing assertions re treatment made by HAROLD KOPLEWICZ MD in the 'fruit and vegetable' post above, though he may well have been amply rewarded for his valiant attempt.
The EVIDENCE shows AT BEST shows little difference between drug and placebo. Since then more and more SCIENTIFIC evidence about the falsification of that evidence submitted to the FDA has come to light, which is available (without charge) everywhere and should be considered before posting now clearly dubious articles with regards to 'treatment'.
Had the REAL data (not the falsified data) been submitted to the FDA at the time, it would have certainly brought the drug even further down the scale when compared to placebo, had it of course been given a license at all.
Selective Tunnel Vision is of no use when the emerging facts are available to all, the only noticeable points from that type of article are either that of uninformed bias, or the continued determination of a few to protect corporate and self interests and/or defend themselves from just consequences for their past actions, whether it be by the industry, corrupt psychiatrists, unprinciples media, or the posters of the articles themselves.
Where is Klopovitz (?) EVIDENCE to prove that treatment has saved many lives?
There is EVIDENCE (based on some falsified data which makes the treatment look more positive) that placebo is almost as effective as the drugs/that drugs are little better than placebo. With non-falsified data even that slight advantage would not apply, and probably those drugs would never have been licensed for use and so we would not be considering data.
There is NO EVIDENCE to prove that either drug or placebo has saved even one single life. Klopovitz's assertion is based purely on anecdote with very little substance to back it up.
There IS EVIDENCE now that suicidality and homicidality occured often in clinical trials of at least three of those drugs. Anecdotal though deaths may be considered, there is EVIDENCE from the clinical studies that lives were lost during trials, more almost lives (medical intervention was needed) and that many lives would be at risk if the evidence was falsified.
The decision was made by at least three pharmaceutical groups to ignore the predictable loss of life, to go ahead and submit falsified clinical study data to the FDA, with the ultimate goal of obtaining a license in order to boost industry profits.
To succeeed in doing that a great number of corruptible outsiders were needed. These included psychiatrists to attest how wonderful the drugs were and to announce new diseases for which the treatment could be sold and more profit made, politicians to help state laws implement 'mental health initiatives' and other government health depts, lawyers who would protect the interests of the industry and its beneficiaries, PA companies to spread the false scientific information, media to do the same.
'BIG and IMPORTANT' in psychiatry mean nothing. A psychiatrist who asserts that facts are scientific when they are based on falsified data does not MAKE it SCIENCE or SCIENTIFIC. Respect for psychiatrists and their assertions needs to be treated as in any other realm of life. Big and Important can mean either information based on the truly scientific or based on lies. Little and Unimportant can also be the same. The quality and validity of information depends on the integrity and the courage of the individual psychiatrist.
Wouldn't you agree?
A part of the 'fruit and veg post/apples pears plums' includes:
'Cruise's distortion of the facts and attacks on the use of effective agents to treat disorders ranging from schizophrenia to depression to attention deficit disorder in children, as well as his aggressive denunciation of the individuals who prescribe and use these medications, is part of an underlying motive aimed at 'recruiting vulnerable individuals to the Church of Scientology,' of which Cruise is an outspoken follower, asserts Koplewicz'
What a ridiculously, irrelevant and UNSCIENTIFIC statement for a PROFESSIONAL man to make. So perhaps not so professional in his ethics as he could be?
Koplewicz was worth looking up.
http://www.med.nyu.edu/dhd/dhd_03.html
Harold S. Koplewicz, M.D was given a
'Freedom From Fear Special Recognition Award'.
Freedom from Fear respects a man who basis his science on false data?
He must do a lot of work for them somewhere to merit a Special Recognition Award.
Freedom from Fear was worth looking up.
http://www.rxlist.com/rxboard/paxil.pl?noframes;read=7438
'Paxil (paroxetine and related) - Rxboard
Date: Saturday, 28 April 2001, at 2:15 a.m.
In Response To: check out these websites (someone who cares)
First of all, it won't be the first time SmithKline has been sued. Even the government has sued them (not about Paxil, though). There are probably dozens of 'out of court' personal injury type case settlements regarding Paxil that have long gone by. Many never make the news. GSK does their best to keep these kind of things out of the headlines. I know of another Paxil suit in NH against GSK right now. Eli Lily and Prozac are the same way.
Second of all, I found some interesting information about Freedom from Fear a while back - guess who one of their main $ contributors is? Read on...
'Public service ads — or just a sales pitch?
Pasted on bus shelters nationwide, the posters ask passersby to imagine being allergic to people. The picture ís of a handsome young man, despondently staring at a coffee cup as an apparently happy couple sits at the other end of his table. “Over 10 million Americans suffer from social anxiety disorder,” the text reads. “The good news ís that this disorder ís treatable.” A tollfree number & a Web site are listed.
The ads bear the seals of 3 nonprofit advocacy groups: the American Psychiatric Association, the Anxiety Disorders Association of America & Freedom From Fear, a trio that together make up the Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition.
But funding for their public awareness campaign comes from a far less visible partner: SmithKline Beecham, the pharmaceutical giant whose flagship antidepressant, PAXIL, was recently approved by the Food & Drug Administration......'
Full article link below..
Article: Coming to You Direct '
Freedom from Fear are backed and funded by Smith Kline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline?
It gets clearer.
SKB (now GSK) were dedicated to expanding their drug PAXIL which at that time is described as 'recently approved'.
But GSK/SKB were one of the three companies who we now know falsified the clincial study data that they had submitted to the FDA, risking the lives of many.
Freedom from Fear appears to have been set up as a part of a new disorder awareness campaign for which PAXIL was the recommended treatment.
Integrity? Professionalism?
Enough said.
An MD's view of the 'science' practiced on children by HAROLD KOPLEWICZ MD who on search thru his publications is an advocate of medicating children with Ritalin amongst other things.
http://www.adhdfraud.com/commentary/12-5-00-1.htm
'Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: This is my alma mater. Last spring I got an invitation to alumni day, and with it a program announcing that one of the presentations would be by Harold Koplewicz, child psychiatrist and Director of the NYU Child Study Center, on, of all things, ADHD. I promptly wrote to Dean Glickman that ADHD is a fraud and such things did little to enhance the image of what was once a truly great, scientific, healing institution. That NYU now gives aid and comfort to those leading the charge to label and drug normal infants and children in the name of psychiatry, is a disgrace.'
Fred Baughman MD was worth looking into.
http://www.adhdfraud.com/
Articles, essays, and other information pertaining to the fraud of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)--Compiled by Dr. Fred Baughman
Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD has been an adult & child neurologist, in private practice, for 35 years. Making 'disease' (real diseases--epilepsy, brain tumor, multiple sclerosis, etc.) or 'no disease' (emotional, psychological, psychiatric) diagnoses daily, he has discovered and described real, bona fide diseases.
It is this particular medical and scientific background that has led him to view the 'epidemic' of one particular 'disease'--Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)--with increasing alarm. Dr. Baughman describes this himself. Referring to psychiatry, he says:
'They made a list of the most common symptoms of emotional discomfiture of children; those which bother teachers and parents most, and in a stroke that could not be more devoid of science or Hippocratic motive--termed them a 'disease.' Twenty five years of research, not deserving of the term 'research.,' has failed to validate ADD/ADHD as a disease. Tragically--the 'epidemic' having grown from 500 thousand in 1985 to between 5 and 7 million today--this remains the state of the 'science' of ADHD '
The difference is SCIENCE.
Unfortunately, articles such as the one by KOPLEWICZ bring others into disrepute. I would have difficulty now believing in the credibility of any of the authored articles in a publishing group such as Mary Ann Liebert Inc, where it's 'Editor In Chief' bases his own assertions and publications on unproven or falsified scientific data. Like many others, I am very particular as to the scientific validity of articles and their sources.
David, has someone suggested to you that you ought to try medication? You seem to be extremely agitated and defensive; Do you work? Do you have friends? Where do you find the time to rant as much as you do?
Here's an 'anecdote' for you, David. My five siblings and I grew up with a bipolar father. During his full blown manic episodes, he would go for days without sleep, and dammit, if he didn't need sleep none of us did. He was banned from numerous restaurants and cinemas because of his bad behaviour. He put our lives in danger many times - dangerous driving, reckless boating - during one family 'vacation', we were in the middle of Lake Mead and after being rescued for the SECOND time in two days, we were asked to return the rented houseboat and vacate the National Park! He was charged for both rescues. My father also came up with grandiose plans for becoming the next Donald Trump, while racking up over $300,000 (THAT'S THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND!)in debt in less than five weeks. During his depressive episodes, he would remain in bed for months, getting up only to eat and go to the bathroom, but he refused to bathe.
My mother's family attempted to have us removed from their custody after one too many times that police were called to investigate our home. She cut off ties with her family for a decade. Like you, both my parents were in denial about our father's need for medication. In fact, it was not until he went missing and was found on the side of I-5, incoherent, babbling and dehydrated that he was finally hospitalized and properly treated. My parents now call that event their 'blessing in disguise.'
Regarding your comment 'I understand that cancer drugs do not get onto the market if they cause deaths in clinical trials' - are you for real? Do you not know what chemo therapy and radiation does? They kill cells, and as much as they attempt to target only cancer cells, many healthy cells are also killed. Many times, if the cancer doesn't kill the person, their treatment does! Yet, oddly enough, there are people who are able to withstand aggressive treatment and they actually beat their cancer.
Really, David, you're a joke. Medication worked for my father, and it has worked for numerous others; that you call data confirming this fact 'falsified' is simply stupid. You are obviously not qualified to evaluate any kind of scientific data. Your cancer comment clearly illustrate your ignorance.
Man, this David guy is BUSY! Talk about copy and paste! Well, at least he's bringing up quotes and all that. Talk about dedication.
Alright, to the other homo who somehow has a problem with my name (In case you haven't figured it out you idiots, this isn't my real name; I just picked it at random to post on this website.), I think his/her name is Plum, you never actually gave the actual author of that news bit. Does this person have a medical degree? I only ask because that's what a lot of these people expect of Tom, even though they don't.
According to your newspaper clipping or whatever, Tom discouraged people from seeking medical help for their illnesses. I believe what Tom said was that psychiatry was a psued-science and the drugs didn't work. I don't believe he said if you have a mental problem to do nothing about it. Perhaps these people could go to a regular doctor? Perhaps these people could see a minister or family member or friend for help? He also never said to quit whatever medication you're on. That's actually dangerous because of the withdrawal effects.
All these 'peer-reviewed' books, studies, tests, etc. are done by the same doctors that are being paid by the pharmaceutical companies. These are the same doctors that make up the millions of mental disorders out there. I mean, have you ever actually LOOKED in the DSM? There's just TONS of labels out there now! I mean, there's one even for math trouble. MATH. Now who's crazy?
Now to Steve. Oh, David's a joke? You're the one telling him to go on drugs. You're the pusher here. Who the F*CK are you to say who should be on meds? How do you know how long it took David to gather all that reserach together? Maybe he does that for part of his living or something or maybe he himself is some kind of doctor. You don't know. You're just a little punk who doesn't know sh*t about him.
And I can sympathize with the hardships growing up with your dad the way he was. No, I can't say I can relate. I can't say I ever had a family member like that. That's unfortunate.
However, you too have missed the point of all this. Now, I don't know if you just failed to mention this or if this in fact never happened, but did you have any other sort of tests done on your dad to see if this bi-polar was caused by something other than a chemical brain imbalance? Perhaps it was some homronal thing. Who knows. There are tons of possibilities for these sort of things, and by 'things' I'm referring to the thousands of mental illnesses there are out there that the doctors ASSUME are caused by the a chemical imbalance in the brain. How do you know for sure his problems are caused by this chemical imbalance? And when they diagnosed your dad, did they actually take a brain scan or anything? Doubt that.
Also, how long has your dad been on these meds? In the time he's been on the meds at any point did their effectiveness seem to wear off or did they have to up the dosage? Any sort of disturbing side effects? I hear these stories about someone going on meds and it helps them, but I cannot help but doubt that they are including all the details, which I mentioned above.
Despite all the numerous 'peer-reviewed, rigorous' studies and whatnot, psychiatrists cannot say for sure that mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain is 100% pure fact. It is a THEORY. Maybe it's a theory likely to be true, but it's still a theory. Furthermore, they cannot get a 100% accurate look at the chemicals in the brain. They don't have the equipment yet to see this, and the equipment they have are not usually available in your average hospital. It is also proven that pharmaceutical companies use selective testing when developing these drugs. Keep in mind drugs are a commodity, and the more of a commodity sold the more money is made.
And in reference to your chemotherapy bit, if what you say is 100% true, at least doctors can admit chemotherapy can have serious side effects and is not totally effective. However, cancer research and treatment are far more accurate than mental illness. For example, you can actually SEE a cancer tumor, whereas you cannot fully see a brain chemical imbalance (once again, it's a somewhat shaky theory). I also wouldn't be surprised at all if chemotherapy were more effective than psychiatric meds.
It seems the more mental illnesses and drugs that are invented the more and more crazy people we have. How many people actually come out of a mental institution totally cured? Very little.
So before you go talking sh*t like you just did perhaps you should take a look at the whole picture. And again, I believe you have left out some key details in your anecdote.
Oh I get it! Pear and David are one in the same person! Gosh, it must be so horrific living with a personality disorder. Well, chin up, dahling! You're doing a wonderful job being an advocate for all narrow-minded beasts. Remember to exercise, eat well, get lots of sleep, take vitamins and seek social support from anyone who can stand you. Oh yes, and don't forget to monitor your hormones.
Wishing you loads of laughter, luck and love.
Well, now any pity or remotely nice feelings I had toward David are gone.
Narrow-minded? Aren't you the one calling names and, uhh, how to put this (pause) NOT bringing up any facts? You've basically just told a bunch of opinions. Then again, looking at this board in general there aren't a whole lot of, shall we say, geniuses here.
No, David is actually someone totally different, one that has obviously done more research on this field than me, not to mention you. Personality disorder? I'll bet you're one of those idiots that think just because you watch 'Dr. Phil' everyday you can 'figure people out'. I think that craziness of your dad has rubbed off on you, Steve. (That last line was a bit harsh I'll admit but you asked for it, b*tch.)
Anyway, thanks for the 'medical advice'. I'll be sure to do that and make sure I stay away from the drug pushers such as yourself. Perhaps, though, you should take some of your own advice.
Oh, and next time you post, how about you bring up, like, I don't know, a FACT, or at least something relevant and SOUNDS intelligent.
EDIT TO LAST POST: I meant to refer to Steve, not David, in the first sentence of my last post. Sorry, David.
Steve, you seem to have completely missed the point on Cancer studies. Of COURSE they kill cells. But the drugs are not given to people without a REAL PROVEN disease. They are not given on the premise of a 'possible', 'maybe' 'might be' disorder.
The rest of it you seem to have missed completely, and to reduce your posts to insults by way of supposition that one poster is the same as another with similar views, or that anyone with similar views must be scientologists, or insults implying that any particular poster is suffering from a mental disorder and needs treatment, or implying that any particular poster is perhaps unemployed, none of whom you know, shows your own awareness of lack of evidence to support your views and a certain desperation to discredit opposing views and is far closer to the word you use ('rant') than posting of evidence, and from that I'll politely call your 'posts' and from their contents its also clear that you do not like scientific facts which you do not agree with being posted.
Why not?
It reminds me of familiar saying but with a slight twist to the wording: you can take a horse to a water, but you can't make it think - however, its always worth trying to get it to do so again in the hope that it might prevent its future death:
1. If you feel that drugs such as Paxil, Prozac and Zoloft are given for a legitimate purpose (whether or not you believe the data was falsified) then you should read the evidence given by GlaxoSmithKline themselves. Hopefully you will be able to understand it. From a statement made by the manufacturers of Paxil, who so often state that their drug is 'scientifically proven' to be effective in treating depression caused by serotonin levels, on which premise paxil was manufactured by 'scientists':
'In May 2003, the maker of the SSRI Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”), announced that it was withdrawing claims contained in its promotional material for Paxil (called Seroxat in Ireland and the UK) that the drug worked by normalizing levels of serotonin. GSK acknowledged that the link between depression and serotonin levels is unproven and that such claims “were not consistent with the scientific literature.” '
( http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/media/ssri/Zoloft/CalifAttyGen/PFIZERCOMPLAINT.pdf Page 8 Footnote)
2. Today's publication (22nd August 2005)of more emerging evidence against the drugs, this time risks for ADULTS. Oslo University's provisional abstract of their findings
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/3/14/abstract
'Suicide attempts in clinical trials with paroxetine randomised against placebo
Ivar Aursnes , Ingunn F Tvete , Jorund Gaasemyr and Bent Natvig
BMC Medicine 2005, 3:14 doi:10.1186/1741-7015-3-14
Published 22 August 2005
Abstract (provisional)
Background
Inclusion of unpublished data on the effects of antidepressants on children has suggested unfavourable risk-benefit profiles for some of the drugs. Recent meta-analyses of studies on adults have indicated similar effects. We obtained unpublished data for paroxetine that have so far not been included in these analyses.
Methods
The documentation for drug registration contained 16 studies in which paroxetine had been randomised against placebo. We registered the number of suicides, suicide attempts and ideation. We corrected for duration of medication and placebo treatment and used a standard Bayesian statistical approach with varying priors.
Results
There were 7 suicide attempts in patients on the drug and 1 in a patient on placebo. We found that the probability of increased intensity of suicide attempts per year in adults taking paroxetine was 0.90 with a 'pessimistic' prior, and somewhat less with two more neutral priors.
Conclusions
Our findings support the results of recent meta-analyses. Patients and doctors should be warned that the increased suicidal activity observed in children and adolescents taking certain antidepressant drugs may also be present in adults.'
Steve, if you have evidence that all these facts are not so, then why not post the evidence itself rather than rely on 'attacks' on and 'assumptions' about other posters?
Pear - re your first sentence apology. No problem at all. Bear in mind that people trying to avoid evidence surfacing will attempt to take attention away from the issues by confusion posts and/or attacks those posting the evidence.
The evidence that has been ermerging over the last two or three years is clear and irrefutable, and as you can see from today's provisional publication (in point 2 of my message to Steve) is being exposed more and more frequently.
Its all too easy (and understandable) to get waylaid by insults or confusion and so it's important to try to remain calm and objective regardless of the content you reply to, the evidence is all there :-)
Kind regards.
On Steve's:
'...Really, David, you're a joke. Medication worked for my father, and it has worked for numerous others; that you call data confirming this fact 'falsified' is simply stupid. You are obviously not qualified to evaluate any kind of scientific data...'
Feel free to call me a joke if that is how you attempt to prove that paxil, prozac and zoloft are life saving and beneficial but it could be a help to you if you were to realise that it isn't MY data as I didn't personally evaluate the data or personally publish the conclusions on the actual data.
I believe you are referring to this DATA that I copied from another poster but was already aware of myself - as are many people who have taken the time to research:
www.socialaudit.org.uk/58096-DH%20to%20WARK.htm
'...Reports on these trials list patients who have committed suicide, and list those patients as being of a certain age and as having committed suicide at a certain point during the trial, when the patient in question has a very different age and the event in question happened at a completely different point during the trial...'.
'...Miscoding of suicidal act as emotional lability...'
' ...Lilly have resorted to treatment non-response and a range of other headings to code what happened...' [re coding/mislabelling suicidal acts happening on clinical trials]
'...records on Prozac, Seroxat/Paxil and Lustral/Zoloft, you will find cases of homicidality coded as nausea for instance...'
'...Discontinuation of patients from studies for primary adverse effects such as nausea when in fact there has been a suicidal act;...'
'...But it is also worth adding specifically that this has been a feature of all trials of Zoloft/Lustral, Seroxat/Paxil and Prozac throughout...'
Steve, do you consider data that codes (changes) the words 'suicidality' and 'homicidality' to the word 'nausea' as reliable truthful data?
When a suicide or suicidal act has occured and then it is changed on the documents to read that those same persons did not commit suicide or a suicidal act but are recorded as only having suffered from nausea, that is no longer true data. It is falsified data. Therefore 'falsified' is an adjective which I believe appropriately sums it up.
I could just as appropriately use the term 'corruptly, criminally, fraudulently and unscientifically altered data' in place of 'falsified data' if you find that more to your liking?
The falsified data (re paxil, prozac and zoloft) has been evaluated by a world expert in psychopharmacology, an expert witness and a former consultant to the pharmaceutical industry, a university head of pharmacology and leading psychiatrist and is in discussions with a drug regulatory agency. Some of that data can be found if you have an inclination to research and learn - some of it is comprised of pharmaceutical company internal memos themselves, complete with alterations and scribbled notes. Would you like me to post it - I do seem to have made the mistake of posting some of the evidence assuming that people will look up the rest for themselves, but clearly this isn't the case and perhaps I need to post more?
Steve, one of those who actually had access to a great deal of the falsified data, the same data upon which you have come to a decision of it being 'SIMPLY STUPID', comes from someone who is FAR from stupid.
Someone who: 'qualified in Medicine...in 1979 and then did a MD in neuroscience in Galway on Biochemical Markers in Depression completing that in 1985. He studied psychiatry in University College Galway followed by Cambridge University Clinical School where he was a Clinical Research Fellow.
In 1990 ...as a Senior Lecturer in Psychological Medicine and a Consultant Psychiatrist then became a Reader in Psychological Medicine in 1996.
He has authored 13 books on various aspects of psychopharmaceuticals as well as 110 peer-reviewed papers and approximately 100 other publications. Nine of these books are on the area of the history of psychopharmacology, two from Harvard University Press and he has a ***leading role world-wide*** in this area. His other research interests include cognitive functioning in affective disorders and psychoses, circadian rhythms in affective disorders.'
For you to assert that the data from the above source is 'simply stupid', (clearly without having even bothered to go to the url provided to learn from that site as to who the actual evaluator was or on what documents and evidence the evaluation was based for the source's conclusion that the data was falsified) is hardly a conclusion born of research, logic or intelligence.
Perhaps it was other data that I've put posted. The same applies. Please try to remember that while I post DATA, it isn't MY own - and possibly attempt to check on the sources and discover its legitimacy and its credibility before making statements such as the one at the top of this message. I might then consider taking into account that some of your post MAY contain credible personal accounts, in the absence of them containing evidence.
Steve - before you reply with regard to the expert and the data described above, a few points worth noting. You can check all if you so wish.
1. That particular expert clearly DOES believe that at least SOME mental disorders are real otherwise his 'other research interests' would NOT include 'cognitive functioning in affective disorders and psychoses, circadian rhythms in affective disorders.' As he practices psychopharmacology alongside psychiatry, then it is fairly safe to assume that he believes in the efficacy and relative safety of at least SOME psychotropic drugs for SOME people.
2. I admit to knowing little about scientology, but gather from that limited knowledge that the expert is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be a scientologist as, a) in addition to his expertize in neuroscience and pharmacology, he is also a Professor of Psychiatry (a visiting professor to Toronto University in addition to his own professorship) and b) because he believes in at least SOME mental disorders.
3. He clearly does not base his scientific work or conclusions solely on desires of the pharmaceutical industry, as to do so would necessarily involve his non-disclosure of the industry having altered the data on their clinical studies.
4. He does not expose the corruption within clinical trials because he is trying to belittle people with mental disorders, nor is he trying to say that mental disorders do not exist - that is obvious because he believes in at least SOME mental disorders and practises psychiatry with a view to helping those people whom he sees as suffering from mental disorders.
5. He has not exposed the data to improve his own career, as to do so originally brought the pharmaceutical industry, together with their powerful industry-funded psychiatrists, heavily against him as would be expected. Doing so also had a negative effect on his career at that time, a search will confirm this.
6. It would be a little foolhardy then to imply that exposing the data was done for any other purpose than that of scientific concern about the risks of the drugs and the lack of warnings due to lack of disclosure by the industry.
7. He was at one time consultant TO the pharmaceutical industry, so giving him access and understanding of the workings and studies of the same and has been called as an expert witness in trials involving psychopharmacology from time to time giving him further access to detailed clinical trial data.
8. He is NOT stupid as in a relatively short period he has reached expertise in medicine, neuroscience, psychopharmacology and psychiatry - on his own merit using his intelligence and scientific knowledge, without the need to procure the considerable career benefits of pandering to the pharmaceutical industry. That despite going against industry lack of disclosure of the dangers of some drugs, despite powerful attempts to discredit him, he is STILL recognised as being a world leader in such expertise.
The above is a hint that if you intend to reply and criticize the validity of evaluation of the data provided by that expert, perhaps you should keep away from using words or phrases such as the following:
simply stupid, scientologist, unqualified, guessing, anti-drug, disparaging to those with a mental illness, self-interested, unscientific.
A little while back we were watching the “scandal” caused by Tom Cruise over psychiatry, which I caught sort of with the corner of my eye while flipping channels on our boring basic-cable menu. In the snippet of his interview with Matt Lauer, re-broadcast and commented on in some stupid gossip show, Cruise was looking his interviewer sternly in the eye and saying in a definitive voice: “You don’t know about psychiatry. I [long dramatic emphasis] have read about the history of psychiatry. These drugs are dangerous and unnecessary, and psychiatry is a bullshit science. Did you know that Ritalin is a street drug? Did you know that?” Or something to that effect, a rambling which, apparently, continued for many minutes. This in conjunction with his bashing Brooke Shields for disclosing that she took Paxil for her postpartum depression, and proclaiming serenely and self-assuredly that she should have exercised and taken vitamins instead. [Since then, Brooke Shields rebuked Cruise repeatedly and much more coherently than his half-idiotic rants, writing in the New York Times and appearing on TV, and I’ve noticed a pretty well designed campaign for awareness of postpartum depression led by the wife of the governor of New Jersey. Good for them!]
So anyway, here we are, watching this, and if I didn’t mention it before on this site, I’ll do it now: David is a psychiatrist with a pretty extensive hospital practice, mostly inpatients. He sees more human misery in a day than I am likely to see in a decade. Not only is he a practitioner, but I would daresay that eight years of medical school and his sharp critical mind made him acutely aware of all problems with psychiatry that you can think of, plus some. I am no psychiatrist, but I’ve read a lot about the history of psychiatry (having just completed a monstrous 92-page chapter on that very theme for my dissertation). I would humbly suggest that I’ve probably read if not more, then at least more reliable sources than our scientologist superstar. At any rate, I’m furrowing my brow trying to take in the kind of arrogance that would spawn such comments, and David says quietly:
“Wow. That takes balls.”
At my inquisitive look, he explained:
“You’ve got to have a rock-hard, superinflated ego to talk so assuredly of something you clearly, definitively, know absolutely nothing about. I wish I had half his confidence. And by the way, while it is sort of true that Ritalin can be abused as a drug, I have very rarely seen it, if ever. And I work with a lot—a lot—of drug addicts in my practice.”
'That kind of confidence can only be bred by utter ignorance,” I said. “How can he say without even blinking stuff such as, “there’s no such thing as a chemical imbalance?”
“Actually,' David retorts, “we never say that.”
“What? I was positively baffled. “But all the literature… I mean, when you read about depression…it’s everywhere…that’s what they say, chemical imbalance. That’s why there are SSRIs, right? To correct serotonin levels. Isn’t that…?”
“I actually challenge you to find this formulation anywhere in psychiatry textbooks. We never say that there’s a chemical imbalance. That’s a formulation invented at some point by the media. We prescribe drugs that affect some receptors in the brain, which in turn seems to have a positive effect on depression. But that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance? Never! No psychiatrist has ever claimed that!”
What the heck? I mused, quiet for a moment, and a little bit angry, at myself for apparently being incapable of synthesizing correct information or discerning real from mediated science, and also a bit angry at David for exposing me for the apparent fraud that I was.
“But then… I don’t understand…” I said weakly.
“That’s why, he continued, somewhat gravely, you should never talk or write about things you don’t understand. Such as depression, for example.”
I felt a little stung, of course. After all, my dissertation, as you can see in my prospectus, is studying the “faces of depression” as depicted in ads from the American and British Journals of Psychiatry in the past four and a half decades. I’ve read about the topic, I’m applying a semiotic framework to my (very generous) sample, I’m doing my best to understand the rhetorical construction of depression through persuasive images. “But, I said defensively, I’m not studying depression, I’m studying its visual construction. It’s a rhetorical study, using semiotic tools.” “Still, he says, you don’t want to just throw in stuff about depression without understanding it. Do you want to become another X--?”
[For the purposes of this entry, let's just say that Professor X is an example of rhetorician writing about a scientific subject he does not really understand. The whole story will be reserved from now on to private ears.]
So to return to our discussion, no, I very much didn’t want to be another Professor X.
“Then, David said, you must understand your subject matter. Why don’t you read this.”
And he motioned me to one of those medical Bibles that I guess all doctors have in their collection. This one was entitled simply Neuropsychopharmacology, a 2000+ page tome, and it contained many chapters devoted to depression.
“You don’t have to read it all, but if you read and understand this chapter, you’ll begin to understand what is behind the logic of prescribing drugs.” He pointed to Chapter 72: 'Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms in Depression.'
“You have to understand everything in it before you begin to talk about it. Every single word.”
“But I am not debating the science behind depression, I am simply looking at ads,” I said feebly, but part of me agreed with him. I am studying the rhetorical construction of a medical concept which penetrated every vein of popular culture; still, there is a medical side to it (some would say, the only “true” side) that I should at least try to understand. I looked at the chapter: it didn’t seem so bad, just 7 ½ pages plus references, large pages with tiny print, of course, but still, just 7 ½ pages, and that would mean nothing for someone like me, used to read hundreds and hundreds of pages a week of abstruse convoluted theoretical prose. Right?
Let’s see. After a short introduction, the article starts innocently enough with a Background section:
Although Freud put forth a hypothesis for understanding the psychological causes of depression in his classic paper, “Mourning and Melancholia,” he noted that some depressions were clearly biological in etiology. Research over the past 40 years has done much to point to likely “culprits” that are involved in the etiology of the disorder as well as in the mediation of treatment response; these have been reviewed several times recently (1,2).
Hey, that wasn’t so bad. Freud, I could understand (though I nurture a profound dislike for the guy’s theories, for reasons I won’t go into here). Let’s go on:
Early research revolved around monoaminergic theories with particular emphasis first on norepinephrine and later serotonin.
Ok. Let’s stop here. I must understand every word, right? So what’s monoaminergic? I would have to resort to a specialized scientific dictionary, of which we have none in the house. Or ask David, but something told me that I would probably have to ask him many more times and he’d eventually get annoyed and doubt my ability to read a short scientific article. Luckily, the U of M has a link to one online, so there it goes:
Monoamine [ORGANIC CHEMISTRY] An amine compound that has only one amino group.
Aha. Whatever. Next, norepinephrine must be of the same order as serotonin, I mused after this. I had seen the term in ads, but didn’t pay too much attention to it. Plus, everybody talks about serotonin inhibitors like there’s nothing simpler in the world, like they understand exactly what that is, how and why it works, etc. There must be good reasons for these names, but we can’t into that right now, can we. At any rate, from what I understand, they’re these substances in the brain that help mediate the connection from neuron to neuron. Neurotransmitters, right? Luckily, at the bottom of the second column of this first page of the article, I catch a subheading for “Norepinephrine.” That’s convenient! I think, and read on the first deceivingly short paragraph under that heading, jumping ahead a little:
Norepinephrine is a catecholamine that is found in various tissues including brain, plasma, sympathetic nervous system, heart, and so on. It is synthesized from the amino acid tyrosine, which forms L-Dopa via the enzyme tyrosine hydroxylase. L-Dopa is converted to dopamine via dopa decarboxylase and then in turn is converted to norepinephrine via dopamine â-hydroxylase. In the adrenal and other tissues, norepinephrine is converted to epinephrine via phenyl-N-methyltransferase (PNMT). NE is degraded by the enzymes catechol-o-methyltransferase and monoamine oxidase.
If at this point, dear reader, the veins in your temple are throbbing as much as mine from trying to follow the avalanche of technical terms that inundate in this paragraph, then it’s clear that, much like me, you are no psychiatrist, neuroscientist, pharmacologist, mad scientist, or otherwise autodidact in advanced biochemistry. Needless to say, I comprehended nothing at all. I made another feeble attempt. Let’s check out catecholamine:
catecholamine [BIOCHEMISTRY] Any one of a group of sympathomimetic amines containing a catechol moiety, including especially epinephrine, norepinephrine (levarterenol), and dopamine.
Oof. This isn't good, I muse. What is 'symptahomimetic' exactly? Catechol? Moiety? Again:
sympathomimetic [PHARMACOLOGY] Having the ability to produce physiologic changes similar to those caused by action of the sympathetic nervous system.
catechol [ORGANIC CHEMISTRY] One of a group of three isomeric dihydroxy benzenes in which the two hydroxyl groups are ortho to each other. Also known as catechin; pyrocatechol; pyrocatechuic acid.
moiety [CHEMISTRY] A part or portion of a molecule, generally complex, having a characteristic chemical or pharmacological property.
And oh, just to refresh that basic biology course:
sympathetic nervous system [NEUROSCIENCE] The portion of the autonomic nervous system, innervating smooth muscle and glands of the body, which upon stimulation produces a functional state of preparation for flight or combat.
This covered the first four words of the norepinephrine paragraph, with each definition sending me on yet another search for terms. No, I wasn't that good at biology or chemistry, which I last took in high school just about...hm...14 years ago, so lay off already. At this rate, I thought, I have every chance of finishing this article by Christmas.
Shaken, I resumed my reading from what I now noticed was only the third (short) paragraph of my 7 ½ pages article. I managed to struggle through the end of the paragraph, and even through the fourth, from which I get the basic comprehension that the fluctuation of the levels of such substances is not linked in a straight-forward manner with depression—in other words, norepinephrine can be both high and low in depressed patients. However, only decreased production of serotonin is linked with depression. Ok. Reinvigorated by this small accomplishment, I continue:
As research has continued, investigators have noted a number of other alterations in depressed patients, including, among others: elevated corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH); elevated acetylcholine activity; increased ãamino-butyric acid (GABA) levels; excessive glucocorticoid activity in psychotic major depression; hippocampal volume loss, perhaps reflecting the effects of excessive glucocorticoids on neurogenesis, and so on.
The background section ended with a promise to examine in detail each of these hypotheses. The Norepinephrine heading followed. Yes, grammatically I understood the sentences, I understood that depression is thought to be related to fluctuations in such and such factors. But what exactly CRH and GABA are and how come they fluctuate or cause depression because of that fluctuation—that was beyond my purvey. The paragraph on norepinephrine alone left me no doubt that unless I embarked on a 4-year long course of study, forsaking everything else, I would never really understand, either.
I read, or rather, glossed over the next 6 ½ pages (that’s right, I had only covered 1 page so far!). Since I apparently had to look up every second word that wasn’t a connective word in the scientific dictionary, which in turn would send me to countless other esoteric terms (for me) in good dictionary circular fashion, the reading didn’t go that well. It was clear: I was far, far stupider and more ignorant than I thought. I was zero, nulla, nada in science. Absolutely worthless, and unless I checked my interpretations and conclusions very very carefully, I risked becoming another Professor X.
There is one type of answer to this, from social critics who claim that hiding behind esoteric terms is dangerous in that it makes science impenetrable to criticism, a-moral, devoid of humanity, in the end, which is just about the worst thing that could happen to a field that is supposed to exist, after all, to enhance our humanity—our knowledge, our environment, our lives. It’s very likely that people like Elizabeth Wurtzel or Lauren Slater, who wrote so compellingly about their first-hand experiences with depression, don’t fully understand the finer points of dopa decarboxylase. Yet that doesn’t make them less knowledgeable and less understanding of the phenomenon of depression. Actually, they might understand it much better than any doctor who hasn’t gone through it first hand, and all the knowledge in the world about glucocorticoids is going to add very little if anything to their own painful awareness of depression. After all, medicine is about curing the human standing in front of you, a person with a unique brain, and for all their knowledge, self-aware psychiatrists like my husband will admit that they don’t really know how the medications they prescribe work, really, why those esoteric amines in our brain are actually connected to depression, why some people respond to some medications but not to others, what makes the brain functional and what causes dysfunction.
And again, I revolted, being asked to know all this would be like, say, asking a media critic to comprehend all the engineering behind the cathode-ray tube and the cable box, and bashing his article about, say, violence on children’s TV programs, for not knowing that. Well, ok, maybe my subject was not yet so detached from its medium, and I still needed to know a little more than the average person about depression. Still, I don't think I need to go to medical school to be allowed to talk about such issues. I resigned myself to accept that there’s a definite limit to my knowledge, but perhaps I can contribute to furthering the limits in another type of knowledge, which, although far more comprehensible to the general public than the chapter in Neuropsychopharmacology, is still based on a systematic, rigorous approach of the matter at hand, which, likewise, requires months and years of intensive intellectual labor.
Funnily enough, I didn’t stop at that initial and intimidating article. Because my research has a very important gender component to it (see the ad I posted in the previous entry and you’ll understand), I felt it was important to understand whether there was a scientific basis for depicting a much larger number of women than men in ads for antidepressants. I had read about it in other books, but I also felt compelled to read this other chapter on 'Hormonal and Gender influences on Mood Regulation.' Despite of being full of similarly complicated terminology, I could still, I think, reasonably follow the argument—in fact, here’s the summary I wrote, in case you are interested in the “real” story on gender and depression from a scientific perspective.
Needless to say, I never found the formulation “chemical imbalance in the brain” or anything like that in reference to depression. Huh.
Bottom line is, I may be critical of psychopharmacology and its marketing strategies in my dissertation, and I may be critical of psychiatry. But that doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge its potential for good, and I don’t appreciate the life-saving power that some psychotropic drugs have had. It also, most importantly, doesn’t mean that I think mental illness is simply a social construct, and that psychiatrists are social guardians for whomever does not conform to our vision of normality. I do think that when capitalist competition, monetary gain, and persuasion are thrown in the mix, the way mental illness is marketed and constructed in the public forums holds a great deal of rhetorical interest. To that end, I am equally critical of societal forces that create a certain idea of normality, which, through its endless and ubiquitous repetition in all available media, implies not so subtly that whatever does not conform to that idea is pathologic (and, subsequently, should be treated with a pill). To be sure, the ads I am analyzing are more of a product of such social pressures than a reflection of rigorous science.
After all, medical science in general has come from similarly humble beginnings as psychiatry (instead of restraints in asylums, let’s say, they would use leeches), yet not even Tom Cruise, with his peculiar assortment of arrogance, dogmatism, and ignorance mixed with a little (dangerous) knowledge, would dare call it a bullshit field today. There is still a lot to be discovered, yes, and a lot to be understood about our brains, but doesn’t make psychiatry a less legitimate science. Curiously (or admirably) enough, its most ardent critics are within the field: a simple conversation with my husband, who never even practiced psychotherapy of any sort, will disabuse you of the notion that psychiatrists are arrogant pill-pushers with infinite faith in biochemical models of mental disease.
Critical inquiries are what we, rhetoricians do best, and really, all we can do. We may not fully understand all the science and technology behind a phenomenon or concept, but, really, that’s not entirely necessary. We observe, read about, and operate with those concepts every day, enough to describe, interpret, question, and, hopefully (our golden dream), be part of the social forces that trigger change for the better in that particular area. And you know what? That’s good enough for me.
In a study entitled “Hyperactive Children as Teenagers: A Follow-up Study” (1971), eighty-three children were followed from two to five years after being diagnosed as hyperactive or as having attention deficit disorder. Ninety-two percent of the children were treated with Ritalin. Results were as follows:
60% of the children were still overactive and had poor schoolwork (the original reasons for being put on Ritalin), but in addition were now viewed as rebellious;
59% had had some contact with the police;
23% had been taken to the police station one or more times;
58% had failed one or more grades;
57% had reading difficulties;
44% had arithmetic difficulties;
78% found it hard to sit still and study;
59% were viewed as a discipline problem at school;
83% had trouble with frequent lying;
52% were destructive;
34% had threatened to kill their parents;
15% had talked of or attempted suicide.
Another research study, the Satterfield study (1987), states,
We found juvenile delinquency rates to be 20-25 times greater in our hyperactive drug-treated only group than in the normal control group. In the “Delinquency outcome for the drug-treated group,” the results were: of 61 boys, 46% were arrested for one or more felony offenses before age 18; 30% were arrested for two or more felony offenses; 25% were institutionalized.… Studies of the long-term effectiveness of drugs have been consistently discouraging.
There is also scant evidence of improved academic performance with stimulant treatment. According to Rooney, research has still not shown the use of medication to be significantly effective in the treatment of processing deficits or academic achievement. In The Learning Mystique, Gerald Coles confirms the findings of a 1978 review of both short- and long-term studies on the use of stimulants with children who were hyperactive and learning disabled. Of a total of seventeen studies included in this review, short- or long-term, whether they met basic scientific criteria or not, all the conclusions agreed: “stimulant drugs have little, if any, impact on…long-term academic improvement.” Their major effect seemed to be an “improvement in classroom manageability.”
In the Journal of Behavioral Optometry (1991), a study evaluated twenty-two previous studies/articles since 1976 concerning Ritalin use for hyperactive children. It states:
The fact that the above studies do not show the efficacy of Ritalin for helping hyperactive children should be apparent to the skeptic and make a skeptic out of the believer. But the argument should not stop at this point. The weak evidence for the value of Ritalin must now be viewed in the light of its reported side effects.
http://www.audiblox2000.com/learning_disabilities/ritalin-effects.htm
'...In November 2000, the former Queensland Crime Commission[1] pointed to the amphetamine market as the highest risk crime market in Queensland (QCC 2000). It also noted a perception among users that amphetamine use was not addictive and found that the younger end of the market considered it more acceptable because it had less stigma attached to it than injecting drugs. As a result of that report, the QCC hypothesised that the amphetamine-based prescription drugs for treating Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),[2] — methylphenidate and dexamphetamine — had the potential to become catalysts for subsequent amphetamine use...'
...Methylphenidate [RITALIN] is listed as a dangerous drug in schedules 2 and 5 of the Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987, with trafficking carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. As dexamphetamine is not listed in any schedule of the Drugs Misuse Regulation, there is no current penalty for trafficking in this drug...
...However, both methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are controlled drugs under schedule 8 of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation 1996.[2] Owing to their nature and toxicity, they are also classed as specified condition drugs under section 78 of the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation and have additional supply and use restrictions...
...Health issues
The abuse of ADHD prescription drugs is a potential problem for society, the public health system and law enforcement agencies.
Research clearly indicates similarities between the pharmacological and behavioural effects of these drugs and amphetamines and cocaine. Stimulants of this type have a marked abuse potential, and their misuse can have severe adverse medical and social consequences (Goldman et al. 1998) including long-term damage to brain cell structure and function (Baker 2001)...
...Amphetamines, cocaine, methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are all central nervous system stimulants and all produce similar immediate, long-term and withdrawal effects. Methylphenidate-induced stimulation produces a decreased sense of fatigue, an increase in motor activity and mental alertness and mild euphoria. Effects of withdrawal and misuse may include agitation, hostility, tremors, tachycardia (accelerated heartbeat), heart palpitations, hypertension and drug craving (Baldwin & Anderson 2000). Psychotic episodes, paranoid delusions, hallucinations and other behavioural characteristics have also been linked to methylphenidate abuse (DEA 2000)...
...[re US in 1995] In a press release at the time, the DEA reported that a significant number of children and adolescents were diverting and abusing ADHD medication and that students were giving and selling their medication to classmates (DEA 1995). Poison-control data, emergency room data and high school surveys all indicated that the abuse of methylphenidate had increased significantly since 1990. The DEA (2000) also noted that, in 1994, 1 per cent of US school seniors reported the illicit use of methylphenidate or dexamphetamine. In 1999 this figure had risen to about 3 per cent. However, the full extent to which methylphenidate and dexamphetamine is being abused remains unknown and further research is required...
... Sweden
When methylphenidate [ritalin/speed] was introduced into Sweden in the 1960s, it was promoted and prescribed for weight loss.
Amphetamine addicts recognised the abuse potential of the new drug when amphetamine became difficult to obtain in the late 1960s. An illegal market was created with addicts buying methylphenidate from patients who had readily obtained the drug to treat obesity.
As a result of this escalation in street abuse,
Sweden withdrew methylphenidate from the market in 1968...
Sweden’s experience led to the
US declaring methylphenidate a controlled drug in 1971 (Diller 1998)...
South Africa
According to South African research (Parran & Jasinski 1991), users abusing methylphenidate had
little difficulty in obtaining it from doctors, hospitals and specialised clinics, although this research is now somewhat dated...
...The INCB is the UN agency that monitors drug addiction and abuse throughout the world.
In its annual reports of 1995 and 1996, the INCB highlighted several cases of abuse and warned of the increasing abuse of methylphenidate worldwide, especially in the United States.
It reported that in the US the number of methylphenidate-related emergency room mentions for people aged 10–14 in 1995 reached the level of cocaine-related mentions for that age group (INCB 1996)...
...Law enforcement intelligence reports indicate a brief instance of small-scale illicit diversion and abuse of ADHD prescription drugs in Tasmania in the 1990s. Other anecdotal reports suggest isolated instances of children selling their ADHD medication in some Australian schools for around AU$2 a tablet (ABCI 1997)...
...Cases of illicit diversion and abuse of ADHD prescription drugs in Australia and Queensland are largely infrequent and anecdotal. However, enough concern was raised in Queensland over the escalating consumption of methylphenidate and dexamphetamine for Queensland Health to produce a report about the trends of consumption from 1991 to 1995 (Queensland Health 1996). It found that Queensland experienced a 490 per cent increase in consumption over this four-year period.
Reports also suggest that the availability of illicitly diverted dexamphetamine and methylphenidate tablets has increased during recent years in Queensland (McAllister 2001). Anecdotal information suggests that in 2001 methylphenidate was available in some Queensland schools for between AU$2 and AU$4 a tablet (CMC information 2002).
Anecdotal information from health workers also suggests that the high availability of amphetamines and increase in amphetamine users in Queensland, particularly South-East Queensland, are responsible for the current low number of cases of illicit diversion and abuse of methylphenidate and dexamphetamine. This suggestion is assessed from a market perspective in the next section...
...Overseas anecdotal evidence indicates that the illicit diversion of ADHD prescription drugs occurs by drug thefts, prescription forgery, ‘doctor shopping’ and illegal sales to others. DEA information (2000) suggests that those who are illegally using methylphenidate and dexamphetamine products are obtaining them from people who have been prescribed these medications for ADHD. Adolescents do not have to rob a pharmacy or forge a prescription when they have little difficulty obtaining the drug from classmates at school...'
http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/CRIMEBULLETIN4.html
opinion of Cruise view on ritalin by arrogant doctor in my find message taken from the site http://www.fantasypieces.org/#9 good name.
“You’ve got to have a rock-hard, superinflated ego to talk so assuredly of something you clearly, definitively, know absolutely nothing about. I wish I had half his confidence. And by the way, while it is sort of true that Ritalin can be abused as a drug, I have very rarely seen it, if ever. And I work with a lot—a lot—of drug addicts in my practice.”
Ritalin: The Drug Time Bomb In Our Schools
Extensive research has been conducted into the use of the drug Ritalin (methylphenidate) over the past 20 years. This research leads to the conclusion that Ritalin is one of the most dangerous and addictive substances known to man.
In the past two years, the amount of Ritalin available for prescription in the United States has increased by 97% according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Ritalin is used primarily on children as a treatment for so-called 'attention deficit' or 'hyperactivity.' Estimates currently place from one to four million American children on Ritalin.
There is growing evidence that Ritalin can cause suicidal depression, neurological disorders including Tourette's Syndrome and epilepsy, drug abuse and dependence, stunted growth, psychotic states which are 'indistinguishable from the active phase of schizophrenia.'
In cities across the nation, parents and children have protested the use of Ritalin and other psychiatric drugs on school children. 'Love Me, Don't Drug Me,' 'Stop Drugging Americals Children,' and 'Don't Let Psychiatrists Drug Me' read signs carried by demonstrators in such places as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San Jose, Boston, Washington D.C., Austin, Dallas, and Miami. The demonstrations have focused the attention of the nation on the inappropriate, unwarranted, and excessive use of powerful mind-altering psychiatric drugs on our nation's school children.
Lawsuits have been filed in many of the cities above, seeking compensation for the children allegedly harmed by Ritalin.
RITALIN CLASSIFIED WITH COCAINE, MORPHINE, OPIUM AND METHADONE
Ritalin is classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a Schedule II substance -- in the same category as cocaine, morphine, opium, methadone, and Dexedrine, Desoxyn, Preludin, Percodan, Dilaudid and Demoral.
While Americans are rightfully concerned about illegal drug use, the country is faced with the problem of the mass addiction of millions of our school children, by psychiatrists, to legally prescribed drugs.
Despite the fact that the psychiatric industry is well aware of how dangerous Ritalin is, it continues to be prescribed to children as young as two years old.
Ritalin is also a well known 'street drug,' one which adds to this country's drug abuse and dependence problems, increasing drug-related crime and suicide.
The following information is presented in the interests of creating a saner, healthier and more productive nation, one which would be far better off without the alarming escalation in the numbers of school children introduced to drugs in the classroom, or, worse, at an early childhood age.
RITALIN AND AMPHETAMINES
Ritalin, generically known as methylphenidate, belongs to the group of amphetamine and amphetamine-type drugs. Amphetamines are stimulants, more commonly known as 'speed.'
This powerful and extremely dangerous drug used to be classified on the FDA schedule for hard narcotics as a Schedule III controlled substance.
(There are five classes of what the FDA calls 'controlled substances.' The drugs are classed according to their level of danger, as well as for their value for legitimate medical use. Schedule I drugs are considered to have the highest potential for addiction or abuse and no legitimate medical use. Schedule I drugs include heroin, PCP, LSD and Quaalude.)
By the early 1970's, Congressional leaders had recognized the dangerous nature of Ritalin and the drug's strong potential for abuse. In a hearing in September 1970, Congressman Cornelius E. Gallavher of New Jersey compared young children being given Ritalin to 'guinea pigs.'
Congressman Gallagher stated, 'From the time of puberty onward, each and every child is told that 'speed kills' and that amphetamines are to be avoided. Yet, this same child has learned that Ritalin, for example, is the only thing that makes him a functioning member of the school environment and both his family and his doctor have urged the pills on him.'
Congressman Gallagher expressed his concern over 'the effect of accelerating this use of amphetamines on our national campaign against drug abuse.'
In 1972, as a result of pressure from Congress, the FDA moved Ritalin from a Schedule III substance to the more tightly restricted Schedule II.
LSD was a prescription psychiatric drug for many years before being banned as such and declared a Schedule I drug in 1966. Psychiatrists used this drug widely before its banning; one psychiatrist, Louis J. West, demonstrated the deadliness of this drug by killing an elephant with LSD in a 1962 experiment.
Quaalude, another psychiatric drug, was moved into Schedule I by Congress in 1984 after years of tragic abuse.
Schedule II drugs are considered to have a high potential for addiction or abuse, while having some medical value. These are the most heavily controlled substances for which a prescription can be written. The DEA is responsible for the control of these drugs and sets limits on their legal production. Doctors prescribing a Schedule II drug must have a special license from the DEA.
Controls on Schedule II drugs are monitored by the DEA and each state's attorney general. Pharmacists must account for every milligram of Schedule II drugs they dispense.
Today Ritalin has become the number-one street drug in Canada. In the city of Vancouver, for example, there are between 6,000 and 10,000 Ritalin addicts 'shooting' Ritalin into their veins from three to 20 times per day in combination with pain-killers such as Talvin.
According to police reports from Vancouver, the city's Ritalin addicts are committing 60 to 70 percent of all the urban crime in the area. Vancouver police blame Ritalin addicts for the 105 percent increase in burglaries in a downtown portion of the city in the first six months of 1987, and a 43 percent increase in burglaries city-wide over the same period.
Ritalin, which acts as a stimulant on adults, acts as a depressant on children before puberty.
Ritalin has been used on children for more than two decades and is currently being produced and prescribed for children at an increasing rate. And yet, recent manufacturer information states that 'Sufficient data on safety and efficacy of long-term use of Ritalin in children are not yet available.'
The Physician's Desk Reference lists very serious adverse reactions to Ritalin and warnings about its use. These include severe withdrawal and suicide reported in connection with use of the drug.
There have also been reports of Tourette's Syndrome, a permanent and irreversible damaging of the nerve and muscle system that results in uncontrollable muscle tics and barking sounds.
Other negative effects of Ritalin use included depression, psychosis, insomnia, nervousness, skin rash, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, headache, abdominal pain, and blood pressure and pulse changes...'
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=182310&messageid=1111159934
Go placidly amid the noise and haste and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others; even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career however humble; it is a real posession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism
Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy
Blah, blah, BLAH! What's the deal with all the rhetoric? Just--stick to the point. Steve's an idiot along with the rest and he's clearly outsmarted (which isn't hard to do). He's probably out trying to sell drugs to an 8-year-old (see his previous posts).
Well said, Pear! You so eloquently exemplify the entry above! You've 'outsmarted' everyone again. I am certain David is proud to have you share his worldview. Oh, but wait, you are David and David is you! MUAHAHAHAHA.
Tootles, dahling, I'm off to - what was that again? Oh yes, push pills to 8 year olds.
Thanks, Steve. It's nice to hear compliments from knuckle-dragging tossers such as yourself.
Yes, you have been outsmarted. David and what's-his-face straight up dominated you with, um, what are those called? Oh, yeah, FACTS. You on the other hand, gave nothing but a cock and bull tear-jerker story, which you conviniently ommitted the details out of. So you yourself didn't get any real point across either, as you have stated with me. The only thing you've proven is that you are a dumbsh*t loser that can only talk sh*t without anything to back it up.
It's somewhat amusing that you somehow think David and I are the same person. I'm not sure how you arrived to that 'logical' conclusion but haven't you noticed David has a little, shall we say, writing style than me? Perhaps retardation also rubbed off from your psycho dad. You've obviously had a bad upbringing.
Good to see you're still at your drug business.
In closing, perhaps you should try a new strategy of actually MAKING a point. Also, 'tootles' and 'darling' sound extremely gay, but those are fitting for you so keep using it.
Steve, I'm happy for anyone who has the ability to recognise the risks associated with corrupt clinical study data regardless of how they express themselves. It pleases me because that knowledge is essential in order to be able to make informed decisions, a process upon which survival depends, and by doing so protect themselves and those close to them. Continuous learning and acting appropriately to adapt from what is learned is a paramount part of survival of the fittest.
Whether or not you are able to distinguish between people posting on a forum is neither here nor there, it is totally irrelevant and a pointless course for you to be taking as it contributes nothing towards your view, not does it detract from the evidence presented by others.
With the background you describe, perhaps you would be interested in looking up research on bipolar - by doing so you might be able to spend some valuable time contributing to a real and permanent improvement to the health of a member of your family without drug related risks.
Some suggested research:
Kaplan BJ, Simpson JSA, Ferre RC, et al. Effective mood stabilization with a chelated mineral supplement: an open-label trial in bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62:936-944
Shaldubina A, Agam G, Belmaker RH. The mechanism of lithium action: state of the art, ten years later. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2001;25:855-866
Mertz W. A perspective on mineral standards. J Nutr 1998:128(suppl 2): 375S-378S
Cashman KD, Flynn A. Optimal nutrition: calcium, magnesium and phosphorus. Proc Nutr Soc 1999;58:477-487
Mertz W. Three decades of dietary recommendations. Nutr Rev 2000;58: 324-331
Werbach MR. Nutritional Influences on Mental Illness: A Sourcebook of Clinical Research. 2nd ed. Tarzana, Calif: Third Line Press; 1999
Stoll AL, Locke CA, Marangell LB, et al, Omega-3 fatty acids and bipolar disorder: a review. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 1999;60: 329-337
Stoll AL, Severus E, Freeman MP, et al. Omega 3 fatty acids in bipolar disorder: a preliminary double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999;56:407-412
Levy NA, Janicak PG. Calcium channel antagonists for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord 2000;2:108-119
McLeod MN, Golden RN. Chromium treatment of depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2000;3:311-314
Chengappa KN, Levine J, Gershon S, et al. Inositol as an add-on treatment for bipolar depression. Bipolar Disord 2000;2:47-55
Van der Does AJ. The effects of tryptophan depletion on mood and psychiatric symptoms. J Affect Disord 2001;64:107-119
Benton D, Fordy J, Haller J. The impact of long-term vitamin supplementation on cognitive functioning. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1995; 117: 298-305
Sabelli, H. C., et al. Clinical studies on the phenylethylamine hypothesis of affective disorder: Urine and blood phenylacetic acid and phenylalanine dietary supplements. J Clin Psychiat. 47(2):66-70, 1986
Triiodothyronine (25 - 30 micrograms per day) alleviates Manic Depression Arem, R. The Thyroid Solution. Ballantine Books, New York, USA 1999:114-117.
Manic Depression patients are generally found to have low endogenous production of Glutathione. Altschule, M. D., et al. Blood glutathione level in mental disease before and after treatment. Arch Psych. 71:69, 1955.
Folic Acid is the most common deficiency found in Manic Depression patients. .Coppen, A., et al. Folic acid enhances lithium prophylaxis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 10(1):9-13, 1986.
Banks, R. E., et al. Incorporation of inositol into the phosphoinositides of lymphoblastoid cell lines established from bipolar manic-depressive patients. Journal of Affective Disorders. 19(1):1-8, 1990.
Vitamin B12 deficiency can cause Mania. Goggans, F. C. A case of mania secondary to vitamin B12 deficiency. American Journal of Psychiatry. 141(2):300-301, 1984.
Vitamin C (3,000 mg per day) improves the condition of Manic Depression patients. Naylor, G. J., et al. Vanadium: A possible aetiological factor in manic-depressive illness. Psychol Med. 11(2):249-256, 1981.
Tryptophan alleviates Manic Depression and is beneficial when suicidal tendencies exist in Manic Depression patients: Chouinard, G., et al. Tryptophan in the treatment of depression and mania. Adv. Biol. Psychiat;10:47-66, 1983.
Fish oil supplement reduces bipolar symptoms and improves outcomes in pilot
study. Reuters Healthwire service. 7 May 1999.
As you (Steve) obviously have internet access and the capability of finding and posting on message boards, then I assume you do not need an explanation as to how to put that capability into use to look up the references, but if you do need a hand to access them in some depth I'll be happy to help you find abstracts of the studies or, where available, the full articles. Just let me know :-)
No research needed on these, just Real Player:
Video clips from the 1998 NIH Workshop on the role of Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs/Omega3/Fish oil) in Psychiatric Disorders:
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega1.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega2.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega3.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega4.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega5.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega6.ram
http://videocast.nih.gov/ram/omega7.ram
I omitted another possibly important factor in both mental and physical ill health.
That not only do we need to look at what is missing FROM our diets, but also what is added TO the food and drinks we take which can contribute to mental disorders and physical illness.
At this website:
http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/rumsfeld.html
you can watch a video (option of Windows Media or Quicktime format) showing how Aspartame got onto the market, how it was considered a dangerous drug until Donald Rumsfeld became involved and then by exploring the site further, discover some more particularly unpleasant facts about an additive that is common in much of our processed foods and drink.
For instance, on this page
http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages/blaylock.html
you can view a video on studies on the toxicity of Aspartame in pregnancy.
Explore the site. Nutrition should never be dismissed as irrelevant or some sort of weird belief. We are natural beings with natural needs. Our own health and that of our offspring, both mental and physical health, depends a lot on what we put into our bodies, in the same way as it does for every other species. Health cannot be achieved by ingesting toxic substances, with nutrients removed, and then depending on drugs (many of which also have toxic effects) to correct it.
Of course diseases can be caused by a virus, or by bacterium and medicines are needed. The problem lies wherein we fail to realise (or are persuaded by those who have an interest in misinforming the public) that as a species like any other we are provided with the nutrients for general mental and physical good health by nature - naturally. That while we cannot totally avoid diseases and therefore medicines, a large amount of the disease we have now is because we ignore those natural resources.
When natural resources are removed dramatically by climatic changes then the results are faster and far more obvious: ill health and depression (misery) at first, eventually leading to starvation and death.
There's nothing strange in attempting to improve physical or mental health by 'healthy' eating. On the contrary - it is particularly strange when people believe that nutrition is unimportant :-)
David, stop defending this moron. This guy was a f*ggot from the word go. Don't take him for some intelligent person who just expresses himself unintelligently. He's NOT a good person! Just stop defending him.
Hello Pear
Really I'm not defending him. I'm simply sticking to the evidence regardless of whether or not he is intrinically bad or good because my experience is that a fair proportion of 'hostile' persons are hostile for a reason and will at some point start to consider things.
A great number of people defend a medication because it is difficult to comprehend the idea that there have been years of misinformation, and so consequently they have accepted that psych meds are 'good'. It also takes time to get to grips to the fact that that there are so many people involved in lying to the public and risking lives. Time also to understand that they have been 'taken in' by misinformation, and time to accept that they can be betrayed by so many people. Time to realise that this is so.
Maybe with Steve I am wrong and you are right. I expect he will prove it either way eventually. But everyone deserves a chance - not all people have already researched and initial research can be shocking and disturbing, and refusal to accept the facts at first is quite common.
IF Steve's description of his background is correct and he is not intrinsically bad, then I hope that by having that information accessible to him he will get around to studying it. If that is the case he is in a position to make a positive difference to that background.
If you are right and he is not a good person just coming to terms with years of misinformation, then still the information is not wasted. Someone who has come to terms with the corruption involved and is more receptive to researching may read, for instance, the bipolar articles and references and be able to make more informed decisions about whether or not to take medication, or whether to take alternatives, or whether to 'reduce' the symptoms of medication by adding the nutrients alongside.
People show fear or insecurity in many ways. I don't mind if he is not a good person, whether he is a 'stooge', whether it is intentional. I don't mind if I'm proven wrong. If he is not a good person, then put it to one side, he is then not worth fighting WITH. If he is fundamentally a good person, then he is worth fighting FOR.
Either way, the evidence is available to others, some of whom will learn from it, some of whom will not :-) Those who do are always worth making the effort for.
Kind regards Pear.
Perhaps, David, but you give this chode WAY too much credit. This loser is more than in disbelief of your comments and has gone into insults. At the very least, HIS insults do not show any actual consideration or evaluation of data, but rather scoff at a, shall we call for the sake of argument, belief that differs from his. These are the same types of inbred ignoramuses that would have laughed at you if you told them the world was round several hundred years ago. You get the idea.
You are not looking at someone who simply disagrees with your statements, but rather someone who would not look EVEN for the sake of argument to just see if there's ANY validity to your claims. He spit in your face despite your posting of actual scientific documents. He couldn't even go so far as argue his disagreements to your posts. All he said was his dad was a whacko for years until he went on meds. No details of any kind.
I'm sure there are those who would be skeptical to anything that differed from the popular belief (the norm), but there are also those that will FIGHT this without so much as a second thought. These are the same kinds of people that keep harmful practices, laws, policies, conditions, etc. in continuation, and history will demonstrate this. Look what how long it took to eradicate slavery in this country. That is but a glimpse at what we are dealing with.
Maybe this ass isn't as bad as what I mentioned above but he is still part of that group and little mercy can be spared for that low breed of human beings. If he changes, good for him. Until then he is garbage.
Like I said, this is not a skeptic, but rather an intentional and calculative disbeliever.
I will add, however, on another topic, have you noticed how all the sh*thead naysayers have gone? Perhaps the topic is cold/dead but I think it's just because they can't handle the overwhelming evidence against their moronic opinions as they have nothing to back up their claims.
One thing that I just thought of that I didn't think of before is that all these people talking sh*t about Tom say actors should stick to acting (as well as singers should stick to singing and what have you), that just because someone is a celebrity they should talk about things they're not experts in, we shouldn't listen to someone just because they're a celebrity, etc. Well, let me just say that as soon as you say that, 99.99% of you are FULL OF SH*T. If you feel so strongly about that, then what the f*ck are you doing? Some of you people saying this nonsense are probably office workers, computer technicians, engineers, teachers (not in psychiatry/psychology), hair stylists, etc. Well, why don't YOU stick to YOUR profession rather than opening your dumb mouth? Tom is so wrong because he's not a so-called expert in this field, but neither are you. At least Tom's not a hypocrite.
And aren't YOU the ones trying to make yourselves heard, trying to get people to listen to you because you have a little internet site that you can voice your opinion on? My god, f*cking ridiculous some of you people.... Can't even say something without contradicting yourself.
Pear, you have a good understanding of people and I agree with a great deal of what you say. But lets look at your 'round world' analogy. When everyone believed the world was flat it would have been impossible to persuade them to change that deeply ingrained belief, which they had been schooled to believe was scientifically proven, by dismissing them as ignoramouses. Imagine how absolutely ridiculous it would be today if someone now came along with a theory that the world was square. This must be how it was for people who 'knew' the world was flat because for a long time a flat world was an irrefutably
established fact :-) Just as multiple mental diseases to explain away every human emotion and the benefits of psychotropic drugs to 'alter' those emotions have become increasingly accepted as an established fact over the last century.
To change the views of populations from that of the world being flat to acceptance that the world is round must have been incredibly difficult. The only way it could be achieved would have been to produce the evidence, patiently, constantly, and with an understanding that people were convinced otherwise. That most would have been skeptical. Some would have been foolish and dismissed it all without even considering the evidence, others would have considered the new 'round world' scientific evidence a little and then dismissed it purely because there was so much evidence already in place proving the world was flat that it would seem that the world must indeed by flat. A smaller number of people would have given the new science serious, in depth, thought and opened their mind to consider the detail of the new science and some of those would have believed, others would have had opinions either way and waited for more evidence.
During that period many people who truly believed that the world was flat would have scorned those who felt there may have been something to the new science, and derided those who KNEW that the science was valid. A world that wasn't flat? Frightening. How safe could a round world be? What could it possibly be sitting on? What if it fell like a ball into some hellish place? A flat world at least had an edge that would be visible if you went far enough to reach it, if it was round, how would you know if you ever reached the point of falling off how to avoid doing so if there was no obvious 'edge'? Imagine the fear the people would have experienced if they hadn't gone so far as to research the new science, if they hadn't looked thoroughly at the emerging evidence to discover that round wasn't as dangerous as it sounded, and that a 'safe' flat earth would indeed be dangerous given it was ignoring the laws of physics and the laws of nature :-) Funny to us now, because we have known for centuries that the world is round. But not funny to them.
The issues are a little different of course.
A flat earth was the best scientists could do to explain how we remained on its surface because of the limitations of science at that time.
However (putting aside any genuine mental illness that a SMALL proportion of the population may have, purporting that millions of people who undergo grief, sadness, stress, anxiety, and a host of other natural reactions to their environment or experiences, the very reactions which are designed to protect us so the we can recognise, avoid or adapt to aspects of our environment and so survive, are suffering from one of many 'mental diseases' as in the DSM IV is not due to a limitation of scientific knowledge.
It is an attempt to USE the term science (corruptly) to make a profit from the population from the drugs purported to TREAT those emotional responses. Science, if used correctly, would require that changes were made where possible to improve the environment and take away the cause of the reactions to it. One good example would be to IMPROVE the diet or masses of the population by removing toxic substances such as aspartame, and by NOT removing nutrients, when processing food. However, for those processing food for mass consumption it is in their best FINANCIAL interests to replace nutrients with chemicals.
That is just one example of what COULD be done. People react to a bad diet with ill health (mental and physical, our brains are a part of our whole being) just as they react to other stressors such as, for instance, poverty, overcrowding, homelessness and so on. The list of stressors is huge. Some things could be solved at many others could at least be improved if governments put their mind to it.
Unlike scientists working on the round world theory who were interested in science itself, many 'scientists' now are involved in abusing the term science or scientist by intentionally, for their own self-serving purposes, misinforming and misguiding others with reckless abandonment of principles and concern for the health of those who have faith in them. They are only intent on making 'science' work in their own best interest, rather than using science scientifically.
The result has been the same as in the flat earth, round earth situation. Millions of people around the world are certain that what 'bad science' purports is true. That our natural emotional responses to the world we live in and to what we experience as we go through life are merely a set of abnormal 'mental diseases' which can and surely must be treated by an assortment of chemicals to put it right.
It will take a long time and a lot of patience by a lot of people to change those views. Evidence of issues such as falsified clinical data for instance, will need to be shown many times before some people can comprehend that the science is flawed and that those who they have had unquestioned faith in throughout their lifetime are not what they seem. Eventually some of those who now dismiss or belittle the evidence will start protecting themselves and their families by realising that they have the capacity to research and educate themselves.
Just as we now all know the world is round, at some point in the future we will all know that this current culture of 'emotions are disease and toxic drugs are needed to treat them' was fraudulent 'science'. Probably not in our lifetime, anymore than it was in the life time of the 'round world' scientists. All we can do is what has been done throughout history, be a fleeting part of the change and, because this current culture is worse than just a flat earth belief in that it can cause disability and death, work that bit harder to speed up the change a little to protect those who haven't yet become a part of that change.
Certainly fight the big fish because they are powerful and are the ones intent on keeping the situation as it is for as long as they can. They are the ones who have taken a big part in abusing the trust of the people. But skeptical and insulting ordinary individuals are often those who are most fearful of change. Persuasion by patience and evidence are the only way to convince them that the world is not 'flat' :-) The relative few who MAY NOT simply be misinformed or afraid are certainly not big fish if they're posting on this board :-)
As for the reduction in people rather foolishly falling into gossip and criticism of Tom Cruise, his rights to speak or not regardless of the fact we do ourselves, his personality despite not knowing him personally, (prejudice is a human trait that we can all catch ourselves at sometimes, when we're impatient perhaps or angry, but which we usually try to control) there may be another reason that SOME for that reduction.
Some will be that the topic is cold/dead as you put it, some may be beause they can't handle the evidence.
But some may also now be silent because they have considered the evidence that is scattered about the board and realized that they hadn't thought it out and that they hadn't realised that he had as much right to speak as themselves and that we are all different, we are all imperfect and are all likeable to some people but not to others, that is part of life. Perhaps some of them have have stopped to think to put aside their personal 'opinions' as to who or what Tom Cruise is as an actor or as a person or as to his 'religious' beliefs and realised that however well or badly he put his views and despite who we believe he is as a person, or what his 'faith' is, what he actually said has some basis in evidence and so looked beyond any personal prejudice and gone on to educating themselves.
Those people are worth fighting for. We have all been in situations where we have eventually changed our minds (and so our views and behaviour regarding it) because that is built into us as part of the process of learning and adapting and so surviving. We do it all the time throughout our lives. We will have done it today or yesterday in various ways. Crossing the highway perhaps? From making a decision that it is safe to cross, then changing our minds (and behaviour) by considering we should NOT cross it and waiting: because we have just seen a truck coming :-)
Steve may well be an 'intentional and calculative disbeliever'. But he might just as easily be someone who is at the moment too scared of the traffic and so rushes across the road without looking - hoping for the best, or one who is just convinced that because he can't see much traffic there's nothing speeding around the bend towards him and so steps out anyway.
The 'garbage' (and I believe you have a very accurate description there) are those who have spent their time and energy inventing diseases (bad psychiatrists, not the good ones) for natural reactions to environmental dietary and other stressors, those involved in ghostwriting publications for the pharmaceutical industry (more bad psychiatrists), those involved in lying about clinical drug trial results (bad scientists and bad corporate individualsm not the good ones) while working on 'cures' for the 'diseases' to bring them in annually, and all those others who (bad politicians, bad media bosses, bad lawyers - not the good ones), for their own gain, generally worked hard to ensure that people just like Steve believe that their flawed science and their flawed principles are basic to life and to health.
Hope the above explains why I believe in 'Fight WITH the big boys, Fight FOR the others' :-)
I think that last sentence should be amended because fight 'with' could be read as fighting 'alongside' (the big boys).
This might be clearer:
Fight AGAINST the Big Boys, fight FOR the others. Or perhaps, Fight the Big Boys, fight FOR the others.
And please excuse what, having read through the whole post, seem to be at least dozens of typographical and spelling errors. An 'edit post' function would be helpful :-)
Hi David,
We could impliment an edit function. However, it would mean users would have to register to post on the site. Something we have found in the past to put people off...
I will maybe ask our programming team to look at it and poll readers on whether they would mind registering in order to post on this talkback...maybe we can make it optional, with those registered able to edit.
Best
James
Editor
Hi James
It was an unexpected surprise to know that an editor would be reading messages on a site where there is clearly a large number of topics and associated talk backs, and I appreciate your having taken the time and effort to read and respond, thank you :-)
I wouldn't like to see people 'put off' by registration only - a forum like this is a valuable resource for all to both voice and consider a variety of opinions. My comment was more 'wishful thinking' after the shock of seeing the number of errors than anything (!) and while the option to edit would certainly be convenient under those circumstances, it isn't of major importance and certainly doesn't warrant the extra work it would take for what must already be a very busy production team.
Thank you again for your kind response.
David
Oh dear, there we go again. I should have said PROGRAMMING team, not production team :-)
Nah, no need for an editing program. Just do it yourself. Besides, it helps sort out the morons who can't spell or type. Your posts are good enough, David. Remember, you're not writing a dissertation here; just a post on an internet site. But the main reason I don't feel an editing program is needed is because I myself don't want to have to register just to put up a few posts.
Hi Pear
Well it looks like that's one issue settled then.
I was about to log out, but I'm glad I refreshed before doing so as I don't believe we've been here at the same time before.
Take care :-)
David,
We actually read every comment on the site via our admin...we have to since they go live right away and we get a huge amount of abusive/spam/obscene posts...though a few get through sometimes. I really wanted to avoid moderated comments with people having to wait hours, since it means there is no real to and fro.
Also you seem to have to register for everything on the Net at the moment, I know it drives me mad sometimes with dozens of accounts all over the place.
I think we will look at something optional at some point. Really we never expected there to be 10 and sometimes 30 pages of comments. Perhaps we should increase the number per page...
Anyway, I do not want to drag this one off topic. But people are always free to contact us via the link in the menu with suggestions, corrections, complaints, etc.
Have a good weekend.
James
You have a good weekend too James.
Nice to 'meet' you (and Pear) and I for one appreciate the resource offered here and agree that registration is often quite off-putting, though in some circumstances and on some sites it is sometimes necessary to do so, but this doesn't appear to apply here as you seem to have everything under adequate control.
Now I really must log off as I have other work to do.
Kind regards.
David
I must say, however, that I would THINK that any sane person with common sense would question their profession when it involves electrocution/shocking with insulin. You've gotta be a complete DUNCE to actually believe that garbage, even if you were to really take a look to see if it has any credibility or therapeutic value.
David, I read, well, part of your last post (it was too long and I don't have that much patience, sorry), and I understand what you're saying. However, I am NOT fighting for people like Steve, but rather for people who conscientiously and honestly want the answers. Steve obviously does not qualify as that.
Yes, I understand that many people would not for a moment believe the world is square, as they did not believe the world was round several hundred years ago (actually, there are a ton of articles on the belief that the world was flat which you might find interesting). That's understandable. It's understandable that people would not believe psychotropic drugs are harmful and psychiatry's whole basis of mental illness is shaky (perhaps at best). However, these people will at least make an attempt to argue against this claim, and would eventually succumb to the reality known as the truth, even if it were hard. Steve is not one of those people. He is one of those don't-tell-me-the-truth-because-I've-already-made-up-my-mind people. His hands are over his ears because he likes what's he's already heard.
It's one thing to disbelieve something that goes against the norm, but it is something quite entirely different to discredit it without any rationale.
By the way, to all you p*ssies out there that made all the earlier gay posts, my prior comments still stand. Now taste your defeat. (maniacal laugh)
Pear, apologies for the length of the post - I was trying to answer all three of yours in one reply.
I am confused as to what your post immediately before that (the one mentioning 'shock/insulin' and 'dunce') refers to. I've taken a look back, though admittedly at speed, at previous posts and can't see quite how or what it is connected to or to whom it is aimed (if to anyone directly). If it was a post intended for my attention, then please explain further so that I can consider it or answer it, whichever is appropriate :-)
Articles on 'flat earth' sound fascinating. Perhaps you could leave links to a few of the ones you find to be the most interesting and I'll attempt to take time out to read them when I can.
Enjoy your weekend.
page: 1 2
JudyJun 25th, 2005 - 01:47:19
Tom Cruise has a particular world-view. One that I am quickly coming to believe is controlled by a cult. When challenged about his beliefs about psychiatry, he becomes defensive. The reporter isn't toeing the 'party line'. In an area in which there is room for a variety of viewpoints and opinions, Tom attempts to cut off discussion. Reminds me a little bit of other cults.
Report this comment