Eyes Wide's profileEyes Wide Open Internati...PhotosBlogListsMore ![]() | Help |
|
June 29 Anti-Psychotic Drugs Destroy Lives of Dementia PatientsAnti-Psychotic Drugs Destroy Lives of Dementia Patients...
NaturalNews) Although not authorized for such use, anti-psychotic drugs continue to be used to sedate Alzheimer's and other dementia patients with potentially devastating consequences.
Anti-psychotic drugs are designed for patients whose schizophrenia or bipolar disorder causes them to experience hallucinations or delusions. Due to their sedating effects, however, the drugs are often used on dementia patients who demonstrate aggression or agitation. This use is considered "off-label," meaning that it is not authorized by drug regulation agencies. In spite of this status, such drugs are widely prescribed, particularly in nursing homes. Critics charge that the drugs are being used simply to make life easier for nursing home staff, and not for the benefit of the patients. According to a recent study by world-renowned dementia expert Professor Clive Ballard, the use of anti-psychotics on dementia patients not only provides no medical benefits but is actually harmful. Ballard studied 165 dementia patients who had been taking anti-psychotic drugs for an extended time period, then took half of the group off the medication. After one year, Ballard found that the patients still on the drugs did not appear to have demonstrated any improvement, nor did those not on the medicine appear to have deteriorated faster. On the contrary, those taking anti-psychotics had more trouble thinking and communicating than those who had been taken off the drugs. In addition, evidence suggests that anti-psychotics shorten the lives of dementia patients. Cheryl Byrne had personal experience with the effects of anti-psychotics when her father, an Alzheimer's patient, was placed on the drugs. After starting the drug course, Byrne's father stopped moving around and became practically comatose, sitting slumped in a chair at all times, with the exception of bursts of agitated behavior. One time, he stood and sat a total of 17 times in 10 minutes. In an attempt to force a resistant nursing home staff to take her father off the drugs, Byrne secretly filmed her father to prove her point. "I never thought he was the same again after he'd been prescribed those drugs," Byrne said. "I thought something was lost." Can You Be Sabotaging Your Health by Not Knowing the Truth About Sugar? =PLEASE READ=Can You Be Sabotaging Your Health by Not Knowing the Truth About Sugar?
NaturalNews) We are encouraged to think of sugary foods as wholesome and desirable. Our children's fairy tales and stories are filled with sugary references, Hansel and Gretel for example. Every special occasion and holiday has its own sugar icon. Birthday cakes for birthdays, candy for Valentine's Day, Easter baskets for Easter, candy canes for Christmas.
Cookbooks call for cups of sugar for dessert recipes. Coffee breaks would hardly be breaks without sugared coffee and doughnuts. Bake sales are huge ways to raise money and Girl Scout cookies are a much-anticipated annual event. We even equate sugar with goodness. Little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. They then grow up to be someone's "honey" or "sugarplum". Question: Is America committing gastronomic suicide with our current rate of sugar consumption? Sugar (or sucrose as it is technically called) is more a drug than a food. Foods are supposed to have vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, trace minerals and elements. Sugar has none of these elements that are essential for life. Most people don't know how much sugar they eat. Why? It's not a matter of just keeping track of how many teaspoons you sprinkle on your cereal or pour into your coffee. 75% of the sugar we eat is already present in the prepared and packaged foods and beverages we buy. Sugar is virtually invisible. Very few food items are sugar-free and sugar is the largest single ingredient in the American diet. So, what happens when you eat a piece of chocolate cake? First, your teeth come into contact with sugary foods. Tooth decay affects almost every person in the U.S. Sugar in the diet influences the sort of organisms that can colonize and grow on tooth surfaces. Everyone has some of these organisms, but people who consume a high-sugar diet have much more dental plaque. When your chocolate cake reaches the small intestine, the sugar content of the cake passes quickly through the intestinal walls. This causes a fast and dramatic rise in the body's blood glucose levels... your blood sugar level. Glucose is blood sugar and is the energy source for each cell in our bodies. Every move of our muscles burns glucose and the brain needs glucose for all of its activities. When this is working properly, we have a constant and even amount of glucose circulating in the bloodstream. Want to hear something amazing? This amount is only approximately 2 teaspoons! Your chocolate cake contains 10 teaspoons. Far too much for your bloodstream to absorb and use. Insulin, which controls the amount of glucose in your blood, is secreted from the pancreas. As it attempts to regulate this excessive amount of sugar, more insulin is issued. The insulin does its job, but frequently does it too well. Your blood glucose level will drop back to normal and will actually continue to drop until too much glucose has been removed from the blood stream. This means that now our muscles, tissues, brain, and other vital organs will not have enough glucose available to perform the necessary functions that they need to accomplish. Your piece of chocolate cake disrupts the normal blood glucose levels and actually leaves you hungrier in the long run. Over consumption of sugar has been directly linked to the following conditions: Anemia, kidney lesions, fat deposits in the kidney, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, duodenal ulcers, asthma, common cold, obesity, gout, gall stones, inflamed gall bladder, allergies, tooth decay, pyorrhea, infectious diseases, indigestion, hypoglycemia, dermatitis, heart disease, and diabetes. Scientists theorize that humans are born with a preference for sweet foods. This preference likely remains with us for our entire lives. However, there are healthy alternatives that do not wreak the havoc that sucrose does on the human body. The two most readily available and healthy alternatives to processed sugar are raw honey and pure maple syrup. Give your body a chance to wean itself off the drug of processed sugar and give either honey or maple syrup a chance in your diet. You will be thankful both in the short and long term! About the authorJo HartleyWife, Mother of 8, and Grandmother of 2 Jo is a 40 year old home educator who has always gravitated toward a natural approach to life. She enjoys learning as much as possible about just about anything! http://www.loftymatters.com MORE HERE: http://www.naturalnews.com/023525.html The American Empire is headed towards collapse!! =MUST READ=The American Empire is headed towards collapse, followed by the rebirth of a new nation. What will that Next Society look like? Today's feature article explains WHY the USA will collapse (just do the math), and HOW we can put new ideas on the table to create a new society based on the greater good rather than individual profit-taking and corporate greed.
I personally recommend ending representative government entirely (Direct Democracy works better), ending all patent protections on genes, seeds and medicines, switching to Instant Runoff Voting, revoking the "rights" of corporations, granting new legal rights to animals and nature (apes, mature trees, etc.), and eliminating the Federal Reserve (the national money supply should belong to the People, not a private corporation). What are YOUR ideas?
Read more in today's feature article, below, and get ready for a wild ride as we witness the historical downfall of the modern world's Roman Empire...
Also today: More anti-cancer nutrients in tomatoes | Acidity vs. heartburn | Ancer-cancer drug useless? | Electric car gets 300 mpg equivalent | Anti-psychotic drug dangers | Acne drug causes depression | Exclusive interviews and much more!
Creating the Next Society: Your Revolutionary Ideas Needed NowFriday, June 27, 2008 by: Mike Adams (see all articles by this author) | Key concepts: America, corporations and the FDA
NaturalNews) It's fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the American Empire, as currently configured and operated, is simply not sustainable. Financial collapse is inevitable (and accelerating, it seems), and even mainstream America can no longer deny the obvious signs that things have gone terribly wrong: Skyrocketing fuel prices, unprecedented inflation in food prices, rampant epidemics of preventable degenerative disease, plummeting real estate prices, an increasingly-worthless national currency, disastrous war failures, rampant dishonesty in Washington, and accelerating climate changes that are causing flooding, crop failures, droughts and worse. It is becoming increasingly difficult for even the Pollyannas of the world to argue that the United States of America has a bright future. Creating The Next SocietyWhen the United States of America collapses like the Roman Empire under the weight of its debt, disease and disastrously devolving dollar, there will be an opportunity to create a new society governed by new rules. I believe that evil corporations, corrupt government regulators and the U.S. Patent Office should be among the first to be placed on the chopping block. A list of things to outlaw in The Next SocietyI have a long list of laws to recommend be implemented in that new society. They include the banning of all advertising of processed foods, cigarettes, and pharmaceuticals, the ending of all subsidies on sugar and corn, the outlawing of factory farming practices, the establishment of true Free Speech for nutritional supplement manufacturers, and the building of a Big Pharma Holocaust Museum that documents the terrible chemical atrocities that have been committed against the human race by the drug companies throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. MOREV HERE: http://www.naturalnews.com/023528.html June 27 HERE'S YOU CHANCE =WHO?=
June 21 GREEN PEACE ALERT: =PLEASE READ/SIGN=You already know that, year after year, Greenpeace activists put their lives on the line to protect whales. Today, two of our activists are sitting in jail in Japan for their undercover work to expose a stolen whale meat scandal in Japan last month as part of our campaign to save the whales. Following a four-month undercover investigation, we broke the news last month of a major scandal involving the embezzlement of whale meat from the Japanese government-subsidized Southern Ocean whaling program. Our activists handed over a box of whale meat as evidence of the whale meat smuggling operation, and the Tokyo public prosecutor agreed there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. But early this morning in Japan, our Greenpeace office was raided and two of our activists were arrested. Junichi Sato, 31, and Toru Suzuki, 41, are being investigated on charges of stealing a box of whale meat that they had presented as evidence in the smuggling case. Take Action >> Stand by Junichi and Toru by writing the Japanese Prime Minster immediately.By Japanese law, our activists could be held without charges for up to 23 days. Our activists are innocent of any crime. They have been arrested after returning whale meat that was stolen from Japanese taxpayers and for exposing a fraud that may reach high into the Japanese government agencies that run the whaling program. June 18 Exposed: Harvard Shrink Gets Rich Labeling Kids Bipolar =MUST READ=Exposed: Harvard Shrink Gets Rich Labeling Kids Bipolar By Bruce E. Levine, AlterNet. Posted June 18, 2008. Meet the man who got rich by popularizing bipolar disorder for children. Congressional investigators and the NY Times expose the scandal.
What Dick Cheney is to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, psychiatrist Joseph Biederman is to the explosion of psychiatric medications in American children. Recently, Biederman was nailed by congressional investigators and the New York Times for overestimating just how greedy an elite shrink is entitled to be. Beyond a peek into the corruption of psychiatry at its highest levels, the scandal is an opportunity to reconsider the Big Pharma financed view of why kids become disruptive and destructive. On June 8, 2008, the New York Times reported the following about Joseph Biederman: "A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful anti-psychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given congressional investigators." Due in part to Biederman's influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003, and as Bloomberg News reported (September 2007), "The expanded use of bipolar as a pediatric diagnosis has made children the fastest-growing part of the $11.5 billion U.S. market for anti-psychotic drugs." Pediatrician and author Lawrence Diller notes about Biederman, "He single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map." Biederman has been in a position to convince many doctors to diagnose bipolar disorder in children and to medicate them with anti-psychotic drugs. In addition to being a professor at Harvard, Biederman is also chief of research in pediatric psychopharmacology at the Massachusetts General Hospital, which publishes more than 30 papers yearly on psychiatric disorders. And Biederman himself has authored and co-authored approximately 500 articles, 70 book chapters, and more than 450 scientific abstracts, as well as being on the editorial board of many professional journals. Biederman (and two of his colleagues in the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School who received an additional $2.6 million from drug companies from 2000 to 2007), by failing to report income from drug companies while at the same time receiving federal funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), violated rules designed to police conflicts of interest, according to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. Grassley concluded, "Obviously, if a researcher is taking money from a drug company while also receiving federal dollars to research that company's product, then there is a conflict of interest." In one example, Biederman neglected to report his 2001 income from Johnson & Johnson (makers of the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal); Johnson & Johnson reported to Grassley that it had paid Biederman $58,169 in 2001. In addition to his popularization of bipolar disorder for children, Biederman is one of the most significant forces behind the commonplace diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Congressional investigators also found that Biederman conducted studies of Eli Lilly's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug Strattera that were funded by NIH at the same time he was receiving money from Lilly that exceeded the maximum amount permitted. NIH rules state that researchers cannot take more than $20,000 in payments from a drug company whose drug they are funded by NIH to research and that researchers must disclose any payment received from a drug company of $10,000 or more. Apparently, for drug researchers taking federal funding from NIH, there is no law against being on the take from drug companies, but there are rules against greed. Mental health treatment in the United States is now a multibillion-dollar industry, and all the rules of industrial complexes apply. Not only does Big Pharma have influential psychiatrists such as Biederman in their pocket, virtually every mental health institution from which doctors, the press, and the general public receive their mental health information is financially interconnected with Big Pharma. The American Psychiatric Association, psychiatry's professional organization, is hugely dependent on drug company grants, and this is also true for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and other so-called consumer organizations. Harvard and other prestigious university psychiatry departments take millions of dollars from drug companies, and the National Institute of Mental Health funds researchers who are financially connected with drug companies. June 11 A =MUST WATCH= VIDEO =WE ARE "NOT" OUT OF OIL=A "MUST WATCH" video!! PLEASE take the time to watch it.There Is Enough Crute Oil, and Gas in America for 200 YearsUS Politics & Gov't (tags: Oil, Gas, corruption, dishonesty, lies, media, usa )Evert Jan - 48 seconds ago - video.google.com There is enough crute oil, and gas in America for 200 years (see the video) Free Energy Suppression and the Global Elite's Agenda =MUST READ=The 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Energy Suppression and the Global Elite's Agenda, May 2008 By CB_Brooklyn www.checktheevidence.com Imagine utilizing free energy technology in daily life. No more petroleum-based fuels; no more outrageous oil and gas prices. Humanity would definitely benefit from this. The technology for water powered cars has been in the news, such as in this NBC-affiliate clip. This FOX-affiliate clip reveals the development of this technology for the military. From the FOX clip we learn that Radio Frequencies are key to this technology. As you read further you'll discover another building block of free energy: Tesla Coils. So why are these technologies suppressed? Basic Answer: Control. The Global Elite plan a New World Order with an enslaved "police state" culture. How might this be done? One way is the Patriot Act. Another could be the 800 FEMA detention camps fully constructed, staffed, and awaiting prisoners. What else might they do? They could slow the economy. Control over oil and gas makes accomplishing this easy. All they have to do is notch those prices up little by little, and the average citizen gets poorer and poorer. Not only do these increases affect the gas pump and home boiler, they affect food manufacturing plants, public water supplies, and other necessities as well. Raising oil/gas prices is the Global Elite's way of destroying our way of life. But they can't raise prices without a reason, so they concocted one: Peak Oil. That way, people assume the increased costs and fuel limits are natural with no way around it. But Peak Oil is a hoax. In the 1970s, a huge oil field was discovered in Alaska that could fuel the United States for 200 years, but its existence has been classified. Those is power have planned their New World Order for some time, and didn't want an Alaskan field getting in the way. Instead, they approached the Saudi's for an "oil deal", a way of ripping them off and entrapping the United States. Information regarding this is linked later in this article; much from a video presentation by Lindsey Williams, a former "insider" turned whistleblower. It is all too common for those in control to suppress and weaponize new technologies. Suppression can be accomplished simply by spreading choice phrases such as "raygun nutcase". Even the production of sci-fi TV/movies helps associate these weapons with "science fiction". As one example, the body cloak technology portrayed in the film "Predator" is very real, and was reported in Time and WIRED magazines. It is pretty well known that these technological advances are light years ahead of what is publicly admitted. This technology is far from sci-fi and has existed for many decades. The first microwave oven was built in 1947 by Raytheon, a major defense contractor. What advances could they have made in the past sixty years? A look at the documentary "Star Wars in Iraq" reveals weaponry based on these technologies. So what's "crazy" about it? What would people sixty years ago have said about cell phones? "Wacky"?? How about The Wizard of Oz on an ultra-thin shiny little disc? "Nutjob"?? What about embedding spy chips on insects? "Insane"?? Technology has come a long way in the last 100 years. The first major free energy scientist, Nikola Tesla, knew the direction his research would someday take. In 1915 he said "I have not thought it hazardous to predict, that wars in the future will be waged by electrical means". The Star Wars in Iraq video proves him right. Of course, the Global Elite need the public at large to consider free-energy "crazy". They want this "black op" technology as their secret weapon to use against us and they attack those who speak up. One example is well known pioneer of free energy research, John Hutchison. After he and Dr Judy Wood publicized their paper "Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect", Hutchison ran into problems with the Canadian authorities. Another is Dr Eugene Mallove who, after writing an open letter to the world requesting free energy research funds, was killed. This "2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had a special tribute to Dr Mallove. A number of mysterious deaths are connected to free energy suppression. Every 9/11 Truther should take this one minute test. Although not 9/11 related, this video makes an important point about distraction: DO THE TEST: http://www.dothetest.co.uk 9/11 Truth is an extremely important issue and only those who really care are ever involved. But 9/11 is just one of the issues that absolutely need attention. Other issues are equally as important. One thing the Global Elite do not want revealed is the existence of free-energy technology. This technology has the capability of revolutionizing the world by removing oil/gas as main sources of fuel, but instead has been weaponized and used against us. Directed energy weapons and weather control are among the dangers we now face. **Might this technology have been used on 9/11? What if the "truth movement" was steered by those affiliated with free energy technologies, including those who discredited it decades past? What if pictorial evidence shows resemblance to the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing? **Might this technology be responsible for recent weather-related disasters? Have hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, and volcanic eruptions shown an increase lately? What if pictorial and other data show resemblance to the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing? Not many know that a major hurricane - Hurricane Erin - was in the Atlantic Ocean in September of 2001. In fact, Erin was closest to NYC, and at its largest size, on 9/11 itself. But the TV news networks had little reporting on this hurricane. Contrary to Erin, however, Hurricane Katrina had virtually 24 hour coverage, even before it hit land. Interestingly, Erin was stronger than Katrina the day before 9/11. So why didn't the media cover Erin, say, on September 10? The astronauts in the space station commented on the WTC smoke plume, but made no mention of the monstrous hurricane next to it. How come? Those interested in learning the secret between hurricanes and Tesla Coils should see Dr Judy Wood's new paper "9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects". It's chock full of photos and analysis and is highly recommended. Those who control the energy control the world. As prices for oil, gas, food and other types of energy go higher and higher, one must ask themselves what they are to do. What holds for the future? Harvard psychiatrist drug money cover-up exposed =PLEASE READ=Subj: Sun. NY Times: Harvard psychiatrist drug money cover-up exposed Sunday NY Times: Congress discovers that Harvard psychiatrist covered up drug money Tomorrow's Sunday New York Times (8 June 2008) will have an item about a drug money cover-up by a world-famous Harvard psychiatrist who is considered a catalyst for the enormous increase in psychiatric drugging of USA kids. See the text of the article below. NY Times reports that US Congressional investigators led by Senator Charles E. Grassley discovered that Harvard's Dr. Joseph Biederman illegally did not disclose to Harvard authorities much of the more than a million dollars he received from psychiatric drug companies. Says NY Times: "[Dr. Biederman's] work helped to fuel a controversial 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder." Please forward. At bottom is commentary from MindFreedom and how you can take action. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NY Times article with photos on MindFreedom web site: http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/psych-drug-corp/ny-times-biederman- harvard/grassley-v-harvard Or on NY Times web site: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08conflict.html?hp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sunday New York Times Child Experts Fail to Reveal Full Drug Pay By Gardiner Harris and Benedict Carey June 8, 2008 A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given Congressional investigators. By failing to report income, the psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Biederman, and a colleague in the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Timothy E. Wilens, may have violated federal and university research rules designed to police potential conflicts of interest, according to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. Some of their research is financed by government grants. Like Dr. Biederman, Dr. Wilens belatedly reported earning at least $1.6 million from 2000 to 2007, and another Harvard colleague, Dr. Thomas Spencer, reported earning at least $1 million after being pressed by Mr. Grassley's investigators. But even these amended disclosures may understate the researchers' outside income because some entries contradict payment information from drug makers, Mr. Grassley found. In one example, Dr. Biederman reported no income from Johnson & Johnson for 2001 in a disclosure report filed with the university. When asked recently to check again, he reported receiving $3,500. But Johnson & Johnson told Mr. Grassley that it paid him $58,169 in 2001, Mr. Grassley found. The Harvard group's consulting arrangements with drug makers were already controversial because of the researchers' advocacy of unapproved uses of psychiatric medicines in children. In an e-mailed statement, Dr. Biederman said, "My interests are solely in the advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective study," and he said he took conflict-of-interest policies "very seriously." Drs. Wilens and Spencer said in e-mailed statements that they thought they had complied with conflict-of-interest rules. John Burklow, a spokesman for the National Institutes of Health, said: "If there have been violations of N.I.H. policy - and if research integrity has been compromised - we will take all the appropriate action within our power to hold those responsible accountable. This would be completely unacceptable behavior, and N.I.H. will not tolerate it." The federal grants received by Drs. Biederman and Wilens were administered by Massachusetts General Hospital, which in 2005 won $287 million in such grants. The health institutes could place restrictions on the hospital's grants or even suspend them altogether. Alyssa Kneller, a Harvard spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement: "The information released by Senator Grassley suggests that, in certain instances, each doctor may have failed to disclose outside income from pharmaceutical companies and other entities that should have been disclosed." Ms. Kneller said the doctors had been referred to a university conflict committee for review. Mr. Grassley sent letters on Wednesday to Harvard and the health institutes outlining his investigators' findings, and he placed the letters along with his comments in The Congressional Record. Dr. Biederman is one of the most influential researchers in child psychiatry and is widely admired for focusing the field's attention on its most troubled young patients. Although many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, his work helped to fuel a controversial 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder, which is characterized by severe mood swings, and a rapid rise in the use of antipsychotic medicines in children. The Grassley investigation did not address research quality. Doctors have known for years that antipsychotic drugs, sometimes called major tranquilizers, can quickly subdue children. But youngsters appear to be especially susceptible to the weight gain and metabolic problems caused by the drugs, and it is far from clear that the medications improve children's lives over time, experts say. In the last 25 years, drug and device makers have displaced the federal government as the primary source of research financing, and industry support is vital to many university research programs. But as corporate research executives recruit the brightest scientists, their brethren in marketing departments have discovered that some of these same scientists can be terrific pitchmen. To protect research integrity, the National Institutes of Health require researchers to report to universities earnings of $10,000 or more per year, for instance, in consulting money from makers of drugs also studied by the researchers in federally financed trials. Universities manage financial conflicts by requiring that the money be disclosed to research subjects, among other measures. The health institutes last year awarded more than $23 billion in grants to more than 325,000 researchers at over 3,000 universities, and auditing the potential conflicts of each grantee would be impossible, health institutes officials have long insisted. So the government relies on universities. Universities ask professors to report their conflicts but do almost nothing to verify the accuracy of these voluntary disclosures. "It's really been an honor system thing," said Dr. Robert Alpern, dean of Yale School of Medicine. "If somebody tells us that a pharmaceutical company pays them $80,000 a year, I don't even know how to check on that." Some states have laws requiring drug makers to disclose payments made to doctors, and Mr. Grassley and others have sponsored legislation to create a national registry. Lawmakers have been concerned in recent years about the use of unapproved medications in children and the influence of industry money. Mr. Grassley asked Harvard for the three researchers' financial disclosure reports from 2000 through 2007 and asked some drug makers to list payments made to them. "Basically, these forms were a mess," Mr. Grassley said in comments he entered into The Congressional Record on Wednesday. "Over the last seven years, it looked like they had taken a couple hundred thousand dollars." Prompted by Mr. Grassley's interest, Harvard asked the researchers to re-examine their disclosure reports. In the new disclosures, the trio's outside consulting income jumped but was still contradicted by reports sent to Mr. Grassley from some of the companies. In some cases, the income seems to have put the researchers in violation of university and federal rules. In 2000, for instance, Dr. Biederman received a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study in children Strattera, an Eli Lilly drug for attention deficit disorder. Dr. Biederman reported to Harvard that he received less than $10,000 from Lilly that year, but the company told Mr. Grassley that it paid Dr. Biederman more than $14,000 in 2000, Mr. Grassley's letter stated. At the time, Harvard forbade professors from conducting clinical trials if they received payments over $10,000 from the company whose product was being studied, and federal rules required such conflicts to be managed. Mr. Grassley said these discrepancies demonstrated profound flaws in the oversight of researchers' financial conflicts and the need for a national registry. But the disclosures may also cloud the work of one of the most prominent group of child psychiatrists in the world. In the past decade, Dr. Biederman and his colleagues have promoted the aggressive diagnosis and drug treatment of childhood bipolar disorder, a mood problem once thought confined to adults. They have maintained that the disorder was underdiagnosed in children and could be treated with antipsychotic drugs, medications invented to treat schizophrenia. Other researchers have made similar assertions. As a result, pediatric bipolar diagnoses and antipsychotic drug use in children have soared. Some 500,000 children and teenagers were given at least one prescription for an antipsychotic in 2007, including 20,500 under 6 years of age, according to Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager. Few psychiatrists today doubt that bipolar disorder can strike in the early teenage years, or that many of the children being given the diagnosis are deeply distressed. "I consider Dr. Biederman a true visionary in recognizing this illness in children," said Susan Resko, director of the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, "and he's not only saved many lives but restored hope to thousands of families across the country." Longtime critics of the group see its influence differently. "They have given the Harvard imprimatur to this commercial experimentation on children," said Vera Sharav, president and founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a patient advocacy group. Many researchers strongly disagree over what bipolar looks like in youngsters, and some now fear the definition has been expanded unnecessarily, due in part to the Harvard group. The group published the results of a string of drug trials from 2001 to 2006, but the studies were so small and loosely designed that they were largely inconclusive, experts say. In some studies testing antipsychotic drugs, the group defined improvement as a decline of 30 percent or more on a scale called the Young Mania Rating Scale - well below the 50 percent change that most researchers now use as the standard. Controlling for bias is especially important in such work, given that the scale is subjective, and raters often depend on reports from parents and children, several top psychiatrists said. More broadly, they said, revelations of undisclosed payments from drug makers to leading researchers are especially damaging for psychiatry. "The price we pay for these kinds of revelations is credibility, and we just can't afford to lose any more of that in this field," said Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, executive director of the Stanley Medical Research Institute, which finances psychiatric studies. "In the area of child psychiatry in particular, we know much less than we should, and we desperately need research that is not influenced by industry money." - end - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Commentary by David Oaks, Director, MindFreedom International I was was once a Harvard student. Grandson of coal miners, at Harvard on scholarships, I developed mental and emotional problems. Harvard psychiatrists ordered my forced psychiatric drugging in a Harvard teaching hospital, McLean. Harvard psychiatrists told me point blank I had to stay on powerful neuroleptic ("antipsychotic") drugs for the rest of my life. They were wrong. I graduated anyway in 1977. With honors. I've been off all psychiatric drugs ever since. In my senior year, a Harvard volunteer agency -- Phillips Brooks House -- placed me in a psychiatric survivor group (thank you PBH!). I've spent the last few decades working to prevent psychiatric human rights violations. But I almost became one of the early teenagers to be diagnosed bipolar (and "schizophrenic") and placed on neuroleptics for all this time. An unreported problem is that a diagnosis of "psychosis" like "bipolar" can lead to decades, or a life-time, of neuroleptic drugging (antipsychotics). We at MindFreedom are pro-choice on the personal health care decision to take a prescribed neuroleptic, but these drugs really are pushed and pushed hard without adequate advocacy, information, alternatives, etc. To check out what mainstream medicine has long known about what long- term neuroleptics can do the frontal lobes of primates, check out the monkey study in this folder: http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/psychiatric-drugs/antipsychotics/ neuroleptic-brain-damage or use this web address: http://tinyurl.com/ypj8vf Ben Carey, one of the reporters for the above great NY Times article, has done a lot of work on investigating psychiatric drug industry corruption, and he should be applauded. But Ben and I have communicated, and he knows about the neuroleptic brain damage story. But -- like all other mainstream media -- he has chosen not to report it. ACTION: Thank Ben Carey for his courageous reporting, but ask when he will report that neuroleptics cause frontal lobe shrinkage. E-mail for Ben Carey is: bencarey@nytimes.com Perhaps somewhere in some college -- perhaps Harvard? -- there is hopefully a future "Al Gore of mental health" who will one day show PowerPoint slide shows to millions of people about this "Greenhouse effect" of the mind: The tragic and literal mass chemical lobotomy of millions of young people through decades of neuroleptics, needlessly, without any informed consent about the structural brain change, when humane alternatives exist but are not offered. Yes, diabetes and weight gain from neuroleptics are horrendous, and can kill. But chemical lobotomy? That could have been me. And I take that personally. You can also thank Senator Grassley, and let him know about the neuroleptic brain damage issue. Very few elected officials have ever been informed. MindFreedom supports legislating criminal penalties for individuals such as Dr. Biederman; make his a humane prison, with lots of humane alternatives for rehabilitation, but sentence some real time behind bars, and we can begin to address this crisis. You can also encourage Sen. Grassley to pass laws to help make behavior like Dr. Biederman's a criminal offense. Sen. Grassley web contact form: http://grassley.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home or use this web address: http://tinyurl.com/2wtnz9 ~~~~~~~~~~~ ACTION ACTION ACTION: Please forward to all appropriate places on & off Internet, NOW! PAXIL BABIES =PLEASE READ=IMPORTANT=Two excellent articles by our friend Bruce Levine...
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/87298/
June 05 "Kill them." Bloodthirsty speech by BUSH =PLEASE READ=
Can Pot Extend Ted Kennedy's Life? =PLEASE READ=Oh...how things come back to haunt us.
Another Lier!! Just what we need!! =WATCH!!=Another Lier!! Just what we need!! WATCH!!
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|