Review of Studies Finds Antidepressants Not Reliably Better Than Sugar Pills

Are Antidepressants Just Placebos With Side Effects?

Reviews of large numbers of studies on antidepressants – including studies the drug companies never published because they did not have positive outcomes – continue to show that improvement in patients given antidepressants is due largely, if not entirely, to the placebo effect and not the drugs.

In 2010, Irving Kirsch, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of Hull in England and author of “The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth,” published an article on the conclusions he and his colleagues reached after reviewing data the drug companies had sent to the FDA.  The data, obtained by using the Freedom of Information Act, included results that had never been published because the results were not favorable to the drugs the companies were testing.

Kirsch termed the results of the review “shocking.” His group’s meta-analysis (the analysis of many clinical trials on the same subject – in this case, antidepressants) found that placebos – sugar pills – are 82% as effective as antidepressants.  However, they further found that even this “relatively small difference between drugs and placebos might not be a real drug effect at all.  Instead, it might be [nothing more than] an enhanced placebo effect.”

The placebo effect refers to perceived or actual improvement in health that does not come from the treatment the patient is receiving, which may be a dummy pill, but from the patient’s belief that the treatment will help.

The FDA only requires two clinical trials that show any statistical difference between drug and placebo in order to approve a drug – even if a much larger number of studies failed to show positive results.  And the positive result can be so small that it makes no real difference in people’s lives.  The FDA does not require results to be clinically significant, just statistically significant.

Kirsch’s results are supported by another group of researchers who reviewed four meta-analyses of clinical trials on antidepressants that were submitted to the FDA.

Their conclusion, published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics last year, stated that “antidepressants are only marginally efficacious [effective] compared to placebos,” and even this modest benefit might be inflated by “profound publication bias.”  Publication bias means the tendency of researchers and publications to publish results that are favorable for the drugs being tested and to hide or reject results that are unfavorable, thereby shaping both professional and public opinion by unscientific means.

These same researchers also analyzed the data from STAR*D (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression), the largest antidepressant effectiveness trial ever conducted.  They found that “the effectiveness of antidepressant therapies was probably even lower than the modest one reported by [that study’s] authors, with an apparent progressively increasing dropout rate across each study phase.”  The progressively increasing dropout rate, as more and more participants dropped out of the study because of adverse effects they experienced, means the study became more and more biased towards a favorable outcome.

The researchers found results on the antidepressant studies to be so inflated that they call for a complete reconsideration of the use of antidepressants: “The reviewed findings argue for a reappraisal of the current recommended standard of care of depression.”

Their concern is shared by Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine and now a senior lecturer in social medicine at Harvard Medical School.  In the first part of her recent, two-part essay in The New York Review of Books,  she writes about the disturbing extent to which the pharmaceutical companies that sell psychoactive drugs – through both legal and illegal marketing and “what many people would describe as bribery” – have come to determine the “diagnosis” and treatment of mental illness.

In the second part of her essay, she calls for more research into alternatives to antidepressants:  “More research is needed to study alternatives to psychoactive drugs, and the results should be included in medical education.”

Indeed.  If antidepressants are no more effective than placebos, but come at a great cost and expose individuals to a lengthy and growing list of devastating and even life-threatening side effects, including deepening and chronic depression and suicide, it only makes sense that diet, nutritional supplements, exercise, and meaningful activities be explored as alternatives.

Just as important, depression is very often a mental symptom of an undiagnosed, untreated physical condition.  A complete physical examination by a non-psychiatric physician should always be done to look for underlying physical conditions before antidepressants or other psychotropic drugs are prescribed.

Individuals currently taking antidepressants are cautioned against suddenly discontinuing them.  No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and supervision of a competent medical doctor.

If you or someone you know has been harmed by antidepressants or other psychiatric drugs, you can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We also welcome your comments below.

Chance of Autism Doubles with Antidepressant Use During Pregnancy

A study just published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that the odds of having an autistic child doubled for mothers who took newer antidepressants known as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) during the year before delivery.

SSRIs include Prozac, Zoloft, Celexa and Lexapro, among others.

The study found that the rate was greater than two autistic children per 100 mothers on SSRIs, with the rate higher still if mothers took SSRIs in the first trimester of their pregnancy.

The research was undertaken because the rising incidence of autism in recent years parallels a rise in the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

A second study just released also suggests that environmental factors, including prenatal conditions, play a significantly larger role in autism.

Dr. Joseph Coyle, editor-in-chief of the psychiatry journal, called the two studies “game changers.”

Clara Lajonchere, an author of one of the studies and vice president of clinical programs for the research and advocacy organization Autism Speaks, said that “much more emphasis is going to be put on looking at prenatal and perinatal [around the time of childbirth] factors with respect to autism susceptibility.”

Pregnant women currently taking SSRIs are cautioned against suddenly discontinuing them.  No one should stop taking any psychiatric drug without the advice and supervision of a competent medical doctor.

If you or someone you know gave birth to a child with birth defects or other problems after taking psychiatric drugs during pregnancy, we want to talk to you.  You can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We welcome your comments on this article below.

Antipsychotic Drugs Dangerously Used In Nursing Homes

Risk Of Potentially Deadly Side Effects For Dementia Patients

An investigation by the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that nursing homes are giving many elderly residents powerful antipsychotic drugs that put their lives at risk, according to a new report.

The report was critical of the widespread use of atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics with patients with dementia.  In 2005 the Food and Drug Administration issued a public health advisory, warning that atypical antipsychotic drugs increase the risk of death in elderly patients with dementia.

Yet the recent investigation found that 88% of the Medicare claims in 2007 for atypical antipsychotics were for individuals with dementia.

In a statement accompanying the report, HHS Inspector General Daniel Levinson faulted drug companies for aggressively and illegally marketing these drugs to doctors for treatment of dementia and other off-label uses.  It also held the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services responsible for failing to properly monitor the use of the drugs.

The Inspector General notes that the many financial payments the drug companies have made in settling lawsuits  against them for illegal marketing practices do not make up for the risks to which nursing home residents have been exposed.  “Money can’t make up for years of corporate campaigns that market drugs with questionable benefits and potentially deadly side effect for vulnerable, elderly patients,” he said.

With 210 nursing homes and convalescent facilities listed for Colorado in the www.medicare.gov database, and 38 listed for Wyoming, the number of the elderly exposed to the dangers of antipsychotics in our region is of great concern.

If someone you know has been wrongly drugged with antipsychotics or other psychiatric drugs in a nursing home, you can contact us privately by clicking here or by calling 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.  We also welcome your comments below.

For more information about the dangers to the elderly of antipsychotics and other classes of psychiatric drugs, and about how psychiatric drugs are used as chemical restraints on the elderly in nursing homes, click here.

The Easy Job of Pitching Drugs to Psychiatrists

A Former Drug Sales Representative Slams Psychiatrists

Sales of psychiatric drugs are big business.  How big?  Worldwide sales of antidepressants, stimulants, antianxiety and antipsychotic drugs top $82 billion a year and fuel the $330 billion psychiatric industry – all  while failing to produce a single cure.

Though there are no lab tests, brain scans, or any other type of medical tests or other physical evidence to prove the existence of any mental disorder, psychiatrists continue to label millions of Americans with “mental illnesses” and to prescribe dangerous, mind-altering drugs to “medicate” diseases that are not there.  These psychiatric drugs cause 700,000 adverse drug reactions and an estimated 42,000 deaths each year, and the numbers continue to climb.

CCHR International documented the unholy alliance between psychiatry and the pharmaceutical companies in its award-winning documentary, “Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging,” which can be viewed online.

Essential to this highly entrenched, well-greased money-making machine are the pharmaceutical sales representatives who pitch the drugs to doctors.  Gwen Olsen is a former top-level pharmaceutical rep for some of the biggest drug companies in the industry. Through personal experiences, including the suicide of her niece while in withdrawal from prescribed psychiatric drugs, Olsen turned whistleblower and is now exposing the deception and corruption prevalent in this industry.

Concerning selling drugs to psychiatrists, Olsen says this in part in a recent interview:

“The pharmaceutical industry makes so much fun of the psychiatric profession that it’s not even funny. They actually refer to psychiatrists as ‘drug whores’…. because they have no loyalty to any one company or product, it’s whoever is paying them at the time.

“…[T]hey were not held in very high regard. My colleagues and I looked down on them as though they were a ‘lower class’ quasi-physician.  Because we knew that they didn’t do anything scientifically, it was all subjective diagnosis in nature, dependent on third-party observation of symptoms.

“So they were easy to sell drugs to.”

If you or someone you know has been harmed by a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, please contact us privately by clicking here or call 303-789-5225.  All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.

“ADHD” Just Keeps Getting Busted: Study Finds Changes In Diet Alone Calmed Two Out Of Three Antsy Kids

vegetables
Image by Junior Libby

A new study by Dutch researchers confirms what many parents have already discovered:  changes in diet can have a profoundly calming effect on a child’s behavior.  The study, reported last month in The Lancet, found that for two-thirds of the children studied, changes in diet alone led to the elimination of the fidgety behavior so profitably labeled by psychiatrists as “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,“ or ADHD.

In no uncertain terms, the study’s lead author underscores diet as the main cause of ADHD.  “After the diet [was changed], they were just normal children with normal behavior. They were no longer more easily distracted, they were no more forgetful, there were no more temper-tantrums,” Dr. Lidy Pelsser said in an interview with NPR.  About the teachers and doctors who worked with children in the study and witnessed the marked changes in behavior, she said, “In fact, they were flabbergasted.”

CCHR has long advocated giving children with behavioral problems a complete physical exam by a non-psychiatric physician, as well as a nutritional evaluation by a qualified nutritionist, to discover any underlying physical or nutritional conditions causing behavioral difficulties.  Parents should also make sure that proper instructional solutions are being applied for any behavioral problems in the classroom, since children’s disruptive behavior can result from not fully understanding, and consequently falling behind in, or not being properly challenged by, their schoolwork.

By 2007, some 5.4 million children in the U.S., or 9.5% of all children ages 4-17, had at some time been labeled with the made-up “mental disorder” known as ADHD, according to figures from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).  In Colorado, 7.6% of kids got the label; in Wyoming, 9.1%.  CDC figures show that boys are more than twice as likely to be labeled with it than girls.  (See Psychiatry: Labeling Kids with Bogus Mental Disorders).

Far more disturbing than the number of kids given this harmful and bogus label is the fact that nearly 3 million of them  – some 27,000 in Colorado and 5,000 in Wyoming – have been put on powerful  stimulant drugs that endanger their lives.   Categorized as Schedule ll drugs by the U.S.  Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and in the same class as cocaine, opium and morphine, ADHD drugs are highly addictive.  These drugs are also known to increase heart risks more than twofold and cause heart attacks, strokes, serious arrhythmias and sudden death in children.  Because of this, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires its most stringent, “black box” warning on ADHD (methylphenidate) drugs.   The drugs are also known to cause hallucinations, convulsions, suicidal thoughts and violent behavior in children.  (For more studies and international warnings on ADD/ADHD drugs, go to CCHR International’s psychiatric drug side effects search engine, and for more information on documented side effects of psychiatric drugs in children, watch “Drugging Our Children – Side Effects”.)

For the failed practice of psychiatry, the revolving-door prescribing of these drugs for rambunctious and inattentive kids — despite the increased risks to these children – is a profitable business plan.  There are no lab tests, brain scans, or any other medical tests that can prove the existence of anything called “ADHD.”  The label is merely the subjective opinion of a psychiatric practitioner with a conflict of interest (profit motive), since he can bill Medicaid or private insurance companies for “managing” the “disorder” by writing prescriptions for years to come.

Indeed, a recent New York Times article detailed how psychiatrists now resort almost exclusively to psychiatric drugging because it is fast and profitable.   According to the article, a psychiatrist can earn $150 for three 15-minute patient visits for drug prescriptions compared with $90 for a 45-minute talk therapy session.  As one psychiatrist admitted, “I had to train myself not to get too interested in their problems.” No wonder a study reported several years ago in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found that 90% of children visiting a psychiatrist for the first time left the office with one or more prescriptions for psychiatric drugs.

If a psychiatrist or other mental health practitioner has told you that any brain scan proves that your child has ADD or ADHD, or if your child has suffered side effects from taking any ADD/ADHD drug, or if any teacher has recommended or required that you put your child on ADHD drugs (which is illegal in Colorado: see “Protecting Your Children: Colorado Law Prohibits School Personnel From Recommending Psychiatric Drugs”), we want to talk to you.  Please contact us at 303-789-5225 or report the details of your experience here.

Seroquel’s Toll

Controversial Pill Now Marketed for Depression

By MARTHA ROSENBERG

Even though AstraZeneca’s antipsychotic Seroquel is the fifth best-selling medication in the US according to drugs.com, exceeded only by Lipitor, Nexium, Plavix and Advair diskus, its safety, effectiveness, clinical trial and promotion records are highly checkered.

An original backer, psychiatrist Richard Borison, was sentenced to a 15-year prison sentence in 1998 for a pay-to-play Seroquel research scheme.

Its US medical director Wayne MacFadden had sexual affairs with two different women involved with Seroquel research, say published reports.

Chicago psychiatrist Michael Reinstein received $500,000 from AstraZenenca and wrote 41,000 prescriptions for Seroquel reports the Chicago Tribune and ProPublica.

Psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff who left Emory University in disgrace after a Congressional investigation for unreported pharma income, promoted Seroquel in continuing medical education courses according to the web site of psychiatrist Daniel Carlat.

Florida child psychiatrist Jorge Armenteros was chairman of the FDA committee responsible for recommending Seroquel approvals while a paid AstraZeneca speaker himself, said the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2009.

Psychiatrist Charles Schulz’ high profile pro-Seroquel presentations are suspected of being colored by his AstraZeneca income says the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

And unexplained Iraq and Afghanistan troop deaths are linked to Seroquel reported the Associated Press in August.

Originally approved for schizophrenia in 1997, Seroquel has subsequently been approved for bipolar disorder, for some groups of kids and as an add-drug for depression. This “indications creep” has mostly flown below the public’s radar. Seroquel expansion to treat children in late 2009, for example, was noted as a mere “label change” on the FDA web site. Hello?

Even without its depression indication, Seroquel is big business for AstraZeneca, earning $4.9 billion in sales in 2009. It is the drug that North Carolina’s Medicaid spends the most on: $29.4 million per year, reports the Charlotte News and Observer.

But now, as AstraZeneca rolls out its “Still Trying to Get Ahead of Your Depression” campaign, there are new questions about Seroquel’s safety and effectiveness.

According to an FDA warning letter, an AstraZeneca sales representative during an unsolicited sales call on January 3, 2008 sold Seroquel as a treatment for major depressive disorder to a physician before it was approved for MDD, an infraction which is illegal.

Once Seroquel was approved for depression (as an add-on treatment to an antidepressant for patients with major depressive disorder who not have an adequate response to antidepressant therapy), its leave-behind sheets drew another FDA warning letter.

AstraZeneca implied patients would achieve “remission” from depression with Seroquel XR (extended release) as opposed to with an antidepressant alone, says FDA — a claim not backed up by clinical experience.

Seroquel’s effect on depression has only been demonstrated in two, six-week trials FDA further said and six weeks is “not a long enough time period to adequately assess remission.” (It was approved…why?)

Also the case study of “Catherine F.” depicted in leave-behind sheets is inaccurate says FDA because it suggests Seroquel alleviates “symptoms of sadness and loss of interest when this has not been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience.” (It was approved…why?)

Even AstraZeneca’s own briefing to the FDA committee in 2009 admits a “failed study” in which both Seroquel and Lexapro “failed to differentiate from placebo” which is Clinical Trial for “didn’t work.”

Nor did AstraZeneca adequately disclose Seroquel risks says FDA which include increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis, suicidality, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, weight gain and other serious side effects.

In fact, in addition to risks like cataracts, seizures and increases in blood pressure in children and adolescents, already on the Seroquel label, FDA asked AstraZeneca to add the “risk of EPS and withdrawal syndrome in neonates” a few months ago: movement disorders which can affect mothers’ babies if the mothers are taking Seroquel and stop.

But the FDA might also look at what the government’s other hand is doing. In May the Office of the Army Surgeon General’s final report on the findings of its Pain Management Task Force unabashedly hawks Seroquel for an unapproved use.

“Physicians should consider these medications for sleep disorders,” says the 163-page report,” listing Ambien and Seroquel (quetiapine) “for nightmares” even though Seroquel has never been approved for insomnia, sleep disorders or “nightmares.”

Maybe the government will send itself a warning letter.

Martha Rosenberg can be reached at: martharosenberg@sbcglobal.net

This article was re-printed with permission from Martha Rosenberg.

Study Reveals Top Ten Violence-Inducing Prescription Drugs [– Eight Are Psychiatric Drugs]

By Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recently published a study in the journal PLoS One highlighting the worst prescription drug offenders that cause patients to become violent. Among the top-ten most dangerous are the antidepressants Pristiq (desvenlafaxine), Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine).

Concerns about the extreme negative side effects of many popular antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have been on the rise, as these drugs not only cause severe health problems to users, but also pose a significant threat to society. The ISMP report indicates that, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System, many popular drugs are linked even to homicides.

Most of the drugs in the top ten most dangerous are antidepressants, but also included are an insomnia medication, an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, a malaria drug and an anti-smoking medication.

As reported in Time, the top ten list is as follows:

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) – An antidepressant that affects serotonin and noradrenaline. The drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) – An antidepressant that treats anxiety disorders. The drug is 8.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) – A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drug that is 8.4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

7. Triazolam (Halcion) – A benzodiazepine drug for insomnia that is 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) – An ADHD drug that is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

5. Mefoquine (Lariam) – A malaria drug that is 9.5 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

4. Amphetamines – This general class of ADHD drug is 9.6 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

3. Paroxetine (Paxil) – An SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs. It is also linked to severe withdrawal symptoms and birth defects.

2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) – A popular SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

1. Varenicline (Chantix) – An anti-smoking drug that is a shocking 18 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.


This article was re-printed with permission from Natural News Reader Service. You can read it here: Natural News

Note from CCHR: For an in-depth look at the link between psychiatric drugs and school shootings watch the Fox National News Exposé, Deadly Drugs

Diet is Strongly Associated with the Risk of Depression

A team of researchers from England and France found that dietary patterns over a five-year period had a significant effect on the risk of feeling depressed.  People eating a predominantly natural-foods diet of mostly vegetables, fruits, fish, and whole grains were one-fourth less likely to have depression.  Those eating mainly processed foods, including processed meats, refined grains, fried foods, high-fat dairy products, and sweetened desserts were more than 50 percent more likely to feel depressed.  The natural-foods diet is richer in vitamins, minerals, and good fats that help maintain healthy moods.  (Akbaraly TN, Brunner EJ, Ferrie JE, et al.  Dietary pattern and depressive symptoms in middle age.  British Journal of Psychiatry, 2009;195:408-413)

Increased Blood Clot Risk with Antipsychotic Drugs

Scientists in the UK believe that antipsychotic drugs raise the risks of dangerous blood clots

This risk had already been spotted by some scientists and seems now to be confirmed by a new study. Almost 16,000 people suffered a deep vein thrombosis (formation of a blood clot in a deep vein) and 9,000 people suffered a clot in the lung.

Study subjects taking newer “atypical” antipsychotics had a 73% higher chance of developing a clot, reports BBC News.

Other studies have already revealed a higher stroke risk among patients taking antipsychotics.

For more information on psychiatric drugs, visit CCHR’s Psychiatric Drug Side Effects search engine.