There’s Something Very Disturbing About This…


http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/leading-american-psychologist-conducted-disturbing-experiments-and-now-hes-smearing

Leading American Psychologist Conducted Disturbing Experiments — and Now He’s Smearing Journo Who Uncovered It

Reporter facing blowback for his expose on experiments on more than 2,000 patients carried out by a former president of the APA.

On April 26, 2015, Jeffrey Lieberman, former president of the American Psychiatric Association, stirred up controversy by calling investigative journalist Robert Whitaker a “menace to society” on CBC radio because Whitaker, in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic, had challenged the long-term effectiveness of psychiatric medication.

But is it Whitaker or Lieberman who is a menace to society?

Lieberman, the APA president through May 2014, is currently making the media rounds with his new book Shrinks. But earlier in his career, Lieberman conducted experiments in which patients diagnosed with schizophrenia were given a psychostimulant drug with Lieberman’s expectation that the drug would be “psychotogenic” (induce symptoms of psychosis), and this deterioration in fact occurred.

Robert Whitaker, as an investigative journalist, won the George Polk award for medical reporting and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for his 1998 Boston Globe series “Doing Harm: Research on the Mentally Ill” (co-authored with Dolores Kong). In this series, Whitaker uncovered how Lieberman and other psychiatrists, exploring the biology of psychosis, conducted experiments on more than 2,000 patients in which certain drugs were administered and other drugs withheld in the expectation of worsening symptoms.

The Nuremberg Code of research ethics, established after the horrific human experiments by doctors in Nazi Germany, states that medical experiments on human subjects “should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.” This is obvious ethics, as one would hope that only Nazi doctors would see nothing wrong with using human subjects to test whether hypothesized harmful agents are in fact harmful.

Lieberman’s Experiments

In his Globe series, Whitaker details how psychotic symptom exacerbation and provocation experiments were pioneered in 1974 by David Janowsky, who reported success in developing a new tool for studying schizophrenia. Janowsky found that giving diagnosed schizophrenics the psychostimulant drug methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) caused “a dramatic intensification of pre-existing symptoms, such as hallucinations and delusions” and that other psychostimulants such as amphetamines also exacerbated psychosis. Janowsky’s work established the idea that psychosis-inducing drugs could be used as “challenge agents” for studying psychosis.

In Lieberman’s own 1987 review of 36 studies in which psychostimulant drugs were administered to patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, he concluded that among psychostimulant drugs, methylphenidate has the greatest “psychotogenic potency.” And so Lieberman, in his subsequent experimentation on patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, administered methylphenidate, the psychostimulant with greatest likelihood to do damage.

In 1987, Lieberman conducted a study in which he administered methylphenidate to 34 stable outpatients previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. In this experiment, previously stabilized patients were not only administered methylphenidate but taken off standard antipsychotic drugs until psychotic symptoms reappeared.

In a 1990 study co-authored by Lieberman, “Behavioral Response to Methylphenidate and Treatment Outcome in First Episode Schizophrenia,” the introduction states, “In order to examine the relationship of psychotogenic response to psychostimulants and acute treatment response in treatment-naïve, first-episode psychotic patients, we administered intravenous methylphenidate to first-episode patients.”

On the face of it, this experiment, in which a drug is administered to induce a psychotic reaction, is cruel enough. But it gets worse. Lieberman’s subjects were as young as 14 years old, and he did this experiment on “first-episode psychotic patients,” the majority of whom, research shows, ordinarily recover. Lieberman reports that the symptom of distrustfulness “significantly increased following the administration of methylphenidate.” So, after having a psychotic episode, patients are intravenously administered a psychostimulant drug designed to induce more psychotic behaviors, and they become more distrustful. It would be remarkable if such “treatment” would not make someone distrustful of doctors, perhaps for the remainder of their lives.

Lieberman reports his schizophrenic subjects and their families were “willing and able to sign informed consent.” The Nuremberg Code states: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent.” Who in their right mind would give consent for themselves or for a family member for a procedure that was hypothesized to make a patient worse?

In Whitaker’s Globe 1998 series in the segment “Testing Takes Human Toll,” he interviewed Lieberman about his and other psychotic symptom exacerbation and provocation experiments. Lieberman asserted, “To say that increasing a particular symptom—like hearing voices for a couple of hours in somebody who has been hearing voices for 10 years—is causing [suffering] rather seems like a stretch.”

Beyond the callousness of his response, Lieberman is simply not telling the truth. Recall his 1990 study was done on “first-episode psychotic patients,” not on people who had been “hearing voices for 10 years.”

Lieberman is elsewhere dishonest—or amazingly ignorant. In justifying why he called Whitaker a menace to society, Lieberman stated on CBC radio that research does not support Whitaker’s claim that many people diagnosed with serious mental illness do better in the long term without psychiatric medication. But the validity of Whitaker’s claim was acknowledged in 2013 by the director of the National Institute of Mental Health who pointed to some of the same research as had Whitaker. The NIMH director in fact concluded, “We need to ask whether in the long-term, some individuals with a history of psychosis may do better off medication.” It is difficult to imagine that Lieberman is ignorant of the NIMH director’s agreement with Whitaker.

Lieberman’s psychotic symptom exacerbation and provocation studies are not his only experiments that have upset ethicists. Lieberman’s CAFE  (Comparison of Atypicals in First Episode of Psychosis) study on the effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs, conducted between 2002-2005, has been severely criticized by Carl Elliott, bioethics professor at the University of Minnesota. Elliott detailed how one CAFE subject who committed suicide was coerced into the study, and because of his psychotic state was incapable of giving informed consent.

Why Would APA Elect Lieberman President?

Whitaker’s Boston Globe series was actually not about Lieberman per se but was really an indictment of the institution of psychiatry for large-scale psychotic inducement research. Whitaker wrote:

In their published accounts, doctors have told of injecting mentally ill patients with drugs designed to exacerbate their delusions and hallucinations. In prestigious journals, they have described studies in which they withheld effective antipsychotic medication from desperate patients who stumbled into hospital emergency rooms. In precise, clinical terms, they have reported how they deliberately stopped giving medication to stabilized schizophrenic patients to see how quickly they became sick again. These studies were designed to gain knowledge that might lead to improved treatments for schizophrenia and related illnesses. But the experiments offered no possibility of therapeutic benefit to the subjects and exposed them to some measure of psychic pain and risk of long-term harm. Moreover, this controversial line of experimentation has been marked by repeated instances in which researchers failed to fully disclose the risks to the mentally ill patients and obscured their true purposes.

Adil Shamoo, professor of biochemistry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and founder of the journal Accountability in Research, compared these psychotic symptom exacerbation and provocation studies to the Tuskegee syphilis studies in which infected black men were denied treatment. Shamoo told Whitaker in 1998, “I think [these psychotic provocation experiments] are in a category that is worse than Tuskegee. . .There are large numbers [of subjects], and these are current practices. Do they cause harm? Of course they do.”

Psychotic exacerbation and provocation experiments, Whitaker reported, were conducted by prominent researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health and at close to a dozen leading medical schools. Patient subject for these studies were largely drawn from outpatient clinics, Veterans Affairs hospitals, state mental institutions, and emergency rooms—settings that regularly provide care to the poor and uninsured. Whitaker noted, “In the few studies that recorded the ethnic makeup of patients, 54 percent were minorities.”

Not surprisingly, Whitaker also discovered that researchers routinely failed to fully disclose the true purposes of their experiments, and withheld information about risks, “The Globe’s review of informed-consent forms for symptom-exacerbation studies at the NIMH [National Institute of Mental Health] and four other leading psychiatric institutions failed to turn up a single one in which the researchers directly stated that a chemical agent would be used purposely to exacerbate psychotic symptoms.”

George Annas, chairman of the Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health, told Whitaker, “We let researchers do things to people with mental illness that we would never let them do to people with physical illness.”

Why would the American Psychiatric Association elect Lieberman president in 2012? Because psychiatry sees nothing wrong with these psychotic symptom exacerbation and provocation experiments.

Non-sociopathic people feel guilt or shame for having induced suffering in others, so how could the APA not feel guilt or shame about Lieberman and other psychiatrists conducting experiments that create psychotic symptoms and suffering? The answer to this question takes us to a very dark place.

Aurora Shooter James Holmes And Psychiatric Medication (Setraline/Zoloft And Clonazepam/Benzo)


Some news out recently from the James Holmes (cinema shooter) trial in Colorado. Two psychiatric medications were found in Holmes’ apartment- Setraline/Zoloft and Clonazepam (a Benzo). The article from CNN doesn’t say what dose Holmes was prescribed of these meds, however Zoloft and Benzos do have serious side effects which included ‘worsening depression’, ‘personality changes’, psychosis, etc etc. It is not known at this point in the trial of James Holmes whether the side effects of these medications have played a part in causing Holmes to murder 12 people and injure scores of others in this horrific mass murder cinema shooting. However, psychiatric medications have long been linked to violence, aggression, suicide, murder, and murder suicide and it will be interesting to hear what the psychiatrist who prescribed these meds to Holmes (Lynne Fenton) says when she testifies…

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/23/us/james-holmes-trial-aurora-colorado-movie-theater-shooting/

3. Prescription medicine in Holmes’ apartment

While Holmes’ defense team has not cross-examined any of the survivors who have taken the witness stand, they did question an Aurora police detective who searched Holmes’ apartment.

Detective Thomas Wilson collected several items from the apartment on Paris Street on the day after the shooting.

Wilson seized receipts, a wall hanging, a vehicle title and a backpack, among other evidence — mostly mundane, everyday items that most college students would have hanging around.

However, there were a couple of items the defense chose to point out, some medications collected from a medicine cabinet in Holmes’ bathroom. They included sertraline and clonazepam, both apparently prescribed by an L. Fenton, according to the prescription labels.

“And you recognize that L. Fenton to be the psychiatrist at CU,” defense lawyer Katherine Spengler questioned, emphasizing that Holmes had sought mental health help while he was a grad student at the University of Colorado.

“Yes, ma’am,” Wilson responded.

Sertraline is typically used for depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic attacks and social anxiety disorder, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Clonazepam may be used to treat seizures, panic disorders and anxiety.

It’s unknown exactly why Holmes’ had been prescribed these medications. In opening statements, the defense asserted that Holmes lives with schizophrenia.

Dr. Lynne Fenton is expected to testify at some point.

SSRI Suicides: Dr Says – “It Tends To Be In Children And Adolescents”


See more SSRI Stories like this one on the AntiDepAware Website:

http://antidepaware.co.uk/

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/doctor_denies_ssri_pills_link_to_young_mum_s_death_1_4074556

Doctor denies SSRI pills’ link to young mum’s death

09:58 15 May 2015

Toconoco, off Hertford Road

Toconoco, off Hertford Road

A young mum who was found hanging had been taking SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) anti-depressants, which have been linked with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts, an inquest heard.

Yuri Ito was found by her partner Akio Fukushima in the bathroom in their home in Dalston Lane on December 10 when he returned from work, after becoming concerned she was not answering his phone calls.

Ms Ito, a 29-year-old Japan-born photographer who ran Toconoco café in Hertford Road, had been to A&E six weeks earlier on October 30 suffering from anxiety.

The Homerton hospital psychiatrist believed the young mother, who was having difficultly adapting to life in the UK, was reacting to stress, and they agreed to proceed with SSRI antidepressant medication.

Some studies have shown that SSRIs may increase suicidal ideas in some patients, and many SSRIs carry black box warnings about the potential for increased suicide risk when starting the drugs.

Ms Ito next saw Dr Gary Marlow at the De Beauvoir Surgery in Hertford Road on November 11 after suffering severe panic attacks.

In a statement read out at Poplar Coroner’s Court, Dr Marlow said: “She was fearful of everything with no reason, she couldn’t get out of bed for the last two weeks.”

He “pushed up the dose” of the SSRI pill sertraline, and also prescribed Zopiclone to help her sleep.

She returned to see him on December 8, two days before her death, because she had run out sleeping tablets.

“She said she felt better and she could get out of bed, and take her daughter to school,” said Dr Marlow.

“It was a terrible shock and with a sad heart I found of her death.

“There were no obvious suggestions she had any suicidal thoughts. She has a three-year-old daughter and she was concerned for her and that she couldn’t care for her – I took this as a strong protective factor against any suicidal thoughts.”

He continued: “There have been suggestions that SSRIs may aggravate suicidal ideation, I don’t believe this to be the case here, it tends to be in children and adolescents.”

Coroner William Dolman said there was no evidence Ms Ito had deliberately intended to take her life and returned an open verdict.

Revolving Door Between GSK And The MHRA


A lot of people are beginning to realize that the MHRA and GSK are perhaps way too close for comfort…Webstats

Some very interesting views lately on my blog.

The Webstats can tell you quite a bit of information, about who is viewing the blog etc.

I noticed today that GSK and the MHRA were both viewing at the same time.

A mere coincidence? or something more?

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/ian-hudson-gsk-and-the-inherent-corruption-in-the-mhra-bob-fiddaman-investigates/

From The Fiddaman Blog:

Friday, September 05, 2014

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2014/09/mhra-ceo-paxil-and-suicide.html

MHRA CEO, Paxil and Suicide

Much has been said about the conflict of interest between the British drug regulator, (MHRA), and GlaxoSmithKline. It’s obvious to those who know the history of GSK and the MHRA that there is a huge conflict of interest that just cannot be ignored and while such a conflict exists patients will not be safeguarded from the likes of Paxil, a drug marketed and manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. I’ve met with the MHRA are a number of occasions, at one stage I offered to help them with their out of date and deeply flawed yellow card reporting system, a system where adverse events are collected and…well, basically nothing is ever done. Communications between me and their then CEO, Kent Woods, broke down due to his refusal to acknowledge that Paxil, known as Seroxat in the UK, should be classed as a teratogen. A teratogen is an agent or factor that causes malformation of an embryo. Much of my communication with the MHRA is in my book, ‘The evidence however, is clear, the Seroxat scandal‘ [1] In 2013 Kent Woods retired and the MHRA appointed Dr Ian Hudson (pic above) as their new CEO. Hudson, who after leaving Glaxo in 2001, became the MHRA’s Licensing Director, responsible for overseeing the benefits and risks of drugs before they hit the market. Yup, the man in charge of the agency who have the job of keeping tabs on the drugs you and I take is a former employee of GSK – then known as SmithKline Beecham. Hudson, whilst working for GSK, was a witness for the defence [GSK] during the Tobin v SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. In 1998 Donald Schell was put on Paxil [Seroxat]. Forty-eight hours later he put three bullets from two different guns through his wife’s head, as well as through his daughter’s head then through his granddaughter’s head before shooting himself through the head. Hudson’s deposition has been online for sometime in text form, a copy of it can be viewedhere. Sadly, it’s been difficult trying to obtain the actual video footage of Hudson being depoed by US attorneys representing Tobin. We do, however, have a small segment of his video deposition. In 2002 Investigative journalist Shelley Jofre launched her first installment into the whole Paxil debacle. BBC Panorama’s ‘The Secrets of Seroxat’ was aired and it prompted over 67,000 calls and emails from concerned consumers. During the documentary Shelley touched on the case of  Donald Schell. The footage in the documentary revealed part of Dr Ian Hudson’s video deposition. Remember, at the time, Hudson was a GSK employee. Watch…. (Hudson was depoed in 2000) **If the video starts with Andy Vickery talking then click the bar to end of video then press play**

In 2008 the MHRA concluded a four year investigation of GlaxoSmithKline, the crux of which was to find out whether GlaxoSmithKline withheld paediatric safety data pertaining to suicide related to its antidepressant Seroxat. They decided not proceed to criminal prosecution. It’s unknown if they interviewed their own Dr Ian Hudson during their four year investigation. [2]
As I said, Dr Ian Hudson is now the Chief Executive of the MHRA, the agency that purportedly protects British consumers of prescription drugs.
I don’t know about you but this doesn’t really fill me with a sense that I am being protected from dangerous drugs. Does it you?
All four Paxil videos will soon be available in their entirety on Rxisk.
Bob Fiddaman
[1] ‘The evidence however, is clear, the Seroxat scandal’ [US] [UK]
[2] GSK investigation concludes [Link]

Antidepressants Debated At Kings College: 52nd Maudsley Debate: More Harm Than Good?


Great post from the Antidepaware website:

Check it out here

More Harm than Good

MoreHarm1

Last Wednesday, King’s College London hosted its 52nd Maudsley Debate, with the premise that This house believes that the long term use of psychiatric medications is causing more harm than good.

The debate was so popular that many of the audience had to watch on a video link in a nearby lecture theatre.

I was not at the debate myself, but was able to watch it on YouTube, where it is still available. Unfortunately, the recording “stutters” in some places, so that odd words are missed here and there.

PeterGotzscheThe first person to speak for the motion was Professor Peter Gøtzsche (left), Director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and author of the book Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime. He had already written an article entitled Why I Think Antidepressants Cause More Harm than Good last year for The Lancet.

Peter explained how the original clinical trials were skewed by drug companies, and how the results differed markedly from the results of studies carried out at the Cochrane Centre.

Peter claimed that only about 2% of the prescriptions were necessary, for “the most acute situations,” and that it was necessary to set up withdrawal clinics for those who had become dependent on psychiatric drugs.

AllanYoungPeter was followed by the first speaker against the motion, Professor Allan Young (right), who is Professor of Mood Disorders at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College.

Allan stated that psychiatric drugs can be: “Just as beneficial and effective as treatments for other common, complex conditions,” and that there are regulators to ensure that harmful drugs are withdrawn.

Allan also claimed that Lithium had been shown over the years to be “efficacious”, and that it had “reduced suicide rates.”

SamiTimimiThe second speaker for the motion was Professor Sami Timimi (left), a consultant psychiatrist who is also Visiting Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Lincoln.

Sami said that there was some evidence that psychiatric drugs can do good in the short-term. In the long-term, however, whereas there is “plenty of evidence” that they can cause harm, there is no evidence to justify exposing people to the risk of harm. Sami said that “It seems that the widespread use of psychiatric medication these days is the result of good marketing, and not good science.”

Sami continued by saying that: “Bodies like the Royal College of Psychiatrists have a scientific and moral duty to do something. If they won’t, they are in danger of becoming part of the problem rather than what they should be, which is a strong advocate for patients and those who serve them.”

JohnCraceThe final speaker, who was against the motion, was Mr John Crace (right), who is a political journalist for The Guardian.

John started by saying that he was “ no big fan of Big Pharma,” and that he took only generic forms of medication. He spoke of his experiences as a patient who had been treated with psychiatric medication, and maintained that it had helped him.

There followed a number of questions and comments from the audience. Most of the ensuing arguments centred around “studies”, as you’d expect from the three participants who have all been involved in research. However, the tone of the debate then changed when Allan became rather petulant on the subject of his conflicts of interest. DeadlyPsychiatryAllan has received payment from several pharmaceutical companies, including Lundbeck, makers of Citalopram, and Eli Lilly (Fluoxetine). He made comparisons with the money that Peter Gøtzsche will earn from his next book (left), to be published in September.

In his summing-up, Peter used the time to say that he was campaigning for the ban of forced treatment, and concluded by referring to the harm caused by psychiatric drugs, particularly when it came to the deaths of old people.

Allan used his time to read a statement in which he claimed that other members of the Cochrane Centre cast doubts on the validity of Peter’s evidence.

For the record, the result of the debate was 136 – 66 in favour of those who agreed that psychiatric drugs do more harm than good.

The debate caused varied reactions on Twitter and YouTube, and in online medical magazines such as Pulse.

John Crace wrote a review of the debate in The Guardian the next day entitled “While the psychiatrists argue about antidepressants, I’ll keep taking them”, where he described the debate as a “bearpit”.

JamesDaviesAuthor Dr James Davies (right) of the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry (CEP) called the debate “a cause for hope” and wrote:

For the last past 30 years those of us critical of the overprescribing and harms of psychiatric medications have been on the losing side, in the face of a powerful industry-backed medical model that has crowded out alternative voices and visions. The real importance of Wednesday’s Maudsley Debate is that is symbolised what the critical community has been sensing for some time now – that the tide is finally turning. The people and institutions who were once isolated, unconnected and struggling against an evidence base favouring the status quo, can now, at a click, possess the evidence revealing that what we were sold as solid as beyond dispute is nothing of the sort.

“Last night the Maudsley Debate brought into the heart of establishment psychiatry powerful evidence and arguments that the long-term use of psychiatric medications is causing more harm than good – and evidence clearly won on the night. This is a cause for hope and optimism. But of course we must remain cautious, a single debate won’t change the world, but what it has done put the debate squarely on the map – it has finally be legitimised as a valid debate by at leading psychiatric institution, something that has not happened before.”

Maudsley1

Related Articles:

”Antidepressants and the Politics of Health”

The Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry

There is a drive to not only survive but to thrive: coming back from trauma


truthman30:

What gets called mental illness, is, in large part, a reaction to trauma…

Originally posted on Beyond Meds:

Sharing this post again as it contains such a profound message and truth.

There is a drive to not only survive but to thrive.

What gets called mental illness, is, in large part, a reaction to trauma. It’s quite simple really. When we start listening to people’s stories of pain rather than numbing them out and effectively silencing them with neurotoxic drugs we will start healing them. Until then people will remain broken. One of the most basic needs for a wounded human being to heal is to be seen. Recognized. Validated. Yes.

A very beautiful and profound talk and message.

Trauma can be incurred in many different ways. This is only now becoming understood. Our culture has trauma and abuse that is often not recognized. There is, of course, too, the sort that is obviously heinous and ugly. It can all impact the general well-being of those subjected…

View original 266 more words