Systems of Care Yakima: Parents deserve to know what the known risks of psychiatric drugs are

[Guest guest]

http://yakimavalleysystemsofcare.blogspot.com/2011/09/parents-deserve-to-know-wh\

at-known.html

Parents deserve to know what the known risks of psychiatric drugs are



Here is Washington State we have only the newest and most expensive psychiatric

drugs listed as the first drugs to use for those on Medicaid.  This is in no

small part due to the advocacy of NAMI Washington, and the advice of

psychiatrists who are, or should be aware of the results of NIMH drug trials.  

Jon McClellan, Medical Director at Child Study and Treatment Center, was one of

the TEOSS drug trial investigators and advises the Division of Behavioral Health

and Recovery, among other services he provides to the people of the State of

Washington.  I know this man to be unethical and dishonest; and I am horrified

that his " expertise " is relied upon at all.   He should not even be allowed to

practice medicine, in my opinion. 

The NIMH clinical trials for these drugs do not in fact support the conclusion

that neuroleptic drugs called " Atyical Antipsychotics " are in fact safer or more

effective than the older much cheaper drugs, as they are advertised to be.

 These drugs are in fact only effective for a minority of people with a

diagnosis of schizophrenia, and even for those who are " effectively treated " the

risks are extremely high and include diabetes, heart disease, and obesity; three

of the top ten conditions which Medicaid health care dollars are expended on. 

Washington State's Attorney General has joined in class action lawsuits which

have resulted in payments to Washington State for the off-label marketing of

psychiatric drugs, but have not been translated into a more informed populace,

or safer medication policies for children or adults who take them.

 The deleterious effects are still largely minimized or dismissed by those

who prescribe the drugs, and by policy makers.  

In fact, at the same time as these settlements were being distributed,

Washington State lobbied by NAMI, was strengthening it's Involuntary Treatment

Laws, ensuring that more and more people will be taking these teratogenic drugs

which cause a wide variety of iatrogenic illnesses and will continue to cause

Washington State's health care costs to spiral out of control.

This is an ongoing tragedy around the globe. People are not being informed of

the risks involved with treating emotional and behavioral issues with drugs.

 Primarily the public is not being informed because the drug manufacturers

conceal adverse event data from the public; but incredibly, and even worse:

 the FDA claims it has NO DUTY to inform the public about these adverse events

and known risks, not even the risk of fatality; because they are TRADE SECRETS

of the pharmaceutical industry!   There is no way of knowing the actual numbers

of those killed, or disabled, by FDA approved drugs, because psychiatrists and

other medical professionals who prescribe them are NOT REQUIRED to  report side

effects or adverse events--not even when a death is caused by the drug.  

The first thing that struck me about the children who have died from the effects

of psychiatric drugs listed on the FED database is the fact that a minority of

the reports are made by doctors or medical professionals with

prescription privileges.   The second thing that dawned on me was how very

fortunate I am that my son Isaac is not listed among the fatalities---

I want to know why so-called patient and family advocacy groups are not telling

the people who come to them for help about this?  Why is there no effort being

made by these " mental health advocacy groups " to change these obvious flaws in

the drug regulatory safety system?  I suspect these " advocacy groups " are not

speaking out about the known dangers of psychiatric drugs due to an obvious, and

well documented Conflict of Interest that exists:  It is the Pharmaceutical

Industry that is the source of much of their funding, and it is the drug

industry who oversees development of educational materials they disseminate to

patients and parents, friends and concerned community members wishing to support

a person with a psychiatric diagnosis.   

More than anything, I want to know why Washington State's Legislature and the

Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery has allowed flawed data and flawed

reasoning to drive public policy and legislative agenda?

Recently a documentary, Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child

was released.  The documentary features several parents who have buried a

child, the parents all lost children as the direct result of their children

being prescribed psychiatric drugs---one child died in her mothers arms--she was

eight years old.   Any person who cares about children and believes that people

should be told the truth when they seek professional help for emotional and

behavioral issues needs to know that this is seldom the case for those who are

prescribed psychiatric drugs.  Parents are not told the risks to their

children, I know I wasn't.  My son is cognitively and physically impaired, and

I was never told it was even possible.    Brain Volume Shrinkage & Cognitive

Decline

via ProPublica: Advocacy Groups Take Drug Company Cash--

Often Without Full Disclosure

by n Wang

ProPublica, Jan. 13, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

We’ve reported extensively on the ties between pharmaceutical companies and

the physicians they fund to speak, consult and do research. But doctors

aren’t the only ones taking money from drug companies—and they’re not the

only stakeholders in the field of health whose public disclosures aren’t

complete.

According to a new study in the American Journal of Public Health,

not-for-profit health advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association and

the National Alliance on Mental Illness also get money from drug companies in

the form of grants that—more often than not—aren’t disclosed by those

groups.

he study examined more than 160 health advocacy organizations that received

funding from Eli Lilly in the first half of 2007. (Lilly was the first company

to make its grant registry public.) Here’s what the analysis found:



Podcast

Latest Episode: Editor-in-chief and CEO Steiger joins the podcast for the

first time to talk about how ProPublica came to be and what we've accomplished

in three short years.

Listen »

As an aggregate, 25% of HAOs acknowledged Lilly funding anywhere on their Web

site. Eighteen percent acknowledged Lilly in their 2007 annual report, 1%

acknowledged Lilly on a corporate sponsors page, and 10% acknowledged Lilly as

the sponsor of the grant event reported in the [Lilly Grant Registry.]

Health advocacy groups often advocate for research and the approval of new drugs

on top of promoting public awareness. According to the study, their reputation

as a trusted resource for information on specific diseases and their treatments

should prompt “far more detailed†disclosure of their corporate grants and

industry relationships.

This report isn’t the first time such ties have been spotlighted.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, came under similar scrutiny

back in 2009 when Sen. Grassley, a top Republican, began making

inquiries.

From 2006 to 2008, the group took in nearly $23 million in drug company

donations—about three-quarters of its fund-raising. At the time, NAMI’s

executive director told The New York Times that “the percentage of money from

pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be†and promised greater

disclosures.

Following the revelations about NAMI, Sen. Grassley sent letters to 33

health advocacy groups asking them to disclose details about their financial

ties to drug and device makers. He has not released the responses he received

from the groups.

Today’s report, however, highlighted continued concerns about the degree to

which a group’s funding influences its advocacy and helps boost sales for drug

companies making donations. Here’s an example from the report, involving NAMI:

This lack of transparency is disappointing because, either by design or through

a convergence of interests, the HAOs in the current study pursued activities

that promoted the sale of Lilly products.

In the area of neurosciences, Lilly gave NAMI $450,000 for its Campaign for the

Mind of America. NAMI has advocated that cost should not be a consideration when

prescribing for patients. ‘‘For the most severely disabled,’’ insisted

NAMI, ‘‘effective treatment often means access to the newest medications

such as atypical anti- psychotic and anti-depressive agents. . . . Doctors must

be allowed to utilize the latest breakthrough in medical science . . . without

bureaucratic restrictions to the access for life-saving medications.’’To the

degree that NAMI’s campaign succeeded, the market for Lilly’s neuroscience

drugs expanded.

As we’ve noted, the health care law contains a provision requiring greater

disclosure of drug company payments to physicians by 2013, but it does not

include company payments to health advocacy organizations.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T