Re: OT? PBS's Medicated Child kind of crappy

[Guest guest]

Just what someone said about Frontline. I'll have to watch it.Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I was forwarding what you had said, but instead of hitting forward, I hit reply. Thanks for the summary.

LynneStart the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Really well said! ng

OT? PBS's "Medicated Child" kind of crappy

I suspected it was going to be way too diplomatic when I didn't see many of the main voices in the psychiatric reform featured as the series of "experts". Turned out to be true. Sure the show made the correlation between suicide and SSRIs, but the program itself provided false information and did not offer dissent to these assumptions. That dissent would have been so easy to find but those people were all noticeably missing from the program. Instead there were a lot of NIMH and FDA folks just unquestioningly asserting the bogus message that some kids "need" these drugs. Oh, "some need them but for others they're not effective". Mental illness isn't caused by pharmaceutical deprivation. For another thing, the suicide rate spiked among teens just prior to the placement of the black box warnings on SSRIs, though the voice-over asserted the reverse. The show lied, in other words. Secondly, the increased uptake of antipsychotics was due to multiple factors, not just a matter of the poor shrinks having to give kids something else because their poor parents were scared off of SSRIs by the mean black boxes, which is how the PBS doc characterizes it. In fact, aside from fresh child market approvals (or the promise of them) spurring on unprecedentedly aggressive marketing campaigns by the drug companies for antipsychotics, the increase in antipsychotic prescriptions for children is MOSTLY due to side effects of antidepressants and stimulants, which both cause mania, which is then diagnosed as bipolar disorder. And--tada-- you have polypharmacy in a nutshell: give one drug then diagnose a "comorbid disorder" because of the side effects of the first drug. Give another drug, dx another "comorbid disorder" from the second drug's side effects> Then never blame the drugs for any of it. In fact, thank the drugs for "uncovering" the previously "invisible" disorders. Ugh.And then of course there's the use of antipsychotics to treat vaccine side effects, including autism (all the big marketing guns are aimed right at our kids), which in a sense is also polypharmacy. I think we're all more than aware that vaccine toxins like mercury cause irritability and erratic behavior at the very least, which can easily be diagnosed from a slew of meaningless DSM entries signifying surface behavior: BP, ADHD, conduct disorder, reactive attachment disorder, bla bla bla. This has been known about metals for centuries. I didn't expect the show to mention this, but I didn't expect it to undercut the important potential message with a lot of the usual pharma disinformation. Diplomacy isn't always a good thing. I suppose that in film making, like getting political candidacy, sometimes you've got to lick a few of the wrong hands. Maybe the film maker had to make concessions just to pound home the message that these drugs increase risk of suicide and diabetes, etc.. I'm just tired of the luke warm half truth on all counts.

[Guest guest]

They are a liberal station promoting liberal agenda, among it, WHO,

FDA, CDC, blah, blah, blah. They want universal, government-run

programs. They must bow down and kiss the feet of the NIMH & FDA, why

that would be sacrilege to go against such a wonderful group. It would

be calling out their own.

I ain't trying to knock anyone who is liberal, just pointing out the

problem with this aspect of the agenda, just as there are problems

with conservative agendas, both have good points as well.

Debi

> Diplomacy isn't always a good thing. I suppose that in film making,

> like getting political candidacy, sometimes you've got to lick a few

> of the wrong hands. Maybe the film maker had to make concessions just

> to pound home the message that these drugs increase risk of suicide

> and diabetes, etc.. I'm just tired of the luke warm half truth on all

> counts.

>

[Guest guest]

It is airing here on the west coast right now, but I couldn't get through it. I

turned it off at

the part with the lazy, self-absorbed mother who had her child on 9 medications

and just

couldn't figure out why his head still turned (sarcasm) was on. I picked the

wrong night to

try to watch a show like this.. A strong slapping urge came over me-and I make a

conscious effort to try not to judge ANY parent dealing with issues- but I am

still

disappointed.

> > Diplomacy isn't always a good thing. I suppose that in film making,

> > like getting political candidacy, sometimes you've got to lick a few

> > of the wrong hands. Maybe the film maker had to make concessions just

> > to pound home the message that these drugs increase risk of suicide

> > and diabetes, etc.. I'm just tired of the luke warm half truth on all

> > counts.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Well said, Anacat. I know what you are saying about filmmakers " licking the

wrong hands " ,

only I would love to sub the word " hands " with something else! Something not

appropriate

for the list and all of it's viewers!

>

> I suspected it was going to be way too diplomatic when I didn't see

> many of the main voices in the psychiatric reform featured as the

> series of " experts " . Turned out to be true. Sure the show made the

> correlation between suicide and SSRIs, but the program itself

> provided false information and did not offer dissent to these

> assumptions. That dissent would have been so easy to find but those

> people were all noticeably missing from the program. Instead there

> were a lot of NIMH and FDA folks just unquestioningly asserting the

> bogus message that some kids " need " these drugs. Oh, " some need them

> but for others they're not effective " .

>

> Mental illness isn't caused by pharmaceutical deprivation.

>

> For another thing, the suicide rate spiked among teens just prior to

> the placement of the black box warnings on SSRIs, though the voice-

> over asserted the reverse. The show lied, in other words. Secondly,

> the increased uptake of antipsychotics was due to multiple factors,

> not just a matter of the poor shrinks having to give kids something

> else because their poor parents were scared off of SSRIs by the mean

> black boxes, which is how the PBS doc characterizes it.

>

> In fact, aside from fresh child market approvals (or the promise of

> them) spurring on unprecedentedly aggressive marketing campaigns by

> the drug companies for antipsychotics, the increase in antipsychotic

> prescriptions for children is MOSTLY due to side effects of

> antidepressants and stimulants, which both cause mania, which is then

> diagnosed as bipolar disorder. And--tada-- you have polypharmacy in a

> nutshell: give one drug then diagnose a " comorbid disorder " because

> of the side effects of the first drug. Give another drug, dx

> another " comorbid disorder " from the second drug's side effects> Then

> never blame the drugs for any of it. In fact, thank the drugs

> for " uncovering " the previously " invisible " disorders. Ugh.

>

> And then of course there's the use of antipsychotics to treat vaccine

> side effects, including autism (all the big marketing guns are aimed

> right at our kids), which in a sense is also polypharmacy. I think

> we're all more than aware that vaccine toxins like mercury cause

> irritability and erratic behavior at the very least, which can easily

> be diagnosed from a slew of meaningless DSM entries signifying

> surface behavior: BP, ADHD, conduct disorder, reactive attachment

> disorder, bla bla bla. This has been known about metals for

> centuries. I didn't expect the show to mention this, but I didn't

> expect it to undercut the important potential message with a lot of

> the usual pharma disinformation.

>

> Diplomacy isn't always a good thing. I suppose that in film making,

> like getting political candidacy, sometimes you've got to lick a few

> of the wrong hands. Maybe the film maker had to make concessions just

> to pound home the message that these drugs increase risk of suicide

> and diabetes, etc.. I'm just tired of the luke warm half truth on all

> counts.

>

[Guest guest]

Debi-- all due respect but I don't agree. Advocating psychiatry is

the reverse of supporting programs. Any ped can prescribe the drugs

in one visit with no follow-up, which is the cheaper route in the

short run. Talk therapy, behavioral interventions, after-school

programs and-- in terms of our children, altmed-- and all the other

things which are statistically more effective in dealing with

emotional/behavioral problems cost much more initially and aren't

covered by insurance.

Of course the mass drugging costs more in the long run (decimated

health, worsening psychiatric problems) and behind the scenes (the

bilking of Medicaid, for one) and it all goes from the taxpayer into

the pockets of the drug companies. The cover-up of these hidden costs

is a " bipartisan " corruption.

> > Diplomacy isn't always a good thing. I suppose that in film

making,

> > like getting political candidacy, sometimes you've got to lick a

few

> > of the wrong hands. Maybe the film maker had to make concessions

just

> > to pound home the message that these drugs increase risk of

suicide

> > and diabetes, etc.. I'm just tired of the luke warm half truth on

all

> > counts.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I didn't think the show was all that crappy. Not the best show ever,

but it did expose and quite clearly how this kids are just seen as a

billing for the doctors. Get them on one drug, develop more

symptoms, add another drug and it's the same song, another verse

until the kid is on 8 different drugs at one time. It perfectly

illustrated the corporate greed that is attcking the intergrity of

our society.

To me, it was heartbreaking to see that boy with the tics, and

hearing he was on eight different meds at one time illustrated just

how ridiculous this whole thing was. At the end, they had removed

this kid from most medication and yet he was still having tics. I

think they had him doing yoga and still having lots of tics. To me

that perfectly illustrated the huge risks of the drug approach. The

parents are now taking a more natural approach but they have paid a

tremendous price- and the child from the vides seemed damaged not

better for going the drug route.

I also thought it was ironic when the mom of the four year old went

in to talk the the psychiatrist about reducing his meds- the first

thing the good dr did was suggest adding yet another drug. When the

mom asked if there was any behavioral therapy they could try and the

dr said no. That 99% of what he had to offer to help their son

was the drugs. I think the dr. just exposd himself openly as being

a pill pusher and that no one is watching out for our kids.

I think anyone watching the show would recognize that

these " professionals " are experimenting on these poor children. The

who show made me feel sick to my stomach. Hopefully other parents

would realize if you're going down this route with your kids - that

the drs. are just guessing. At one point the psychiatrist said that

he had to experiment with different medications with each child.

And there was talk of not knowing the long term effects of these

drugs on developing minds. And it was mention about the huge

conflict of interests betwwen the drs and the drug companies. And

how it's the drug companies funding the studies.

The show may not have connected the dots as i would have like but

the dots were drawn for you to connect yourself.

I think the idea that these kids are one big experiment would scare

folks off from so readily getting their kids on the anti-psych drugs.

After the show, I thought of that old song Go Ask Alice by Grace

Slick. I wish they would have played that with the closing credits.

Beth

>

> I suspected it was going to be way too diplomatic when I didn't

see

> many of the main voices in the psychiatric reform featured as the

> series of " experts " . Turned out to be true. Sure the show made the

> correlation between suicide and SSRIs, but the program itself

> provided false information and did not offer dissent to these

> assumptions. That dissent would have been so easy to find but

those

> people were all noticeably missing from the program. Instead there

> were a lot of NIMH and FDA folks just unquestioningly asserting

the

> bogus message that some kids " need " these drugs. Oh, " some need

them

> but for others they're not effective " .

>

> Mental illness isn't caused by pharmaceutical deprivation.

>

> For another thing, the suicide rate spiked among teens just prior

to

> the placement of the black box warnings on SSRIs, though the voice-

> over asserted the reverse. The show lied, in other words.

Secondly,

> the increased uptake of antipsychotics was due to multiple

factors,

> not just a matter of the poor shrinks having to give kids

something

> else because their poor parents were scared off of SSRIs by the

mean

> black boxes, which is how the PBS doc characterizes it.

>

> In fact, aside from fresh child market approvals (or the promise

of

> them) spurring on unprecedentedly aggressive marketing campaigns

by

> the drug companies for antipsychotics, the increase in

antipsychotic

> prescriptions for children is MOSTLY due to side effects of

> antidepressants and stimulants, which both cause mania, which is

then

> diagnosed as bipolar disorder. And--tada-- you have polypharmacy

in a

> nutshell: give one drug then diagnose a " comorbid disorder "

because

> of the side effects of the first drug. Give another drug, dx

> another " comorbid disorder " from the second drug's side effects>

Then

> never blame the drugs for any of it. In fact, thank the drugs

> for " uncovering " the previously " invisible " disorders. Ugh.

>

> And then of course there's the use of antipsychotics to treat

vaccine

> side effects, including autism (all the big marketing guns are

aimed

> right at our kids), which in a sense is also polypharmacy. I think

> we're all more than aware that vaccine toxins like mercury cause

> irritability and erratic behavior at the very least, which can

easily

> be diagnosed from a slew of meaningless DSM entries signifying

> surface behavior: BP, ADHD, conduct disorder, reactive attachment

> disorder, bla bla bla. This has been known about metals for

> centuries. I didn't expect the show to mention this, but I didn't

> expect it to undercut the important potential message with a lot

of

> the usual pharma disinformation.

>

> Diplomacy isn't always a good thing. I suppose that in film

making,

> like getting political candidacy, sometimes you've got to lick a

few

> of the wrong hands. Maybe the film maker had to make concessions

just

> to pound home the message that these drugs increase risk of

suicide

> and diabetes, etc.. I'm just tired of the luke warm half truth on

all

> counts.

>