SSRI's save a lot more teenage lives than they kill

In those studies which people commonly quote, they actually say that the kids have more suicidal thoughts but dont actually commit suicide. and of course somebody who has depression is going to think about committing suicide. i would probably be dead right now if it werent for prozac.

14 of my inpatient freinds commited suicide whilst on medication. I tried suicide many times. My suicidal thoughts stopped when I quit meds.

My friends son jumped off a 60 meter cliff 2 days ago whilst on psych meds. He didn't die, he broke his back and will now be confined to a wheelchair. He's just 22.

There is no known cause for a single mental illness yet there is a Multi Billion dollar drug company industry selling dangerous drugs that have the placebo effect for some, give permanent brain damage to some, and cause acts of suicide and violence in others. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!

THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM MUST BE REFORMED!

ssri's are about to equal another statistic cept i was given them for pain rather than for psyche

NIMH Offers Grants to Study SSRI relation to Suicidality_FDA to Examine SSRI- Suicide in Adults

Mon, 14 Nov 2005

A fifteen year struggle by critics of the drug-centered treatment paradigm in psychiatry is being indirectly validated both by the FDA and the National Institute of Mental Health who are addressing the issue of SSRI and suicide publicly.

The FDA is planning a year long study of the evidence of SSRI antidepressants and the risk of suicide in adults. The first advisory committee hearing of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee is scheduled for December 8-9. See: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/SSRI200507.htm

The following research grant being offered by the National Institute of Mental Health:
Program Number: 85476
Title: RFA-MH-06-001--Antidepressant Treatment and Suicidality
Sponsor: National Institute of Mental Health/NIH/DHHS

SYNOPSIS:

The sponsor offers support for research to study the relationship between use of antidepressant medications, especially the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and suicidality (including suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts, and suicide deaths). This RFA is designed to encourage innovative, multi-disciplinary, multi-method efforts to explore the pharmacological, psychological and social mechanisms that potentially put some individuals at greater risk for suicidality when prescribed antidepressants. This RFA will use the NIH research project grant (R01), Exploratory/ Developmental grant (R21) and R34 award mechanisms.
Deadline(s): 11/21/2005 12/20/2005
Established Date: 09/28/2005
Follow-Up Date: 01/01/2006
Review Date: 09/28/2005

Contact: Jane Pearson, Ph.D.

Address: Division of Services and Intervention Research
6001 Executive Blvd.
Room 7160, MSC 9635
Bethesda, MD 20892-9635
U.S.A.

Program URL: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa ... 6-001.html
Tel: 3014-443-3598
Fax:
Deadline Ind: Receipt
Deadline Open: No
*See Restrictions for further information.

DEADLINE NOTE
The deadline for receipt of optional letters of intent is November 21, 2005. The deadline for receipt of full applications is December 20, 2005.
~~~~~~~~~~

AHRP believes that it is essential that research grants under this NIMH RFA NOT be awarded to any of the psychiatrists who helped perpetuate the lie that these drugs were "safe and effective" and led the fight against warnings about the drugs implication in increasing the risk of suicide, violence, and severe withdrawal symptoms.

In particular, psychiatrists associated with the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) or the American Psychiatric Association (APA), or the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) should be disqualified from the NIMH grant examining the link beteween antidepressants and suicide--as should employees of PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical trade lobbying association.

The ACNP, APA, and AACAP have been instrumental in misleading physicians and the public by vehemently denying the scientific evidence, rejecting the analyses by several independent expert panels who determined that SSRIs posed an increased suicide risk for children and adolescents compared to those given a sugar pill. Even as the FDA now estimates that the risk of suicidality in children prescribed an SSRI to be as high as 1 in 50.

Two weeks prior to FDA's advisory committee hearing (February 2004) the ACNP issued a "preliminary" Task Force report by the leading US psychiatric establishment at a highly publicized press briefing orchestrated by a public relations agency (GYMR) which also disseminated the report. ACNP's discredited report and its sweeping unsubstantiated, false assertions about the safety of SSRIs for children--"No significant Increase in Suicidal Behaviour in Clinical Trials of Youth"--was was aggessively promoted by GYMR, in an effort to divert public attention from the evidence. ACNP's bald claim was made on the basis of partial evidence--excluding substantial unpublished data kept under company seal.

Following the FDA advisory requiring Black Box warnings on all SSRI drug labels (October 1004) the APA defiantly issued a news release stating:

"The American Psychatric Association believes that antidepressants save lives." No such claim may be made by any SSRI drug manufacturer because there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

Another avenue being used to perpetuate the lies is to disseminate misinformtion and false claims about SSRIs through proxies such as a hastily formed website, ParentsMedGuide.org, whose long list of sponsoring organizations are closely linked to pharmaceutical companies. Posted on this website are purpoted "Guides " prepared by the APA and the AACAP. while it is claimed that the purpose of the guides is "to help patients, families, and physicians make informed decisions about obtaining and administering the most appropriate care for a child with depression" the claims made are patently false:

"There is no evidence that antidepressants increase the risk of suicide."

See: http://www.parentsmedguide.org/parentsmedguide.htm#6

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
212-595-8974

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FDA Public Health Advisory
Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications

Several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications. Even before these reports became available, the FDA began a complete review of all available data to determine whether there is an increased risk of suicidality (suicidal thinking or behavior) in adults being treated with antidepressant medications. It is expected that this review will take a year or longer to complete. In the meantime, FDA is highlighting that:

Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior. Close watching may be especially important early in treatment, or when the dose is changed, either increased or decreased.

Adults whose symptoms worsen while being treated with antidepressant drugs, including an increase in suicidal thinking or behavior, should be evaluated by their health care professional.

These recommendations are consistent with existing warnings for treated adults in the approved labeling (package insert) for antidepressant medications that can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepres ... mplate.pdf The Healthcare Professional and Patient Information Sheets for the antidepressant indications will be updated to add this information within the week. A list of drugs to be included in this update can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepres ... ntList.htm

FDA is working closely with the manufacturers of all marketed antidepressants to fully evaluate the risk of suicidality in adults treated with these drugs. The FDA has asked these manufacturers to identify all placebo-controlled trials conducted in adults in their development programs for their antidepressant products, regardless of the indication studied, and to provide information from these trials to FDA. Manufacturers are being asked to use a similar approach to assembling this information as was used in evaluating the risk of suicidality in placebo-controlled trials in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant medications. The method used to analyze the data for risk of suicidality in children using antidepressant medications is described in more detail at the following web page: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepres ... efault.htm. A similar approach will be used for adults.

FDA's comprehensive review will involve many hundreds of individual clinical trials and many thousands of adult patients. It is expected that this review will require a year or more to complete because of the large number of trials and the thousands of adverse events that must be checked for possible evidence of suicidality. The FDA will make the results of its review available to the public once its analyses are complete, and will update this advisory in the meantime if more definitive information becomes available.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.parentsmedguide.org/parentsmedguide.htm#6

"These Guides have been endorsed by many national medical, family and patient advocacy organizations, listed below."

ParentsMedGuide Endorsers:
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Association of Suicidology
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
American Psychiatric Association
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
Families for Depression Awareness
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems
National Mental Health Association
Society for Adolescent Medicine
Suicide Awareness Voices of Education
Suicide Prevention Action Network

PhysiciansMedGuide Endorsers:
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Association of Suicidology
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
American Psychiatric Association
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
Families for Depression Awareness
National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems
Society for Adolescent Medicine
Suicide Awareness Voices of Education

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/11/14a.php

I'm looking forward to reading the outcomes of this study.

It is mainly people who have all these issues and don't get help or talk to someone about it. You can't blame it completely on drugs guys... Not everyone that kills themselves when they are depressed etc is on any SSRI's.

Monday, Nov. 14, 2005
Bitter Pills
They're prescribed to millions, but do the new antidepressants work? And are they worth the risk?
BY DANIEL WILLIAMS

There's really nothing funny about what happened to Rebekah Beddoe, except maybe for a little black comedy at the end. In 1999, a psychiatrist diagnosed her with postnatal depression, which she probably didn't have, and for the next three years multiple doctors treated her with drugs that she almost certainly didn't need. As episodes of deliberately cutting herself progressed to bouts of mental torment and suicide attempts, Beddoe's carers, concluding that her illness was worsening, kept upping her dosages and trying new medications. Nothing worked. Eventually, Beddoe acted on a different idea. Without telling anyone, she weaned herself off the drugs and gradually became well again. Her psychiatrist at the time assumed he was responsible for Beddoe's recovery. She remembers watching him one day from the other side of his desk, thinking that this eminent doctor was congratulating himself on having the skill to concoct precisely the right drug regimen. "I could also see his relief," Beddoe says. "It had been a difficult case, but he'd finally cracked it."

These days Beddoe, 33, spends much of her time at home in Melbourne reading up on psychiatry while working on a book about her ordeal. She's certain that what made her sick were side effects of the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). A pharmaceutical phenomenon that began with fluoxetine (Prozac) in the late 1980s, the SSRIs rode a wave of gushing publicity to usurp the older antidepressants, the tricyclics, and reap a fortune for their makers: worldwide sales now exceed $20 billion a year. But the honeymoon is over. Even doctors who swear by SSRIs and newer variants concede that 1-2% of patients have a severe negative reaction to these drugs. That's a small percentage. But it's a small percentage of a very large number. Intractable misery is rife, it seems: in Australia last year, 12 million prescriptions for antidepressants were dispensed through the federal government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (up from 8.2 million in 1998), a figure equating to more than a million users. Do the math, says Sydney forensic psychiatrist Yolande Lucire: if only 1% of users suffer terrible side effects that aren't recognized for what they are, that's more than 10,000 Australians who've recently been disabled by a drug that was supposed to help them. "That would be enough to fill the beds in every mental hospital in the country."

Lucire's is one voice in a small but growing international chorus of SSRI skeptics. As well as highlighting side effects, these critics question whether the SSRIs do what they're supposed to do in a significant proportion of cases. Based on fresh analyses of clinical-trial results, some researchers have concluded that the drugs are scarcely more effective than a placebo in alleviating depression. "I think they are more or less completely useless," says Dr. Joanna Moncrieff, senior lecturer in social and community psychiatry at University College London. In an article published earlier this year in the British Medical Journal, Moncrieff and coauthor Irving Kirsch, professor of psychology at the University of Plymouth, argued that it was time for "a thorough reevaluation of current approaches to depression and further development of alternatives to drug treatment." Seldom had a piece about antidepressants so explicitly challenged the reigning orthodoxy in the mainstream medical press, and it was hailed as a breakthrough by those who oppose what they see as disease mongering by the drug industry and other groups. The drug skeptics have had other recent victories. In the U.S. last year, the Food and Drug Administration told the drug companies to harden their warnings about the potential side effects of SSRIs. The companies' prescriber information must now feature a black-box warning - the strongest available - stating that in trials "antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior" in children and adolescents with depression and other psychiatric disorders. The fda is reviewing the results of several trials to determine whether a similar warning should be introduced for adults. British health authorities have gone further: in September, the National Health Service told doctors to stop prescribing antidepressants to under-18s in the early stages of treatment because of the link with suicidal thinking. Compared with its American and British counterparts, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration has taken a gentler line. Last year it reminded doctors that no antidepressant is approved in Australia for the treatment of depression in under-18s - though it knows many thousands of Australian teenagers with that diagnosis are on the drugs. In August, a TGA bulletin acknowledged a probable link between the SSRIs and suicidal tendencies in children and adults, but overall endorsed the drugs. Still, for perhaps the first time since the SSRIs came on the scene, those who believe the medical profession has lost its way in treating depression feel they have some momentum. "The (non-drug) approach is growing," says Dr. Jon Jureidini, head of the department of psychological medicine at the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide. "I'm probably at one end of the spectrum, but there would now be plenty of psychiatrists who would be very conservative prescribers."

From TIME Asia Magazine, issue dated November 21, 2005 / No. 46

BELOW are more new media articles
about how psychiatric drug ads
may be misleading the public about
a "chemical imbalance," from:

* _Wall Street Journal_ 11/18/05

* _United Press International_ 11/10/05

* _WebMD_ 11/7/05

* _Time Magazine Pacific_ 11/21/05

AT BOTTOM are links to the latest
news about this controversy.

~~~~~~~~~~

_The Wall Street Journal_

November 18, 2005; Page B1

SCIENCE JOURNAL

By SHARON BEGLEY

Some Drugs Work To Treat Depression,
But It Isn't Clear How

Hardly any patients know how Lipitor
lowers cholesterol, how Lotensin
reduces blood pressure, or even how
ibuprofen erases headaches. But when
it comes to Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil,
ads and glowing accounts in the press
have turned patients with depression
into veritable pharmacologists, able
to rattle off how these "selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors" keep
more of the brain chemical serotonin
hanging around in synapses,
correcting the neurochemical
imbalance that causes depression.

There is only one problem. "Not a
single peer-reviewed article ...
support[s] claims of serotonin
deficiency in any mental disorder,"
scientists write in the December
issue of the journal PLoS Medicine.

Indeed, a steady drip of studies have
challenged the "serotonin did it"
hypothesis. A 2003 mouse experiment
suggested that SSRIs work by inducing
the birth and growth of new brain
neurons, not by monkeying with
serotonin. In March, a review of
decades of research concluded that
something other than "changes in
chemical balance might underlie
depression." And as Jeffrey Lacasse
and Jonathan Leo write in PLoS
Medicine, although ads for SSRIs say
they correct a chemical imbalance,
"there is no such thing as a
scientifically correct 'balance' of
serotonin."

How did so many smart people get it
so wrong? Medicinal chemist Derek
Lowe, who works in drug development
for a pharmaceutical firm, offered an
explanation in his "In the Pipeline"
blog. "I worked on central nervous
system drugs for eight years, and I
can confidently state that we know
just slightly more than jack" about
how antidepressants work.

It is not for lack of trying. In
1965, psychiatrist Joseph Schildkraut
of Harvard University suggested that a
deficiency of a brain chemical causes
depression. With the success of drugs
that block the reuptake of these
chemicals, that idea started to look
pretty good.

Yet the evidence was always
circumstantial. You can't measure
serotonin in the brains of living
human beings. The next best thing,
measuring the compounds that
serotonin breaks down to in
cerebrospinal fluid, suggested that
clinically depressed patients had
less of it than healthy people did.
But it was never clear whether
depression caused those low levels,
or vice versa. A 2002 review of these
early experiments took them to task
for such flaws.

There had always been data that don't
fit the serotonin-imbalance theory.
Depleting people's serotonin levels
sometimes changed their mood for the
worse and sometimes didn't. Sending
serotonin levels through the roof
didn't help depression, a study found
as early as 1975.

There is little doubt that the SSRIs
do what their name says, keeping more
serotonin in the brain's synapses. But
the fact "that SSRIs act on the
serotonin system does not mean that
clinical depression results from a
shortage of serotonin," says Dr. Leo,
professor of anatomy at Lake Erie
College of Osteopathic Medicine,
Bradenton, Fla. No more so, anyway,
than the fact that steroid creams
help rashes means that rashes are
caused by a steroid shortage.

A clue to how SSRIs do work comes
from how long they take to have any
effect. They rarely make a dent in
depression before three weeks, and
sometimes take eight weeks to kick
in. But they affect serotonin levels
right away. If depression doesn't
lift despite that serotonin hit, the
drugs must be doing something else;
it's the something else that eases
depression.

The best evidence so far is that the
something else is neurogenesis -- the
birth of new neurons. When scientists
led by Rene Hen of Columbia
University and Ronald Duman of Yale
blocked neurogenesis in mice, SSRIs
had no effect. When neurogenesis was
unimpeded, SSRIs made the mice less
anxious and depressed -- for rodents.
As best scientists can tell, SSRIs
first activate the serotonin system,
which is somehow necessary for
neurogenesis. That is what takes
weeks.

Claiming that depression results from
a brain-chemical imbalance, as ads do,
is problematic on several fronts.
Patients who believe this are more
likely to demand a prescription. If
you have a disease caused by too
little insulin, you take insulin; if
you have one caused by too little
serotonin, you take serotonin
boosters.

Most people treated for depression
get pills rather than psychotherapy,
and this week a study from Stanford
University reported that drugs have
been supplanting psychotherapy for
depressed adolescents. Clinical
guidelines call for using both, and
for psychotherapy to be the
first-line treatment for most kids.
Psychotherapy "can be as effective as
medications" for major depression,
concluded a study in April of 240
patients, in the Archives of General
Psychiatry. Numerous other studies
find the same.

The hegemony of the serotonin
hypothesis may be keeping patients
from a therapy that will help them
more in the long term. The relapse
rate for patients on pills is higher
than for those getting
cognitive-behavior psychotherapy.

Some 19 million people in the U.S.
suffer from depression in any given
year. For many, SSRIs help little, if
at all. To do better, we have to get
the science right.

Write to Sharon Begley at
sciencejournal at wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... 554400588-
piwLFSMdqttzAzHEXT3ehaYKXog_20061117.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

or use this smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/a7wwk

~~~~~~~~~

_United Press International_

Health Business

Study: Public misled by depression ads

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 (UPI) -- The most
commonly prescribed anti-depressants
may be effective, but drug ads are
misleading about how the drugs work,
a new study suggests.

The study, published in the December
issue of the Public Library of Science
Medicine, focuses on manufacturers
that market the cutting-edge class of
anti-depressants known as selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

The study results add to the
criticism of drug companies for
allegedly filling the airwaves with
slick but deceptive advertising on
various medications.

SSRIs can help relieve depression,
but the medical evidence that they do
so by correcting low levels of
serotonin in the brain is weak, and
therefore should be eliminated from
direct-to-consumer ads in magazines
and on television, the study's
authors said.

The authors were Jonathan Leo, a
professor of neuroanatomy at Lake
Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine
in Bradenton, Fla., and Jeffrey R.
Lacasse, a Ph.D. candidate at Florida
State University's College of Social
Work.

The duo attacked the widespread use
of the "serotonin theory of
depression" in their accompanying
text, saying clinical evidence does
not adequately support the statement
that serotonin imbalances in the
brain are responsible for clinical
depression.

"Depression and anxiety are
complicated issues that cannot be
explained in a 30-second commercial,"
the authors wrote. "When the serotonin
theory is portrayed with clever visual
portrayals that do not accurately
represent the neuroscience research,
consumers are led to believe that
medication is necessary for the
treatment for depression."

Leo added that, contrary to the
message in the ads, the prescribing
information on the drug labels do not
say that SSRIs correct serotonin
imbalances.

Leo and Lacasse called on the Food
and Drug Administration to exercise
more authority about what goes into
direct-to-consumer advertising to
make sure it is fair and balanced and
urged people to become more active in
their own care.

"In terms of real-life effects of
this advertising, we are concerned
that this oversimplified theory has
become the intellectual justification
for 10-minute office visits which
result in the prescription of
antidepressants for a variety of
ill-defined conditions," Lacasse
concluded. "In general, people need
to be more skeptical regarding claims
of chemical imbalance as explanation
for psychological distress."

http://www.upi.com/HealthBusiness/view. ... 3909-3242r

or use this smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/d3rbf

~~~~~~~~~

WebMD Medical News

Essay Questions Role of
Antidepressants

Authors Challenge Link Between
Chemical Imbalance and Depression

By Salynn Boyles

Reviewed By Louise Chang, MD

Nov. 7, 2005 -- Do the most widely
prescribed antidepressants work by
correcting a chemical imbalance in
the brain? That's being challenged in
a newly published essay.

The essay's authors say the assertion
that depression results from an
imbalance in the brain chemical
serotonin and related chemicals is
not supported by the scientific
evidence.

They write that there is "a growing
body of medical literature casting
doubt" on the so-called "serotonin
hypothesis." But a widely known
antidepressant researcher who spoke
to WebMD disagrees.

Brown University psychiatry professor
Peter D. Kramer, MD, is the author of
Listening to Prozac and Against
Depression.

"The connection between what these
drugs do and what seems to be useful
in the treatment of mood disorders is
just as strong or stronger today as it
was 13 years ago when I wrote
Listening to Prozac," he says.

Kramer acknowledges that there is
still much to be learned about the
impact of brain chemistry on
depression and other mental
illnesses. He says it is unlikely
that serotonin imbalance alone
explains depression, but he adds that
Prozac and other antidepressants that
target serotonin clearly help many
people.

Are Ads Misleading?

Selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRIs), include the drugs
Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Lexapro, and
Celexa. The drugs increase the
availability of serotonin, which acts
as a chemical messenger in the brain
among other areas.

Millions of Americans take SSRIs for
depression and other mood disorders,
and in the U.S. alone sales of the
drugs top $10 billion a year.

In a newly published essay, anatomy
professor Jonathan Leo, PhD, along
with colleague Jeffrey Lacasse, say
that SSRI ads aimed at the public are
often misleading.

Leo teaches neuroanatomy at Lake Erie
College of Osteopathic Medicine in
Bradenton, Fla.

"The advertising is not portraying
the science in a true light," Leo
tells WebMD.

He says the ads typically claim that
SSRIs restore the serotonin balance
of the brain but adds that there is
"no such thing as a scientifically
established correct balance of
serotonin."

Leo cites a 2002 review which found
that SSRIs were only slightly more
effective than placebo for treating
depression. He adds that efforts to
use brain imaging to document
chemical imbalances linked to mental
illness have proven disappointing.

He also points to studies suggesting
that nondrug treatments, including
psychotherapy and exercise, may be as
effective as drugs for treating
certain mental illnesses.

"As long as people are told about all
these things I have no problem with
using these drugs," he says. "Without
a doubt, they help some people. Our
point is that the explanation for why
they work is simplistic and
potentially misleading."

Movie Star Spat

Leo and Lacasse published their essay
in the December issue of the Public
Library of Science journal PLoS
Medicine. The Public Library of
Science is a privately funded,
nonprofit group that publishes
scientific and medical research and
makes it freely available on its web
site.

Leo says he hopes the paper will make
the public aware that there is
legitimate scientific debate about
whether depression is caused by
chemical imbalance.

"Professionals have researched and
debated this issue for years. It is
not just a public spat between two
movie stars," he says.

He is referring to actor Tom Cruise's
highly publicized criticism of actress
Brooke Shields, who wrote earlier this
year that SSRIs helped her recover
from postpartum depression after the
birth of her first child.

In a June appearance on NBC's Today
Show, Cruise called antidepressants
"very dangerous" and claimed there
was no proof that chemical imbalances
in the brain drive depression.

Shields responded in a New York Times
op-ed piece, calling Cruise's
assertions a "ridiculous rant."

Kramer tells WebMD that while the
serotonin hypothesis may not tell the
whole story, it has led to the
development of an important treatment
for depression and other mental
disorders.

"It turns out that the medicines that
affect serotonin do other things, such
as protect the nerve cells and enhance
[the generation of new nerve cells],"
he says.

SOURCES: Lacasse, J. PLoS Medicine,
December 2005; vol. 2: pp. 101-106.
Jonathan Leo, PhD, associate
professor of anatomy, Lake Erie
College of Osteopathic Medicine,
Bradenton, FL. Peter D. Kramer, MD,
clinical professor of psychiatry and
human behavior, Brown University,
Providence, R.I. Kirsch et al,
British Medical Journal. NDC Health
Corp.

http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/114/111406.htm

~~~~~~~~~

_Time Magazine Pacific_ 21 November 2005

The cover story has two articles, too
long to post here:

"Bad Medicine? — Millions of people take
drugs to ward off depression. But skeptics
say the pills may do more harm than good."

"Taking on the Drug Defenders": A spotlight
on journalist Robert Whitaker, author of
_Mad in America_.

http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazi ... 21,00.html

or this smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/azqc3

~~~~~~~~~

LINKS TO THE LATEST ON THE
CHEMICAL IMBALANCE CONTROVERSY:

BELOW are web pages with information
about the "chemical imbalance" controversy.

~~~~~~~~~

17 Nov. 2005: MindFreedom alert -- How you may
comment to the FDA about psychiatric drug ads:

http://www.intenex.net/pipermail/mindfr ... -November/
000016.html

or use this shorter url:

http://tinyurl.com/7ettm

~~~~~~~~~

See the 11/14/05 MindFreedom alert about the
excellent essay published by PLoS debunking
advertising claims about a chemical imbalance:

http://www.intenex.net/pipermail/mindfr ... -November/
000014.html

or use this smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/cbzzu

~~~~~~~~~

Here is an 11/8/05 MEDSCAPE news article
about the topic and the PLoS essay:

http://www.intenex.net/pipermail/mindfr ... -November/
000015.html

or use the smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/8s5e2

~~~~~~~~~

Here is the text of the 12/05 PLoS essay
that debunks the "chemical imbalance" ads:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-
document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392

or use this smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/8vywy

[For individuals who have trouble viewing
the above, MindFreedom has a plain text
version that can be e-mailed to you free.]

~~~~~~~~~

Here is a print PDF (205 K) version of the PLoS essay:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archiv ... /2/12/pdf/
10.1371_journal.pmed.0020392-p-L.pdf

or use this smaller url:

http://tinyurl.com/bcwf3

~~~~~~~~~

For background by FDA on their request for comments:

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05-18040.htm

[Please note there is no "period" at end of this
URL; a previous alert added this, our apologies.]

If you have questions about the FDA process
contact Rose Cunningham at the FDA at
CUNNINGHAMR at cder.fda.gov

~~~~~~~~~

See MindFreedom's debate with Pfizer, Inc.,
manufacturer of Zoloft, about their
chemical imbalance claims:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/pfizerlies.shtml

~~~~~~~~~

Also see the historic debate with the
American Psychiatric Association resulting
from MindFreedom's 2003 hunger strike:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/ ... rike.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~

PLEASE FORWARD THIS NEWS TO OTHERS

This news alert is forwarded as a free
public service by the nonprofit human rights
organization MindFreedom International.

* Win human rights campaigns in mental health.
* End abuse by the psychiatric drug industry.
* Support the voices of psychiatric survivors.
* Promote safe and humane options in mental health.

MindFreedom International unites 100 sponsor
and affiliate groups with individual members,
and is accredited by the United Nations as
a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with
Consultative Roster Status.

MindFreedom is one of the very few totally
independent groups in the mental health
field with no funding from governments,
drug companies, religions, corporations,
or the mental health system.

JOIN, DONATE, or give GIFT MEMBERSHIPS
to MindFreedom International today:

http://www.mindfreedom.org/join.shtml

For a MAD MARKET of books and products
to support human rights campaigns in
mental health: http://www.madmarket.org

MindFreedom International
454 Willamette, Suite 216 - POB 11284
Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA

http://www.mindfreedom.org
email: office at mindfreedom.org fax: (541) 345-3737
office phone: (541) 345-9106
USA toll free: 1-877-MAD-PRIDE / 1-877-623-7743

~~~~~~~~~

Please forward this to all appropriate
places on and off the Internet, thank you!

patm3300 wrote:In those studies which people commonly quote, they actually say that the kids have more suicidal thoughts but dont actually commit suicide. and of course somebody who has depression is going to think about committing suicide. i would probably be dead right now if it werent for prozac.

I agree.

sadgurl wrote:

patm3300 wrote:In those studies which people commonly quote, they actually say that the kids have more suicidal thoughts but dont actually commit suicide. and of course somebody who has depression is going to think about committing suicide. i would probably be dead right now if it werent for prozac.

I agree.

"There's really nothing funny about what happened to Rebekah Beddoe, except maybe for a little black comedy at the end. In 1999, a psychiatrist diagnosed her with postnatal depression, which she probably didn't have, and for the next three years multiple doctors treated her with drugs that she almost certainly didn't need. As episodes of deliberately cutting herself progressed to bouts of mental torment and suicide attempts, Beddoe's carers, concluding that her illness was worsening, kept upping her dosages and trying new medications. Nothing worked. Eventually, Beddoe acted on a different idea. Without telling anyone, she weaned herself off the drugs and gradually became well again."

From TIME Asia Magazine, issue dated November 21, 2005 / No. 46

It's great the movement questioning the use of anti-depressants and their links to suicide are now being printed in Time Magazine. The voice is growing louder everyday. Accountabilty is coming! The courts are going to be packed.

Taking on the Drug Defenders.

Monday, Nov. 14, 2005
Ever since his coruscating book Mad in America was published in 2002, American Robert Whitaker has been a poster boy for the anti-psychiatry movement. In Mad in America (Perseus Books), he argued that the assumption of a physical cause for schizophrenia had given rise to many wrongheaded treatments, from ice-water immersion to today's antipsychotic drugs. These days, the Pulitzer Prize finalist makes a similar case against psychiatry over its approach to the treatment of depression.

No one knows for sure whether serotonin has a role in depression, let alone exactly what that role might be. But many doctors pretend they're sure, Whitaker says, because "psychiatry for a long time had a bit of an inferiority complex. It wanted magic bullets like everybody else." Trouble is, the magic bullets, including the SSRIs, don't work very well. By perturbing neurotransmitter activity they can make patients chronically ill, says the Boston-based author.

Is he alleging a conspiracy among psychiatrists? Not exactly. Psychiatrists are taught the biological models of mental illness and come to believe in them, he says. He recalls a recurring exchange he had with doctors while researching Mad in America:

Psychiatrist: The (schizophrenia) drugs are like insulin for diabetes.
Whitaker: No, they're not - you have no confirmed biological problem.
Psychiatrist: O.K., that's true.
Whitaker: So why say it?
Psychiatrist: Well, it gets people to take their drugs.

"So what they're doing is a little fudging to pursue what they believe is a good end," says Whitaker. "But at the same time they feel vulnerable because they don't have the science behind it and they don't have the outcomes, either." Those psychiatrists who break ranks and publicly question the biological models and the efficacy of psychiatric drugs, he adds, "get clobbered. They basically have their careers ruined."

The SSRIs, in his view, are a story of a "massively successful capitalistic enterprise" - and the idea that in countries like Australia there's still a multitude of people with undiagnosed depression should be considered in that context. These people are "not clinically depressed, anyway," he says. "The drug companies are setting forth an unrealistic vision of what it is to be human. They're defining normal stresses and worries as pathological, and the only reason they're doing it is that it leads to more business."

http://www.time.com/time/pacific/magazi ... 30,00.html