Important FLU and atypical antipsychotic information

Two things to keep your elderly parents away from: Being drugged at their elderly facility and the flu shot that has high levels of mercury, causes dementia and actually does not work which in some facilities are required.
If so, demand the flu shot without Thimerosal but not the live virus vaccine called "Flu mist". Eileen

See 5 minute University of Calgary video on our site: www.ProgressiveConvergence.com (how mercury degenerates the brain neurons)

and check out the 2500 suicide and homicide stories: http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

Letters to the editor: letters@nytimes.com

New York Times

Doctors Say Medication Is Overused in Dementia

By LAURIE TARKAN

June 24, 2008

Ramona Lamascola with her mother, Theresa Lamascola.

Ramona Lamascola thought she was losing her 88-year-old mother to dementia. Instead, she was losing her to overmedication.

Last fall her mother, Theresa Lamascola, of the Bronx, suffering from anxiety and confusion, was put on the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. When she had trouble walking, her daughter took her to another doctor — the younger Ms. Lamascola's own physician — who found that she had unrecognized hypothyroidism, a disorder that can contribute to dementia.

Mrs. Lamascola no longer takes antipsychotics.

Theresa Lamascola was moved to a nursing home to get these problems under control. But things only got worse. "My mother was screaming and out of it, drooling on herself and twitching," said Ms. Lamascola, a pediatric nurse. The psychiatrist in the nursing home stopped the Risperdal, which can cause twitching and vocal tics, and prescribed a sedative and two other antipsychotics.

"I knew the drugs were doing this to her," her daughter said. "I told him to stop the medications and stay away from Mom."

Not until yet another doctor took Mrs. Lamascola off the drugs did she begin to improve.

The use of antipsychotic drugs to tamp down the agitation, combative behavior and outbursts of dementia patients has soared, especially in the elderly. Sales of newer antipsychotics like Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa totaled $13.1 billion in 2007, up from $4 billion in 2000, according to IMS Health, a health care information company.

Part of this increase can be traced to prescriptions in nursing homes. Researchers estimate that about a third of all nursing home patients have been given antipsychotic drugs.

The increases continue despite a drumbeat of bad publicity. A 2006 study of Alzheimer's patients found that for most patients, antipsychotics provided no significant improvement over placebos in treating aggression and delusions.

In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration ordered that the newer drugs carry a "black box" label warning of an increased risk of death. Last week, the F.D.A. required a similar warning on the labels of older antipsychotics.

The agency has not approved marketing of these drugs for older people with dementia, but they are commonly prescribed to these patients "off label." Several states are suing the top sellers of antipsychotics on charges of false and misleading marketing.

Ambre Morley, a spokeswoman for Janssen, the division of Johnson & Johnson that manufactures Risperdal, would not comment on the suits, but said: "As with any medication, the prescribing of a medication is up to a physician. We only promote our products for F.D.A.-approved indications."

Nevertheless, many doctors say misuse of the drugs is widespread. "These antipsychotics can be overused and abused," said Dr. Johnny Matson, a professor of psychology at Louisiana State University. "And there's a lot of abuse going on in a lot of these places."

Dr. William D. Smucker, a member of the American Medical Directors Association, a group of health professionals who work in nursing homes, agreed. Though the group encourages doctors to conduct a thorough assessment and prescribe antipsychotics only as a last resort, he said, "Many physicians are absent without leave in the nursing home and don't take an active role in the assessment of the patient."

Some nursing homes are trying a different approach, so-called environmental intervention. The strategies include reducing boredom, providing intellectual and physical stimulation, exercise, calming music, bringing in pets for therapy and improving how the staff approaches and talks to dementia patients.

At the Margaret Teitz Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Queens, social workers do life reviews of patients to understand their interests, lifestyle and former occupations.

"I had a patient who used to be in fashion," said Nancy Goldwasser, the director of social services. "So we got her fabric samples. And she'd sit and look through the books, touch the fabric, and it would calm her."

But such approaches are time consuming, they do not help all patients, they can be prohibitively expensive and they will be more difficult to provide as Alzheimer's continues to increase.

"Our health care system isn't set up to address the mental, emotional and behavioral problems of the elderly," said Dr. Gary S. Moak, president of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Nursing homes are short staffed, and insurers do not generally pay for the attentive medical care and hands-on psychosocial therapy that advocates recommend. It is much easier to use sedatives and antipsychotics, despite their side effects.

The first generation of antipsychotics, like Haldol, carry a significant risk of repetitive movement disorders and sedation. Second-generation antipsychotics, also called atypicals, are more commonly prescribed because the risk of movement disorders is lower. But they, too, can cause sedation, and they contribute to weight gain and diabetes.

Used correctly, the drugs do have a role in treating some seriously demented patients, who may be incapacitated by paranoia or are self-destructive or violent. Taking the edge off the behavior can keep them safe and living at home, rather than in a nursing home.

If patients are prescribed an antipsychotic, it should be a very low dose for the shortest period necessary, said Dr. Dillip V. Jeste, a professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego.

It may take a few weeks or months to control behavior. In many cases, the patient can then be weaned off of the drugs or kept at a very low dose.

Some experts say another group of medications — antidementia drugs like Aricept, Exalon and Menamda — are underused. Research shows that 10 to 20 percent of Alzheimer's patients had noticeable positive responses to the drugs, and 40 percent more showed some cognitive improvement, even if it was not noticeable to an observer.

"Sometimes, it's enough to take the edge off the behavioral problems, so the family and patient can live with it and you don't expose people to much risk," said Dr. Gary J. Kennedy, director of geriatric psychiatry at the Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx.

Other experts cite a lack of research backing these drugs for behavioral problems.

If patients begin showing behavioral symptoms of dementia, doctors said, they should have complete medical and psychiatric workups first, especially if symptoms develop suddenly.

"Just because someone is 95 does not mean one should not do a workup, especially if she's been healthy," Dr. Kennedy said.

Common causes of the symptoms include ministrokes, reparable brain hemorrhage from a mild bump on the head, hypothyroidism, dehydration, malnourishment, depression and sleep disorders.

Some doctors point out that simply paying attention to a nursing home patient can ease dementia symptoms. They note that in randomized trials of antipsychotic drugs for dementia, 30 to 60 percent of patients in the placebo groups improved.

"That's mind boggling," Dr. Jeste said. "These severely demented patients are not responding to the power of suggestion. They're responding to the attention they get when they participate in a clinical trial.

"They receive both T.L.C. and good general medical and humane care, which they did not receive until now. That's a sad commentary on the way we treat dementia patients."

To family members looking at a nursing home for an aging parent, experts recommend seeking out homes with low staff turnover, a high ratio of staff members to patients, and programs with psychosocial components.

The Medicare Web site has basic information on individual homes at www.medicare.gov/NHcompare. The National Citizens' Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, at www.nccnhr.org, offers a consumer guide to choosing a nursing home.

If medications are necessary, a family member should communicate with the prescribing doctor, learn the goal of each medication and be involved in making the decision.

Dr. Moak, of the psychiatry association, emphasized seeking out the doctor. Family members, he said, "often speak through the nursing staff, and that's a huge mistake."

Family members who are not convinced that a relative is receiving the best care should get a second opinion, as Ramona Lamascola did.

The physician she consulted, Dr. Kennedy of Montefiore, stopped her mother's antipsychotics and sedatives and prescribed Aricept.

"It's not clear whether it was getting her hypothyroid and other medical issues finally under control or getting rid of the offending medications," he said. "But she had a miraculous turnaround."

Theresa Lamascola still has dementia, but she went from confinement in a wheelchair — unable to sit still and screaming out in fear — to being able to walk with help, sit peacefully, have some memory and ability to communicate, understand subtleties of conversations and even make jokes.

Or, as her daughter put it, "I got my mother back."

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/health/24deme.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

---

27,346 Signatures Against TeenScreen. Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY

Whistleblower's letter on Bill C-51, health TYRANNY

Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper -- Re Bills C51&52, Helke Ferrie


KOS LOGO and address
June 15, 2008

793'rd
anniversary of the Magna Carta



The Right Honorable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A2

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

The Globe & Mail has on its masthead the following statement made by an 18'th century British political thinker known only by his nom de plume, Junius: "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." It is in this spirit that I am writing to you about the proposed bills C-51 and C-52. Nobody knows who Junius was; he might have been anybody, as indeed I am – just a Canadian who is exceedingly alarmed and cannot help but feel protective towards this great nation in the face of a public health emergency.

These two bills not only dramatically fail to address this crisis in public.

When a government falls into error, only the governed can correct that. It is my view, that in a parliamentary democracy it is the duty of the citizen is to pay careful attention to government and to offer correction to government policy when necessary – but to do so only if able to provide supporting evidence to show that government health, but actually threaten to increase this emergency to unmanageable levels, if passed. I am approaching your government in the spirit of Junius to advise against arbitrary measures and also to express clear resistance to such arbitrariness is in error. In a democracy we neither want government to shoot off their mouths, nor should we be allowed to do so either.

This book provides, I hope, that most significant supporting evidence for the contention that C-51 and C-52 are totally unacceptable, are impossible to amend, and must be withdrawn.

I should introduce myself first: For the past twelve years I have been researching medical politics and writing for various venues on a monthly basis. I also occasionally publish books written mostly by medical professionals who are especially concerned about environmental and nutritional medicine. This summer I am releasing Dr. Shiv Chopra's memoirs. Entitled Corrupt to the Core - Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower . It is introduced by MP Paul Dewar (NDP), lawyer David Yazbeck, and three recipients of the Swedish Right Livelihood Award, namely public health scholar and oncologist Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, physicist Dr. Vandana Shiva, and Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians. Dr. Chopra's book covers his four decades as a Health Canada regulator during which he determinedly fought to uphold the Food and Drugs Act and follow its Regulations, in order to protect the Canadian people from unsafe drugs.

As you will recall, he and his colleagues, Drs. Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, managed to have that Act obeyed, against all political odds, so as to prevent bovine growth hormone (rBST – a carcinogen) from being passed in our food supply. For that service to the public, as you will also recall, they were fired in 2004 on grounds of insubordination by your predecessor, then Prime Minister Paul Martin.

At that time, given your campaign promises of transparency and accountability, many of us, myself included, had hoped and actually expected that you would take the necessary steps to reinstate these scientists and support them in their exercise of due diligence on behalf of public health. However, on May 20'th this year, the Canadian Association of Journalists listed you as the top nominee for this year's Code of Silence Award for "having muzzled cabinet ministers, civil servants, and particularly professional scientists." Then you closed the data base for freedom- of-information inquiries, a research tool meant to help Canadians keep their governments accountable and transparent.

Most governments, once elected in sufficient numbers to form a government, only partly fulfill their campaign promises. In general, the electorate is as forgiving of the human inconsistencies in our friends and loved ones as they are of broken government promises. However, when the inconsistencies become too overwhelming, the relationship breaks down, usually irreparably, and the injured party resorts instinctively to self-defense. We may have reached that point.

These glaring inconsistencies between promise and action in your administration make it hard to trust the stated intent of bills C-51 and C-52; they are not difficult to understand. If passed into law, they would pose a threat to public health, the rule of law, and the freedom of scientific research. Both bills, to my mind, display an equally unparalleled disregard for the spirit, and most probably also the letter, of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The public has been repeatedly told that the government has only good intentions with regard to C-51 and C-52. Now, it seems to me that the contract between a people and its government cannot possibly ever be carried out on the basis of trust. Laws are guarantees.

Pronouncements of intent mean literally nothing.

The most recent attempt at calming down the tens of thousands of angry Canadians who have made themselves heard since April 8, has been a proposal to amend C-51; this was presented by the Honorable Tony Clement on June 9, 2008. Those amendments appear to be of dubious parliamentary legality, as pointed out by MPs Marlene Jennings in her e-mails, and as was stated in the House by MP Robert Thibault who suggested this was possibly Contempt of Parliament. MP Jennings wrote: "I've been an MP eleven years. It is the first time that I see such a thing! Normally, the government does not table amendments at committee stage, only after all the experts and witnesses have been heard."

Worst of all, Health Canada arranged for so-called "stakeholder" meetings across the country to reassure outraged citizens about C-51; this exercise bordered on the absurd: people were invited to meet with representatives from the largest drug companies, who were co-sponsoring most of these events, in order to discuss public concerns about a government bill which is supposed to regulate those very companies. Just how scary can it get?

We are in the midst of a public health crisis caused by food contaminated with health hazards such as pesticides, genetically engineered food plants that we now know promote systemic disease, and pharmaceutical drugs based on fraudulent science and therefore having become the leading cause of death. This assertion is supported by verifiable, non-industry funded science from around the world - I was as amazed and shocked to discover this as everybody else.

I myself used to wonder if the "natural health crowd" was just a bunch of treehuggers , but it turns out the are all mainstream scientists, some even Nobel laureates, and many are outraged refugee scientists from the genetic engineering industry itself. Much of the evidence is presented in this book.

With regard to pharmaceutical drugs being the leading cause of death, this has been made public by the premier medical institutions in the world and since 1998 has been the subject of many research projects published in the world's "big five" medical journals, including the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association. In fact, this line of inquiry was first started, with the cooperation of the United States FDA, by Professor Bruce Pomerance of the University of Toronto. Ten years ago, he concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs might be the fourth leading cause of death in North America. More recently, Johns Hopkins Medical School refined this research, largely due to the increasing death statistics which became available in the intervening years, so that now it is the leading cause of death, outpacing cancer and AIDS.

As reported in the CMAJ, in Canada, at least 23,000 people die every year from pharmaceutical drug-related problems; these are only the reported deaths. Both the FDA and Canadian experts believe the rate is much higher. Due to this constantly rising death toll, the CMAJ observed on January 4 and March 15, 2005, that Health Canada is not adequately monitoring the safety of marketed drugs and has "demonstrated a structural inability to do ongoing safety monitoring of new drugs and devices."

Unfortunately, bill C-51 does nothing to improve this situation because it doesn't even define safety, while the Food and Drugs Act, which supposedly requires "modernization", has very clear concepts of safety in its regulations - the very ones that allowed Dr. Chopra and his colleagues to identify those dangerous drugs they persistently opposed. The same is true for C-52, and both bills share the fact that they import into the regulation of foods, drugs, and hazardous products the wholly inappropriate concept of risk management instead of risk assessment. The difference between these two concepts is that the first assumes there will be a body count and tolerates some exposure to hazardous substances; the decisions to be made under such management have to do with how many bodies and how much hazardous contamination the government can comfortably get away with. Risk assessment, on the other hand, determines the level at which people are harmed – and then such substances must be banned.

Defining safety in both bills would result in a huge number of drugs and hazardous substances having to have their original marketing approval re-examined for purposes of assessment and potential withdrawal – as the European Union is doing now. Many would have to be recalled because the original approvals were not based on the available science and often granted under political pressure. In medicine, we even know with which ones to start the clean- up. The CMAJ told us so in their June 2, 2008 issue: they include especially the antipsychotics that Truehope so successfully replaced with safe natural products that also are so truly effective.

These and many other potent pharmaceuticals also end up in the water and are ingested by people for whom they were not prescribed – something C-52 does not even address. About 14 million emergency room visits take place in Canada annually only due to adverse drug events.

Given there are only roughly 30 million Canadians, this number is staggering and suggests that hundreds of thousands of people have more than one such experience per year.

It is my understanding, that government is mandated to manage health care with integrity.

Therefore, I was astounded when I read in The National Post on May 6'th, 2008, that your former communications director, Geoff Norquay, was directly involved with the lobbying efforts of pharmaceutical companies to restrict the availability of the far cheaper (and far safer because of proven post-marketing experience) generic drugs. I also find it hard to swallow that within a month after one of your close colleagues, Ken Boessenkool, registered as a lobbyist for Merck Frosst, your 2007 budget had $ 300 million allocated for their genital wart vaccine (marketed for cervical cancer) that has the highest rate of deaths and complications reported for any vaccine, namely Gardasil. This is very disturbing optics.

Not a single death is known so far to have been caused by a natural health product. One of the overheads I frequently show at lectures is a chart provided by the World Health Organization showing that the most dangerous thing one can do in an industrialized country is to be admitted to hospital, while the chance of being harmed or killed by a natural health product is the same as being hit by a meteor. What complicates this drug crisis further is the fact that pharmaceutical drugs are the source of enormous wealth and that Canada is one of the governments that has supported the increase of wealth from that source, not the decrease of the damage these products are causing .

Your policies appear are falling into that principal error Junius advised against; these two bills provide the evidence. That error is arbitrariness. It is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "Based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles."

Throughout C-51 and C-52, all sorts of enforcement provisions are relegated to Orders in Council – away from public scrutiny, unencumbered by messy parliamentary debate, and certainly free from probing questions from the press. Most surprising, and absolutely unacceptable, are those provisions that have to do with foreign governments and regulatory agencies – in which Canadians had no vote. I doubt this is legal. Unless Canadians read the Canada Gazette regularly, they would not even know that some deal has been struck with a foreign regulatory agency and that those foreign provisions have suddenly become law in Canada.

This is incomprehensible in view of your own publicly stated concern about Codex Alimentarius, for example, in 2003 when you were supporting MP James Lunney's bill C-420. Yet, as Prime Minister, I found on Health Canada's website that as of December 7 of last year, a "confidential" agreement already exists for such regulatory cross-Atlantic importation with the European Union and the European Medicine Agency. The only thing that seems to be still needed to make this all legal is the passage of C-51.

The Honorable Tony Clement's attempt at introducing some accountability into C-51 by changing "may" to "shall" in C-51's section 20.4, so now "the Minister shall establish, committees for seeking advice" on complex issues of science in medicine, insults every Canadians' intelligence . Unless those committees are independently picked, and unless such exercises are open to the public, and unless the results are debated in Parliament, this proposed amendment does not at all ensure that the same old cherry-picking of suitable "tobacco scientists" won't continue to happen: in the provisions in C-51 the industry is included among those the Minister may pick from for advisory committees. However, it is the industry that is to be regulated . In any case, who cares if "may" is now "shall", because none of the Order in Council provisions have been removed, as they should be, if any transparency and accountability is to be guaranteed to the public.

The assurance that the government wishes to introduce a separate definition for natural
health products, reported in the national press for the past few days, amounts to nothing at all in practice: natural health products are still part of the overall regulatory intent of bill C-51; the Natural Health Products Directorate of Health Canada did not incorporate the 53
Recommendations given by the Standing Committee on Health a decade ago, and C-51 is not correcting that blatant disregard of its own government advisers; all natural health products are still regulated as a "subcategory" of drugs and assessed within the drug model of approval, as the Minister himself has written in his many e-mails to Canadians; and Schedule A still stands prohibiting most diseases from being treated by natural health products (contrary to the mass of mainstream scientific evidence showing that they can); and the (sadly) most lucrative of all disease groups (depression, acute anxiety, including bi-polar disorder) was deliberately moved out of the category of diseases which may be treated with natural health products – even though none of them are Prozac-deficiencies and the Truehope clinical trials have proven that even the most severe mental health conditions are ultimately disorders of nutrient absorption and nutrient metabolization. Telling Canadians natural health products will be recognized as a special category of its own means nothing unless that category is on par with the pharmaceutical drug categories and entered into law as a choice patients can make – which is what about 70% of us want.

The entire damage-control exercise undertaken in the past couple of weeks leaves a very bad taste in the mouth and will inevitably cause the public anger to increase, once everybody has figured out that they have once again been had.

That brings me to the reasons provided both by the Honorable Tony Clement and the information found on Health Canada's website regarding the necessity for these bills. The examples given are of a batch of fluoridated toothpaste contaminated with some toxic chemical .

A simple, classic contamination event that was cleared up without difficulty under the existing law. Yet, the daily poisoning of people and the environment with fluoridation continues unchecked – despite the scientific evidence . There is nothing in C-52 that could even begin to deal with this problem, nor is fluoride listed among the substances to be banned – as it should, if science was heeded or, at the very least, the precautionary principle was applied.

Also mentioned were cases of alleged liver toxicity caused by a botanical remedy derived from black cohosh, and the contamination of some herbal product with the active ingredient in drugs that treat erectile dysfunction. Canadians are supposed to believe that this immense legislative exercise is justified and prompted by these tempests in a teapot. Given the ongoing disaster of hundreds of deaths per day from Health Canada-approved pharmaceutical drugs, and given the fact that almost every drug listed in the CPS has some level of liver toxicity associated with it, these examples are like having an emergency room full of people bleeding to death while the government attends to a nosebleed, as a doctor recently said at a rally in Toronto organized to protest C-51.

You may be interested to know that the information your Health Minister used to defend C-51 is problematic. He was apparently relying on reports now about 4 years old, still posted on Health Canada's website (the links provided for verification purposes are no longer accessible), and still not updated or substantiated. So, I went to the National Institutes of Health, whose entry on black cohosh was updated on January 16 of this year and therefore is somewhat definitive. It turns out, that the NIH is currently funding a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over study on this botanical for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Furthermore, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends it as helpful and safe in their most recent consensus opinion, cited by the NIH. It is so safe, that it is considered a food and unregulated in the US. The alleged liver damage occurred in people who were on all sorts of drugs, including teenagers experimenting with hard drugs at the time of sustaining liver damage; five died in Canada and one in Canada, but the information on the circumstances can no longer be accessed.

In light of this information, it will be difficult to convince menopausal female Canadians, who are well aware of the risk of cancer and heart attack from standard hormone replacement therapy with synthetic drugs, that C-51 is needed to protect us from black cohosh.

As for yohimbine, it has indeed many properties in common with the active ingredient of Viagra (sildenafil), but the fact is that it was first nature that created aphrodisiacs, then drug companies made the synthetic analogs. Consequently, it is not surprising that the more likely story behind this otherwise unimportant contamination event is a potentially embarrassing federal case brought by Strauss Herbal Co. against Health Canada.

As for the references to toxic heavy metals, the current Food and Drugs Act is perfectly able to handle those types of emergencies and has done so in the past; heavy metals are known to be toxic since before even that act was written and have been one of the reasons public health legislation began in the 19'th century.

Finally, the explanation given that we must protect people against contaminated foreign foods, from China for example, is really a good case of the mote in Chinese eyes and the beam making vision impossible in Canadian eyes: if the government was truly guided by published science of verifiable integrity, it would be our food supply that should be cleaned up from pesticides, genetic and prion contamination and the like, so we could sell it to Europe, where they don't want our food products; they have even defied World Trade Organization court rulings, when ordered to import Canadian foods because they know much of our food products carry the risk of cancer, the potential of Mad Cow Disease, and may increase antibiotic resistance.

Thus, neither the Health Canada website, nor the communications that have so far come from the Honorable Tony Clement, have given Canadians any reasonable justification as to why we need our Food and Drugs Act urgently modernized. In contrast to the non-information coming from the Health Canada website and the Honorable Tony Clement's pronouncements, one of your own caucus' MPs, Dr. James Lunney, whom you strongly and publicly supported in 2003 when he brought forward bill C-420 – a bill which was informed by a radically different spirit and completely unlike C-51 – made some real sense when he spoke in the House on June 9.

He read into the record the statement made by the members of the 39'th International Congress on Nutritional Medicine which was then winding up in Vancouver. It was a resounding critique of the intent and purpose of C-51, all of which still applies after the attempts at damage control by the Ministry of Health. It would so much more reassuring if bill C-420 were brought back to life and you, too, would return to the principles that you stated in your letter of support at that time.
This now defunct bill was one of the main reasons Canadians gave you a hesitant chance at running this country. Much of what you said before you were elected had the full support of the public; most of what you have done since, has not. Bill C-51 also shows a remarkable disregard for the independence of scientific inquiry.

Even clinical trials would be subject to the Minister's arbitrary powers, both in agriculture and medicine. Possibly this is the most appalling part of both bills: the cavalier readiness to manage even science as if it was a commodity. This lack of respect for the necessary independence of science is coupled with an equally cavalier attitude to the courts, as best illustrated in the Truehope case.

In December 2007, almost two years after you took office, Health Canada proceeded to raise accusations against Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd as if no court order had been given by Justice G. M. Maegher of the Alberta Provincial Court. The order required Health Canada to back off totally and for Truehope to continue its clinical trials involving the treatment of extreme bi-polar disorder in some 3,000 patients, and this order was given under the Criminal Code of Canada; Health Canada failed to appeal it because there were no grounds for appeal.

What should have happened, following the July 28, 2006, judgment, is that Health Canada should have immediately cleared the requisite natural health products used in this trial, especially in view of the fact that the astonishingly successful results of this trial had already been, and are continuing to be, reported in the leading mainstream psychiatric journals.

Your government may go down in medical history as having stood in the way of one of the greatest medical discoveries – how to treat successfully one of the most expensive and difficult mental health condition that affects about 18 million North Americans and costs $ 4 billion in direct medical costs annually.

The sense I get is that there is a misunderstanding with regard to what – for the want of a better term – one calls "job description". A Prime Minister is not a CEO. Members of Parliament are not shareholders. Citizens and the scientific enterprise are not stake-holders.

Canada is not a terrain for prospectors seeking a fortune. Most importantly, whatever happens in our national home is established by the courts, not by a Cabinet that misunderstands itself as being a board of directors. If Canadians agreed with such changes to the very essence of government, changes to the Constitutions will have to be made first – by public consultation.

Canada is first and foremost the home of some 30 million people who do not wish to be used as means towards ends that their elected government decides upon and then merely announce these decisions as Orders in Council in the Canada Gazette. It is not the job of government to redefine citizens into customers for enterprises chosen by government.

Some 97% of us do not want to eat genetically engineered food. The Royal College stated in 2004 that on no issue in the history of public polling has there been such overwhelming consensus as on the public's rejection of genetically engineered foods. Therefore, why does your government not immediately proceed to pass bill C-510 and C-448?

More than 70% of us prefer medical therapies that have been developed by mainstream medicine from substances that cannot be patented and which do not carry the demonstrated risk of organ and systemic injury or death. So, why does the government not implement the 53 Recommendations of its own Standing Committee on Health?

Some 83% of us do not want to have our regulatory systems harmonized with those of the US and Mexico (or any other country or regulatory agency such as Codex) as proposed by the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). By what legal right or mandate do you support the harmonization of health care and health regulation with other countries and large corporations?

Parliament makes laws, not corporations. We did not elect those corporations and we are not even partners in this Security and Prosperity Partnership; in fact, we are deliberately excluded.

Following the February 23, 2007, SPP meeting in Ottawa, one of its members, Ron Covais of Lockheed Martin (the world's largest weapons manufacturer whose products are hardly good for anybody's health) told a reporter: "The guidance from the [government's] ministers was: 'Tell us what we need to do and we will make it happen.'… [explaining that] rather than going through the legislative process in any country, the Security and Prosperity Partnership must be implemented in incremental changes by executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulators. 'We've decided not to recommend any things that require legislative changes, because we won't get anywhere.'"

I certainly hope they won't! Before corporations make our parliament buildings into a five-star hotel, the Charter will have to disappear, doctors have to be stopped from free and independent scientific inquiry, and some 30 million of us will have to become zombies through enforced intake of antidepressant drugs. I certainly don't think that will happen either.

Since bill C-51 does nothing for medicine and C-52 does nothing for the environment and neither protects us against known health hazards, it is difficult not to conclude that bills C-51 and C-52 are instruments for those "incremental changes" corporations want for their own purposes.

However, there is that major difficulty that stands in the way like a mountain: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the contract the people of Canada have with you. It spells out the terms of a civilized relationship.

Yours respectfully,

Helke Ferrie

KOS Publishing Inc.

Psychological warfare -- used on your doctor !!

Mercola.com

Psychological Warfare Techniques -- Used on Your Doctor

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/08/18/drug-company-reps-are-using-psychological-warfare-techniques-on-your-doctor.aspx

Pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world, according to an in-depth report co-written by former Eli Lilly drug rep Shahram Ahari, and Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor of physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C..

Pharmaceutical companies spend more than $15 billion each year promoting prescription drugs in the United States.

These campaigns are designed to effectively alter prescribing behavior, to sell more of the high-profit drugs (as opposed to the most effective, and least dangerous).

Update on Teen Screen

All of the documents filed in the TeenScreen lawsuit can be found here: 
<http://www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen_lawsuit.html> 
www.psychsearch.net/teenscreen_lawsuit.html 

The last entry is from Teresa Rhoades' attorney (plaintiff) asking for a 
trial by jury "to be held as soon as is expeditiously available on the 
Court's calendar" 

The Rutherford Institute filed the lawsuit in federal court in Indiana 
on behalf of the Rhoades' family whose 15-year-old daughter, Chelsea 
Rhoades, was subjected to a mental health screening examination at her 
school without her parents' knowledge or consent and then was diagnosed 
with two mental "disorders". Institute attorneys charge that school 
officials violated Michael and Teresa Rhoades' constitutional right, as 
parents, to control the care, custody and upbringing of their daughter 
when Chelsea was subjected to TeenScreen withouth their knowledge or 
consent. 

Rutherford Institute 
No Child Left Undrugged 
By John W. Whitehead 
6/9/2008 

According to autopsy reports, 4-year-old Rebecca Riley died from an 
overdose of psychiatric drugs. At age 2, Rebecca was diagnosed with 
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). At 3, she was diagnosed 
with bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression. By the time she 
died on Dec. 13, 2006, little Rebecca was taking Clonidine, as well as 
the anti-convulsant Depakote and the anti-psychotic Seroquel. 

John Whitehead 

What were some of the symptoms that prompted such treatment plans? As 
her mother described it, Rebecca was "constantly getting into things, 
running around, not being able to settle down." 

Rebecca's diagnosis was not a medical aberration. Her 10-year-old 
brother and 4-year-old sister were already being treated for manic 
depression. Indeed, nearly one million children are reportedly diagnosed 

as bipolar, making it more common than autism and diabetes combined. 

From 1994 to 2003, the number of children treated for bipolar disorder

increased 40 percent, a jump that many experts attribute to more doctors 

aggressively applying the diagnosis. 

An increasing number of medical officials are voicing the concern that 
children are being misdiagnosed. Dr. John McClellan, who runs a 
children's psychiatric hospital in the state of Washington, suggested 
that the bipolar diagnosis has become a catch-all for aggressive and 
troubled children. 

Likewise, child psychiatrist John Holttum believes that the definition 
of bipolar disorder is expanding. Whereas children who were seen as 
troubled or irritable 10 or 15 years ago might have been treated with 
counseling, parental training for their caregivers or other social 
interventions, children with similar symptoms today are being diagnosed 
as bipolar and treated with medication. Unfortunately, for many 
families, therapy is not even an option. According to Dr. Michael Brody, 
a child psychiatrist at the University of Maryland, since insurance 
companies often do not support therapy, most parents opt for medication. 

Not surprisingly, the pharmaceutical companies are reaping the rewards, 
aided by the medical community and the media. Bipolar disorder 
medication is typically three to five times more expensive than 
medications prescribed for other disorders, such as depression or 
anxiety. As the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., points out, "Furthering 
the trend is extensive marketing of atypical anti-psychotics by the 
companies that make them, and media coverage of bipolar disorder as a 
childhood disease." 

Yet many of the anti-psychotic drugs being prescribed for children have 
not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use on them. 
Of the two that have been approved for children, Risperdahl and Abilify, 
they've only been approved for short-term use. Nevertheless, as the News 
Tribune points out, because these drugs have been approved for adults, 
"doctors are free to prescribe drugs to anyone and in any way they see 
fit once they have been approved for some purpose." 

What this means is that in addition to being misdiagnosed, there is an 
increased likelihood that children are also being overdrugged. Concern 
about this scenario has prompted Dr. Jeffrey Thompson, chief medical 
officer for the Washington state Medicaid program, to provide more 
stringent guidelines to ensure that anti-psychotic drugs are prescribed 
to Medicaid children only when truly needed and at proper dosages. 

While Thompson's actions signal a move in the right direction, at least 
for minor-aged Medicaid recipients in his state, it will do little to 
help children in private care and in other states. 

When confronted with the numbers of children being diagnosed with 
bipolar disorder-about 800,000 in 2003, and likely much higher now-it is 
hard to know how to respond. Could that many young people truly be 
suffering from this disorder? It is tempting to lay the blame on an 
over-zealous medical community or a greedy pharmaceutical industry. 
There is no doubt that they have benefited financially from the sharp 
rise in bipolar cases among young people. 

Is it more a case of kids just being kids-noisy, rambunctious, 
hyperactive, disorderly? Or is there something else going on here? 
Curiously, one study released in 2007 indicated that among children 
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, two-thirds of them were boys. 

While there are undeniably cases where children are actually suffering 
and are helped by diagnosis and medication, I have to wonder about the 
majority. Little is said in the studies I have read about the impact 
that family life and the environment may have on the behavior of 
children diagnosed as bipolar, or even ADHD, yet they can't be ruled 
out. 

Society as a whole has become irresponsible in its duty to young people. 
Obsessed with materialism, we have handed over our young people to 
marketing mavens and corporations eager to make a quick buck. Distracted 
by entertainment, we have relinquished our children to television 
babysitters, allowing them to become turned on by and tuned into 
mindless television programs, video games and advertising that promote 
violence and premarital sex, among other unhealthy behaviors. Children 
need human touch and love. All too often, parents give them over to 
others for care. They also leave them floating in the non-real world of 
virtual reality. 

Thus, it is little wonder that so many children are out of control, 
disorderly and unable to settle down. But they shouldn't be victimized 
and punished for our neglect. Nor should they be drugged into 
compliance. Our children are screaming for help, but we're not listening 
to what they're saying. Instead, many parents are just hoping to shut 
them up-whether with drugs or entertainment-and get a little peace and 
quiet. But that's not the answer. 

A solution will not be found by passing another law. Rather, it must 
start at home and in the community. When the family breaks down, 
everything breaks down. We need to start by re-building families. 
Parents need to be parents and stop over-scheduling their children. They 
need to start spending time with them. 

Finally, parents need to say no to drugs for their children. They need 
to control what their children watch and listen to. And they need to 
take off the headphones, turn off the cell phones and try communicating 
with their children. 

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and 
president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book The Change Manifesto 
(Sourcebooks) will be out in August 2008. 

  _____  

27,270 Signatures Against TeenScreen. Petition: 
<http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html> 
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video: 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY> 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKBY

MORE on zyprexa ..

Antipsychotic Drugs Triple Risk of Death for

Dementia Patients
>
> By Elizabeth Lopatto
>
> May 26 (Bloomberg) -- People with dementia more than tripled their
risk of death or hospitalization within a month of taking antipsychotic drugs
to silence their agitation, according to a study.
>
> Those taking a class of antipsychotic drugs including generics
haloperidol and loxapine were 3.8 times more likely to be hospitalized or die,
> according to research published today in the Archives of Internal
> Medicine. People taking newer medicines including Eli Lilly & Co.'s
> Zyprexa and Johnson & Johnson's Risperdal had 3.2 times more risk of
> complications or death.
>
> Antipsychotic drugs, often prescribed as a short-term treatment for
> dementia's confusion and rages, have been associated with falls, hip
> fractures, strokes and death in other scientific studies. The new
research collects the potential for death and all other serious risks together
for the first time.
>
> ``You have to think very carefully before you start these
therapies,'' said lead author Paula Rochon, a senior scientist at the Institute
for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto. ``Is the risk worth the
potential > benefit? For many patients, there are probably other approaches you
could take that are equally effective and much safer.''
>
> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2005 required makers of all
five of the newer antipsychotic drugs to include a ``black box'' warning
of death risk in elderly dementia patients.
>
> Even Worse?
>
> The risk to people taking the drugs is probably even higher than the
study of 41,000 dementia patients aged 66 and older, the authors said. The
study followed participants for 30 days and didn't include people with
severe injuries who weren't hospitalized.
>
> Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia, according
to the National Institutes of Health. Other causes include stroke and brain
> tumors. Previous research has shown that Alzheimer's patients who are
given antipsychotics die six months earlier than patients who don't
take the drugs.
>
About 17 percent of dementia patients in nursing homes are prescribed
an antipsychotic drug within 100 days of their admission, the study
said.  Nursing home patients taking the medications were twice as likely to
die or be hospitalized as those not taking the medicine, the study said.

``These therapies can be useful,'' Rochon said. ``The problem is when
they're used outside of their indication.''

Teen screen update

Abilify, Geodon, Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa are the names of the
"atypical antipsychotics". They are newer, more expensive and just as
damaging as the older "antipsychotics" such as Thorazine and Haldol.

It is illegal for a drug company to promote a drug for uses not approved
by the FDA. Example. Promoting Antipsychotic Drugs for "ADHD" .

<http://tmap.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/otsuka-to-pay-fine-to-resolve-abil
ify-marketing-probe/>
http://tmap.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/otsuka-to-pay-fine-to-resolve-abili
fy-marketing-probe/

Otsuka to Pay Fine to Resolve Abilify Marketing Probe
Bloomberg News
By Robert Schmidt and Beth Jinks
March 27, 2008

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. agreed to pay $4 million to resolve U.S.
allegations it marketed the schizophrenia drug Abilify for off-label
uses in cahoots with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., which settled in
September.

The Justice Department accused New York-based Bristol-Myers and Otsuka
American Pharmaceutical Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of the closely held
Japanese drugmaker which invented Abilify, of promoting the
antipsychotic for use in children, and as a remedy for dementia, without
regulator approval.

Use in children wasn't approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
at the time, and the drug is required to carry the most severe safety
warning, a so-called black box, for use in dementia-related psychosis.

Abilify Booth at NAMI CONVENTION (National Alliance on Mental Illness),
San Diego, CA June 20 - June 24, 2007 (courtesy of
<http://www.namipharma.org/> www.namipharma.org)

In September, Bristol-Myers completed an agreement to pay $515 million
to settle U.S. allegations it overcharged the government for drugs and
promoted medicines including Abilify for unapproved uses. Bristol-Myers
directed its sales force to visit child psychiatrists and nursing homes,
the Justice Department said in September. Otsuka's sales force was "led
primarily by Bristol-Myers sales managers," the department said today.

Otsuka will pay the U.S. government about $2.3 million and the remainder
to states' Medicaid programs, the company said in a statement. It agreed
to a corporate integrity agreement, without specifying the length of the
compliance and monitoring pledged.

Bristol-Myers also agreed to a five-year corporate integrity agreement
that requires the company to maintain compliance programs to monitor
business practices. It avoided criminal charges.

The U.S. investigation of Bristol-Myers involved more than 50 medicines.
The company was accused of inflating prices used by the government to
set reimbursement rates for some drugs, and improper promotional
activities for others.

_____

26,359 Signatures Against TeenScreen:
<http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html>
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKB3Y>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfU9puZQKB3Y

If you would rather not receive the latest news via this e-mail line,
please send a message to
parents_against_teenscr...@earthlink.net with "UNSUBSCRIBE ME" in the
subject line

Clinical Psych takes a look at Zyprexa

Zyprexa and Key Opinion Leaders

Since the Zyprexa trial is ongoing in Alaska, I thought I should return to the wonderful world of Zyprexa. I encourage readers to follow the Zyprexa coverage at Furious Seasons, Pharmalot, and PharmaGossip. Today, I will discuss the link between key opinion leaders and the marketing of Zyprexa. To preface, a coveted Golden Goblet Nomination could be handed out to several individuals based on their involvement in Zyprexa marketing...

In March 2000, Zyprexa received FDA approval for treatment of manic episodes. One document laid out the multipronged marketing maneuvers that Lilly utilized to move Zyprexa shortly after its approval. Some of the details of this document have been well-covered in a terrific piece of investigative journalism at Furious Seasons. This post will provide some coverage of the link between Zyprexa and the key opinion leaders who helped popularize the drug across the nation.

Once approved for bipolar disorder, Lilly utilized several tactics to market Zyprexa for bipolar disorder, including a satellite conference beamed to about 6000 physicians, and 8000 treatment team members in 1000 facilities. The faculty providing this educational service included many of the big names in academic psychiatry, including Paul Keck, Jan Fawcett, Hagop Akiskal, and Alan Schatzberg.

Alan Schatzberg, you say? Yes, the same Alan Schatzberg who is set to become president of the American Psychiatric Association. Some have been less than pleased with his election as APA president, considering his background as a physician-marketer, a key opinion leader with large conflicts of interest. The same Alan Schatzberg who has been involved in marketing passing itself off as continuing medical education.

Lilly also bankrolled dinner meetings, anticipated to draw 150-400 physicians per sitting. Dr. Schatzberg was also listed as a speaker for such dinners. One mental health service provider was impressed enough with receiving such excellent medical education that you can find it on his CV.

In the document outlining Zypexa's big marketing launch, Paul Keck's name appears in the following contexts:

• Satellite symposium provider
• Trainer of "local speakers." I believe this means he would train local physicians in various markets to then discuss Zyprexa with their colleagues.
• Faculty for bipolar weekend symposia
• Faculty for audio conferences
  
• Faculty for a satellite CME workshop
• Faculty for "dissemination of Bipolar information to 30,000 customers"
• Faculty on a "closed symposium" resulting in a CME newsletter and a CME audiotape, both of which were mailed to 30,000 individuals
• Author of two journal supplement articles

Paul Keck was also a member of a task force chartered by the American Psychiatric Association that served to revise the organization's guidelines to provide a more favorable view of atypical antipsychotics (including Zyprexa) in the treatment of bipolar disorder. No conflict of interest there, eh?

Keck said in a 2002 interview that:

"Often," Keck said, "patients with bipolar disorder require complex treatment regimens to manage all phases of their illness, creating a compliance challenge for patients and a management challenge for clinicians. These studies suggest that physicians may be able to use olanzapine as a foundation to simplify patients’ treatment regimens, and the combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine could be an effective treatment choice

It is likely that Keck was not performing all of his "educational" functions for Lilly in exchange for lollipops. He was likely receiving a healthy dose of cold, hard cash. Yet in the article, nothing is written about his financial links to Lilly. Keck has also appeared in press releases saying nice things about Symbyax (fluoxetine/olanzapine combination).

To be fair, Keck has also stumped for Pfizer's Geodon in press releases. Oh, and he also said nice things about Abilify in a press release. I suppose that if one is going to be a true key opinion leader, a real mover and shaker, one should be prepared to say nice things about whatever new drug is released, since each new drug naturally represents an "important" treatment option. Keck, like Alan Schatzberg and Charles Nemeroff, is also currently listed as a member of the clinical advisory board for Neuroscience CME, a for-profit entity awash in drug industry money. Dr. Daniel Carlat has previously written that the "educational" content produced by this organization is biased, and I find that easy to believe. It's not hard to find examples of poorly done industry-funded CME. In fact, you might be interested in reading about a CME activity in which Nemeroff seems to have pulled data out of thin air.

In sum, the usual fun and games were in play when Zyprexa was initially being pushed for bipolar disorder. Some of the biggest names in psychiatry left their fingerprints all over the marketing of Zyprexa and one of these key opinion leaders recently won the presidential election for the American Psychiatric Association. I suppose, then, that American psychiatrists are generally either unaware of conflicts of interest or don't care about them.

The beautiful thing about being a key opinion leader is that one's name recognition is huge. Among psychiatrists, I bet that Schatzberg's name is better known than that of Bill Clinton, since Schatzberg's byline appears on journal supplements and CME so frequently. That can't hurt when running for president of the national professional organization. I will be very interested to see how Schatzberg handles questions about conflicts of interest and drug industry influence on his profession. Don't be expecting any major efforts at reform in the near future.

• Email to a friend • Article Search • Related • •

Another item in the coffin of Geodon ..

FDA accuses Pfizer of false advertising

Pfizer's ad for anti-psychotic drug misleading, omits health risk info, says FDA.

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer

August 14 2007: 3:07 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The FDA on Monday accused Pfizer of false advertising for its anti-schizophrenia drug Geodon.

The Food and Drug Administration, in a letter posted on its Web site, said that a Pfizer (down $0.33 to $23.56, Charts, Fortune 500) advertisement appearing in a medical journal "is false or misleading because it omits important risk information and contains unsubstantiated superiority claims."

There is no cure for psoriasis, but there are plenty of treatments for this chronic skin condition. CNN's Judy fortin reports. Play video

The FDA said that Pfizer omitted health risks that have been attributed to the injectable drug Geodon, including diabetes, high blood pressure and neurological disorders.

Yeah, right!! Department

also, Here comes the propoganda and spin Department

Some fools and poisoners just never quit ..

Eli Lilly seeking a better Zyprexa

In recent testing, new drug effective in treating schizophrenia -- without side effects

By John Russell

Eli Lilly and Co. is testing a new drug for schizophrenia that it says works quickly and safely without resulting in weight gain, a much-criticized side effect of its top-selling antipsychotic drug Zyprexa.

The Indianapolis drug maker recently tested the new drug on more than 100 schizophrenic patients for four weeks and found it was effective in treating hallucinations, delusions, social withdrawal and apathy, according to a paper published today in the journal Nature Medicine.

Patients who took the drug, LY2140023, showed no weight increase, nor did they exhibit adverse effects commonly associated with many schizophrenia medications, such as involuntary movements or muscle stiffness, the paper said.

Lilly said the new drug works in a completely different way than standard treatments. Most currently approved antipsychotic medications work by affecting the neurotransmitters dopamine or serotonin. The new drug is thought to work by affecting another neurotransmitter, glutamate.

Lilly said the new drug is still years away from clinical use for schizophrenia, a disease that affects about 3 million Americans.

The new drug could follow on the heels of Zyprexa, which belongs to a class of medicines commonly called atypical antipsychotics, which were first developed in the 1950s and introduced into clinical practice in the 1970s. For decades, these drugs have been considered the front-line treatment of schizophrenia.

"As good as the atypical antipsychotics are, we need more drugs and better drugs to treat this devastating illness," said Dr. Steven Paul, Lilly's executive vice president of science and technology.

Zyprexa, with sales last year of $4.36 billion, is Lilly's best-selling product by far, but it has also generated huge legal problems. Lilly has paid more than $1 billion to settle tens of thousands of patient lawsuits claiming the company failed to disclose that Zyprexa causes weight gain, diabetes complications and other health problems.

Several states are suing Lilly, claiming it marketed Zyprexa for off-label uses, including treatment of dementia, depression and autism, without warning about its risks.

Zyprexa loses patent protection in 2011, meaning other drug companies can begin selling a cheap, generic version of the drug. Since Zyprexa was launched in 1996, it has been prescribed to about 20 million people worldwide.

Psychotropic Drug Makers Bankroll

Prescribing Shrinks Part II

September 2, 2007. By Evelyn Pringle

digg

Washington, DC: Influence peddling in the field of psychiatry is out of control. An analysis of Minnesota disclosure records by the Pioneer Press and the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen shows that, between 2002 and 2006, 187 Minnesota doctors received payments from drug companies worth a grand total of $7.38 million.

No other field of medicine even comes close to that amount. The next highest specialty was neurology, with 99 doctors receiving $2.89 million, according to the analysis.

In psychiatry, drug makers underwrite decision makers at every level of care, according to a May 10, 2007, report by Gardiner Harris in the New York Times. "They pay doctors who prescribe and recommend drugs, teach about the underlying diseases, perform studies and write guidelines that other doctors often feel bound to follow," Mr Harris states.

He determined that, between 2000 and 2005, payments to Minnesota psychiatrists increased more than six-fold. The Times also analyzed Minnesota Medicaid records, and the report provides details on how the financial relationships between doctors and drug makers have played a major role in the growing use of atypical antipsychotics with children.
*snip*

Be sure to read the full article to see the trail of FRAUD investigations going on!! Just press the link on the subject line

VOICE OF AMERICA

Some Anti-psychotic Drugs Stimulate Appetite, Lead to Weight Gain

By Rose Hoban Chapel Hill, NC
20 February 2007
Hoban report -- Download (MP3) 826k
Hoban report -- Download (Real) 297k

Listen to Hoban report
About a decade ago, drug companies introduced new medications to treat serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and mania. The drugs, called atypical anti-psychotics, had fewer serious side effects than older medications, which caused lethargy and facial tics. But these new drugs tend to cause people taking them to gain
Dr. Solomon Snyderweight - an astronomical amount of weight, according to Solomon Snyder. "For instance, a 63-kilo patient can end up weighing 108 kilos after only a period of a few months on the drug," he says.
The neuroscience researcher from the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, wanted to find out why atypical anti-psychotics caused so much weight gain. So he exposed the brains of mice to the drugs and measured their effect on enzymes in a part of brain that controls appetite.
He ended up focusing on an enzyme called AMP kinase, which is known to regulate the desire for food. "We found that these drugs very potently stimulated this enzyme, which would explain why they cause an increase in appetite." Armed with this knowledge, Snyder explains, drug companies could work to alter the chemistry of atypical anti-psychotics so they don't have these effects on brain enzymes. He points to Zyprexa, the most effective and most widely used drug in this class. "Were this drug being developed today, it would be very easy for the drug company to custom design the drug."
Atypical anti-psychotics are widely used throughout the United States, Europe and Japan. Snyder's research is being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.