Thursday, March 26, 2009
“The residents learned from his unrelentingly strong opinions. Dr. Biederman would scold us if we were not aggressive in our treatment of children. He would question our hesitance. Dr Biederman would ask why we would want to wait until the child grew sicker before treating him adequately? Why not treat now?”
” if we talked about the patient's psychotherapy for a diagnosis where there was not data -- he would refer to the therapy as "tushy massage." --.
Unfortunately these key opinion leaders and so called doctors will not listen to reason; due to the god complex indoctrination of those like MGH’s and Harvard’s Biederman pushing for the aggressive treatment/destruction of children for many generations to come in the name of his reputation, self proclaimed God like professor status, research, and science.
Now I know what the true axis of evil really means; and it’s right in our backyard local doctor’s office. Yes, that is what the Biederman’s of this world do; they are the industry spokespersons, Key opinion leaders in child Psychiatry, and have influenced medicine all the way into the family doctors office and beyond.
Whatever happened to first do no harm?
I encourage everyone to read to this eye opening article at - ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Antipsychotics Harm Children - European College of Neuropsychopharmacology
This is beyond disturbing when you look at the side effect profile for children that have been given anti-psychotic drugs.
Seeing as there is undoubtedly questionable diagnostic criteria in even plopping a mental health label on an innocent developing child; are these risks “listed below” worth taking as a society, and are these risks we are willing to tolerate from the professional medical community and completely inept FDA.
I say we are doing the most valuable resource we have in this world "OUR CHILDREN", a grave injustice with questionable science and medicine.
From: ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
"Adding fuel to the combustible pyre of evidence against use of neuroleptics and antipsychotics for children is a recent risk/benefit analysis by the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Antipsychotics--> Metabolic- Hormonal Abnormalities:
"there is increasing concern about second-generation antipsychotics having metabolic side effects such as weight gain, hyperglycaemia, and dyslipidemia in the pediatric population (Correll, 2008). In the first study directly comparing weight gain and other metabolic and hormonal risk factors after treatment with 3 different new-generation antipsychotics in children and adolescents (mean age 15.2 years), it was shown that, after 6 months, body mass index scores and total cholesterol levels increased significantly, with 33 patients (50.0%) with no previous antipsychotic exposure showing significant weight gain (Fraguas et al., in press). The number of patients at risk for adverse health outcomes increased from 11 (16.7%) to 25 (37.9%).""A further concern with antipsychotic treatment in pediatric populations is the hyperprolactinemia caused by many of these antipsychotics and its long-term consequences (osteoporosis, infertility). In our cross-sectional study with 66 children, hyperprolactinemia was present in 78.6% and 48.5% in the short-term and longer-term treatment groups, respectively."
Antipsychotics --> Abnormal Involuntary Movements:
After 1 month of exposure to a second generation antipsychotic, 22% of children exhibited abnormal involuntary movements. After 1 year of exposure 38% of children suffered from abnormal involuntary movements.
Antipsychotics -->Cardiovascular harm:
Antipsychotic medications are among the most relevant identified risk factors associated with significant prolongation of the QTC interval (prolongation of the interval, as determined by electrocardiograms, can cause arrhythmias)The European College of Neuropsychopharmacology--in sharp contrast to its American counterpart (the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, ACNP)--recognizes the physician's responsibility toward the patient--which requires weighing the magnitude of adverse effects of these drugs and their impact on the overall well-being of the patient."* we need controlled studies that not only assess efficacy, but also take into account the impact of the disease and that of the medications prescribed for the disease, on individual well-being, social, educational and/or vocational functioning, and disease burden in order to make reasonable risk/benefit ratios."
This is a far cry from industry-influenced US prescribing guidelines followed by American psychiatry: TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) CMAP (Children's Medication Algorithm Project) TRAYY (Treatment Recommendations for the use of Antipsychotics for Aggressive Youth)"
My personal comment on this article:
OK, I have a little problem here with increased controlled studies of these drugs in children. We have already shown that there is significant risk to a child’s health when given these powerful anti-psychotic medications.
I would say why in the heck anyone would want to risk a child's health and mind, as in using them as Ginny pigs or Lab rats; when we already know there is major health risk not worth the benefit in this treatment modality.
Call me crazy here, but this just does not make practical or logical sense.
I don't have to test a loaded gun placed to the side of your head, to figure out that the results might be a tad bit undesirable when I pull the trigger.
As always, your comments are welcome
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
I write this Post as a critic of modern Psychiatry.
Sometimes you need to know who is really on your side, who is the enemy, and who is not. As it’s been said; there will be many false Prophets that will sound really authentic on the surface; but when you look a little deeper the truth shall been known and set you free.
So this post in outing Dr. Carlat as being part of the problem and not the solution.
The Carlat Psychiatry Blog
I encourage you to go read his blog, this article, the comment section, and then go over to Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer and read his fine blog and the comment section there. I will let you judge on your own who is on your side in psychiatry today!
As I've written on this blog before, Dr. Joseph Biederman is an outstanding scientist but is also the prototypical MGH/Harvard narcissist. I speak from experience, having attended the MGH psychiatry residency from 1992-1995. We all joked about our arrogance and hubris and narcissism. It was almost a badge of honor. When you are at the top-ranked psychiatry department in the nation (as MGH has been every single year from 1995 to 2008, according to U.S. News and World Report) you are entitled to an extra heaping of, umm, positive self-regard, shall we say.
Call him the King of Cringe. Disagree with his opinions about the prevalence of pediatric bipolar disorder. Call him greedy, even. But scientifically, I continue to respect him and I believe that he ultimately has the best interests of his patients at heart.”
My comments there:
Dear Daniel Carlat, M.D.:
My second comment:
Joseph Biederman deposition.
Comment from Stephany said...
Second comment from Stephany said...
Disclaimer: I am not a Scientologist, and feel an argument dismissing people with questions regarding ethics and integrity of science, and outcome for drug approval a result--- makes a person appear arrogant and not willing to change or see things except from own perspective, why not be open-minded and keep the conversation flowing for all parties to gain from?)
Then finally the comment I left on Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look in comment section in regards to TF’s comment about psychiatry, and Dr. Carlat’s apologist stand toward Biederman.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Seroquel, Haldol, and The Full Court Media Press
As always your comments are welcome
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
When will the madness of psychiatry STOP?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
6. Cartoon Bond Macfadden
I know there are many out there looking for a picture of Wayne and his Love Monkey's!
So maybe they will find the answer here?
Please make your best guess and comment!
SEX, Drugs, Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage – but let’s not forget where you find the prior – there is always politics just a putrid sniff away
This information barely touches the surface of how much influence Pharmaceutical Lobbyist and like interest have in our democratic process.
You always have to wonder who congress is really looking out for. Is it the people they represent as a governmental body, or is it the corporations that fund their election and reelection campaigns?
"AstraZeneca spent just under $2.4 million in lobbying expenses over the 12-month period ending July 1 on issues including the reverse payment bill."
"With Democrats in charge of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, this really ought to be a no-brainer: Should GlaxoSmithKline put a Democrat or a Republican in charge of its Washington lobbying shop? But, as obvious as the answer may be, the drug maker is wrestling with the choice — and it sheds light on what seems to be an industry-wide partisan disconnect. The in-house lobbying shops of at least eight of the nation’s largest drug companies are still run by Republicans, even as the industry’s major trade association, PhRMA, is desperately trying to cozy up to Democrats who now control both the Congress and the White House. It’s a point that has not been lost on Democrats on Capitol Hill. “They’re dealing with us the same way they dealt with us when we were in the minority, and we’re not,” said a Democratic House health staffer. “We literally don’t know where all the different companies stand on anything, so we just don’t care.” Beyond Glaxo, health policy insiders cite as another example of the industry’s blind spot Abbott Laboratories’ decision to hire a Republican to help lead the lobbying shop instead of promoting a well-respected Democrat. An Abbott spokeswoman declined comment. Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Genzyme and AstraZeneca also have Republicans heading their Washington lobbying shops, according to industry insiders.
See also Second stimulus? Never heard of it! Obama tiptoes into battle on earmarks Some women wanted more from W.H.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” a Democratic Senate health care aide said. “At the end of the day it hurts them, not us.” "
Lobbyists working for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals:
Lobbying Firm Hired
Subsidiary (Lobbied For)
Buckley, Richard E
Levinson, Kenneth I
Mott, Amanda Grashof
Olson, Richard Wayne
Rossin, Bradley Allen
Bryan Cave Strategies
Gould, James C
Henry, Denise M
Raffaelli, John D
Foley Hoag LLP
Guida Consulting Services
Guida, Alfonso V Jr
Johnson, Madigan et al
Murphy, Sheila J
Peck, Jeffrey J
Richardson, Sean J
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc
Brown, Jamie E
Finley Pickering, Elise
Mehlman, Bruce P
Thomas, David R
Stuntz, Davis & Staffier
Davis, Randall E
Tarplin, Downs & Young
Downs, Raissa H
Easton, Michelle P
Fordjour, Isaac A
Tarplin, Linda E
Young, Jennfier B
Williams & Jensen
Hart, Jack Steven
Olsen, George G
"The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation received $285,000 from Coca-Cola, $270,000 from the drug manufacturer AstraZeneca and $155,122 from Anheuser-Busch. In total, the Congressional Black Caucus and affiliated organizations got more than $1.5 million from companies.
AstraZeneca, which makes drugs like Crestor for high cholesterol and Nexium for heartburn, was also a top contributor to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, with a gift of $115,000.
Tony Jewell, a spokesman for AstraZeneca, said the contributions were a way of “building relationships and supporting worthwhile causes,” including efforts to improve the health of minorities and increase their participation in clinical trials."
"AstraZeneca fit that description, federal prosecutors say.
From 1993 to 1996, the London pharmaceutical company sent thousands of free samples of the prostate cancer drug Zolodex to doctors, knowing they would then fraudulently bill Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs.
The company provided doctors free trips, educational grants and business assistance, according to the Justice Department, all to entice them to sell AstraZeneca's drugs, not their competitors'.
The company pleaded guilty in 2003 to a felony charge of health care fraud and agreed to pay $355 million in criminal and civil penalties.
That year, McCollum was hired by AstraZeneca as a Washington lobbyist.
Campbell making issue of situation
McCollum arranged a meeting between AstraZeneca and U.S. Rep. Mike Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, related to legislation affecting an oral cancer drug AstraZeneca was hoping to sell, McCollum said Thursday.
That was the extent of the relationship, said McCollum. He lobbied for the company for less than a year, according to required federal filings, and his firm, Baker & Hostetler, was paid $60,000 for the work."
Now! Who do you trust?
CAPTION - " OH Wayne! That's a nice ass! I have a nice ass too! Michelle is so sorry she was Bad, and said Abilify is better than Seroquel. Please forgive me, hand me some more Vicodon, and spank my hairy ass harder"
Sex, Drugs, and Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage - FDA approves Abilify for Children, Seroquel and Seroquel XR seeking approval from FDA for Depression, Anxiety, and who knows what else? Maybe bed wetting next?
WHO DO YOU TRUST?
Thank you Steph and Fid
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Psychiatry's and Pharma's theme song, creed, and motto:
Friday, March 13, 2009
Should Government Be Forcing Psychiatry
This is just a small sample of how your government can slice away your freedom and choice without you even having a say! This again is old footage; Yet since this time a host of states have gone into the Psychiatry Business with examples from Texas - TMAP, California - CMAP and this list of States just goes on and on.
Maybe you have not realized that with a simple standardized test which takes five minutes or less to complete, the government and courts could force you to medicate your child's mind! If you don't believe me; then maybe it's time you did your homework.
The huge lobby in Washington D.C. by the Pharmaceutical and Health Care industries want you! They want your mind, they want your money, and they want your child.
So this is what they mean by "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND"
If you think President Bush 2 was Bad, Watch what President Obama is doing and tell me if it's going to get better or worse?
This is pretty old footage; and yet what has happened since this experiment is more than mind boggling and twisted. Since the introduction of countless mind bending drugs by the Grand Pimp's at Big Pharmaceutical; Psychiatry and the medical community as a whole have just continued the horrible deception and out right lies to the tune of untold innocent lives completely ruined, and trillions of dollars in the bank based on what science? There is none really! Just lots of propaganda and a vulnerable population to abuse for the sake of pure evil intent, social status, unbridled abusive power used against humanity itself, and the worst kind of greed possible.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP BEING THEIR PATSY?
- ► 2011 (13)
- ► 2010 (113)
- Anti Psychotics Harm Children
- DR.CARLAT AN APOLOGIST FOR BIEDERMAN
- Ray Sandford - Forced ECT
- Will The Real Wayne Macfadden Please Stand Up
- SEX, Drugs, Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage – b...
- Sex, Drugs and Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage
- To The Psychiatric Industry
- Should Government Be Forcing Psychiatry
- Psychiatry Goes Thud
- ▼ March (9)
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
Terms and conditions on the use of the contents of the “Is Something Not Quite Right with Stan - A Mental Health Blog” site are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Stan does not represent or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of the information or content (collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from this website.
Stan encourages you to make your own health care and legal decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care and/ or legal professional. The information posted here should not be considered medical advice and is not intended to replace consultation with a qualified medical professional if they exist. I do not answer specific medical questions.
Third party information is gathered from sources that Stan believes to be reliable. However, in no event shall Stan, or any third parties mentioned on this site be liable for any damages resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the content whether or not Stan is advised of the possibility of such damages.
Stan reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the displayed materials.
You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any Materials shall be at your sole risk.
Disclaimer of Liability
The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this web site and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this web site, or shall the website writer or any commenter’s be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the web site and/or any other web sites which are linked to this site.
Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a visitor on any information obtained via the web site; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.
ALL CONTENT ON THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Stan MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENCY, OR RELIABILITY OF ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.
In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.
Disclaimer of Endorsement - Reference to any products, services, hypertext link to the third parties or other information by trade name, trademark, supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation by me. Nor is an endorsement by me is implied by such links. They are for convenience only, as an index in a public library.
Information Subject to Change - Any information on this web site may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, the information may change from time to time without any notice.
GENERAL INFORMATION - The information contained in this online site is presented and intended to provide a broad understanding and knowledge critical to psychiatric practices and humorous social interaction. The information should not be considered complete and should not be used in place of communication and consultation.
NO WARRANTIES “Is Something Not Quite Right With Stan - A Mental Health Blog” MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES THAT USE OF THE WEB SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ANY CONTENT YOU MAY OBTAIN FROM THE WEB SITE IS FREE OF VIRUSES.
This site is not a monologue of truth. It is a catalyst for public debate about medical conduct and for entertainment purposes. The reader is urged to confront officials to clarify issues mentioned herein. This site is designed strictly to provide information for critical, literary, academic, entertainment, and public usage. A qualified and trustworthy medical professional must be consulted regarding medical issues, treatments, diagnoses, etc.; if they exist in all actuality or truth.