The Depressing Side of Medical Science

[Guest guest]

The Depressing Side of Medical Science

 

Anti-depressants are among the most

profitable drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. In 2005, the

last

year for which there are full data, 170 million prescriptions for

antidepressants were filled in the USA [1].

 

In *Let Them Eat Prozac*, David Healy, professor of psychiatry at

Cardiff

University and an acknowledged expert in psychopharmacology, shows how

the

efficacy of the drugs has been very much exaggerated and their dangers

very

much played down. He also describes the lengths to which the industry

has

gone to promote the widespread prescription of anti-depressants and to

avoid responsibility for their side effects.

 

You may have heard of Healy because of what happened in 2000 [2]. He had

been appointed as a professor of psychiatry at the University of

Toronto,

but just before he was to take up the post, he gave a lecture in which

he

discussed some concerns about anti-depressants and pointed out that

there had been no research into how to minimise the risks. The

University withdrew its offer, and while it has consistently denied this

was due to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, it is hard to

imagine any other reason.

 

Healy sued the University for breach of contract, libel, and breach of

academic freedom. In the end a mediated settlement was reached and the

University repaired the libel by appointing him a visiting professor

[3].

 

That was not, however, his first clash with the pharmaceutical industry.

The

book begins with a brief history of the development of selective

serotonin

reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), including what was for me the surprising

fact

that depression has only been a major recognised condition since

antidepressants were developed. Before that, only about one person in

ten

thousand was thought to suffer from what was then called melancholia;

now it

is one in ten. Presumably because of this, the discovery of

antidepressants

was not considered at the time to be a great breakthrough. It was also

recognised right from the beginning that antidepressants might lead to

suicide. That was not a reason for not developing them, and it does not

mean

that psychiatrists should never prescribe them, but it's something that

both

researchers and clinicians should keep in mind far more than they have

done.

 

The road to scepticism

 

Healy describes how he gradually became more and more concerned both

with

the evidence that antidepressants are less effective and more hazardous

than

was generally recognised and also with the attitude of the industry,

which

singularly failed to deal with his concerns, and was consistently either

ignoring evidence or interpreting it in a way that put the drugs in the

best

possible light. For example, they would draw attention to a result that

showed one drug was more effective than a competitor without mentioning

that

neither was better than a placebo.

Healy describes cases in which he was called in as an expert witness and

found himself observing, and experiencing, the great pressure that the

drug companies are willing to deploy to defend their profits. These are

fascinating stories and I would have enjoyed them if they had been

episodes

in a novel by John le Carré rather than about real life.

 

Control of the scientific media and suppression of data

 

As the title implies, this is essentially a book about anti-depressants

and

especially about Lilley's Prozac. Healy points out, however, that much

of

what he describes is not confined to psychiatry. He describes how

control of

the scientific media makes it possible for companies to build up a

bandwagon

in one area while others remain neglected. In the 1960s, for example,

there were two competing views on the most important factors in

preventing heart

attacks. One was that blood lipid levels were the key, and this has led

to

the development of highly profitable drugs for reducing them. The other

hypothesis, that high levels of homocysteine (an amino acid in the

blood) were important, was largely neglected until quite recently. The

homocysteine hypothesis has the advantage (or the disadvantage, if you

are a pharmaceutical company) that it suggests a range of dietary

treatments

rather than a drug [4].

 

An important part of the process is ghost writing. Many papers in

scientific

journals are written not by the authors whose names appear on them but

by

employees of medical information companies. This is not just a matter of

an

editor putting a busy researcher's notes into publishable form: the

initiative is often taken by the ghost writer with the scientists only

seeing the paper at a late stage. The role of these companies is clear

from a description that used to appear on the website of a New York

based firm, Current Medical Directions: " to deliver scientifically

accurate information strategically developed for specific target

audiences. " [5].

 

Read more:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TDSOM.php

[Guest guest]

Another serious side effect that is not even mentioned is the high risk of diabetes. Go to seroquel-lawyers.com (I think) but you can do a search and find it. No one even mentions the risk and they don't take it seriously unless it causes pancreatisis, or some other nasty effect. Janna

-------------- Original message from robert-blau: --------------

 

The Depressing Side of Medical ScienceAnti-depressants are among the mostprofitable drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry. In the 1960s, for example,there were two competing views on the most important factors inpreventing heartattacks. One was that blood lipid levels were the key, and this has ledtothe development of highly profitable drugs for reducing them. The otherhypothesis, that high levels of homocysteine (an amino acid in theblood) were important, was largely neglected until quite recently. Thehomocysteine hypothesis has the advantage (or the disadvantage, if youare a pharmaceutical company) that it suggests a range of dietarytreatmentsrather than a drug [4].http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TDSOM.php