Tots Used as Human Guinea Pigs? - Please post your comments

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Sun, 14 May 2006 19:07:57 -0400

[sSRI-Research] ABC News Home: Tots Used as Human Guinea

Pigs? - Please post your comments

 

 

 

 

 

ABC News Home

 

Tots Used as Human Guinea Pigs?

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/tots_used_as_hu.html

 

May 12, 2006 10:56 AM

 

Joseph Rhee Reports:

 

ABC News has learned that a Massachusetts hospital is currently recruiting

pre-schoolers to test the safety and effectiveness of a powerful

antipsychotic drug called Quetiapine.

 

The study, conducted by the Department of Pediatric Psychopharmacology at

Massachusetts General Hospital, is testing subjects from four to six years

of age with Bipolar Disorder. An earlier Massachusetts General study

of the

antipsychotic drugs Risperidone and Olanzapine recruited children as young

as three years old.

 

These antipsychotic drugs are only approved for use by adults and are so

toxic they carry a " black box warning. " The drugs have been found to cause

diabetes; a life-threatening nervous system problem called Neuroleptic

Malignant Syndrome; low blood pressure; and have also led to higher death

rates in the elderly. Despite these serious potential side-effects, a

patient recruitment video obtained by ABC News contains no mention of

any of

these risks.

 

Vera Hassner Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection said,

" Antipsychotics were never approved for use in children whose developing

brains and central nervous system may be irreversibly harmed. We believe

that physicians who subject children to the toxic effects of these

drugs...are practicing outside medically accepted standards. "

 

A previous clinical trial of Olanzapine was conducted by UCLA in 1998 on

five children, aged 6 to 11. The authors of the study said treatment was

discontinued within the first six weeks " because of adverse effects or

lack

of clinically significant therapeutic response. "

Sharav also said it's questionable whether or not three or four year-olds

can be accurately diagnosed for Bipolar Disorder. According to a 1999

Surgeon General report, " The signs and symptoms of mental disorders are

often also the characteristics of normal development. " The National

Institute for Mental Health has concluded that " diagnostic

uncertainty...surrounds most manifestations of psychopathology at such an

early age. "

 

Neither the hospital nor the lead investigator for the trials, Dr. Joseph

Biederman, responded to our requests for a comment on the trials.

Click here for information on the Massachusetts General clinical trial.

 

Click for FDA Information Sheet on antipsychotic drugs.

 

May 12, 2006 | Permalink

 

User Comments

 

This research is totally un ethical and is opening up themselves for

future

lawsuits. These people may be irreparably harmed. Their parents may give

concent but when these children reach the age of majority they can sue

because they never had a chance to say what they wanted. Where is the AMA

ethics committee?

Our congresmen worry about the rights of a woman wanting her husbands

money

even though there was a will indicating her rights. Our congressmen worry

about baseball players using drugs. Where are our congressmen now??

Posted by: Jeanne | May 12, 2006 12:10:55 PM

 

This is obsurd where are the law enforcement officals. Any parent who

would

FORCE there CHILD to participate is failing there duty to protect

them. Booh

to the rich drug company.

Posted by: David, Missouri | May 12, 2006 12:15:19 PM

 

I think this is a terrible practice. However, I blame the parents who are

the ones signing consent forms for this study. Under no circumstances

should

you let your kids be guinnea pigs for any experiment. As partents, we are

suppose to protect them no matter what their mental state.

I think the only time you should experiment on a child is when you have

exhausted all other treatments. Otherwise, stick to the basics.

Posted by: Lavenia | May 12, 2006 12:29:15 PM

 

I am astonished that they are not warning the parents of those children. I

will be even more astonished if any parents actually offer up their

beloved

children as sacrificial lambs for the sake of testing a drug that 3 and 4

year olds will never need.

Posted by: Lydia | May 12, 2006 12:43:17 PM

 

Before one pill is administered in this testing program the would the

doctors and yourself sign a $1,000,000 bond against any adverse effects?

Posted by: James R. Taylor | May 12, 2006 12:56:32 PM

 

This study being conducted on toddlers is unheard of. These children

are too

young to be diagnosed with being bipolar and using these children for the

sake of a study on a drug that specifically states its negative effects is

unethical. I wonder if these researchers conducting the study are educated

in the APA policy on ethical policies and practices.

Posted by: Mary | May 12, 2006 1:21:28 PM

 

I think part of the question is:

How did this proposal pass for NIH approval?

Posted by: Shailesh | May 12, 2006 1:37:10 PM

 

Since when are children of these ages diagnosed with Bipolar disorder? The

administration of this drug to children of these ages is totally

inappropriate.

Posted by: Shannon | May 12, 2006 2:02:12 PM

 

Did you consult with the Institutional Review Board at Mass General before

writing this story? Any research involving human subjects must, by law,

undergo extensive certification and approval by the Institutional Review

Board of the host institution. I find it very difficult to believe

that such

a study would be underway without close scrutiny and careful consideration

of costs and benefits. Further information in this report would enable

realistic conclusions about the ethical validity or lack thereof of this

study.

Let us not jump to conclusions without complete information, however

heinous

the supposed behavior.

Posted by: Kristina | May 12, 2006 2:16:36 PM

 

" First do no harm. " This is the hypocratic oath that the physician takes

when graduating from medical school. I do understand and appreciate

the need

for research; however, to conduct such research on young,

vulnerable,developing brains; I feel that this is treading in dangerous

territories. Seroquel is one of the newer anti-psychotic drugs, this drug

has a very powerful effect on adults. I cannot begin to imagine what it is

going to do to the minds of young children that are going into this study

with a previously documented mental illness.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 12, 2006 2:17:46 PM

 

Would these soulless psycho's test the drug on themselves or their

family???

Posted by: Voice of Reason | May 12, 2006 2:55:11 PM

 

Parents who subject their children to this testing should be turned into

child protective services!

Posted by: alison | May 12, 2006 2:59:12 PM

 

Wouldn't the FDA need to be contacted before this trial could begin due to

the risks of the drug and the lack of evidence that the children would

benefit? There is a risk/benefit ratio that should be maintained for all

studies, especially those involving children. Also, if an Institutional

Review Board (IRB) approved this study without first consulting the

FDA, an

in-depth review of the IRB should take place.

Posted by: christine | May 12, 2006 3:29:48 PM

 

So, what then do you all propose should happen to the hundreds of children

already on other anti-psychotics that have the exact same risk profile?

Secondly, when did spelling become a lost art?

Posted by: Andy | May 12, 2006 4:16:04 PM

 

The government is behind this one for sure.. No hospital in the united

states is going to get away with something like this unless big brother

stands to make alot of money from it.. Also I would like to see which

children are being targeted.. is it the children with health insurance or

the ones on assistance? This seems like a much bigger problem then what is

being talked about. The parents are not to blame.. unless they are drug

addicts or alcoholics looking for some cash.. Maybe the state should

require

a physical and mental screening of the immediate family members before

anyone can be used as a test subject.. the kids may be showing signs of

mental illness.. but maybe its a symptom of the parents illness.

Posted by: Katherine | May 12, 2006 4:33:21 PM

 

you didn't say that testing was actually being done.

Posted by: skidog | May 12, 2006 4:59:22 PM

 

Had you done just a little more research, you'd find that these

medications

are commonly prescribed to children with severe mental illness,

despite the

fact thorough clincial trials have not been completed. I think Biedermans'

lab is attempting to evaluate such practice in a very controlled

manner, so

that we can have more reliable information on the efficacy of such

practice.

i've no doubt that all parents are presented with a full explanation of

potential risks via an informed consent process prior to entering their

children in to the study. you site one study on 5 kids, on a different

drug,

with a different population as evidence for your point of view. that's a

very inadequate argument. this is irresponisible journalism, and you're

misleading the public.

Posted by: cindy | May 12, 2006 5:07:19 PM

 

Unfortunatley, most people have no idea what it's like to be that

parent of

a young child with a mood disorder. Putting a child on an anti-psychotic

drug is done as a last resort when all else fails.

Most parents struggle with this decision and don't take it likely..

Posted by: Rosa | May 12, 2006 5:26:13 PM

 

It would be interesting to see a copy of the parental consent forms

for this

study. I'll bet anything it omits specific adverse affects, while having a

generalized " blanket " statement which absolves Massachusetts General

Hospital of any responsibility for harming these children. And where

is the

Ethics Review Board in this case? How much will the study profit at the

expense of these innocent children?Absolutely sickening! Studies like this

need to be criminalized.

Posted by: Mary | May 12, 2006 11:37:06 PM

 

I agree with the comments above from Cindy, Kristina, and Rosa. You've

written a sensationalized report, which fails to acknowledge the process

involved in setting up clinical trials, the recognized protocol of using

antipsychotics in children with certain severe behavioral disorders,

and the

reality faced by parents who have exhausted all other therapies.

Mass. General is an excellent hospital. Its IRB is interdisciplinary,

including hospital administrators, physicians from various specialties,

nurses, psychologists, social workers, chaplains, and legal staff. Ethics

are paramount in making decisions about trials using human subjects. All

clinical trials must be approved by the NIH, as this one was. You did,

after

all, link to the NIH page describing it.

Despite Ms. Sharav's implication to the contrary, Dr. Biederman is not a

rogue, Mengele-like figure performing horrific experiments on " tots " . His

clinical trials have been thoroughly vetted by one of the best

hospitals in

the world and by the NIH, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria are

stringent.

Further, Ms. Sharav is flat-out wrong in stating that the use of

antipsychotics in children is " outside medically accepted standards " .

On the

NIH page at your link, one of the criteria for exclusion from the clinical

trials is, " A non-responder or a history of intolerance to an adequate

trial

of Quetiapine (2 months or more at an adequate dose) as determined by the

clinician. " Clearly, Dr. Biederman is not the first to use Quetiapine in

children. His clinical trials are designed to collect adequate data to

make

its use safer.

You've worded your article so it sounds as if the so-called " recruitment

video " is distributed to the general public, luring hapless parents whose

children's mood swings fall within the parameters of normal

development, and

that the video constitutes the full extent of information provided to

them.

If you believe that parents can blunder into these trials without adequate

information, read the inclusion criteria more carefully.

Any child diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder is already in the system, has an

IEP and a team of doctors and therapists. No decision to participate

in the

clinical trials for Quetiapine would be made without the consensus of the

team and before all other therapies were exhausted.

I have friends whose ten-year-old son, R, has Fragile X Syndrome, Autism,

and Bipolar Disorder. The additional diagnosis of BPD at age six was based

on a family history and cyclical swings between manic and depressive

states,

rather than as responses to environmental stimuli. He has always been far

larger and stronger than other children his age. At age four, he

outweighed

his eight-year-old sister by 35 pounds, and in one of his rages, he nearly

killed her by pinning her to a sidewalk and slamming her head against the

cement before their mother could pull him off. The family regularly had

bruises, deep bites, and even fractures from trying to restrain R.

Years of multiple therapies and medications in accordance with his IEP

failed to diminish his aggression. As a last resort, he was prescribed

Seroquel (Quetiapine), which is in fact a recognized protocol for treating

aggression in children with Fragile X Syndrome:

His aggression is now under control. As you'll read at the page above,

however, it's precisely the kind of research being conducted by Dr.

Biederman which is needed to determine its safety and efficacy over time.

Parents whose children are as profoundly disabled as R have nothing to

lose

by placing them in these clinical trials, and much to gain for their own

children and others in similar situations. Thirty years ago, these

children

would have been warehoused in state institutions, where they'd have been

subjected to far larger, unmonitored doses of antipsychotics, and probably

kept in restraints for most of their (shortened) lives. IEPs now give

parents the tools and support needed to care for their children at

home, but

additional resources are needed to make a semblance of normal life

possible

for these families. At some point, that goal necessarily involves clinical

trials with human subjects.

If I were in Mass. General's and Dr. Biederman's position, I too would

have

refused to dignify the sensationalism of a report with the title,

" Tots Used

as Human Guinea Pigs? " -- especially one fueled by Ms. Sharav, who has a

fondness for Nazi comparisons. Her statement on her website is rife with

them.

I suggest that you ask Dr. Tim Johnson to do a follow-up report, giving

objective and accurate information. Since he's from the Boston area, he is

no doubt familiar with Mass. General's record of ethical clinical

trials. He

might even get a response to a request for comment.

Posted by: Anna | May 13, 2006 6:32:44 AM

 

This is irresponsible journalism. I am appalled that it is coming from

ABC a

prestigious news channel. I suggest ABC should immediately acknowledge

that

this report is incomplete and irresponsible in World News and Good Morning

America. ABC should ask Dr. Tim Johnson to get all the information and

report it within a week out of respect for the parents, Dr. Joseph

Biederman, the Hospital and the public. This is the only responsible

action.

This is not respectful journalism. This is worse than tabloid. I wonder if

Journalist take the oath to be responsible, honest, respectful and

thorough!

Posted by: June | May 13, 2006 6:19:15 PM

 

It is completely unethical to inflict psychiatric drugs on small children.

I maintain that if psychiatry ceased to be recognised as a valid branch of

medicine and was completely abolished, the financial savings from that

alone

would save our U.K. National Health Service and so much pointless

misery and

physical and mental destruction would be prevented.

My autistic son was first given psychiatric drugs by a residential

care home

when he was in his twenties - not for medical reasons but as a form of

social control to compensate for a shortage of skilled staff. As a

result of

the drugs his behaviour worsened suddenly, so the doses were increased. At

that stage I wasn't even aware that he'd been drugged. He is now

drug-dependent and probably always will be, as there is no easy way of

coming off the drugs, especially when people have learning disability and

autism and have been taking them for more than a few weeks.

No wonder our National Health Service is on the point of collapse when

it is

causing patients to become needlessly dependent on drugs that were not

essential in the first place.

My son will always need much more intensive input from paid carers than he

used to before he was drugged, and I have been unable to work for years as

his needs became incredibly complex thanks entirely to the negative

effects

of psychiatric drug-dependency.

Most of those poor children in the Massachusetts Hospital trials will

gradually be abandoned by their parents and families because the

effects of

the drugs on top of their existing problems will make caring for them too

distressing, wearing and hopeless. Most of the people in the psychiatric

establishment where my son lives don't have visitors.

Posted by: Patricia Kay | May 13, 2006 8:23:16 PM

 

How many deaths will it take to ban atypical antipsychotics from children?

The FDA knew for three years that the elderly with Alzheimer's and

dementia

were dying of strokes and heart attacks from the off label use of these

drugs. Finally, three years later, their use was banned. Now, two million

children are being given these drugs as an off label use. As usual,

the FDA

is silent because they want their friends in the pharmaceutical

industry to

make money. I am appalled that NIMH would approve these trials for " tots " .

How about babies next? That will pretty much have used everybody up.

Posted by: Barbara | May 13, 2006 8:29:56 PM

 

In 2002, Japan and England required Eli Lilly to place prominent

warnings on

the worst of this class of drugs, Olanzapine or Zyprexa. They had seen the

evidence in their countries: People had died or gotten diabetes. Yet

the FDA

refused to act, stating in newspaper articles that they were going to

" study

all the drugs " . During this period, between 2002 and 2004, people died and

got diabetes from this drug. They are STILL getting diabetes, and some are

STILL dying from this drug - and to a lesser extent, the other drug.

It was

not until 2004 that a warning was required on all the drugs, not just the

worst (Zyprexa). Shall we place bets as to how many children will have to

die before the drug is banned for them? These drugs are the " hot new

thing "

for medical schools to study - making grant money and " names " for the

researchers. How have we stooped so low in this country that money trumps

all? What happened to " Do no harm " and the Hippocratic oath? All sold down

the river for the sake of greed and personal gain. My heart goes out

to the

innocent children, on trials and on these lethal drugs.

Posted by: Margaret | May 13, 2006 9:07:21 PM

 

The diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children is driven by the profit

motive

of the pharmaceutical industry and physicians who medicalize

everything. The

message given to puzzled parents of children who are behaviorally out of

control is that their child has an " illness " . Parents, relieved to have an

explanation, embrace it.

I have a suggestion to all who believe their young children have a

" bipolar

disorder " . Look at what they've been eating for years. How many chemicals

and how much sugar (all school food is loaded with these)is your child

getting every day? How many servings of vegetables a day is your child

eating?

I'm not just throwing darts blindfolded here. I consult with parents whose

are reluctant to put their newly diagnosed " bipolar " child on psychotropic

drugs. In the ten years I've been doing this, not one child has failed to

respond to dietary changes. Watch the video that explains how a school

system changed the lives of their most troubled students by feeding them

whole foods.

Serve whole foods in the form of fresh meats, fresh vegetables, and whole

grains. Throw away all your canned, packaged, and frozen food. Get rid of

all the sugar, and chemical-laden junk food.

Is it difficult? Sure it is, when you're not used to it. But your children

are worth the initial difficulty. After a couple of weeks, it's actually

quite simple.

You have nothing to lose if you try it. But be honest with yourself

and give

it a sincere try. And remember, children will protest. But you're the

parent, you're the one who is supposed to guide them. So, don't give in.

They'll thank you for it when they grow up to be well-functioning adults.

The child that is drugged today will be drugged the rest of his or her

life.

Shame on the medical profession for being so willing to blindly follow the

lead of an industry that creates market niches, and in the process,

destroys

the brains of young children. Shame on them for their inability to

recognize

a child ravaged by a poor diet.

Posted by: Catherine Creel | May 13, 2006 9:15:16 PM

 

The use of these drugs on children is unconscionable. There are many other

options for helping psychiatrically disabled children besides using these

highly potent drugs. I wish more federal research dollars were going into

non-drug therapies for kids who need extra support.

Posted by: Leah | May 13, 2006 9:24:38 PM

 

Anti-psychotics tested on toddlers?lers diagnosed " bipolar? "

This is downright obscene!

What drugs are the psychiatrists on, these days, to account for their

deranged behavior?

Parents should be told that psychiatry is *not* a science, that

psychiatric

drugs, doled out so liberally these days, have enough proven " side "

effects

[?] to damage people for life.

The legal system must provide [and enforce] some kind of straight

jacket to

restrain drug companies and psychiatrists from abusing and disabling

us and

the next generations.

Posted by: Dr. Viviane Lerner, Ph.D. | May 13, 2006 11:03:17 PM

 

I just wanted to say that drugging these babies is just the beginning.

Once

started on these poisons the receptors are damaged and for each receptor

many sprout out in place of the damage receptor. These babies are captured

in the system for life. These babies will be in and out of

institutions/facilities/prison and the families involved will live a never

ending nightmare like thousands of others I know. Vera is great to expose

this atrocity to the world. I am sick of seeing deformed, damaged

humans who

were given cocktails of toxic chemicals and locked up (some for years,

some

forever as they died locked up). Twitching, drooling, loss of bladder and

bowels. This will be called " mental illness " not IATROGENIC TREATMENT!

Posted by: Linda | May 13, 2006 11:11:52 PM

 

Thanks so much for exposing this medical atrocity. These drugs are

known to

cause structural brain damage in ADULTS, that can be seen in CAT scans!

Posted by: Cassandra | May 14, 2006 12:30:56 AM

 

Some comments have argued that Mass. General Hospital is a great

institution, so unethical research could not be going on there. I wish it

were so. Check out the disastrous psychosurgical experiments of the

team of

William Sweet, chief neurosurgeon at Mass. General, Vernon Mark, and Frank

Ervin, all three of whom were Harvard professors. Googoling " Mark Ervin

Sweet " will take you to information on their infamous and sadistic

experiments as Mass. General Hospital.

Prestige is no garantor of probity. Often those at the top of the heap

feel

they have the greatest latitude to do as they please.

Posted by: Ned | May 14, 2006 12:53:19 AM

 

some comments indicate that some of the babies (and I use that term

because

thats basically what we are dealing with here) have run the gamut of

psychotropic meds and nothing has worked and the reasoning is they have no

other choice but to consider something like anti psychotics etc. I speak

from personal experience when I offer the possibility that the drugs might

be the problem.

Posted by: Gerry Despres | May 14, 2006 1:19:46 AM

 

Psychiatry has no insight into its own destructiveness. Tweaking brain

chemicals in pursuit of behavior modification is like taking a soldering

iron to a computer in order to reprogram it, based on the observation that

computers run on electricity. It's scientifically unsupportable, and often

leads to permanent brain damage, as happens with young rats fed

ritalin, who

become depressed as adults.

Psychiatry and much of the rest of medicine seems to have adopted the

EPA's

chemical standards with respect to its own ignorance: innocent until

proven

guilty.

This is not science. This is abuse. Children need protection from these

people.

Posted by: rich winkel/ | May 14, 2006 1:35:51 AM

 

My God...this is like something from a horror movie!!

NOOOO!!!

We CANNOT allow them to turn TODDLERS into braindamaged, drug addicted,

zombies for life!

My 18 year old daughter committed suicide on Paxil when a state of

akathisia

was indiced BY the drug!!

What chance does a baby have????

It is pure evil..The answer lies in the diet!!!

If Lithium is used in BI-POLAR drugs to stabilize moods...clearly

there is a

mineral deficiency of the trace mineral Lithium!!

CUT OUT THE RUBBISH!!

Whole foods is all that is needed!

Why no cure the problem at it's source???

WHY? NO BIG PHARMA PROFIT of course...Their greed and evil knows no

limits!!

Posted by: Steph Gatchell | May 14, 2006 5:03:38 AM

 

And here'$ why Niederman ain't talking:

Joseph Biederman, M.D., Chair

Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

Dr. Biederman has received research support from Shire Richwood, Eli

Lilly,

Wyeth, Pfizer, Cephalon, Novartis, Janssen, Noven Pharmaceutical, Stanley

Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National

Institute of Child Health & Human Development, and the National

Institute on

Drug Abuse (NIDA); is a member of the speakers bureaus for

GlaxoSmithKline,

Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Wyeth, Shire Richwood, ALZA, and

Cephalon; and

is a member of the advisory boards for Eli Lilly, Celltech, Shire

Richwood,

Novartis, Noven Pharmaceutical, ALZA, McNeil, and Cephalon.

http://www.psychiatrist.com/pcc/visuals/pccvis2003-2/indexc.htm

Posted by: Sheila | May 14, 2006 6:33:23 AM

 

As a veteran admirer of the science of pharmaceutical companies but a

critic

of their marketing, I have been deeply shocked in the past two years by

revelations of their rampant unethical greed -trial results suppressed,

conclusions published that are contrary to the data of trials, lethal

adverse side effects ignored, disease mongering and now child abuse. They

deserve to lose all public trust. Strict state regulation must be

imposed on

them in the public interest.

Posted by: Paul Flynn MP | May 14, 2006 7:39:56 AM

 

Yes that is correct Paul - the problem is (as you know) that state

regulators have so far failed to demonstrate that they can deal with these

companies or with science.

The corrupt, science-deprived and unscientific regulators (MHRA in

your part

of the world, FDA and others) are part of the problem. The solution has to

lie with governments and the setting up of proper regulators. That will

never happen without grass-roots action, or some very major drug

disasters -

the industry manipulation extends so far and the money in brown

envelopes is

pretty persuasive. Even when the procedures of science are completely

corrupted (e.g the Blumsohn case here in the UK, the TGN trial disaster,

VIOXX, SSRI trial cheating) the system just continues almost unscathed. No

company executives are ever prosecuted, and the regulators are as slippery

as eels.

Helen

Posted by: D.H Delaney-Cooper | May 14, 2006 8:28:11 AM

 

To the person who said the drugs had been shown to cause permanent

damage in

adults (CAT scans),

please elaborate. I can get no

information from the doctors prescribing risperdal.

Thanks.

Posted by: eLIZABETH | May 14, 2006 9:13:41 AM

 

Dangers of psychotropic drugs - Research site:

ssri-research

Posted by: Lynn Michaels | May 14, 2006 9:16:55 AM

 

It took very little observation to realise how damaging psychiatric

diagnoses and treatments are to the patients. (Drugs, ECT, etc) The

history

of psychiatry, up to the present, reads like a catalogue of torture.

If I know this, the doctors involved know the potential for damage their

treatments do. Any psychiatric drugs on a small child is at best,

irresponsible.

The drug companies and their puppets participating in these trials, are

already familiar with these drugs involved, and know the risks.

But whose children are these? Are they in the care of public institutions

entrusted with their wellbeing? Are they from socially deprived

backgrounds?

So many people including former HIV trials have been carried out on

children

in care, or othr trials in desperately poor areas of the world.

So much for medical ethics.

Diet offers a great many answers in these situations. In UK, a chef on TV

went into a school and disgraced the government on their low standards for

children's school meals.

Having introduced basic quality food, stopping some of the junk food

vending

machines, the teachers reported having more attentive classes, and of

several children on ventilaters, only one needed that support after

getting

a healthier diet.

The government had to give way and support better school meals with more

government funding.

Posted by: alex | May 14, 2006 9:27:38 AM

 

Massachusetts General Hospital's Neurology Department are part

sponsors of a

public forum called BrainTalk Neurology Communities. I've been a member of

BrainTalk Neurology Communities for several years. I have never had any

problems with their Moderators before.

When I tried to access BrainTalk Neurology Communities this morning a curt

unsigned message appeared:

" You have been banned for the following reason. Libelous scandal. Date the

ban will be lifted: Never. "

The message had the following url:

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/

I assume that the reason for the ban is because I posted the link to this

ABC News article and I said:

(Extract from my message to BrainTalk Neurology Forums - now deleted by

them):

" As we know, BrainTalk is sponsored in part by the Massachusetts General

Hospital's Department of Neurology. The motto of BrainTalk is " Community

with Compassion. "

I feel that this information is so shocking that we should all have a

reply

from John Lester, the Site Manager, about what Massachusetts General

Hospital for Children and Harvard Medical School are up to. "

(End of extract from my message to BrainTalk)

I only posted to BrainTalk what was already in the public domain and I

said

nothing libellous. I only asked for people's comments.

Instead of replying to my query and putting my mind at rest, the

regulators

of BrainTalk decided to ban me from life from their web forums.

Has anyone else had a similar experience when asking for further

information

about this news item?

Posted by: Patricia Kay | May 14, 2006 9:51:18 AM

 

If you've never attempted to raise a child who suffers from bipolar

disorder

and have never been forced to witness the devastating effects of this

mental

illness on the self-esteem of your own child, I think you should keep your

negative comments to yourself. Bipolar disorder is hereditary and does

exist

in children from birth. It doesn't just appear out of the clear blue sky.

The appropriate mood stabilizing medication, judiciously prescribed by a

reputable child psychiatrist, has literally saved my child's life.

Posted by: Jan | May 14, 2006 9:54:47 AM

 

This is one of the most shocking violations of research ethics that I have

ever seen. And from Mass. General Hospital!

First, how can you possibly diagnose pre-schoolers with bipolar disorder?

Second, who funded this study--the drug companies? How could they, in good

conscience, do a study on an off-label use of a drug? An

anti-psychotic for

pre-schoolers is an oxymoron.

Third, did anyone try to put the brakes on? Whatever happened to the

part of

the hospital that oversees consent? To the researchers' ethics? To the

people who worked on the study in other capacities?

Fourth, this calls the ethics of the very famous principal

investigator, Dr.

Joseph Biederman, into question. His license to practice should be

suspended, and his ability to do research should be stopped.

Posted by: Molly Hauck, Ph.D. | May 14, 2006 10:01:34 AM

 

On its face, I would have qualms about giving antipsychotic drugs to

children so young. I'm disappointed in ABC News, though, for using Vera

Hassner Sharav as its sole source for this report. Sharav has a reputation

for aggressively condemning the entire field of psychiatry, all

psychiatric

drugs, all pharmaceutical companies, and clinical trials using human

subjects. On this subject, her views and those of Scientology seem to be

identical.

She even condemned voluntary screening in public schools for teens at risk

of suicide:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/13825281.htm

A more responsible approach might be to present the views of a couple of

people knowledgeable in the field and who don't have a dog in this fight,

rather than only the views of someone whose opinion is part of a broader

agenda aimed at discrediting the entire psychiatric profession. If Tom

Cruise had sent you the video and the same information, would you have run

with the report based on his " expertise " alone, or would you have

taken the

information to objective experts, instead? Where are the voices of your

excellent science and health reporters?

The following might be reasonable analogies: Fred Phelps sending the

results

of a study showing male-to-male transmission of HIV through kissing alone;

Phyllis Schaffly raising an alarm about a high risk of death from

abortifacient birth control pills; Warren Jeffs presenting data

showing that

women in monogamous marriages are at higher risk of uterine cancer than

women in polygamous marriages. Wouldn't the obvious, larger agendas of

these

individuals lead you to investigate their claims through independent

researchers?

Finally, on an unrelated note, it's disturbing to see Sharav's proponents

stigmatizing the parents of special needs kids for the agonizing

decision to

medicate them when needed. Their lives are difficult enough without

giving a

forum to people who call them abusers. We should all be better than that.

Posted by: Jill Nikolaides | May 14, 2006 10:08:50 AM

 

Kudos to ABC News for exposing this one aspect of the psychaitric fraud

being perpetrated on all Americans. Without science, without results, but

highly paid, how long before Americans wake up to the scam? This ABC NEws

coverage has helped wake the sleeping giant! Thank you.

Posted by: Steven Ferry | May 14, 2006 10:10:38 AM

 

I feel it necessary to write in support of Ms Sharav, she is doing an

excellent job for the public in raising essential awareness the

practices of

drug research, the need for more warnings by drug manufactureres, etc. and

more general awareness amongst the public of these important issues.

We need more campaigners just like her and in all sorts of fields which

affect the public at large.

An earlier poster began to refer to Scientology, a particular neurosis of

the psychiatry profession.

If critical and so concerning statements are backed up, it can come

from the

man in the moon, or Scientology, or Ms Sharav ... from here, they seem

to be

doing an excellent job for which thanks are due.

I hope the children are spared from the sort of research this topic is

about.

Posted by: alex | May 14, 2006 10:43:44 AM

 

Tragic. I routinely see adults misdiagnosed with psychiatry's diagnosis de

jour, Bipolar disorder. A number of these adults would be able to manage

their " illness " with stress reduction and life management strategies, but

have instead been frightened into the chronic use of medicaments. It's

difficult to countenance preemptive pediatric psychopharmacology when the

target seems so elusive and poorly defined in adults.

Posted by: William Danton | May 14, 2006 10:46:33 AM

 

The saddest aspect of all of this charade of mental illness,is when

challenged to produce viable,factual proof of chemical imbalances....They

can't! Why.? I understand that the American Psychiatric

(Pharmacuetical..?)Association,was recently challenged to open public

debate

by the American Academy of Science,and to bring with their conclusive

proof

of their claims to pumping kids full of pills due to all the undiagnosed

mental illness our nation suffers from...

Believe the only mental illness we are suffering from is, " Gullibility "

Because we keep buying into all this " Theorized " trash thats gets

passed off

as bonafide science.

If they want lab rats,let them take their own pills first..They after all

should be the experts in the field of adverse side effects,and would know

them first hand when they themselves would experience them....

Posted by: David | May 14, 2006 10:50:51 AM

 

Psychiatry began drugging my brother when he was a teenager. The

devastating

physiological and cognitive effects of his medications destroyed his

health

and his future. He spent the next 40+ years in and out of a mental

institution, attempting suicide twice (on his medications).

After one suicide attempt he had to be taken off medications because

of the

severity of his injuries. He miraculously recovered---and returned to

normal

function. However, psychiatry diagnosed his suicide attempt as another

symptom of mental illness and court ordered him back on the drugs. He

again

returned to his dysfunctional, zombie-like state. Suicide ideation is

one of

the many adverse effects of psychiatric medications. How absurd can it

get.

Although I have been able to prove my brother's problems stem from

hypoglycemia and the exacerbating effects of alcohol, caffeine or

sugar (and

his medications) on his blood sugar and hormonal balance, the

psychiatrists

have resisted and attacked that reality (including going after my

license to

practice---I'm a dietitian) while giving him daily doses of caffeine

in the

institution--and then drugging him with Thorazine when he would have panic

or anxiety attacks from the caffeine's adrenaline effects.

Any mental, emotional or behavioral problem has one (or more) physical

cause(s) that need to be addressed---and it is not a psychiatric drug

deficiency problem. The drugs, in fact, CAUSE a multitude of mental,

emotional and physical effects---documented in the PDR (Phisicians' Desk

Ref.).

However, today, psychiatry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the school

systems profit by diagnosing children as disturbed when they simply

eat poor

diets, lack sufficient sleep, or are stressed or bored at home or school.

It is inhumane to misdiagnose and then mistreat anyone with potentially

life-threatening drugs that alter body and brain function.

With drug companies funding medical schools and lobbying Congress, our

doctors and politicians are becoming less educated and more indoctrinated.

To protect our children we need more education---not medication.

Don't let the drug companies and psychiatry destroy your child--like they

did my brother. Mainstream psychiatry needlessly put my brother through a

lifetime of mental, emotional and physical hell. They robbed him of his

dignity, his potential to grow, his health, and his life.

Stand up and fight like hell!

Posted by: Georgia Janisch | May 14, 2006 11:40:55 AM

 

I can't say this truly shocks me, with all the other unethical things

going

on in the world of psychiatry. I have even heard of people trying to

administer Ritalin to pregnant women whose babies " kick too much, "

assuming

it will prevent the baby from getting ADHD.

This type of experimentation has to be stopped. If adults want to subject

themselves to dangerous antipsychotic drugs, let them volunteer for the

studies. These drugs are so toxic that they should NEVER be

administered to

someone who is too young to make their own decisions.

I cannot imagine a situation where I would subject my child (or anyone

else)

to this sort of abuse. The health consequences of these drugs are

tremendous. The emotional consequences of being labelled, drugged,

confused

& identity and self-worth lost through the whole process are too great to

force upon a baby, toddler, older child, or even an overly-trusting adult.

Posted by: Amy Philo | May 14, 2006 11:41:33 AM

 

Brian Ross! When you approved this report, did you intend to endorse the

ENTIRE agenda of Sharav and her footsoldiers pouring onto this blog?

Did you

INTEND to associate yourself and ABC News with the crowd who say mental

illness is a myth and psychiatrists are all evil? Without any

follow-up from

you, it looks like you want to push the mentally ill back into the

shadows.

Would you please make a statement about ABC's stand on mental illness?

Posted by: Paul D | May 14, 2006 12:07:03 PM

 

Psychiatry is only the tip off the iceberg. There is no science behind

DSMIV. JAMA's editor published that 20% of all diagnosis at death were

wrong. This statistic goes back to the 1930s. Medical schools need to be

teaching about the 63 metals on the Periodic Table of Elements. That is

about 2/3s of the known matter in the universe. If one were to look at

western diagnostic panels you will see that over 2/3 do not assay

metals. Do

you think anybody in the $32 Trillion a year in total global medical

burden

wants to shrink that number? Hell no it is bad for business.

Posted by: Mike Rupp | May 14, 2006 1:16:07 PM

 

" Paul D " wants to equate skepticism of psychiatric " science " with

trying to

" push the mentally ill back into the shadows " . Next he'll be calling

us all

scientologists. The shadows are precisely where many psychiatrically

drugged

people live. One need only interview a few " consumers " of these brain

damaging and life diminishing chemicals to put the lie to the pharma PR.

I know science. I know how the scientific method works. Psychiatric

drugging

is at best an empirical approach without a good theoretical basis. As

such,

the ultimate test of its efficacy should be the subjective experience

of the

patient. Yet psychiatry routinely ignores the complaints of its often

captive clientele. They have abandoned all pretense to do no harm and

pursued a socially expedient ideological agenda which has nothing to

do with

science or medicine.

Children are not machines, they're not property (not their parents

property

and certainly not the psychiatrist's property), they're not experimental

animals and they're not vehicles for psychiatrists' reductionist social

engineering agendas.

Posted by: rich winkel | May 14, 2006 1:56:51 PM

 

I think there isn't enough pychotropics and pharamaeucticals given to

children. They are too noisy and have too many mood swings. The

younger the

better and the drugs make them much more docile. If we get them early

enough

they are more suggestable later in age and are easier to manipulate.

Also I

need to make more money in my drug stocks. That is why teenscreen is

important to make mandatory.

Posted by: Dr. Wundt | May 14, 2006 2:12:14 PM

 

MHRA - In whose Interests?

News that GlaxoSmithKline knowingly withheld clinical trial data from the

MHRA, the British equivalent of the FDA, regarding the top selling

anti-depressant drug Paxil (Seroxat) will add further fuel to the fire and

hopefully push for an independent review into how the MHRA could be duped

into believing that a drug they have reviewed on numerous occasions was

safe.

The MHRA are made up of medical experts, some of whom are former employees

and shareholders of the pharmaceutical companies they grant licenses to.

Surely this is wrong and at the very least there is the suspicion of a

conflict of interest?

For too long now the MHRA have been hoodwinked by the Pharmaceutical

Industry. Lawsuits for damages in respect of harm caused to patients are

popping up all over the place, but avoid media and public scrutiny because

they are usually settled out of court on the proviso that evidence is not

made public.

A public enquiry is needed to examine how the MHRA is run and why former

Pharmaceutical Industry directors are allowed onto the board. Would a

convicted drink driver be allowed to adjudicate on a road safety panel?

The MHRA need to pull the plug NOW on their close associations with the

Pharmaceutical Industry. The British public expects and naively assumes

impartiality and not a regulatory authority whose main interest seems

to be

one of 'delivering jobs for the boys.'

Mr Robert Fiddaman (Group Moderator of the Online Seroxat Support Group)

Birmingham, UK

http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ROBERT FIDDAMAN | May 14, 2006 4:40:14 PM

 

Fascinating commentary! I have a particular affinity with the comments by

Catherine Creel (5/13 --9:15:16). My belief is that the economic disaster

resulting from placing responsibility for increases in autism, cancer and

diabetes on the companies which have polluted our air, water and food

supply

with toxics is so massive that our leaders would never even broach the

subject. Far easier to manipulate the population's energy into the latest

headline news and into voting for the most monied candidates than bringing

up such unpleasant responsibilities of national interest. Besides, big

money

has brought protection to the guilty.

Driven by bottom line/shareholder interests, many American

corporations have

bought their way into our political system and manipulated legislation to

their own protection and best interest. How many toxic waste sites -

including the vaunted " superfund sites " - have not been cleaned up as

mandated by law due to " the expense " ?? How many people have alzheimer-like

symptoms or learning disabilities or autism from the use of aluminum

cooking

pots, coated baking and cooking utensils, " acceptable " levels of heavy

metals in the air and water and mother's milk, pesticide and insecticide

residues in food, chemical additives in packaged foods, free-floating

chemical particles in everyday household environments, fumes from

pesticide

treatments in homes and schools?

How many times have you heard that a dangerous chemical will be

" phased out "

over the next ten years because it would pose a hardship on the

manufacturer

to stop production or sales before current inventory is sold? Your best

interests are being traded for someone's profit!!! GET MAD!!

Dow Chemical makes BILLIONS of dollars annually all over the

world.....their

products are in every home.....would they acknowledge any negative effects

on humans or animals??

Just look at the warnings on their labels.

What about the oil companies and car manufacturers who have allowed (and

been allowed) the spewing of toxic emissions into our air for the last 90

years?? They make BILLIONS., too! Do children or joggers or the

elderly have

" ozone days " as a part of their lives today?? What happened to the clean

technologies developed in the 50's and 60's which got bought and buried by

companies not wanting to spend money on changing technology because

they had

a profitable and highly marketable thing going -- and retooling costs too

much??

After all, by the time the customers are affected by our products, it will

be years down the road and who could ever find out it was us who did it

anyway? Meanwhile, bonuses are paid.

In the meantime, the drug industry is making BILLIONS treating the sick

symptoms generated by human bodies trying desperately to adapt to a

chemical-laden environment. And they need bodies as test subjects to

see how

their new concoctions can be tweeked so that minimum thresholds of

acceptability are met - thresholds they have manipulated by their

political

connections.

Have you ever really read the insert in any of your prescriptions?? They

tell you quite clearly that this drug is dangerous......but the drug

manufacturers' highly paid legal staff has helped them create a legal

cover

so that YOU become the responsible party for choosing to take their drug .

(And if you mention concerns such as this to your doctor you are likely to

hear -- " Well, if you read the information on aspirin you probably would

never take one of those either. " )

Meanwhile, huge marketing budgets are devoted to ads and infomercials

touting new drugs and suggesting you ask your physician for a

prescription.

Everybody makes out -- except for a few people here or there....but after

all, the world population is getting too large anyway........and some

companies have actually calculated and determined that legal expenses

required to satisfy potential lawsuits for damage are at levels which will

not destroy the organization.

The operating principle in our country has become rooted in an " I'm gonna

get mine " philosophy...and that supposes that " I really don't care if you

get yours or what happens to you when I get mine " .

Until and unless we all seriously care enough to DO SOMETHING - make

time in

our busy lives for HARD WORK in areas that do not bring immediate reward-

show our children something of ETHICAL BEHAVIOR in the face of frustrating

indifference -- AND DEMAND ethical, responsive and responsible governance,

then the monied interests will pull us around by their marketing

budgets and

we will happily imbibe, ingest and tolerate the muck that results from our

compliance. And our grandchildren will have a life greatly substandard to

the one we inherited from our parents.

It was said years ago -- if you are not a part of the solution , you are a

part of the problem.

In the 60's we had the luxury of time -- in the 2000's we are reaching

critical mass in many areas. Cleaning up has become all but impossible due

to the cost....why did we get it dirty in the first place?? Regardless of

our 'go along' - we have a mess on our hands and we need to fix it.

We can choose to be placated and sedated into a 'feel good', tension-less

existance -- or realize that LIFE is just that: the opportunity to be

fully

human for a brief span in the history of the universe. Only you can

determine if your time counts for something.....something like protecting

the least of us from the clutches of modern-day Mengeles in search of

gold.

A media and politically-driven campaign may diminish the ugliness ot this

drug-testing scenario, but there is truth in there somewhere. And my

Grandaddy always said, where there is smoke, something is burning.

It would be great if we could start putting out fires wherever we find

them.

Posted by: Trisa | May 14, 2006 6:23:29 PM

 

OH MY GOD!!!! Children must have rights. How would you like it if someone

came along and said we are giving you this drug and you have no choice?

Posted by: Norma | May 14, 2006 6:28:19 PM

 

ABC News Home

Contact ABC News . Help & Info . Advertising Info . Terms of Use . Privacy

Policy/Your California Privacy Rights

2005 ABC News Internet Ventures